Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

The most recent update is at the bottom of the article.

On Wednesday, a dear friend of mine sent me an e-mail about donating to “Susan G. Komen for the Cure” to help fight breast cancer.  She has a friend who has breast cancer, so she’s doing a walk for that organization.  I e-mailed her back telling her that I couldn’t help her with her cause because of the links between Komen and Planned Parenthood.  It turns out that, on their website, Komen has dedicated a page and several PDF’s to soften their Planned Parenthood link and to out-rightly dismiss scientific studies that link breast cancer with abortion.

I read the letter from Komen’s Chief Scientific Advisor Eric Winer that tries to downplay Komen’s relationship with Planned Parenthood.  That is exactly what he is trying to do.  The first three paragraphs don’t even deal with the subject, but promote their own “good nature”.

The best, or worst depending on how you look at it, line in the entire letter is “As part of our financial arrangements, we monitor our grantees twice a year to be sure they are spending the money in line with our agreements, and we are assured that Planned Parenthood uses these funds only for breast health education, screening and treatment programs.” (emphasis mine)

First off, they freely admit to giving money to Planned Parenthood!  If you had any doubts, there it is from Dr. Winer, himself, with no coverup.  His statement is naive at best and downright idiotic at worst.  This is like saying someone donates to the KKK, but it’s OK because they assure us they only use it for cake and punch, or they give money to neo-nazis, but that is also OK because they assure us they only use it for prostate exams.  This definitely reads more like some bad joke than what Dr. Winer believes, but, alas, it is true.  Even if they only used the money for cancer screenings, that means they don’t have to use their existing funds for those screenings, giving them even more resources to fund their abortions, contraception, “education”, and advertising.  If you donate to Komen, part of that, without a doubt, goes directly to Planned Parenthood.  Dr. Winer makes that unashamedly clear.

Nancy Brinker, who founded the Susan G. Komen Foundation, was, herself, on the advisory board of Planned Parenthood of Dallas, and has received the Gertrude Shelburne Humanitarian Award from them. Between April 2005 and March 2006, Komen affiliates gave $711,485 to Planned Parenthood.

After learning about the link between Planned Parenthood and Komen, Council Board member Eve Sanchez-Silver resigned.  She has gone around the country giving talks about Komen and the link between breast cancer and abortion.

Dr. Winer goes on to say that Catholics approve of the Komen foundation.  Well, some may, but many have issued statements against Komen and warned their congregations about participating with them.  Catholics also voted for Barack Obama, who is the most liberal, pro-abortion President in our nation’s history.  Several Cardinals have called for Obama voters to abstain from Communion until they repent for voting for him.

Dr. Winer also repeats their mantra of denying the link between abortion and breast cancer and that studies contradict other studies that confirm the link. A group dedicated to informing women about the abortion-breast cancer link is the Coalition On Abortion/Breast Cancer.  They have information specifically dedicated to abortion’s link to breast cancer including information about cancer fundraising groups’ dismissal of the link.

Life Issues Institute also has more information about the ABC link, such as information specifically about Susan G. Komen for the Cure and medical institutes that DO recognize the ABC link.

From the Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer FAQ:

20) I know that abortion industry experts concede that women who have abortions lose the risk-reducing benefit of childbearing. However, apart from that effect, aren’t there studies showing that an abortion raises risk very little or not at all, in comparison to not having had that pregnancy?

Yes. There are several studies that report these results.  Unfortunately, when you read about it in the press, journalists often don’t understand the differences between the two cancer risks of abortion.

For instance, Valerie Beral and her colleagues published a paper in the British journal Lancet in 2004 that has been widely used to convince women that abortion is “safe.” [31]

The Beral paper only examined the debated breast cancer risk.  Its authors conceded the recognized risk of abortion – that childbearing protects women from the disease.

