Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Here is that study.
PS I would post the study here, but I can't post the graphs and visuals -- please just follow the link. Thanks!
Here's the results of this study...
From Media Matters...
Conservatives quick to opine on Brokeback Mountain's "agenda," slow to actually see film
Summary: Several television and radio commentators have either hosted debates or openly questioned what they claim are the insidiously progressive goals of the award-winning film Brokeback Mountain, yet many of the same commentators openly admit they have not seen it.
Several commentators on television and radio have either hosted debates or openly questioned what they have claimed are the insidiously progressive goals of director Ang Lee's award-winning film Brokeback Mountain (Focus Features, 2005). But how many of them have actual seen the film? Some media personalities and conservative guests feel free to opine on the film's purported "agenda" to "mainstream homosexuality," while openly admitting they have not seen it.
More than one panel discussing both the merits and cultural implications of the film has featured conservative guests whose knowledge of the film extended merely to what they had read or seen about it. While it is not clear whether MSNBC's Joe Scarborough has seen the film, he has twice featured debates on his show, Scarborough Country, about whether the film advanced Hollywood's "radical agenda." On the December 15 edition of his program, for example, he hosted Catholic League president William A. Donohue, who admitted he had not seen it, opposite US Weekly senior editor Bradley Jacobs, who said he had. On the show, Donohue said he planned to see King Kong (Universal Studios, 2005) instead, asserting, "I suspect the people who make these kind of movies, though -- like gay cowboy -- would go to see a movie called 'The Gay Gorilla,' " explaining: "[T]hat's the difference between Hollywood and mainstream."
Other networks have displayed a similar pattern. CNN's Larry King Live dedicated the entire January 17 edition of its show to "the debate over gay love and gay marriage" thanks to "Brokeback Mountain's big night at the Golden Globes." Of the four guests, the two social conservatives -- radio host Janet Parshall and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president R. Albert Mohler Jr. -- admitted to not having seen the film. Mohler said that he had read the screenplay and "know[s]" the original short story. Parshall imputed the "chatter" surrounding the film to "the homosexualizing of America."
Fox News constitutes no exception to the trend. On a December 17 Fox News Watch panel that included Fox News host Eric Burns, media writer Neal Gabler, Fox News contributor Jane Hall, Fox News political analyst Jim Pinkerton, and nationally syndicated columnist and Fox News host Cal Thomas, only Pinkerton had seen the film -- still in limited release at the time -- because he "was ordered to see it by Fox News." Yet, Burns felt qualified to ask, "[S]houldn't this movie be more controversial than it is?" and Thomas called it "a wet kiss ... to the gay community." In an appearance on the January 2 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer apparently felt the film -- along with Cuban President Fidel Castro and Iran -- merited one of his three 2006 predictions, prognosticating: "Brokeback Mountain will have been seen in the theaters by 18 people -- but the right 18 -- and will win the Academy Award." He did not specify who the "right 18" were, nor did he clarify which Academy Award the film would receive.
Some news hosts have also voiced concerns over the film's message and purpose while acknowledging that they haven't actually seen it. Fox News' Bill O'Reilly has discussed the film at least eight times on his nationally syndicated radio show, The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, and his cable news show, The O'Reilly Factor. He repeatedly insists that has no plans to see it -- "I want to watch the highlights of the game, not the pup tent" -- but remains adamant that the film wins critical praise because the media "want[s] to mainstream homosexual conduct." John Gibson has joined in on the act, asking a guest on the December 9 edition of his Fox News show, The Big Story with John Gibson, "Which is harder to watch, the pulling out the fingernails of Syriana (Warner Bros, 2005) or [actors] Heath [Ledger] and Jake [Gyllenhaal] enamorada in this?" After he said he received criticism for the remark, Gibson defended his comparison between same-sex relations and torture, stating:
GIBSON: Hollywood may, in fact, want to give every Oscar it can find to the first gay cowboy movie. But I think most people do not want to go into a darkened room with a tub of popcorn and munch away watching two guys get it on. I just don't.
I had one prominent writer say he wouldn't come on my radio show because I made hate-encouraging speech when I said I couldn't figure out which was going to be harder to watch, the guys smooching in Brokeback or [former CIA operative] Bob Bear getting his fingernails ripped out in Syriana.
I said, hey, I know people who are gay. I have nothing against them, but I don't want to see this movie.
Finally, MSNBC's Tucker Carlson, who hadn't seen the movie but "heard it's good," argued on the January 17 edition of The Situation with Tucker Carlson: "[A]t some point, Hollywood should give up its mission as a kind of, you know, evangelist for a political persuasion and just shut up and make the movie."
From the December 15 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough County:
DONOHUE: Well, I heard that from other people that it is, artistically, a good movie.
So, I haven't -- going to see it. Gay cowboy doesn't interest me. I am going to go see King Kong. I suspect the people who make these kind of movies, though -- like gay cowboy -- would go to see a movie called 'The Gay Gorilla'. But that's the difference between Hollywood and mainstream.
From the January 17 edition of CNN's Larry King Live:
PARSHALL: No, I didn't see the film and I'm not at all surprised that out of seven [Golden Globe] nominations Brokeback walked away with four -- and some might say that's an indication of what the Oscar ceremonies might look like later on this year.
KING: Why would you comment on it if you haven't seen it?
PARSHALL: Well, I'm interested in all of the buzz around the film. I'm not the least bit surprised that we're hearing so much chatter. After all, I think what we're witnessing, Larry, is the homosexualizing of America.
