Newsbusters has the proof.

While liberals like Marty Kaplan of the Huffington Post have hailed NBC’s boasting usage of “civil war” as the end of “the neo-Stalinist era of American political discourse,” some might ask if NBC hasn’t been gingerly with other politically sensitive terms.

We’ve all likely heard about NBC’s Matt Lauer’s bold declaration that the violence happening in Iraq is a civil war. Nevermind the fact that the Pentagon says that it isn’t. It isn’t unreasonable to say that it’s hotly disputed. Compare that with this:

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked on Monday’s NBC Nightly News: “What is Hezbollah and what is its end game?” Mitchell first answered that “experts say to prove it can damage Israel in ways Arab countries couldn’t.” But then she proceeded to refer to “Hezbollah’s charismatic leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah,” also describing him as “a Shiite populist” who she relayed, over video of kids, “provides social services where Lebanon’s weak new government cannot.” Mitchell refrained from labeling Hezbollah as “terrorist”, or mentioning how its real “end game” is the destruction of Israel, going no further than to say it “operates militias.”

Nasrallah is a terrorist and Hezbollah wants Israel wiped off the face of the earth. Hezbollah, of course, is funded in large part by Ahmadinejad, who also wants Israel wiped off the face of the earth. Would Mitchell, who used to be a good reporter, say that Ahmadinejad funds militias, the most prominent of which is al-Sadr’s Mahdi army? Would she describe Ahmadinejad as “Iran’s charismatic leader”? Based on her reporting on Nasrallah, there’s a possibility that she might.

Technorati Tags: Nasrallah, Hezbollah, Iran, Ahmadinejad, Media Bias

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

So, let’s be honest: What demographic watches this show? Maybe that explains why they vote accordingly.

Danny DeVito showed up drunk on ABC’s trash-talk TV show The View to discuss, of all things, an upcoming Christmas holiday movie. But all he managed to get out was this:

During the broadcast, DeVito, 62, slurred his words, told rambling stories and at one point sat on Rosie O’Donnell’s lap. After admitting he’d been out with Clooney all night, he told the show’s co-hosts with a wry smile, “I knew it was the last seven limoncellos that was going to get me.”

DeVito then proceeds to reminisce about the Clinton daze, before mocking President Bush with all the animation you’d expect from a drunken actor who hangs out with George Clooney, Woody Harrelson and Ted Danson. As if the intoxication of their self-importance weren’t enough.

People Magazine has the full story. Or watch the video here:

(Hat tip: RightPundits)

Who says Hollywood sets a bad example? Or maybe it’s just Britney Spears. (Warning: linking to Hollywood values)*

UPDATE: (12/1)
*Michelle Malkin offers some lessons in modesty…

Foreign policy is often picking the lesser of two evils.

In May 2006, the Washington Post reported: “U.S. officials have declined to directly address on the record the question of backing Somali warlords, who have styled themselves as a counterterrorism coalition in an open bid for American support. Speaking to reporters recently, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States would “work with responsible individuals . . . in fighting terror. It’s a real concern of ours — terror taking root in the Horn of Africa. We don’t want to see another safe haven for terrorists created. Our interest is purely in seeing Somalia achieve a better day.”

“U.S. officials have long feared that Somalia, which has had no effective government since 1991, is a desirable place for al-Qaeda members to hide and plan attacks. The country is strategically located on the Horn of Africa, which is only a boat ride away from Yemen and a longtime gateway to Africa from the Middle East. No visas are needed to enter Somalia, there is no police force and no effective central authority.”

But those concerns are not for the media which prefers to take sides, stir controversy, and sell news.

It appears that those U.S. officials who worried about terrorism rising up in the region predicted the consequences with bitter accuracy.

Today, AP reports: “Al-Qaida militants are operating with ‘great comfort’ in Somalia, providing training and assistance to a radical military element loyal to the Islamic group that controls most of southern Somalia, a senior State Department official said Wednesday.”

Why? It’s called diplomacy vs. taking military action.
(continue reading post »)

ABCNews is reporting that “U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories.” My first question is “Where was this type of reporting before the election?”

According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006. This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. “There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval,” says a senior official.

I guess that that puts to rest what little credibility Old Mahmoud’s letter had left about they “greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that Ahmadinejad couldn’t care less about justice or equity or about defending the innocent.

In fact, this proof tells us the exact opposite. It tells us that he’s perfectly willing to fund the violence that’s killing thousands of Iraqis just to prevent them from establishing a legitimate government that would be a counter to his government.

Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq’s growing Shia militias from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran. Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah. (continue reading post »)

That’s another misleading headline but what’s new, right? Here’s the real story:

The City Council here voted late Tuesday to ban certain giant retail stores, dealing a blow to Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s potential to expand in the nation’s eighth-largest city. The measure, approved on a 5-3 vote, prohibits stores of more than 90,000 square feet that use 10 percent of space to sell groceries and other merchandise that is not subject to sales tax. It takes aim at Wal-Mart Supercenter stores, which average 185,000 square feet and sell groceries.

Mayor Jerry Sanders will veto the ban if the Council reaffirms it on a second vote, which will likely happen in January, said mayoral spokesman Fred Sainz. The Council can override his veto with five votes. “What the Council did tonight was social engineering, not good public policy,” Sainz said.

In other words, the San Diego City Council is voting against middle class and working poor voters but the mayor will defend these people from the politicians.

That’s the real story to this article.

