Biased Media
Watch Media Expunge Islamic Attempt to Bring Plane Down (yelled Allahu akbar 30-times)
Gateway Pundit notes the AP expunging of the chant. The AP reported:
Crew members and passengers wrestled a 28-year-old man to the cabin floor after he began pounding on the cockpit as an American Airlines flight approached San Francisco, the third security incident in a day on U.S. planes, authorities said Monday.
The man was yelling unintelligibly as he brushed past a flight attendant about 10 minutes before American Airlines Flight 1561 was due at San Francisco International Airport Sunday night, Sgt. Michael Rodriguez of the San Francisco police said.
A male flight attendant tackled the suspect, who carried a Yemen passport, and other crew members aided as the suspect banged on the cockpit door.
“He asked for help; a couple of passengers joined in,” Rodriguez told The Associated Press. “They were able to get him to ground and a flight attendant put him in plastic handcuffs.”
The Boeing 737 carrying 162 people landed safely at 9:10 p.m. and the man was taken into police custody.
He was identified as 28-year-old Rageit Almurisi. Though he carried a Yemen passport, it wasn’t clear if his nationality was also Yemeni, Rodgriguez said.
Update from LR:
From NBCBayArea.com:
Wright said al-Murisi never spoke to him directly but said “Allahu akbar” some more 30 times during the duration of the flight.
The mainstream media is still searching for a motive.
Correcting NYTs anti-Catholic Bias
This is point two of three found over at NewsBusters. While the other points are important, this is one I have been confronted with quite a bit in the past that I wish to post here in order to add to the readers and mine learning curve and accessibility: It is in regards to a Maureen Down article in the New York Times:
Dowd also repeated the oft-heard anti-Catholic lie that Pope Pius XII, the World War II-era pontiff, “remained silent about the Holocaust as it happened.”
This grossly false tale has been roundly debunked repeatedly:
In a December 25, 1941, editorial, the New York Times wrote, “The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas… he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all… the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism … he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace.”
An August 6, 1942, headline in the New York Times read, “Pope is Said to Plead for Jews Listed for Removal from France.”
In his book, Three Popes and the Jews, Israeli diplomat and scholar Pinchas Lapide has asserted, “The Catholic Church under the pontificate of Pius XII was instrumental in saving lives of as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.” Lapide adds that this “figure far exceeds those saved by all other Churches and rescue organizations combined.”
Michael Tagliacozzo, “the foremost survivor on the October 1943 Nazi roundup of Rome’s Jews” and “a survivor of the raid himself,” said Pius’ actions helped rescue 80 percent of Rome’s Jews. Said Tagliacozzo, “Pope Pacelli was the only one who intervened to impede the deportation of Jews on October 16, 1943, and he did very much to hide and save thousands of us.” (Rabbi David G. Dalin, p. 83)
In the June 21, 2009, edition of the Boston Globe, Mordechay Lewy, Israel’s ambassador to the Holy See, is quoted, “It is wrong to look for any affinity between [Pius] and the Nazis. It is also wrong to say that he didn’t save Jews. Everybody who knows the history of those who were saved among Roman Jewry knows that they hid in the church.”
So much for Dowd’s claim of Pope Pius XII “remaining silent.” There have been scores of books, research papers, and articles (list 1, 2) that outline what Pope Pius XII really did during World War II.
Kauthammer Points Out the Hypocrisy of Bush vs. Obama
NYTs Memory Glitch or Outright Lie?
Thursday’s New York Times lead editorial, “A Certificate of Embarrassment,” dealt with President Obama authorizing the State of Hawaii to release his long-form birth certificate. The editorial writers commit the same error its media reporter Brian Stelter did, falsely stating the rumor “was originally promulgated by fringe figures of the radical right,” when in fact it was initially circulated via email by Hillary Clinton supporters in April 2008, as noted by Politico on April 22.
With sardonic resignation, President Obama, an eminently rational man, stared directly into political irrationality on Wednesday and released his birth certificate to history. More than halfway through his term, the president felt obliged to prove that he was a legitimate occupant of the Oval Office. It was a profoundly low and debasing moment in American political life.
The disbelief fairly dripped from Mr. Obama as he stood at the West Wing lectern. People are out of work, American soldiers are dying overseas and here were cameras to record him stating that he was born in a Hawaii hospital. It was particularly galling to us that it was in answer to a baseless attack with heavy racial undertones.
To suggest the birth certificate was a distraction from Obama’s real work is an odd defense, given the president that same day attended three fundraisers and taped an appearance on Oprah Winfrey’s show. Obama also notoriously spent ten minutes on national TV discussing his NCAA basketball tournament brackets back in March, but waited ten days to tell the American people why he had gone to war in Libya.
I discuss the origins of this conspiracy in a post that has also a long comment section below the post, “Birtherism and Blogspot Mishaps.”