“Unfortunately, misinformation has circulated in the media following an article published last year in the British medical journal The Lancet,” noted Andrew Schlafly, General Counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.  “The article did not deny that increased abortions result in greater incidence of breast cancer.  Rather, the article merely claimed that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer, compared to the risk of someone who delayed pregnancy altogether.” [21]

Four experts, independently of one another, sharply criticized the Beral paper. [21,32,33,34,35]  Some of the criticisms include:

1) Beral et al. did not compare groups of women who were physiologically the same.  They should have compared pregnant women who aborted to pregnant women who carried their pregnancies to term.  Instead, they compared the effect of aborting with the effect of not having had that pregnancy. Pregnancy brings about permanent changes in the structure of the breasts. Pregnant women who choose abortion should be compared to pregnant women who give birth after a full term pregnancy.

2) Twenty-eight out of 52 studies (a majority of the research) contained unpublished abortion data. That means that scientists cannot double-check those studies to determine if they’re flawed or if the research is even relevant.  Women just have to take their word for it.

3) Beral et al. used unscientific reasons to exclude 14 peer-reviewed, published studies that reported risk increases for women who had abortions.

Ed Furton, MA, Ph.D., editor of the journal, Ethics and Medics, severely criticized the Beral paper.  He said:

“The Beral study is therefore cause for alarm.  When a leading scientific journal allows its pages to be used as a political platform, and sets aside objective standards of scientific research, we must begin to wonder whether the spirit of (Jacques) Derrida has infected even scientific discourse….

“Picking conclusions ahead of time, and arranging the evidence to support them, will only serve to undermine the respect that scientific inquiry deserves….

“The unwillingness of scientists to speak out against the shoddy research that is being advanced by those who deny the abortion-breast cancer link is a very serious breach…

“When the public learns that a causal link between abortion and breast cancer has been downplayed by the scientific community – for reasons that are ideological rather than factual – the feeling of betrayal will be strong.” [34]

Professor Joel Brind at Baruch College in New York concurs with Ed Furton.  He has documented widespread bias in the scientific community against the abortion-breast cancer link. In a major paper for the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, he cited flawed research that is being used in press reports to erase any notions in the public mind that abortion is unsafe. [32]

In a subsequent paper for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published in 2005, Brind reviewed ten recent, prospective studies and concluded that they are seriously flawed.  He wrote:

“Collectively, these studies are found to embody many serious weaknesses and flaws, including cohort effects, substantial misclassification errors due to missing information in databases, inadequate follow-up times, inadequately controlled effects of confounding variables, and frank violations of the scientific method.  These recent studies therefore do not invalidate the large body of previously published studies that established induced abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.” [35]

Although these studies have been criticized in a medical journal for their flaws, the abortion industry and the cancer fundraising industry use them to convince women of the safety of abortion.  These studies include:

Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olson JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen K, Andersen PK. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:81-85.

Lazovich D, Thompson JA, Mink PJ, Sellers TA, Anderson KE. Induced abortion and breast cancer risk. Epidemiology 2000;11:76-80.

Tang NC, Weiss NS, Malone KE. Induced abortion in relation to breast cancer among parous women: A birth certificate registry study. Epidemiology 2000;11:177-80.

Goldacre MJ, Kurina LM, Seagroatt V, Yeates. Abortion and breast cancer: a case-control record linkage study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:336-337.

Ye Z, Gao DL, Qin Q, Ray RM, Thomas DB. Breast cancer in relation to induced abortions in a cohort of Chinese women. Br J Cancer 2002;87:977-981.

Newcomb PA, Mandelson MT. A record-based evaluation of induced abortion and breast cancer risk (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2000;11:777-781.

Erlandsson G, Montgomery S, Cnattingius S, et al. Abortions and breast cancer: Record-based case-control study. Int J Cancer 2003;103:676-679.

Paoletti X, Clavel-Chapelon F, E3N group. Induced and spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk: Results from the E3N cohort study. Int J Cancer 2003;106:270-276.

Brewster D, Stockton D, Dobbie R, Bull D, Beral D. Risk of breast cancer after miscarriage or induced abortion: a Scottish record linkage case-control study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2005;59:283-287.

