Tag Archives: NBC

NBC to Trump: ‘You’re Fired’


Photo: Michael Vadon

NBC has decided to cut ties with Donald Trump as his election year rhetoric on Mexican immigrants has apparently inflamed … Mexican immigrants.

Trump is no stranger to ill-thought remarks and NBC is unabashedly biased.

The Donald made some comments in his June 16th campaign kickoff speech that made the Mexican government a little uneasy. He said “the U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best.” They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

The Mexican government’s response was to pressure Univision to cancel their contract to air Trump’s Miss USA pageant and soon after to get enough public support against Trump so that NBC would cut ties with the boisterous billionaire.

Where does that lead our badly-coiffed candidate?

What NBC may not realize is the giant favor they’ve done the right. By joining the campaign to color Trump as an enemy of … whatever, he will likely lose his moderate and populist following. Chris Christie and Jeb Bush will be left to fight over the middle.

In an epic bit of karma, Trump’s biggest critique of Carly Fiorina now applies to him too – he’s been fired.

President Obama Press Conference – April 30th

As stated by the President, this press conference was in honor of outgoing White House Correspondents’ President Ed Henry, of Fox News. Accordingly, the first recognized was Henry, and he offered questions on Syria and Benghazi. On Syria, Henry asked what the next move is for this administration. It is not surprising that since chemical weapons are the bone of contention in Syria, that Obama went directly for what can only be considered a thinly-veiled statement referring to actions of the Bush Administration on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq:

And what we now have is evidence that chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria, but we don’t know how they were used, when they were used, who used them; we don’t have chain of custody that establishes what exactly happened. And when I am making decisions about America’s national security and the potential for taking additional action in response to chemical weapon use, I’ve got to make sure I’ve got the facts.

That’s what the American people would expect. And if we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, then we can find ourselves in the position where we can’t mobilize the international community to support what we do. There may be objections even among some people in the region who are sympathetic with the opposition if we take action. So, you know, it’s important for us to do this in a prudent way.

When pressed by Henry on the question of whether or not the U.S. would act militarily against the Assad regime in Syria, Obama came short of stating that would happen, opting to merely state that he has options outlined by the Pentagon. What those options are were not mentioned, for security reasons.

On Benghazi, the question was on members of the administration that have apparently been blocked from testifying about what they know about the attack that lead to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, and three members of the consulate staff.

Ed, I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody’s been blocked from testifying. So what I’ll do is I will find out what exactly you’re referring to. What I’ve been very clear about from the start is that our job with respect to Benghazi has been to find out exactly what happened, to make sure that U.S. embassies not just in the Middle East but around the world are safe and secure and to bring those who carried it out to justice.

It’s not surprising that Obama denied that anyone was being blocked from testifying, but it’s also unlikely that there will be any follow-up on the question as promised. Obama moved on to the next reporter after this.

Jessica Yellin of CNN offered the next question on whether or not we, as a nation, are moving backwards in national security and intelligence, citing Senator Lindsey Graham’s concerns on the matter. Note that the question focused on the failure in preventing the Boston bombing, not the subsequent reaction and investigation.

No. Mr. Graham is not right on this issue, although I’m sure it generated some headlines. I think that what we saw in Boston was state, local, federal officials, every agency, rallying around a city that had been attacked, identifying the perpetrators just hours after the scene had been examined. We now have one individual deceased, one in custody. Charges have been brought.

I think that all our law enforcement officials performed in an exemplary fashion after the bombing had taken place. And we should be very proud of their work, as obviously we’re proud of the people of Boston, all the first responders and the medical personnel that helped save lives.

What we also know is that the Russian intelligence services had alerted U.S. intelligence about the older brother as well as the mother, indicating that they might be sympathizers to extremists. The FBI investigated that older brother. It’s not as if the FBI did nothing. They not only investigated the older brother; they interviewed the older brother. They concluded that there were no signs that he was engaging in extremist activity. So that much we know.

Obama did go on to note that we need to be vigilant to prevent a future attack, stated that the Department of Homeland Security and FBI had done their jobs, and stated that we need to go on living our lives.

The next question was from Jonathan Karl at ABC, and bluntly asked if the President felt that he had the ability to pass his agenda, given the push back he has been getting from both sides of the aisle in Congress. Sequestration was also brought up in this segment, particularly the FAA.

Look, we — you know, we understand that we’re in divided government right now. Republicans control the House of Representatives. In the Senate, this habit of requiring 60 votes for even the most modest piece of legislation has gummed up the works there. And I think it’s — comes to no surprise, not even to the American people, but even to members of Congress themselves, that right now things are pretty dysfunctional up on Capitol Hill.

Despite that, I’m actually confident that there are a range of things that we’re going to be able to get done. I feel confident that the bipartisan work that’s been done on immigration reform will result in a bill that passes the Senate and passes the House and gets on my desk. And that’s going to be a historic achievement. And I’m — I’ve been very complimentary of the efforts of both Republicans and Democrats in those efforts.

And on the FAA, and Congress:

Well, hold on a second. The — so the alternative, of course, is either to go ahead and impose a whole bunch of delays on passengers now, which also does not fix the problem, or the third alternative is to actually fix the problem by coming up with a broader, larger deal.