UPDATE:
Blonde Sagacity is going to start shopping…

Technorati Tags: Walmart, Democrats

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

This morning’s Washington Post reports that Democrats have set a record in breaking a major campaign promise even before they assume control. That’s never happened before, to the best of my recollection.

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

Actually, they’ve broken two campaign promises with one inaction. Democratic candidates promised more vigorous oversight and they promised to implement the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations. I’m guessing that the Democrats are only interested in oversight if it’s able to criticize Halliburton or the Patriot Act and the like. It’s obvious that they aren’t the least bit interested in oversight into truly important matters. (continue reading post »)

That’s the abridged version of Newsweek’s Richard Wolffe’s and Holly Bailey’s article. Here’s some of the details from their article:

You could be forgiven for thinking there was something big in the works. President Bush is holding a three-way summit in the Middle East. Washington’s political insiders are swapping leaks about forthcoming studies on Iraq. Even the network news anchors are flying halfway across the world. So the White House is ready to change course in Iraq, right?
Not quite. The president and his senior staff arrived in Amman, Jordan, on Wednesday with a deep sense of discontent about the direction of Iraq. But that doesn’t translate into a major course correction, no matter what the pundits, or the Democrats, or James Baker’s study group, suggest. Somewhere between Stay the Course and Reverse Course lies Bush’s new approach. Call it Adjust the Course.

To their credit, I think Wolffe and Bailey get that right. People who expected President Bush to get railroaded by Jim Baker’s report were discounting President Bush’s determination to actually defeat the terrorists in Iraq. While it’s true that there will be some major adjustments made, those adjustments don’t include a John Murtha-styled cut and run policy or a Barack Obama-styled cut and walk policy. Rather, it’s about President Bush telling Nouri al-Maliki that he needs to crush the violence instead of cozying up to Muqtada al-Sadr.

So Bush’s goal in Amman is not to deliver an ultimatum to Maliki or to get tough with him. Instead of isolating Maliki, Bush’s message will be that he and the Iraqi prime minister are in this hole together.

The ultimatums won’t come from the Bush administration. Many of them will come from tough-talking Democrats who voted against the war. Other ultimatums will come from Democrats who think that their regaining the majority was a mandate for their pacifist policies. (continue reading post »)

It’s stunning to listen to Ahmadinejad’s longwinded rant. He can’t expect Americans to believe him because it’s the type of rant that only the most delusional people could believe. Here’s one of the biggest whoppers:

While Divine providence has placed Iran and the United States geographically far apart, we should be cognizant that human values and our common human spirit, which proclaim the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings, have brought our two great nations of Iran and the United States closer together.

If you’re going to parse Old Mahmoud’s words, it’s important to remember that he thinks of Jews as the descendants of apes and pigs; therefore, they aren’t humans. Therefore, in his mind, he isn’t contradicting himself when (a) he says that Israel must be wiped from the face of the earth and that (b) he talks about the “exalted worth of all human beings.” It’s important to know that he’s hoping that we won’t put those things together. He’s hoping that a few politicians ignore his hatred and instead pressure President Bush into having a conference that wouldn’t accomplish anything.

Both greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies.

I’m not holding my breath waiting for the Western press to ask how Ahmadinejad works toward “securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent.” (continue reading post »)

AP reports: “Federal authorities said Wednesday they arrested six illegal immigrants who had security badges that gave them access to the tarmac and other restricted areas at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.”

Yet another example of why the U.S. needs to escalate efforts to defend the border and apply stricter enforcement of our (existing) laws to stop illegal immigration. As many critics have pointed out, Mexico is the next gateway for terrorism. The only thing the Taliban needs is to learn a little español.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested the men, all Mexicans employed by T.C. Drywall Inc., as they reported to work at the airport Wednesday, agency spokesman Marc Raimondi said.

Immigration officials said the men had been hired recently to install drywall inside the airport’s secure area.

Evidently, not as secure as it should be. Learn from it.

UPDATE: (12/1)
LaShawn Barber blows the whistle for DHS. Read more.
Ironic Surrealism examines “trashing the border”
How do the environmentalists feel about this?

America is increasingly accepting the notion of a “cut and run” response to Islamic terrorism. Post-election talk on Capitol Hill, from both sides of the aisle, focuses ever more on the notion that America ought to simply accept the “futility” of the Iraq situation and sound “retreat.” It has been done before, and the country survived, so why not now?

In certain respects, America did indeed back away from its frontal opposition to Communism when it pulled out of Southeast Asia in 1972. And while that action was followed by genocide in Vietnam and Cambodia, those leftists who had caterwauled incessantly over the dozens of Vietnamese who had been killed in My Lai, suddenly reverted to absolute indifference over the millions who were slaughtered in that region after America had abandoned them.

Moreover, the waving of the white flag across the Pacific was not followed by North Vietnamese tanks rolling through the streets of America, purges of anti-Communist “dissidents,” or the establishment of a Gulag on our soil. So, in the eyes of the anti-war protestors, nothing bad came from the defeat.

In truth, this nation kept up its valiant fight against Soviet Communism, though it had to do so on a different front. And within a generation of the Vietnam debacle, the USSR collapsed in the face of Ronald Reagan’s resolve, and much of the danger it posed to the United States substantially faded.

Unfortunately, those on the left took the absolute wrong message from the events, as they invariably do. Since the advances and retreats of the Cold War unfolded in a theater that was far removed from the common citizen, liberals were afforded the luxury to bask in their ignorance. Thus they naively presumed that their fawning “peacenik” philosophies had won the day. (continue reading post »)