MOHLER: I've not seen the movie, Larry, and that's a matter of decision, not just a matter of chance. Like others, I don't feel any need to see the movie. I have read the screenplay. I know the short story and, of course, I know what the movie is about because it's out there so much in the media.
That's the main issue. I am not a movie critic. I really can't speak to the cinematography. I can just speak to what the cultural meaning of this film is and why I see it as a great challenge.
KING: Didn't the short story move you at all?
MOHLER: Well, no, actually --
KING: For example, you're a reverend. Didn't you have some compassion for what happened to the younger one of the two?
MOHLER: Well, absolutely. You have to feel compassion when anyone feels pain and when anyone goes through that kind of struggle. But, you know, I really am horrified to think about where that story ended.
You know, my main concern, Larry, is not with the gospel of heterosexuality -- even though I think that's very important -- it's with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and what I find lacking in the movie, the screenplay, and in the short story is any resolution that really brings these persons to know why they were created and how God really intends them to live, and how they would find their greatest satisfaction in living just as God had intended them for his glory.
From the December 17 edition of Fox News Watch:
GABLER: Well, on the one side, Hollywood is going to say, "It's a litmus test for tolerance toward - toward homosexuals." And on the right-wing side, if indeed they take the bait, they're going to attack the movie and say, "This is another way of -- of advancing the so-called homosexual agenda."
THOMAS: Well, let me take the bait. But I won't go in the direction you're thinking of.
I've been reading the reviews on this, and they're really interesting. You compare this movie with, for example, [The Chronicles of Narnia:] The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, [Walt Disney Pictures and Walden Media, 2005] which just premiered two weeks ago, took in $67 million in its first weekend. Now, we were treated prior to the release of the Narnia movie to all kinds of columns, including by Peter Steinfeld's in The New York Times and other mainstream venues, that this had a subliminal religious message. Lock up your children! They might see Jesus! Oh my goodness, it's terrible what's going on out there. And that's the kind of coverage and reviews that they got.
This thing -- breaking new ground, a love story -- you should go see it. So the difference has an agenda attached to it.
With the way Hollywood covers religion, it is stereotypical and outrageous. The movie Saved! [MGM/United Artists Studios, 2004] was about a hypocritical, oversexed, (inaudible) kids in high school; an unbelievable bigoted thing. This thing is a -- is a wet kiss, you should pardon the expression, to the gay community.
From the January 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
JIM ANGLE (Fox News chief Washington correspondent): I'm joined by our all-star panel, with or without crystal balls, to find out what they expect to see in this coming year. Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, Mort Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call, and the syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, Fox News contributors all.
OK. 2006, Charles, what do you see?
KRAUTHAMMER: I see, number one, Fidel Castro dies. I say this not with any inside medical information as a doctor but he's actuarially due. Cuba becomes a free country and a decent one and a favorite American resort.
Number two, Iran reaches the point of no return in uranium enrichment, declares openly it's going to seek and acquire nuclear weapons. [United Nations] Security Council will do absolutely nothing.
To balance the bad news, number three, the [President Bashar Al-] Assad dictatorship in Syria will be overthrown.
And last but not least, Brokeback Mountain will have been seen in the theaters by 18 people, but the right 18, and will win the Academy Award.
ANGLE: Brokeback Mountain, the movie about gay cowboys.
From the December 14 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Okay. You know, it's interesting because the polls show that Americans are going back to church in greater numbers than they were 10 years ago. But I believe that there's a segment of Americans that have -- are rebelling against the no boundaries deal, and they're so fed up that they said, "You know, maybe there's another way," and that's why that's happening.
But in popular culture, things are getting worse. You know, I can give you -- I could sit here and give you examples all day. Let me just give you this example, and this is a controversial example. This gay cowboy movie -- and it's going to win, you know, a lot of awards all over -- and their -- the media is pushing this like crazy. And I couldn't care less about it, to tell you the truth.
I probably will not go to see it, you know, just because I don't care about gay cowboys. I mean, it's -- to be quite frank. If it were straight cowboys, I probably wouldn't go to see it. I saw a lot of cowboys when I was a little kid, I loved the cowboys then. Right now, cowboys don't really mean much to me. So, probably not going to go and see it.
But you're going to see, over the next month, this movie being pushed and pushed and pushed by every media you can imagine. Why? Because they want to mainstream homosexual conduct. That's the goal.
And from the January 17 broadcast of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: And I get a kick out of Brokeback Mountain. I get a kick -- I'm not going to go see it, because people have seen it. [Legal analyst] Lis Wiehl said it was boring. But if it were -- you know -- if I had gotten good reviews from the people I know who have seen it, I'd go. But, you know, I'm not really interested in sheep herders. They got two sheep herders and two guys, and they're in Montana. I like Montana. Or Wyoming. Maybe, they cross the border here and there. I don't know.
But they're in the tent together rolling around. It's not -- you know, to me -- I want to watch ESPN. OK. I'm not -- the pup tent rolling around -- I want to watch the highlights of the game, not the pup tent. Just me. You want to go? Go. All right.
From the December 9 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: Do you have a sense that this is a -- you know -- an agenda film, that somebody decides we got to make a movie about gay cowboys?
Which is harder to watch, the pulling out the fingernails of Syriana or Heath and Jake enamorada in this?