But, you know, Jonathan, you seem to suggest that somehow, these folks over there have no responsibilities and that my job is to somehow get them to behave. That’s their job. They are elected, members of Congress are elected in order to do what’s right for their constituencies and for the American people. So if, in fact, they are seriously concerned about passenger convenience and safety, then they shouldn’t just be thinking about tomorrow or next week or the week after that; they should be thinking about what’s going to happen five years from now, 10 years from now or 15 years from now.

The only way to do that is for them to engage with me on coming up with a broader deal.

And that’s exactly what I’m trying to do is to continue to talk to them about are there ways for us to fix this. Frankly, I don’t think that if I were to veto, for example, this FAA bill, that that somehow would lead to the broader fix. It just means that there’d be pain now, which they would try to blame on me, as opposed to pain five years from now. But either way, the problem’s not getting fixed. The only way the problem does get fixed is if both parties sit down and they say, how are we going to make sure that we’re reducing our deficit sensibly; how are we making sure that we’ve investing in things like rebuilding our airports and our roads and our bridges and investing in early childhood education and all — basic research, all the things that are going to help us grow, and that’s what the American people want.

The last questions were offered by Bill Plante of CBS, Chuck Todd of NBC, and Antonieta Cadiz of the Chilean press, offering questions on Guantanamo Bay, ObamaCare, and Immigration respectively. Obama did make a parting statement on NBA player Jason Collins “coming out of the closet”. A full transcript of the press conference is available at the Washington Post website.

How the left uses identity politics and fear tactics to influence voters

sodahead.comAlthough Barack Obama’s inauguration was a few weeks ago this article will still touch on some of the language he spoke as well as the meaning behind his words. I will also explain in great detail how the left uses identity politics to influence certain voters and alienate others.

Language can be a great indicator of future behavior. Barack Obama’s second inaugural speech revealed many clues that not only showed how this man thinks, but more importantly how he will likely continue to govern.

What many Americans heard in his speech was something very unfamiliar and foreign to most of our listening ears. What we heard was a heavy dose of identity politics. We heard words like fair play, central authority, and collective action. He spoke about the government as if it was the solution to every one of America’s problems. In fact, Barack Obama did not even utter the words private sector once in his entire speech!

The words he chose were carefully selected and designed to influence certain voters. They were divisive and dismissive. They were meant to divide an already divided nation instead of trying to bring us together. His words were alienating, meandering, and apoplectic in nature. Barack Obama tried to walk the political tightrope between policy and ideology and failed miserably at doing both. Almost his entire speech was narrowly directed towards his base of supporters instead of the nation as a whole. His weapon of choice: using identity politics as a weapon of mass distortion.

For the first time in our nation’s history a president mentioned his support for Gay Marriage in an inaugural speech. This shows that discussing Gay Marriage is no longer the politically dangerous subject it used to be; and shows just how far to the left our country has moved on most social issues.

Identity politics has become the Democratic Party’s number one weapon in their arsenal of political warfare. The left has mastered the art of message manipulation and cultural relativism in such a way that it has become the biggest obstacle for the right to overcome.

Barack Obama deliberately spoke about issues that divide us rather than unite us. He spoke of Gay Marriage, Women’s Suffrage, and Illegal Immigration; all wedge issues. When something repeatedly works in politics it becomes a political weapon. Barack Obama was able to win reelection using identity politics to perfection so why would he stop now?

What was so striking about his speech was not only his tone and demeanor, but his confrontational style and in your face liberalism as well. He spoke as if he was daring anyone on the right to challenge his authority while confidently playing the role of the transformational figure with an arrogance and smugness reserved only for a king.

Let’s breakdown some examples of identity politics used in his speech.

In the 16th minute Barack Obama said this, “Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life. We don’t define liberty all in the same way.”

Translation: We can interpret the Constitution however we see fit. My Administration will redefine what liberty means so it fits my agenda.

In the 20th minute Barack Obama goes on to say this, “Progress does not compel us to settle century’s long role of government for all time. But it does require us to act in our time.”

Translation: The United States Constitution is not settled law. It is a living, breathing, document that is inherently racist and therefore needs to be changed; and I will change it. Besides, who could possibly be better at finding ways to misinterpret and circumvent the Constitution than a Constitutional scholar?

History has shown us that all great leftist leaders have an incredible ability to capture the hearts and minds of their people. They use their lofty speeches and idealistic platforms to mesmerize voters into thinking that they and only they are the key to a brighter future and a better tomorrow. It is for this simple reason that the language of the left sounds better to most voters than the language of the right.

Most Americans who are not paying attention would rather listen to a speech on the possibilities of a better future rather than someone who is only promising the opportunity and means for that individual to better their own future. That is why a speech on preserving America’s traditions is not as appealing to most uninformed voters as a speech about reshaping America’s future.

Let’s break it down even further.

Identity Politics works because it feeds off of emotion. One of the most powerful emotions is fear. People can be driven to make decisions based on two motivating factors; a hope for gain or a fear of loss. The left understands this and uses that fear of loss against Republicans to perfection. Taking away a woman’s right to choose, or an illegal alien worried about deportation are all examples of how the left uses fear of loss tactics. This is why more women and minorities vote for the Democratic Party.

The left has perfected the fear of loss strategy and has been able to successfully alienate these voters away from the Republican Party while simultaneously solidifying their base of support. The truth is that political warfare and psychological warfare go hand in hand and the left understands this completely.