I [Bill Maher] hate them [Republicans] as much as you [Rachel Maddow] do
An Example from Chris Matthews of the Left’s Scare Tactice~Paul Ryans Plan Will Kill Half My Audience~
Paul Krugman (Nobel Winner and NYT Columnist) Says America: a Banan Republic and Too Racist to be Socialist
This is just a taste of the caliber of authorship at the NYTs:
Gov Shutdown Comparisons: 2011 vs. 1995 & 1996
Democratic Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz-Democratic Speech Police
Hey, remember when Debbie Wasserman-Schultz decided she was going to play civility cop?: You probably don’t remember. It happened a long time ago, in a different political era. By which, of course, I mean “January.” That was when her friend Gabby Giffords got shot and she and the rest of the left decided, with not a shred of justification, to treat it as a Teachable Moment about Republican incivility. As I say, you probably don’t remember. But Laura Ingraham does, just like she remembers The One lecturing us about scaring the elderly before Pelosi started prattling on about the coming senior apocalypse. I know I said it once before today, but it bears repeating: Excellent job, Mr. President. Of all the shameless hacks in Washington whom you could have chosen for the DNC, you picked one whose shamelessness is truly exceptional. I can’t wait for the next lecture on how “we can agree without being disagreeable.” (HotAir)
NBC Doesn’t Object to Dem Calling GOP Budget a ‘Death Trap,’ But Was Outraged Over Death Panel Claims: On Tuesday’s NBC Nightly News, a report on the Republican 2012 budget proposal included a sound bite from Democratic Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who decried the plan and ranted: “Medicare would become little more than a discount card. This plan would literally be a death trap for some seniors.” Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O’Donnell setup the outrageous quote by simply noting: “Democrats call the Republican plan too severe, saying it would hurt the most vulnerable.” After the clip of Schultz, O’Donnell went on to conclude her report without offering any rebuttal to the claim. Following O’Donnell’s report, Williams did a news brief on Schultz being named the new head of the Democratic National Committee: “One more note on politics. Florida Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who we saw right toward the end of Kelly’s reporting there, was named the new head of the Democratic National Committee today. And she will keep her day job in Congress at the same time.” Again, no reaction to Schultz’s extreme rhetoric over the GOP budget plan. In contrast, on the September 9, 2009 Nightly News, Williams could barely conceal his outrage at conservative claims that ObamaCare would include government death panels: “[President Obama] has seen his message hijacked as town meetings have exploded with wild and false rumors of death panels deciding when a human life should end….no one believed we would be here at this point tonight, that they would get rolled over an issue – a false issue like death panels, that the resistance would be this high.” Back on January 12, appearing on the CBS Evening News, Schultz called for more civility in the wake of the Tucson shooting, while denouncing “violent” rhetoric: “Let’s remember that Gabby herself talked about, just a few weeks ago, the fact that individuals who shall remain nameless, used violent images and words in her campaign and she talked about how important it was that we dial it back….we all agree that the language and the tone and the tenor of our debate has gotten too intense and that we need to lead by example.” How quickly she forgot. (NewsBusters)
Anti-Israeli Sentiments at U.N. and NYT Exemplified (Goldstone Report-plus-Samantha Powers Bias Revisited)
Camera.org, a highly recommended site for bias against Israel in the media, reports on the retraction of the Goldstone Report that needs to be inculcated into the psyche of bloggers in preparation to answer the liberals who still cite this report which most rejected when it came out (save the liberal U.N. backers and anti-Semites around the world). As Camera comments on this about-face:
In examining the New York Times’ record on the Goldstone report, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that the newspaper is more interested in promoting as credible an investigation that even its leader has repudiated than in objectively reporting on its shortcomings. Unfortunately, this is unsurprising coming from a media outlet that is increasingly moving from objective news reporting to advocacy journalism.
Richard Cohen weighs in on Goldstone’s retraction in the Washington Post after mentioning that Israel, in contradistinction to its cultural mores, was “accused of deliberately targeting civilians during its brutal 2008-09 war with Hamas.” He continues:
That accusation was contained in a report to the United Nations by Richard Goldstone, an eminent South African judge who had been used by the international community previously to investigate war crimes. That Goldstone was also a Jew and a Zionist made the charge all the more powerful.
Now, though, Goldstone has retracted his findings. He no longer believes that Israel intentionally targeted civilians during the Gaza war (although he still believes Hamas did) and says that any deaths were inadvertent — the usual fog of war, the usual panicked decision. For Israel, it’s like the governor has called the warden — it’s been reprieved and taken off death row.