And the January 2 edition of The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: My Word. I've been getting no small amount of grief about the fact that I've been making fun of Brokeback Mountain, the gay cowboy movie. I've been making fun of it because it seems to me to be a movie in defiance of its audience.
I don't think it's going to be a box office hit. It will make no money, at least in Hollywood terms. I'm sure it will be a critical hit. Hollywood may, in fact, want to give every Oscar it can find to the first gay cowboy movie.
But I think most people do not want to go into a darkened room with a tub of popcorn and munch away watching two guys get it on. I just don't.
I had one prominent writer say he wouldn't come on my radio show because I made hate-encouraging speech when I said I couldn't figure out which was going to be harder to watch, the guys smooching in Brokeback or Bob Bear getting his fingernails ripped out in Syriana.
I said, hey, I know people who are gay. I have nothing against them, but I don't want to see this movie.
From the January 17 edition of MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson, which featured radio host Rachel Maddow:
CARLSON: I'm not attacking any of these pictures or shows on artistic merit. I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, but I've heard it's good. But the point is: Isn't it about time that art was made for art's sake? A; B: Is it not true that Hollywood does have completely different values than most of the rest of America and seeks to use its art to shove those values down the throats of the rest of America? That's just true, whether you agree with the values or not.
MADDOW: How is Brokeback Mountain not art for art's sake? You're saying that it was driven by a political agenda and it's -- therefore, that overwhelms its artistic achievements?
CARLSON: No, I'm actually not saying that. I haven't seen it, and I've heard its artistic achievements are impressive
CARLSON: And so, you can -- I think you can enjoy it for its own sake. I am merely saying it is used by people with a political agenda -- in this case, its own director -- to make a political point. And it just seems to me, at some point, Hollywood should give up its mission as a kind of, you know, evangelist for a political persuasion and just shut up and make the movie.
We need a liberal media. Without the moderate open-minded left, this is what we get.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Savage: "Jimmy Carter is like Hitler"
From the May 15 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: We are living through -- and I'm going to connect the dots for you rapidly -- a low-grade communist revolution in the United States of America. Let me explain. When Mao Zedong took over China, after a certain period of time, the doctors were taken out of the surgical wards and put into the laundries and made to do laundry. And the communists took the laundresses who were uneducated dolts and took them to the surgical rooms and said, "Perform surgery." When the young women who couldn't -- who before, were laundresses were told to perform surgery said, "But I don't know how to do it," they were shot as counterrevolutionaries.
What we have today as a result of affirmative action and unchecked illegal immigration is the equivalent of a socialist revolution in the United States of America, where intelligence itself is not only suspect, but intelligence itself will soon be declared racist and a trick of the white man. And so if your student works very hard -- your child works very hard and gets a straight-A average, you will hear the affirmative actioneers say, "Why, those grades mean nothing. Life experiences are what count." And the life-experience racket is how they've been able to push dummies ahead of the kid who gets straight A's.
That's how they can take submorons and make them the captain in police forces, while the white man, who gets, let's say, a 100 on a written test, is given a 50 on an oral test with an aggregate score of a 75. So a dummy who got a 50 on a written test can be given 150 with an extra grade for being not white and come up with an aggregate score of 100 and be made the white man's captain inside the police departments of the United States of America. Do you understand what I just said to you? Well, you do if you're a white man and you're in the police department.
They have a new racket. They don't call it affirmative action. The racket works like this: First, they give you a written test, which you can't cheat on. So if the white guy gets, let's say, a 98 or 100, they then give him what's called an oral exam. The oral exam is conducted preferably by a lesbian and a person of color who usually gives the white man a 30 or a 20 on the exam for not being properly communicating. [sic] Then, of course, if they get a minority in there who got a 30 or a 40 on the written exam, they give him a 100 or a 150 on the oral, and so the minority winds up with a higher aggregate score and he becomes the captain in the police department. That's called communism.
There is a hostile takeover of the United States of America by Mexico. Affirmative action is being used to purge our police departments of white males -- particularly heterosexual, Christian white males are being purged from state departments, state police departments, and from police departments. They are only putting in women -- particularly women who are not married, let's put it to you that way, in a nice delicate manner, unless they're married to a turkey baster, illegal aliens who have become citizens by nefarious means, and, of course, people of color. White males need not apply. This is all connected to the flood of illegal aliens swamping America.
From the May 16 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Israel is the canary in the mine. Tell me that Israel is not committing national suicide.
SAVAGE: The rockets are flying in, Israel does nothing, doesn't lift a hand. Israel offers to give back 93 percent of the West Bank, and Jimmy Carter, the communist, anti-American, anti-Semitic bastard that he is, comes out and says, "Israel is evil for giving back 93 percent of the West Bank. They've got to give back 100 percent." That anti-Semitic bastard.
CALLER: Unfortunately, many of our senators are in the same --
SAVAGE: Jimmy Carter is a Jew-hater through and through. Jimmy Carter is who caused worldwide Islamic terrorism to proliferate around the globe. Jimmy Carter undermined the shah of Iran. Jimmy Carter encouraged [Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini to come back from exile in Paris. As a result, Khomeini spread his Islamic poison around the globe. Jimmy Carter is a war criminal. Now, Jimmy Carter comes out and writes a letter today, and says that Israel, by giving back 93 percent of the West Bank, is being evil, it's the Jews again tricking the Palestinians. Jimmy Carter is like Hitler with the double talk on top of it all. I can't take this crap any more. Why is he even taken seriously? Why don't the Jews get up and spit in his face?