When it comes to fighting back against identity politics the Republican Party is at a huge disadvantage. The Democratic Party has 90% of the media and almost 100% of Hollywood at their disposal ready to smear and besmirch conservatives at any given moment. From ABC, CBS, and NBC on regular television, to HBO, SHOWTIME, and CINEMAX on cable, the left is never without a platform to ingratiate their ideology into the subconscious minds of millions of unsuspecting viewers. The left uses the media and Hollywood to portray conservatives as the party of the past, out of touch, and obstructionists to a brighter future.

The truth is in order to show the potentialities of a brighter future we must first resuscitate the visions of a better past. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people is not just a fancy cliché. It is a god given right and a blueprint for everlasting freedom.

The left does not believe in liberty for all; the left believes in justice for a select few. We are on an unsustainable path filled with uncertainty and doubt. For the first time in a long time the next generation in America is projected to be less successful than previous generations and we have Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, and identity politics to thank.

Suggested by the author:
Are we still a center right country?
Traditional conservatism versus secular liberalism and the Jewish voter
WARNING! Obama using Cloward & Piven strategy & Alinsky to destroy America
Welcome to the dependent states of America

NBC Crew Released Following 5 Days Captivity in Syria

Richard Engel, chief foreign correspondent at NBC News and his crew vanished Thursday after crossing into northwest Syria from Turkey. NBC confirmed early this morning that after being kidnapped and held in five days in Syria, Engel and his production crew members had been freed unharmed.

In an interview early today Engel, who was released with his crew, said he believes that he and his team were going to be exchanged by their captors for four Iranians and two Lebanese citizens. The plan was thwarted when the kidnappers were stopped at a rebel checkpoint. Following a firefight several of the captors were killed enabling the crew an escape. The reporters believed they were kidnapped by government militia loyal to Syrian president al-Assad.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

George Zimmerman Sues NBC for Defamation

Photo courtesy of Wikipedia Commons.

Remember George Zimmerman, the former block watch leader who is facing second degree murder charges  in one of the most racially charged cases in recent time? The murder took on additional controversy when President Obama appeared to sympathize with the black teenager who was killed during an altercation.

Newly released photos of Zimmerman with a bloodied face are now being used by his lawyers as evidence that the prosecution was slow in revealing the true nature of  his injuries and corroboration of his account of the events. In addition, today Zimmerman’s attorneys announced he is now suing NBC for damages that portrayed him as a “racist and predatory villain” through editing of the 911 tape.

From ABC News: The suit, filed this afternoon, claims, “NBC saw the death of Trayvon Martin not as a tragedy, but as an opportunity to increase ratings.”

An NBC News spokeswoman did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The suit claims the network pounced on the story in large part to help aid the ailing ratings of its morning program, “The Today Show.” It centers around “manipulated” exchanges between George Zimmerman and a non-emergency dispatcher shortly before unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. The audio aired a few times on several NBC platforms beginning March 19.

The suit blames NBC in large part for the media frenzy surrounding the case and hostilities against Zimmerman.

Read the rest at ABC News.

SOPA/PIPA: “Fairness Doctrine” Tyranny Coming In The Back Door

SOPA/PIPA is another case of government control over what We the People will be allowed to see or hear on the internet. The “Fairness Doctrine” was thwarted by We the People through the outrage expressed to our elected members of Congress, ironically over the internet for the most part, so they have seemingly decided to come in the back door and “protect” us from unscrupulous vendors. That is great to a point but who is going to protect us from the government? Barack Obama and many members of both political parties consider We the People too stupid to know what is in our best interests.

Instead of going after the ISP’s and search engine companies like Google, why don’t they try a novel approach, something that has never been done in modern history? Why not enforce the laws on the books against fraud? I guess that is much too difficult of a concept for politicians to grasp.

This reminds me of gun violence. How do we solve the problem of violent crimes committed with guns? Someone with my apparent lack of intelligence would suggest we imprison the criminals with very long sentences, or just execute them when the crime calls for such punishment. What is the answer the government comes up with? Well, let’s just take guns away from those not committing crimes so we don’t have to be concerned with them killing the criminals. And when government bureaucrats violate the existing gun laws we can promote them and then use those violations as an excuse to continue on our merry gun ban crusade.

These bills aren’t about protecting We the People or legitimate businesses from criminal activity. That can be done by enforcing existing law. This is about controlling what we see, what we hear, and how citizens communicate with one another. The “Arab Spring” came about as a result of dissidents communicating over the internet through social network sites, instant messaging, and texting. The powers-that-be in our government have seen what can happen when people communicate freely and share information. Open lines of communication are a danger to despots and every dictatorship in the world controls the internet access of their subjects.

I remember Obama giving a speech at a college in which he stated that “information is dangerous”. I have always been taught that information and knowledge are invaluable tools to make our lives better. It seems that Obama and most of the members of Congress weren’t taught the same lessons in their younger years. If they manage to get this legislation through they will be able to control everything that crosses our computers.

As the “Fairness Doctrine” sought to control us and make sure we were exposed to Marxist doctrine, this legislation will be used to prevent We the People from having free access to each other and to the information we need to make decisions beneficial to our lives. We will no longer be able to thwart tyrannical legislation, or regulations dictated by bureaucrats, because we will not know about them unless the government deems them safe for public consumption.

I am not surprised to find out that the biggest proponents of this legislation are the major television networks, and include Rupert Murdoch, owner of FOX News. Why would the owner of a “conservative” news network want to prohibit the free flow of information? Shouldn’t FOX News and its owner be in favor of freedom of the press? I guess the reality that they are losing millions of viewers because they don’t tell the truth, don’t tell the whole story on issues, and ignore any story that doesn’t fit their template has alarmed them to the point that it needs to be acted upon.