Once again, rockets are being fired into southern Israel from Gaza, some of them going up the coast as far as Ashkelon, a major city and port. Before the last war, from April 2001 to the end of 2008, 4,246 rockets and 4,180 mortar rounds were fired into Israel, killing 14 Israelis and wounding more than 400. The rockets have since been improved. Should more than the occasional rocket actually make it all the way to Ashkelon (one came close Monday) or should one of them come down on a school, another war with Hamas would start a moment or two later. Israel has already hit back, but not in force. In addition, a West Bank settler family of five was recently murdered in their home by what are universally thought to be Palestinians. This, too, has put Israel on edge.
This resending of the report has consequences reverberating towards the Obama Administration that should be highlighted in the 2012 Elctions. In fact, it has even caused the likes of Rabbi Schmuley Botech to comment on Samantha Powers (someone whom I just blogged on as well), he says the following:
On my recent lecture tour in South Africa the subject of Judge Richard Goldstone came up quite a lot. Whether it was the dinner in Johannesburg at the home of Chabad head Rabbi David Masinter where acquaintances of the judge were in attendance, or at Sea Point Synagogue, South Africa’s largest, where I lectured and whose Rabbi, Dovid Weinberg, had officiated at Goldstone’s grandson’s Bar Mitzvah in Johannesburg, or my speech for Chabad of Cape Town and later in Pretoria, the man whom the media describes as a ‘respected international jurist’ and who had falsely accused Israel of war crimes was never far from anyone’s lips.
South Africans are among the world’s proudest Jews and most ardent Zionists. So it was understandable that they would detest Goldstone, viewing him as a traitor to his people, a man who engaged in a blood libel against the Jewish state in order to enhance his standing at the United Nations.
I have personally never agreed with this assessment of Goldstone, seeing him instead as one of Lenin’s ‘useful idiots,’ a man so full of his own pomposity and self-righteousness as to be utterly blind to simple notions of right and wrong. Like Jimmy Carter before him, Goldstone is one of those well-meaning ignoramuses whose view of morality is that whichever is the party without tanks and an air force must be the party who is just. This knee-jerk reaction to always champion the underdog, notwithstanding their evil actions explains the shockingly obvious statement in Goldstone’s recent Washington Post apology to Israel in which he wrote, “In the end, asking Hamas to investigate [its own crimes] may have been a mistaken enterprise.” It took a famous judge three years to come to the conclusion that asking a terrorist organization hell-bent on exterminating Israel to impartially report its own atrocities was not his brightest idea.
[….]
Much more troubling, however, are the comments attributed to Samantha Power, the rising star of the Obama Administration who is being discussed as a replacement for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. I am a huge fan of Power’s 2002 book A Problem from Hell, detailing how America refused to intervene to stop repeated genocides in the twentieth century. I have repeatedly extolled the Pulitzer-prize winning book in lectures and columns and believe it should be required reading by every American High School student. I was also not surprised to read that it was Power who was instrumental in persuading an always reluctant President Obama to intervene in Libya to stop Gaddafi from slaughtering his people. It was therefore with considerable sadness that I learned of Power’s troubling statements on Israel, comments that require her immediate clarification lest she compromise her own moral credibility. American Thinker and other publications have reported that Power said that the United States should send in a massive military force to protect the Palestinians from Israel. And that she maligned the American pro-Israel lobby with her advocacy of “alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import [the pro-Israel lobby] and… sacrificing…billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine.” Is Power really arguing for greatly reducing or eliminating American military aid to Israel and channeling it instead to the Palestinians who have repeatedly used foreign aid to foster hatred of Jews in schools, line the pockets of corrupt officials, and promote terrorism?
There is more, with Power seemingly criticizing the New York Times in 2003 for being insufficiently critical of Israel after it attacked terrorist-saturated Jenin. Of Israel’s presence in Lebanon, Power wrote in her book, Chasing the Flame, that what sparked Israel’s invasion of Lebanon was “dispossessed Palestinians and Israeli insecurity,” where in truth Israel invaded Lebanon to stop the incessant stream of rocket attacks that terrorized its northern cities. The phrase ‘Israeli insecurity’ implies that Israel is paranoid rather than reflecting the reality of a Lebanon dominated by Hezbollah, whose genocidal aim is the destruction of Israel.
One should take note that while the New York Times is about as bad as they get, it is not taxpayer funded like NPR (National Public Radio)! Here is an example of the bias found at NPR on this matter, followed by a video of the European Union voting on March 10th of 2010, adopting the Goldstone Report:
NPR:
- 18,321 words in pro-Arab only segments;
- 4,934 words in pro-Israel segments.
Bias in number of Arab-only vs Israeli-only segments:
- 63-percent Palestinian/pro-Arab only segments;
- 37-percent Israel/pro-Israel segments.
You may contact this European Parliment member, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, via email to enquirer why she supported such bad reporting and took the positions she did in the above video – “knowing now what we did then [at least reasonable people].” – annemie.neyts-uyttebroeck@europarl.europa.eu