Robertson: "[I]f I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms"
From the May 8 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club:
LEE WEBB (anchor): Scientists warn that a Katrina-size hurricane would have a devastating impact on south Florida. Hurricane season, of course, begins June 1, and storm simulations from the National Hurricane Center suggest south Florida's location would make it hard to weather a monstrous storm. That's according to Knight Ridder newspapers. A Katrina-like storm could surge the deep swamps along the coastline through Miami Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and beyond. Scientists also warn such a hurricane would shut off power for months in that region, and the winds could crush roofs, office buildings, and kill residents who refuse to evacuate high-rise condominiums. Hate to hear that. I was born and raised in that area, Pat, and I'm afraid they're right. The population there has grown dramatically in the last decade alone.
ROBERTSON: It has. And, you know, I go away at the end of each year to pray, and if I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms. I think we're going to see some really serious storms. And this warning from the storm center, one of the experts in Miami is just one of them. They're talking about storms up the East Coast, and there is a very real possibility of a tsunami or serious flooding and storming in the West Coast, as well. I am sure those in New Orleans are praying that such a thing has happened to them won't happen again. But one more hard hit without those levees being set up, and New Orleans may be part of history.
From the May 17 edition of The 700 Club:
ROBERTSON: Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have felt strongly that the coasts are going to be lashed by vicious hurricanes this year. Also, there may well be something as bad as a tsunami up in the Pacific Northwest. Certainly the eastern -- or, excuse me, the Pacific plates are -- looks like they're tearing apart. There are all kinds of evidences of earthquakes, volcanoes, et cetera, going on in the Pacific. Now, if that comes our way, it's going to be devastating. So we're positioning supplies in California. We've got supplies positioned in Florida. We'll have others, and, of course, we have a major presence in the Gulf right now. We're there because we feel the Lord wants us to help people. We feel it's our duty to help the poor and the needy. And so when you contribute $20 a month to The 700 Club, you are saying, "I care about people. I care about my neighbors, I care about my friends, I care about those who are suffering." We're sending out -- we have 60 or 70 trailers right now, which is a small fleet, but we've got a number. And we're delivering 2 million pounds of food into the inner cities of America every single week. So we're looking after the poor. And some of that fleet could either be expanded or diverted so that when we get into the Gulf area or someplace else that's hurt -- we have been in Florida helping those people that last round of hurricanes. We helped those -- major, major relief effort in the Gulf. Well, that's what you do when you join The 700 Club. And we're just asking people to help, to say, "Help us to help those less fortunate."
We live in a ridiculous country.
O'Reilly blames "Mexican drug corruption" for his make-up artists mugging
From the May 17 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: You know, this immigration thing is very interesting because it -- it points out a lot of things, bigger issues that y'all should be aware of. You know, Mexico doesn't care about us. Mexico doesn't care about the United States. And, you know, it -- it -- we have to be friends with them. I mean, we just can't be enemies with them. But we're dealing with a country that is -- you know -- is so corrupt and so out of control that we -- you know -- we have to deal with them on a certain level. But we certainly can't let their corruption infect us, and it has, particularly with the drug trafficking.
You know, when you have the volume of narcotics, millions of tons of narcotics coming across the southern border -- if I'm the president of the United States -- that alone makes me put the [U.S. National] Guard on the border and not 6,000 guards. I would have 30, 40 thousand down there, because the damage that narcotics do to the fabric of society -- my makeup artist for the TV side -- I don't need makeup for radio, but some people say --
LIS WIEHL: Yeah, it would help.
O'REILLY: Yeah, thank you -- was mugged the other day; punched in the face in Greenwich Village. Now, who does that? Drug addicts desperate for money. So, this poor woman is walking down the street trying to support her little son, some guy walks up to her, punches her in the face and takes her purse. Now, nine out of 10 of these guys are drug addicts.
So, she is a victim of the Mexican drug corruption. And -- and -- and all you have to do is multiply that by 10 million and you see how all of this corruption in Mexico has infected our society. Yet, you have these pinheads in Congress -- see, they're not gonna get mugged. President Bush isn't' gonna get mugged. All right.
O'Reilly: "[U]nfair to [Hillary] Clinton"
From the May 15 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
CALLER 1: Okay, Bill, here's the situation. The White House offered to put some troops on the border is too little and too late. The solution, like the problem, has moved on. It's easy to put the troops on the border. It's also even easier to take them off the border. President Bush is not doing this for the right reasons or because he's had a change of heart about securing our border. He's doing it for political reasons and that --
O'REILLY: But, why do you care?
CALLER 1: Well, let me tell you --
O'REILLY: I mean, I don't care why he's doing it.
CALLER 1: Bill --
O'REILLY: I want him to do it so that we can get this problem under control.
CALLER 2: Bill --
O'REILLY: [caller] --
CALLER 2: I think you're talking out of both sides of -- I think you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Let me explain. Thank you for letting me come on.
CALLER 2: Bill, on the one hand, you tell us that when we talk about Hillary Clinton, she's doing things that are disingenuous, that she's just changing her position to get votes and so forth. But now that we're talking about Bush -- and we know where he really stands on the border -- not with what he's doing tonight -- you're telling us this morning, don't -- it doesn't matter where or what -- where his heart is or what's all that about, what matters is what he's actually doing. And I think it's inconsistent.