Internet news sites such as Conservative Daily News, The Drudge Report, The Post & E-mail, and social network sites pass information much faster, more efficiently, and more completely than any or all of the major media networks. With the advent of internet news the major media companies can no longer slant the news to suit their Marxist ideology, nor can the ignore news that is not to their liking or doesn’t fit their agenda.

The free flow of information is critical to any free society. Once a government controls what information citizens have access to tyranny is right around the corner. Iran, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are all dictatorships that keep their citizens enslaved and in darkness by keeping them from the knowledge of how the rest of the world operates. After the uprisings in 2009 Iran clamped down on social network media to prevent dissidents from organizing more protests and other dictatorships have long been bastions of tyranny by preventing any citizen contact with the outside world, or each other.

Obama and his minions have seen what happens to dictators who allow the free flow of information to their subjects. Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muammar Kadafi in Libya are prime examples of what happens when dictators allow their subjects to communicate without restrictions. I am curious to see what the future brings to these countries when the Muslim Brotherhood takes over and installs the tyranny of Sharia law on their people. Those who took to the streets for freedom may find themselves under the thumb of rulers just as brutal as those they overthrew in the “Arab Spring” uprisings.

Iran is a good example of an uprising that came about because of internet access and how the government acted to prevent it from happening again. Outside contact has been as restricted by Mahmoud Ahmadinijad and the mullahs as it can be and severe punishment awaits anyone caught communicating without government sanction. The very rulers who turned their backs on freedom seeking Iranians in 2009 now seek to impose the very same restrictions on their subjects, namely We the American People.

This legislation, as usual, is not a partisan attempt at subjugation. This legislation is supported by many members of Congress in both political parties, and who I suspect have no idea what is in the bills. Since they don’t have time to read anything they vote on it is incumbent on We the People to find out what is in the legislation and spread the word of warning through internet news and social network sites.

We must stand up once again to protect the freedoms bought with the blood of generations of patriots from the Revolutionary War to today. If we do not have the courage to stand for freedom, the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots since 1776 will have been wasted and future generations will be sentenced to a life tyranny, suffering, and poverty. To this cause I pledge “my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor”; to the cause of freedom for future generations. Every American owes their utmost opposition to this legislation in honor of those who have gone before us and for the freedom of those who will follow us.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
January 19, 2012

NBC is Run By Heathens: GOP Sunday Morning Debate Recap

Two Republican debates within 12 hours of each other are enough to make even the biggest political junkie fatigued.  Sunday morning saw the follow up to the Saturday night ABC debate (Worst. Debate. Ever.) hosted by NBC and Facebook and moderated by David “Why are all Republicans racist, capitalist pigs” Gregory.  Apparently the heathens at NBC don’t attend church. Surprising? Hardly.

This debate was much, much better than Saturday night’s martini fueled disaster (there was some question as to Sawyer’s sobriety), although that is not due to Gregory’s moderating, that much is sure.  I won’t delve too much into Gregory’s liberal bias. We all know and understand where he’s coming from.  It is no surprise that all his questions were thinly veiled “gotcha” questions so let’s not waste time on that.  What was surprising is that the candidates seemed much more alert and enthused at this early morning debate than the previous night.  With the possible exception of Jon Huntsman everyone on the stage looked alert and ready to rumble. Huntsman looked quite tired. I can’t blame him. He’s staked everything on a New Hampshire surge and I’m quite sure he spent the better part of the night boning up for this last debate before the primary votes are counted. Huntsman look tired, but he sounded more enthused than in any previous debates I can remember. He even reached out to attack Romney once or twice and clearly David Gregory and NBC want Huntsman to make a splash in New Hampshire. He is in last place in every poll but was offered more time screen time than most of the other candidates and certainly more than he’s received in debates thus far.

The real surprise this morning was Rick Perry. Saturday night he looked good, but Sunday morning he looked great. Perry is obviously staking his ground as the last “outsider” in the field and it seems to have reenergized him.  He refused to be sucked into the gotcha questions and succinctly expressed his opinion that big government and socialist policies have been destroying America for far to long.  Perry was also the only in the field Sunday morning to consistently remind voters that Obama is a socialist. Mr. Gregory didn’t like that. He offered Perry very few turns to speak.

Rick Santorum was much better than his very decent Saturday night performance. Perhaps his best line came when asked what he would do if his son told him he was gay (insert eye roll here). Santorum responded, “I would love him just as much as I did the second before he told me.” What a dumb question. It made me wonder if the moderator from New Hampshire has any children. As a voter I was most curious to see how he would address the right to work issue, as he had voted against it while in the Senate. He was offered the opportunity and explained that he voted against the legislation in the Senate because Pennsylvania was not a right to work state and he did not wish to give Washington D.C. the power to determine Pennsylvania state law. Its up to the voters to decide if that answer was satisfactory.

While each candidate did take a turn at jabbing Romney, the only one that really went for the throat was Gingrich, predictably. Newt is mad about Romney’s super pac attack ads and he has vowed to take down Romney accordingly.  At this point a Gingrich win seems unlikely, but the remaining candidates will probably owe him a debt of gratitude when this is all over, since no one else is willing to go for Mitt’s jugular.

There was the typical line of questioning about gay rights and gay marriage because as we all know Republican primary voters are very concerned about that. Somewhere along the way two New Hampshire news personalities (I use that term lightly) showed up to self-righteously grill the candidates about why they are such cruel, racist, classist, sexist homophobes.  They fit right in with David Gregory. Why do we let people like this moderate GOP debates? It does little to illuminate the real issues REPUBLICAN voters are concerned with.

Saturday night’s debate was a true and complete disaster.  Sunday morning’s debate was slightly more dignified, but it was the performance of the candidates that elevated it in the end.  Clearly these men are sensing that the final push is on.  Perry seems to have finally awoken and is depending on a very good showing in South Carolina to garner the next GOP surge, which will be bad news for Santorum if he pulls it off.  Tuesday’s primary in New Hampshire will be very telling.  I look forward to putting a fine point on some of these races… but please, no more Sunday morning debates. Especially from the East Coast. Some of us on the Left Coast actually enjoy sleeping past 5:30 a.m. on the weekends.


crossposted at kiradavis.net

NBC News, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of the Obama Administration?

A far cry from Huntley-Brinkley, John Chancellor, or even Tom Brokaw, the NBC News organization has become little more than a mouthpiece for the Obama Administration. Leaving aside the obviously biased MSNBC commentators Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and Al Sharpton, even the once proud Nightly News has shown an increasingly apparent bent toward the left wing of the Democratic party since Brian Williams took over the anchor desk in 2004.

Since the Solyndra story was broken in September, NBC has devoted a total of 8 minutes to the story, even after the company’s leaders pleaded the fifth amendment in front of congress and subpoena’s were issued to members of the Administration. NBC has also been mute on the Fast and Furious story, in which the Justice Department encouraged thousands of high powered weapons to find their way across the border into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and at least one US border patrol agent. On October 17, 2011, NBC’s Inside the Boiler Room program spent less than four minutes discounting both the Solyndra and Fast & Furious scandals, prior to that, the last time NBC mentioned Fast & Furious was July 1st, 2011.

Why the overwhelming prejudice in favor of the Administration? NBC is owned by Comcast Corporation and General Electric. In January of this year the Government cleared the way for Comcast to buy a 51% stake of NBC, making Comcast the controlling interest and one of the largest media outlets in the country. GE, who previously owned the lion’s share of the company is headed by Jeff Immelt, Chairman of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Almost before the ink was dry on the merger deal, Comcast hired Meredith Attwell Baker away from her job as one of the four Federal Communications Commissioners who voted in favor of the merger. Her new job is to lobby Washington for NBC in possible violation of Federal Law.

Second on the list of top contributor’s to President Obama’s 2012 campaign this year is Comcast Corporation, and they bundled a great deal of money for him in 2008. GE was 17th on the list of Obama contributors for that election cycle.

In addition to receiving campaign contributions from the owners of the News outlet, President Obama sent $36 million dollars in cash back to GE, in the form of Early Retirement Health Care subsidies.

Just last week, the Obama campaign hired Broderick Johnson of the lobbying firm Bryan Cave LLP. This firm received $440,000 from Comcast to lobby in favor of the Comcast/NBC Universal merger. Mr. Johnson was shown throughout the merger period on House disclosure forms listing his role as an advocate for the merger.

As the scandals surrounding the White House, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Energy heat up, perhaps the lack of coverage of them by a supposedly impartial news organization will itself be added to the growing list of questionable relationships between the Administration and its cronies. But don’t expect to hear about it on NBC’s Nightly News.

Obama's Record Low & Matt Lauer's Sad Face

Today Show’s Matt Lauer had NBC’s Chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd on to discuss the very discouraging results of the latest NBC News/WSJ approval poll.  Lauer did his best to keep a stiff upper lip, but the disappointment was palpable.  And why not?  NBC’s own poll shows President Obama’s disapproval rating at a record high at 51%.  Even worse, 59% disapprove of his handling of the economy, although Todd does his best to deflect the miserable numbers by suggesting it was a “pretty pessimistic public” that they polled – as if the public’s pessimism and Obama’s dismal numbers are two mutually exclusive sentiments.  The most damning part of the poll – 73% think the country is headed in the wrong direction.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that every nation has a leader, and a leader leads, and if 73% of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction that means 73% of Americans think the country is being led in the wrong direction.  This is basically a disapproval rating, and Todd and Lauer know it.  Kudos to Lauer and the Today Show for even airing the results of this poll, but maybe next time they can work on teaching Lauer not to look like he just got dumped by the prom queen when he’s reporting unfavorable Obama numbers.  Todd also deserves an honorable mention for pushing the “silver lining”, which is – Obama’s “likability” is still polling very high.  If only “likability” helped businesses hire more Americans.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

NBC inexplicably edits out “Under God” from Pledge

At the beginning of NBC’s coverage of the U.S. Open Golf Championship, the network inexplicably cut the phrase “under God” from a childrens’ recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

What would prompt the network to eliminate that phrase? The editing seems purposeful and Dan Hick’s failed attempt at an apology does nothing to alleviate disdain from viewers.

“Earlier we began our coverage of this final round just about three hours ago, and when we did it was our intent to begin the coverage of this U.S. Open championship with a feature that captured the patriotism of our national championship being held in our nation’s capital for the third time. Regrettably a portion of the Pledge of Allegiance that was in that feature was edited out. It was not done to upset anyone and we’d like to apologize to those of you that were offended by it.”