O'REILLY: All right. Well, look, my position on Hillary Clinton is, I don't know where she stands on the issues. That's my position on her. Not that she's changing her stance. I don't know where she stands. Now, let me ask you a question, [caller]. Do you know what Hillary Clinton's solution to the border is?
CALLER 2: No, I don't.
O'REILLY: OK. Rest my case. So, what I'm trying to tell you is: I really don't care why President Bush does what he does or if Hillary Clinton ever gets a border solution. I don't care why, I just want to know what, because then I can vote for her or against her. Then, I can support the Bush policy or against the policy.
See this -- this is my whole thing. I don't have any emotion invested in President Bush. I'm not a Bush-hater. I think he's done some good things, and I think I've covered the man fairly in his five years in office. I think I've been very fair to him. Now, maybe, I've been a little unfair to Mrs. Clinton. Perhaps, I have been in the past. But I will submit to you, [caller], that you don't know, I don't know, and nobody listening knows where she stands on the border, how to win the war in Iraq, oil prices. We don't know. And that, to me, you can't -- you can't be giving somebody power if you don't know.
Olbermann: "Bill O'Reilly, now and forever, today's 'Worst Person in the World' "
From the May 17 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: But the winner, oh, the psychological end is near. Bill O. explaining that The New York Times and, quote, "many far-left thinkers believe the white power structure that controls America is bad, so a drastic change is needed." Hold on. Bill, you're saying there's a white power structure that controls America and you're defending it? Does that opinion come with the sheet and the hood, or do you have to buy those separately?
Bill O'Reilly, now and forever, today's "Worst Person in the World."
Strike 3 for Bill O.
Monday, May 15, 2006
This is pretty damn funny.
Here is the Transcript:
AL GORE: "Good evening my fellow Americans. In 2000 when you overwhelmingly made the decision to elect me as your 43rd President, I knew the road ahead would be difficult. We have accomplished so much, yet challenges lie ahead.
In the last six years, we have been able to stop global warming. No one could have predicted the negative results of this. Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack. As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine. But I assure you, we will not let the glaciers win.
Right now in the second week of May 2006, we are facing perhaps the worst gas crisis in history. We have way too much gasoline! Gas is down to nineteen cents a gallon and the oil companies are hurting. I know that I am partly to blame, by insisting that cars run on trash.
I am therefore proposing a Federal bail-out to our oil companies because hey, if it were the other way around, you know the oil companies would help us.
On a positive note, we worked hard to save welfare, fix Social Security, and of course, provide the universal health care we all enjoy today. But all this came at a high cost. As I speak, the gigantic National Budget Surplus is down to a perilously low 11 trillion dollars. And don't get any ideas. That money is staying in the very successful lock box. We're not touching it. Of course, we could give economic aid to China or lend money to the Saudis again, but right now we are already so loved by everyone in the world that American tourists can't even go over to Europe anymore without getting hugged.
There are some of you would like to spend our money on some made-up war. To you I say, "what part of lockbox don't you understand?" What if there's a hurricane or a tornado? Unlikely I know, because of the anti-hurricane and tornado machine I was instrumental in helping to develop…but what if? What if the scientists are right and one of those giant glaciers hits Boston? That's why we have the lockbox.
As for immigration, solving that came at a heavy cost, and I personally regret the loss of California. However, the new Mexifornian economy is strong and El Presidente Schwarzenegger is doing a great job.
There have been some setbacks. Unfortunately, the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice Michael Moore was bitter and divisive. However, I could not be more proud of how the House and Senate pulled together to confirm the nomination of Chief Justice George Clooney.
Baseball, our national pastime, still lies under the shadow of steroid accusations. But I have faith in Baseball Commissioner George W. Bush when he says, "we will find the steroid users if we have to tap every phone in America."
In 2001, when I came into office, our national security was the most important issue. The threat of terrorism was real. Who knew that six years later, Afghanistan would be the most popular spring break destination, or that Six Flags Tehran is the fastest growing amusement park in the Mideast, and the scariest thing we Americas have to fear is … Live From New York, It's Saturday Night!"
From the May 10 broadcast of The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: What will it take to wake you up to the fact that you are being erased from the future of America? And why are you being erased? If you're a person of European descent, why do they want your child to be a minority in America? And when your little girl is a minority in America, what will happen to her? Tell me what will happen to her? Do you think that the minorities, when they take over the country, will be quite as benevolent and as enlightened as the European-Americans are today? Or do you sense that just perhaps, just maybe, they will not bring the learnings of the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, to their new power?
SAVAGE: But logic dictates that if one out of every two children under the age of five is not white that within a very short period of time, whites are being erased from America. Now, when whites become a minority in America, tell me what you think is going to happen to your grandchild? Do you think that the people who are now minorities, when they seize power, when they are the senators, when they are the congresspeople, when they are the president, and the vice president, do you think they'll be quite as enlightened as our liberal government is today? And treat the minorities, meaning then the whites, as fairly as the nonwhites are being treated today? I don't, I do not.
SAVAGE: Well, the question is, the European-American, or the white person, is being erased from America's future, and the only question is why? Now, you say, "Wait a minute. That goes past the immigration." No, it doesn't. There is a racial element to the immigration invasion, at least I see it that way. Our guest now is Congressman Tom Tancredo, a hero to many. Congressman Tancredo welcome to The Savage Nation.
TANCREDO: Thank you. It's a pleasure to join you again.