Hick’s statement doesn’t assert that the omission was an accident or mis-step. In fact, he seems to be saying that the edit was intentional, they just didn’t do it with the purpose of upsetting anyone.

The PGA has received hundreds of calls asking about the intent of the edit to which they released this statement on their PGA tour facebook page:

A note to those of you who have posted on our page regarding yeterday’s broadcast of the US Open and the way the Pledge of Allegiance was handled. We were unaware of the decision to edit the piece in that way prior to its airing. We have passed along your concerns and are addressing the decision with our partners at NBC Sports. Thanks for tuning in and letting us know you care.

Trump offered $60 million to not run for President

Updated at bottom of article.   It has been reported over at Newsmax.com that Donald Trump is being pushed to sign a new $60 million dollars contract for his TV show Celebrity Apprentice. With Trump’s recent statements that he will not announce his intentions for the 2012 Presidential election until this season of Celebrity Apprentice is over, the timing of NBC pushing him into a new contract is very suspect, to say the least. Trump can not be under contract for NBC and run for President at the same time, it is either one or the other. This puts Trump directly on the hot seat here, and forces him to choose between running for President and a $60 million dollar contract. While many folks might say that $60 million dollars is a drop in the bucket for billionaire Donald Trump, being on television every week also gives him plenty of Celebrity-type exposure, which would keep his often-described as enormous ego fed.

Considering the fact that NBC shows a blatant bias towards the Obama administration in it’s propaganda reporting today, this could be an attempt to keep Trump from continuing to expose Obama’s dysfunctional, anti-Capitalist policies on the National stage also. While some GOP candidates do carp about certain Obama policies, they also carry with them a moderate-leaning political correctness that the country is flat out tired of, especially among conservative Americans sick of staring at trillions of dollars in deficit spending and the ignoring of our Constitution. The fact is that Trump tells it like it is, and this is very distressing to the Obama administration that needs to keep Americans uninformed as to how the Democrat’s current Socialist agenda will “transform” America into nothing more than a third rate country, due to the massive amounts of debt we are racking up today. Now Obama and his Democratic minions in Congress want to raise the debt limit again and further push America towards $15 trillion dollars of debt. How stupid is that people? Say that out loud, “ $15 trillion dollars of debt.” Is that stupid and irresponsible or what?

I hope that Donald Trump keeps making his voice heard on the national stage, whether it is as a candidate or President or not. Here is my suggestion for Mr. Trump, based on the business/money aspect of this situation. Take NBC,s $60 million, and make  Fox or another major network  pay you for a solid amount of air time to keep on expressing your thoughts on how to fix this country. Make sure your voice will be heard on a steady basis no matter what decision you make. If you are dead serious about your desire to right this sinking, progressive ship called America, then put up the money and run for President and while your at it show NBC and the rest of the puppets that no amount of money will buy you out of this upcoming election. Either way, we need to hear your voice, and not just on your TV show. I believe Donald Trump is a true American Patriot at heart, and we need all the Patriotic voices we can muster up.


Trump says no to presidential run-  http://www.theblaze.com/the-wire/6808933/trump-says-no-to-presidential-run/



CIA Director Reveals Intent Was to Kill Bin Laden

Leon PenettaDuring the May 3rd interview of CIA director Leon Penetta by NBC Nightly News’ Brian Williams, Mr. Penetta all but admitted that killing Osama bin Laden was the intent of the mission.

The authorities we have on Bin Laden are to kill him. And that was made clear. But it was also, as part of their rules of engagement, if he suddenly put up his hands and offered to be captured, then– they would have the opportunity, obviously, to capture him. But that opportunity never developed.

The only way that Seal Team Six would have captured Osama is if he dropped to the ground, raised his hands and pleaded for mercy – not OBL’s style.

The interview also discusses the reveal of pictures of Osama’s corpse. As Dir. Penetta says, “The government obviously has been talking about how best to do this, but I don’t think there’s– there was any question that ultimately a photograph would be presented to the public. Obviously I’ve seen those photographs. We’ve analyzed them and there’s no question that it’s Bin Laden.”

Mr. Penetta also makes it clear that the Pakastani government knew nothing of the operation – until the rather impressive sound and fury of an exploding Blackhawk helicopter awoke them. “So I think the only time the Pakistanis found out about it, frankly, was after this mission had taken place. We had to blow the helicopter, as you know, and that probably woke up a lot of people, including the Pakistanis”, said Penetta.

Brian Williams even tries to elevate Obama’s actions above G.W. Bush by asking why we didn’t do this sooner, but Panetta is not sucked in and answers rather honestly.

And why, I’ve heard several people asking, could this same thing have been done at the start of the Iraq war to save the lives of all those souls we had to bury? To– to save all those young Americans from coming home with such grievous injuries in the commission of that war?

*Update 5/4 – President Obama will not allow the release of any photos showing the corpse of Osama bin Laden

Full Interview Transcript:


There is a report as we have this conversation, for the record, 10:36 a.m., that the President, the White House, has decided and, it may already be out, to release a proof of death photo. What light can you shed on this?


The government obviously has been talking about how best to do this, but I don’t think there’s– there was any question that ultimately a photograph would be presented to the public. Obviously I’ve seen those photographs. We’ve analyzed them and there’s no question that it’s Bin Laden.


Were you debating how the release of a photo would go over, given its gruesomeness, versus the need on behalf of people all over the world to demand proof of death?


I think there’s no question that there were concerns and there were questions that had to be debated about just exactly question kind of impact– would these photos have. But the bottom line is that, you know, we got Bin Laden and I think we have to reveal to the rest of the world the fact that we were able to get him and kill him.


Is the world safer?


Brian, I– I don’t think there’s any question that– you know, when you get the number one terrorist in the world that we’re a little safer today than we were when he was alive. But I also don’t think we ought to kid ourselves that killing Osama bin Laden kills al Qaeda. Al Qaeda still remains a threat. They’re still going try to attack our country. And I think we have to continue to be vigilant– and– and continue the effort to ultimately defeat these guys. We’ve damaged them, but we still have to defeat them.


Asked another way perhaps, what does this change?


I– I think what it– what it represents is that you know, President Bush, President Obama– were very intent on making clear that we were going go after Osama bin Laden. I think soon after I became director of the CIA– President Obama pulled me into the Oval Office and said”: “Look, I just want you to know that your top priority is to go after Osama bin Laden.” I think the fact that we were able to do that– that we were successful in this effort, has sent an important signal to the world that the United States, when it develops a focus on what’s important, what we have to do, we get the job done.


When did the President’s order in this mission become real and go up and become a possibility?


Well, as you know as we’ve been- debating this issue for a long time. And we had a number of sessions at the White House going over all of the intelligence and all of the approaches as to how we would conduct these operations. But it wasn’t until Thursday morning that the national security advisor called me and said that the President had made a decision to proceed with this operation. And then later that day I received orders signed by the President of the United States to proceed to conduct this operation under Title 50, which means it was a covert operation. And we would be responsible from the President for seeing that this mission was accomplished.


What did the Pakistanis know and when did they know it?


The Pakistanis did not know anything about this mission. And that was that was deliberate on our part that this would be conducted as a unilateral mission. President Obama had made very clear to the Pakistanis that if we– if we had good evidence as to where Osama bin Laden was located we were going to go in and get him. And– that’s exactly what happened.

So I think the only time the Pakistanis found out about it, frankly, was after this mission had taken place. We had to blow the helicopter, as you know, and that probably woke up a lot of people, including the Pakistanis.


Well, and I ask that because I’m curious as to why, given all the hardware, the garrison, the personnel, it– retired military officers in that immediate area, why weren’t the United States forces fired upon?


Well, that was obviously a concern that was raised at the time we were considering this operation which was going into this kind of sensitive area with helicopters and SEALs and landing on this compound– would the Pakistanis suddenly respond and you know, try to pin down our forces.

Frankly, we, you know, we considered all of those contingencies. That’s why we had the backup helicopters in place. But the reality was that I think in– in– in going in, I think the military commander felt confident that we would be able to get in and get out, hopefully within 30 to 35 minutes. The fact was that we completed this operation within 40 minutes and we had everybody on their way out of that country. And even at that point, the Pakistanis were not aware of just exactly what had happened.


Did the President’s order read capture or kill or both or just one of those?


The authorities we have on Bin Laden are to kill him. And that was made clear. But it was also, as part of their rules of engagement, if he suddenly put up his hands and offered to be captured, then– they would have the opportunity, obviously, to capture him. But that opportunity never developed.


And why, I’ve heard several people asking, could this same thing have been done at the start of the Iraq war to save the lives of all those souls we had to bury? To– to save all those young Americans from coming home with such grievous injuries in the commission of that war?


You know, I believe that Osama bin Laden, obviously, was the– the number one terrorist that we were after and-what he did in attacking this country made him clearly the number one target for us. But the fact was that this has been a long and difficult road. And I don’t believe there was really another opportunity that had been provided to be able to– to pin him down and be able to conduct the kind of operation that we did. I– you know, the bottom line reason that I think the President made the decision to go was that this was the best evidence we had of Bin Laden and where he might be located going back to Tora Bora. And because it was the best evidence we had, even though it was circumstantial, it demanded that we take action.


You see why I’m– I’m asking the– you know, the Iraq war was very personal, very personally about one man. And while reasonable people will debate whether or not it was an elective war of the choices after 9/11, it became about him and this so called single bullet directive by the President, aimed to take out one man that– that of course– in the course of it saved so many Americans. I’m just asking if that could not have been– a route we could have pursued in that war?


Well, you know, I– I guess there’ll be a lot of second guessing as to what could or could not have been the case, but I think the reality was that even though I’m sure a lot of people wanted to get Bin Laden from the very beginning, we just did not have the same opportunity to do it as we had within these last few days.


I’d like to ask you about the sourcing on the intel that ultimately led to this successful attack. Can you confirm that it was– as a result of water boarding that we learned what we needed to learn to go after Bin Laden?


You know, Brian, in the intelligence business you work from a lot of sources of information and that was true here. We had a multiple source– a multiple series of– sources that provided information with regards to the situation. Clearly some of it came from detainees and the interrogation of detainees but we also had information from other sources as well. From Sigent intelligence, from imagery, from other sources that we had– assets on the ground. And it was a combination of all of that that ultimately we were able to put together that led us to that compound. So– it’s– it’s a little difficult to say it was due just to one source of information that we got.


Turned around the other way, are you denying that water boarding was, in part, among the tactics used to extract the intelligence that led to this successful mission?


No, I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I’m also saying that, you know, the debate about whether– whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question.


So finer point, one final time, enhanced interrogation techniques, which has always been kind of a handy euphemism in these post-9/11 years.




includes water boarding?