SAVAGE: Well, Tom, look, I won't drag you into my viewpoint, because it's a little different than yours, I'm sure. And a little too esoteric, I think, for this discussion. But, we all woke up yesterday and found out that the Border Patrol is actually turning over data about the Minutemen and where they're located to the Mexican government. How does this happen? How does our government turn on our own patriots?
TANCREDO: That's because everybody's got an incentive to make sure that from our side, we don't want to be embarrassed by the fact that illegal aliens are being intercepted by this volunteer group. We want to make them look incompetent or irrelevant. So, therefore, it is to -- it works to the benefit of the Department of Homeland Security to make --
SAVAGE: Wait. You mean the government doesn't want to look incompetent, right?
TANCREDO: Right. They want, they don't want the Minutemen. If the Minutemen are there and actually intercepting a lot of people coming across the border, they get a lot of press. You saw what happened when we did this at the very first. That embarrasses the hell out of Homeland Security. So, they're saying, "Well, look, if we force them to give this information, most likely the Mexican government will do what they are doing, and that is set up a perimeter and force the" --
TANCREDO: It's also wrapped up entirely in the whole idea of creating -- eventually creating an economic bloc of the United States, Mexico, Canada, and South and Central America, and that bloc will eventually replace countries. I mean, we will no longer look at ourselves as individual countries. We will just look at ourselves as just residents --
SAVAGE: Well, they can go to hell. How do you like that? They can take a hike. They can go to hell -- all of 'em. I didn't get born into this country by an immigrant to have a bunch of rich pieces of garbage tell me this is just a trading zone. Who the hell are they to do that?
TANCREDO: We are just residents. Residents of a place on the continent that's what we are. We are -- listen --
SAVAGE: Well, Tom, look, you and I are on the same exact page on this. This is an outrage. We're going lose our nation unless what? A million go to the border? One million people go to the border, what happens the next day?
TANCREDO: That's a great question and a good suggestion.
SAVAGE: No, no, let's dream together. Let us dream together. What if a million American citizens went to the border and said, "No more illegal aliens"? What would happen? Would the government finally get the message, or not?
SAVAGE: Well you know, when I was in fifth grade, I was the good kid, and I befriended a kid who was a troublemaker, and eventually I wound up a troublemaker like him. And the teacher took me aside and shook her head and said, "I've seen it every time. When a good kid and a troubled kid get together, the troubled kid never becomes the good kid -- the good kid becomes the troubled kid." We're going inherent the corrupt police of Mexico, we're going to inherent the corrupt judicial system of Mexico, we're going to inherent drug lords in America. Is that going to be the subrosa relationship here as well? Are they crazy? Don't they know what's going to happen?
TANCREDO: I think that we get pulled down far more easily than they get pulled up.
SAVAGE: Now, then, the question becomes in 20 years, what will America look like? And, what is the social landscape like? And what happens to white people? That's the real question here. Will our brown brethren, who are so nationalistic and so anti-gringo and anti-Anglo, be as enlightened as the European-American is? I don't think so. Do you?
CALLER: Can I--yes, I do, yes. Can I -- let me add this: How come the L.A. Times is so anti-Semitic?
SAVAGE: Well, I don't know. You'd have the find the specific article. But, [caller], I'm going to send you The Political Zoo [Nelson Current, April 2006], so you don't have to wait in line when I ask the question again. Why and who is behind erasing the white person from America's future? I ran into a friend of mine, Captain Phil, at the gas station today. He had the same exact answer that I do: because it will be a more malleable population when the Europeans are diminished.
From the May 11 edition of The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Madeline "Half-bright" -- a woman who didn't have the grace to disappear from the public eye. A woman not only who was distasteful physically, but is distasteful mentally.
SAVAGE: This hag, this hack, this brisket maker has the audacity to say that we should be having a dialogue with the Hitler of our time -- coming from that hag who happens to be Jewish is a triple disgrace.
Now, the bill's author is a well-known militant lesbian, Sheila Kuehl, and this is one of the chief reasons you must never elect an overt, pushy lesbian or homosexual to any office. They are obsessed with their sexuality. They will only think of their sexuality. They will only work for their sexual ends. They will not think about national security. They will only think of gay security, gay security, gay security, gay security, gay propaganda, gay propaganda, gay security, gay security. And that is why, in the past, when this country was more sane, homosexuals were not hired by the State Department, nor by the Defense Department. It was well-known what would happen.
Why don't they do the next one? Why won't they pass a law saying we have to study the contributions of junkies? That might be a nice one, because they're an underrepresented group. Like any other underrepresented group, murderers are an underrepresented group.
So, Michael Savage was born a Jew and is still hating on them. Wow, that's a special kind of hate.
From Media Matters...
From the May 11 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: Time for Countdown's latest list of nominees for "Worst Person in the World."
The bronze, Michael Cohn, an L.A. psychologist, and Alfred Rava, his attorney. They're suing the baseball team the L.A. Angels because at a Mother's Day promotion last year, the Angels gave out special tote bags to women 18 and over, but they did not give Mr. Cohn one. He's claiming discrimination, asking damages of $4,000 to each man who went to the game last year.
There's a part two. This attorney, Mr. Rava, seems to have made a hobby of this. He's been part of at least 37 lawsuits since 2003, most of them claiming discrimination because of lady nights at bars or discounted tickets to theaters for women.