That’s correct.


How often did the desert raid circa Carter administration, how often did Black Hawk Down in Somalia rattle around your heads, rattle around the room as you sat during the planning stages?


Well, that was clearly part of the debate. You know, this– this was a risky mission. There were a lot of risks and a lot of uncertainties. We had, you know, the bottom line was this. That we had the best intelligence– on the location of Bin Laden– since Tora Bora. That that– that presented an obligation to act. And the President obviously felt that we had that obligation to act.

What course we would take, whether we would use an assault– the way we did or whether we would try other methods was also debated. And when we came down to considering the assault, the risks of having helicopters go down, the risks of suddenly being in battle with the Pakistanis or having a serious incident there, all of that was discussed.

And we all knew that that was– that was part of– the risks involved here. But the President, to his credit, made the decision that we had to go. And I think we had great confidence in the capability of these SEAL teams who conduct these operations two and three times a night in Afghanistan. We had tremendous confidence that they could get the job done.


Related subject regarding at least, a world figure. Director Panetta, do you have any proof since Saturday night that Muammar Khaddafy is alive?


Do I have any proof that he is alive?




Is that what you’re asking, Brian?




I– at least– best intelligence we have is that he’s still alive.


So there’s been– there’s been a sighting, a communication by him? You have positive proof of life?


It– best intelligence we have on Khaddafy is that– he is– he is still alive.


And finally, a question on Pakistan. How do you relate to them now? How do you go to them and say, “I understand that in the most important– military operation that’ll probably be conducted in your soil in modern times we didn’t inform you in advance. We regard you as a trusted ally though you have broken our trust in the past.” How do you go forward from here?


We– we have to go forward with the– the Pakistanis. The reality is that we continue to confront our enemy in their country. We conduct operations against that enemy and their country. They have provided cooperation with regards to that effort to go after those terrorists. At the same time, obviously– there– there are questions. And there are complications that we have to work through with the Pakistanis.

And the bottom line here is that they were clearly told that if we had Bin Laden, if we knew where he was, we were going to go in and get him. And actually, when– when– when we revealed to them that this operation had taken place, interestingly enough, the first comment from them was congratulations. So they knew very well what we intended to do.

And, hopefully, we can continue to work with them, because the reality is that in that part of the world we have to have Pakistan’s cooperation in dealing not just with the issue of terrorism in their country, but dealing with the issue of how we find peace in Afghanistan.


And I lied about the last question. One more was just handed to me. A statement from overseas reads simply, “Pakistan has family members of Osama bin Laden in custody.” Is that true?


That’s correct. The family members who were at the compound and were left there by our– our– our forces– our understanding is that the Pakistanis now have– have them in– in their detention. And frankly, we have asked access to those individuals so we can continue to gather intelligence. And the word we go back from the Pakistanis is that we would have that access.


What do you think they have for you? What’s the value to the U.S., potentially?


You know, Brian, we have– we’ve gotten an awful lot of– of– potential intelligence out of this operation, beyond just going after the number one terrorist. The reality is that we picked up an awful lot of information there at the compound. If you combine that with the ability to continue questioning the family, this could– this could give us a lot of valuable information regarding threats, regarding the location of other high value targets and regarding the kind of operations that we need to conduct against these terrorists. So this was– this was an important effort, not only because we got the number one terrorist, but because of the intelligence information that we got from this operation.

Clinton/Gates Prep Nation for Obama’s Libya Spin Tonight: Fox left out again

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the rounds on the Sunday talk show circuit in a seemingly weak attempt to explain to the nation our unexplained involvement in the Libyan Civil War of 2011.  Let’s see here, they were on ABC’s ” This Week, ” NBC’s ” Meet the Press ,” and CBS’s ” Face the Nation. ”  Wait a minute, isn’t there a Sunday show on Fox ? Isn’t our Government supposed to be accessible to all major media networks ?  Then why would they refuse to go on Chris Wallace’s ” Fox News Sunday ” show ?

To say the least, Chris Wallace was somewhat surprised at the blatant unfairness in the Obama administration’s decision in not making Clinton/Gates available to ” Fox News Sunday, ” and its millions of viewers.  I personally caught the slight right away, and refused to give my viewership stat to the MSM Obama puppet propagandist stations, instead I was relegated to reading about it on the internet. However I did catch the following video clip from Fox News, explaining it :

This is typical of the Obama administrations pattern of picking and chosing  just who gets access to the important governmental officials of the last two years. How the entire American population can sit around criticizing other nation’s dictatorial treatment of the press, while allowing this kind of  denial of access to Fox News is beyond rationalizing. This also goes against the promise that this administration will be the most open and transparent in our history. Apparently that open government, now means open, only to those who fail to hold this administration’s feet to the fire for engaging in an illegal war in Libya without the permission of Congress. Open only to those who get all tingly when Obama speaks, while ignoring the blatant lies and misinformation coming out of the Whitehouse today.

These kinds of  pathetic manipulations of our media should not only be condemned by all Americans today, but also by the cronies that Obama is favoring here. Think about this after we take over the U.S. Senate and Whitehouse in 2012:  How about our new Republican President denying all the Obama media puppets access to anyone in our government for four straight years and only letting them go on Fox News ?  Maybe we will let  ABC, CBS, and NBC show reruns of all the Fox News  Sunday interviews during the following week, when it is already yesterday’s news. Think about that.

« Older Entries