The runner-up, the owners of the venerable British soccer team Arsenal and the stadium at which it has played for nearly a century, Highbury. As it moves to a new stadium, Arsenal had been selling off the seats from Highbury until it was discovered that the paint on those seats contained traces of cadmium. It is a toxic medical -- metal that, among other things, can reduce men's fertility.
But the winner, radio commentator Neal Boortz, who said that offering counseling to kids traumatized by shootings in schools was just an attempt to sell them on the idea that government is, quote, "responsible for everything." He said there should not have been counseling offered to the students at Columbine. "I had a friend," Boortz said, "that died of leukemia. Never once did they run a bunch of damned counselors into the school the next day assist me in getting my feeling out about this issue." Yeah, Neal, and look how good you turned out.
Neal Boortz, today's "Worst Person in the World."
From the May 12 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: That's ahead, but first it's time for Countdown's latest list of nominees for "Worst Person in the World." The bronze to John Gibson of Fox News Channel. He's now encouraged his viewers to quote, "Do your duty. Make more babies" because Hispanics are quote, "having more kids than others. You know what that means, 25 years and the majority of the population is Hispanic," unquote. John would have placed higher, but it's become obvious he no longer hears what he's saying, and besides which, the average age of his viewers is about 70, so this is only hypothetical eugenics.
From the May 11 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: All right, stop the music. I've got to talk. Stu, give me a topic, some butch topic I can talk about for a second, will you?This guy is like younger, more insane Rush Limbaugh.
BURGUIERE: Blowing up Iran.
BECK: Blowing up Iran. I say we nuke the bastards. In fact, it doesn't have to be Iran, it can be everywhere, anyplace that disagrees with me. Hang on just a second, is there any more [former "American Idol" contestant] Clay Aiken? Maybe we should just listen to them. We should listen to -- we should listen to the president of Iran. We should listen to President Tom [Beck's nickname for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]. And say what, what, what do you want? How can we be friends? Why can't we just all get along? Who was your favorite on American Idol, President Tom?
Friday, May 12, 2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's job approval rating has hit a new low, with 29 percent of the U.S. public saying he is doing an "excellent or pretty good job," down from 35 percent in April, according to a Harris Interactive poll in The Wall Street Journal Online.
The poll of 1,003 U.S. adults said 71 percent of Americans said Bush was doing an "only fair or poor job," up from 63 percent in April. It said the survey was conducted May 5-8 and had a 3 percent margin of error.
Well, I wonder when he will hit single digits...
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Here's the transcript from Media Matters...
As Media Matters for America noted, Coulter has previously referred to Clinton as a "very good rapist."
From the May 8 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: I always love it when my next guest is on. Former vice president Al Gore riding high, thanks to a new film about global warming. Advisors insist that Mr. Gore is not running for president, but at least one report says he's testing the waters. So, will it be Clinton versus Gore in '08? Here, now, is a somewhat conservative author, Ann Coulter. Her new book, Godless (Crown, June 2006), is due out on 6-6-06. This woman knows how to market. Anyway, Ann, good to see you
COULTER: Great to be here.
CAVUTO: What do you make of the Gore news?
COULTER: Well, one thing that was mentioned in that article -- the Clinton-Gore discomfort with one another based on Gore feeling like he lost the election because of Clinton, being tied to Clinton, and of course, the myth among the Clinton people and Democrats generally that, "Oh no, he didn't associate himself closely with Clinton enough." I mean, that really is craziness. Gore was the one running. He had lots of pollsters and they were all telling him, "This guy is -- is a weight around your neck," which is why he did everything he could to separate himself, choosing the most --
CAVUTO: But that's really hard for a veep to do.
COULTER: Right. He didn't do it enough. But what's peculiar is how you still see Democrats saying, "Oh, Gore and -- Clinton, he's so -- he's massively popular. He's like Elvis when he walks into the room." But he could never get 50 percent of the country to vote for him. And they're trying to persuade us that once the country found out he was molesting the help, oh well, then they all liked him, even though a majority wouldn't vote for him.
CAVUTO: He was not molesting the help. All right.
Monday, May 01, 2006
First, his ridiculous comments about how the Right-Wing doesn't "smear". Just look at the Media Matters homepage to see how that is completely wrong.
On the April 26 edition of The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly asserted that while "on the left, it's all about the smear," "the propagandists on the right" are "not smear merchants"; "they're not trying to smear anybody." Later in the show, a caller challenged O'Reilly's assertion, asking why O'Reilly does not consider attacks on liberals by fellow Fox News host Sean Hannity and nationally syndicated radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham to be "smear tactics." O'Reilly replied that "maybe I'm naïve," but "when I tune in to their programs, I hear ideology." O'Reilly explained that unlike liberal "smear merchants," the three conservative pundits "keep it in the issue area." Citing Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) as an example, O'Reilly stated that he's "not hearing" conservatives "try to tear him to pieces and injure him personally."In fact, in addition to O'Reilly himself, who is no stranger to making personal attacks, Media Matters for America has compiled numerous examples of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Ingraham straying from "the issue area" to attack liberals, including Kennedy.
From the April 26 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: You're going to have the propagandists on the right, primarily on the right -- now, they're not smear merchants. There's a difference. The propagandists on the right are just holding water for the oil companies, but they're not trying to smear anybody. But on the left, it's all about the smear. All about the smear, ladies and gentlemen, that's what it is.
O'REILLY: OK, we're talking about the appointment of Tony Snow. Of course, he was smeared immediately by the left-wing websites -- those despicable people who operate those. Harrisburg, PA, [caller], what say you?
CALLER: Well, I -- I'm just a little taken aback at what you're saying, Bill. Because I -- I -- it just -- you conveniently always omit the smear tactics of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, constantly. Why is that?
O'REILLY: Well, I don't see it the way you see it.
CALLER: They constantly smear the --
O'REILLY: Nah, I mean, look. I -- I see -- I hear those people all the time and I don't see any -- I don't -- I mean, look. Maybe I'm -- maybe I'm naïve. But here's my definition of a smear, [caller], so you can take it to the bank. OK?
It's taking a person like Tony Snow, who, across the board, is admired and respected, OK? Courageous guy -- wants to help this country, has a belief system that he does not make any bones about. And then you take a guy like Snow and you try to tear him to pieces. That -- that's smearing to me. OK?
Now, the three people that you mentioned are right-wing commentators, and they go after the left consistently and on a daily basis. OK. But I have to tell you, when I tune into their programs, I hear ideology. That's what I hear. And then I hear, you know, "This one's bad," but they keep it in the issue area most of the time. That's what I'm hearing. Maybe I'm missing it. But it's in the issue area.
It's not -- OK -- "Here, we have a new person for Ted Kennedy. Let's try to tear him to pieces and injure him personally." I'm not hearing that. There is one smear merchant on the right who does that and I despise him. But the rest seem to deal mostly in issues.
LINK: O'Reilly claimed right wing doesn't "smear"
Now, if you think that is ridiculous, check this out. He claims that FOX News has no "idealogical" ties. Just watch Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism or check out FoxAttacks.com to see how wrong that is.
During the April 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly stated that "some believe" Fox News "is a right-wing enterprise" but that "I work there, and I can tell you that it is not." O'Reilly claimed that it was "a fact that no newsperson at Fox News toes any kind of ideological line at all," ignoring such "newsperson[s]" as Neil Cavuto and Brit Hume, whose purported straight news shows -- Your World with Neil Cavuto and Special Report with Brit Hume-- all contain a segment or panel discussion featuring the host's often conservative commentary; White House correspondent Carl Cameron, who was caught on tape gushing about his wife's participation in President George W. Bush's 2000 election campaign; and former Fox News host Tony Snow, who recently became Bush's White House press secretary.
O'Reilly went on to assert that "if you do an analysis every day of the voices and the time given to stories and people, you'll see that liberal people get just as much time as conservative people on" Fox News.
Additionally, O'Reilly claimed there "isn't a organized right-wing cabal" because "there's nowhere to take that cabal." O'Reilly concluded: "So you could get Richard Mellon Scaife and a couple of other -- the Coors Family -- and a few other very conservative Americans to pony up money to do something on the Web or wherever. You could do that, but it's never gonna get into The New York Times. It's never gonna get on CNN. There is no funnel for it."
From the April 26 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: We need people to call out the press, which is essentially dishonest. The American press is essentially dishonest.
Now, why is it dishonest? What has happened in the press is that my generation, the baby boomers, who were brought up in the Vietnam War era, have now reached positions of responsibility in the media. And most of them, three out of four of them, are hardcore left. Hardcore, true-believer liberal. Not open-minded, not looking at each event as it comes down the pike for fair and balanced analysis. They don't do that.
Add to that that you have a very powerful far-left cabal, far-left cabal, George Soros. He's funding most of these smear sites on the left. And these guys have made inroads, inroads, particularly at NBC News. ABC and CBS kind of stay away from the smear merchants. But a few people at NBC are really right in there. They've been bought by them. And that's troubling. That's troubling.
I can tell you for a fact that no newsperson at Fox News toes any kind of ideological line at all. Commentators, that's a different story. But, you have now a smear mechanism set up that is feeding Howard Dean, and then he feeds it right out to the Democratic National Committee. And is feeding the media this garbage. This garbage. And, believe me, they don't check it out when they get it from the smear merchants. They just throw it up there. That is so dangerous, because then you can't know what the truth is.
There isn't any right-wing cabal at all in the United States, because it's fragmented. Now, there is obviously right-wing talk radio, which is very successful, and there's obviously the Fox News Channel, which some believe is a right-wing enterprise. I work there, and I can tell you it is not. And if you do an analysis every day of the voices and the time given to stories and people, you'll see that liberal people get just as much time as conservative people on the Fox News Channel, and the commentators are pretty much split down the middle on their ideological bent. So that's a bunch of garbage.
But because Fox News has been so successful, it's been demonized and branded by the far left, who can't duplicate the success, no matter what they do. But the big reason there isn't a organized right-wing cabal is because there's nowhere to take that cabal. So you could get Richard Mellon Scaife and a couple of other -- the Coors Family -- and a few other very conservative Americans to pony up money to do something on the Web or wherever. You could do that. But it's never gonna get into The New York Times. It's never gonna get on CNN. There is no funnel for it.
Whereas, in the left-wing smear press, you got a funnel for it into a lot of different areas. And we're gonna expose that continually in the next few months -- which mainstream media people are in bed with the smear left-wing sites.
LINK: O'Reilly opined on why Fox News is not "a right-wing enterprise"
Welcome to the Spin Zone.
Watch the video...
VIDEO / LINK: Colbert Roasts President Bush - 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner
You can read the transcript here...
It is worth a viewing. I'm speechless.