Palmer J, Wise L, Adams-Campbell LL, Rosenberg L. A prospective study of induced abortion and breast cancer in African-American women. Cancer Causes and Control 2004;15:105-111.

For more information, see Dr. Brind’s review article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons at: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf

In 2007, Patrick Carroll, a British statistician and actuary, reported that abortion is the “best predictor” of breast cancer rates in eight European countries (including the U.K.), and fertility is also a useful predictor of those trends. [39,40] Carroll demonstrated that he could predict future breast cancer cases for England and Wales for the years 2003 and 2004 with nearly 100% accuracy by using abortion rates and, to a lesser extent, fertility rates in his mathematical model.

They also state:

ESTROGEN – THE “SMOKING GUN”

Most of the risk factors associated with breast cancer involve estrogen overexposure. Women who experience more menstrual cycles are exposed to higher levels of estradiol, a form of estrogen, over the course of their lifetimes. Women who reach puberty at an early age or menopause at a late age or who have fewer or no children, experience more menstrual cycles. Ergo, they are known have a higher risk of breast cancer. Women who have more children and who nurse them, on the other hand, experience fewer menstrual cycles and reduce their risk of breast cancer by doing so. Similarly, a low fat diet and avoidance of alcohol reduce a woman’s exposure to estrogen.

Estrogen is a secondary carcinogen. It promotes the growth of normal and abnormal tissue. In fact, estrogen replacement therapy, which is generally the same chemical form as the estrogen naturally produced by a woman’s ovaries, was included on our nation’s list of known carcinogens in 2001.

For an exhaustive explanation of estrogen’s role in the promotion of breast cancer, see the Web Site for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute at and click on “The Estrogen Connection,” www.BCPInstitue.org.


Biological Explanation for the Link

The explanation for the independent link makes good biological sense. It remains unrefuted and unchallenged by scientists because it is physiologically correct.

A never-pregnant woman has a network of primitive, immature and cancer-vulnerable breast cells which make up her milk glands. It is only in the third trimester of pregnancy – after 32 weeks gestation – that her cells start to mature and are fashioned into milk producing tissue whose cells are cancer resistant.

When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called “proliferation.” By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.

If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called “differentiation” takes place. Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk producing tissue. It shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.

If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated — and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells — than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.

In contrast, research has shown that most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. This is due to a lack of estrogen overexposure. Miscarriages are frequently precipitated by a decline in the production of progesterone which is needed to maintain a pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone, so the levels of each hormone rise and fall together during pregnancy.

For a thorough biological explanation of the abortion-breast cancer link, see this second website for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, www.BCPInstitute.org and click on its online booklet, “Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention.”


EPIDEMIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

The first epidemiological study was reported in an English language journal in 1957. Researchers found a 160% elevation in risk among women who’d obtained abortions. [Segi M., et al. GANN (1957); 48 (Suppl): 1-63]

The first study to examine the abortion-breast cancer link among American women was published in 1981 and reported that abortion “appears to cause a substantial increase in risk of subsequent breast cancer.” A 140% risk elevation was reported. [Pike MC et al., British Journal of Cancer (1981;43:72-6]

Howe et al. 1989, the only statistically significant study conducted on American women in which medical records of abortion were used, not interviews after the fact, reported a 90% increased risk of breast cancer among women in New York who had chosen abortion. [Howe et al. (1989) Int J Epidemiol 18:300-4]

Our bar graphs reveal the relative risk found for each epidemiological study. These graphs were developed for our website by Chris Kahlenborn, M.D., author of the book, Breast Cancer, Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill.

Let me give you the simple version of how the ABC works:

When a women has her monthly cycle, her breasts fill with a cancer causing toxin (estrogen). When she becomes pregnant, her cycle stops for the 9-month period. That in itself has always been an indisputable key factor to lowering breast cancer. The earlier a woman completes a full-term pregnancy, the better, and the more children, the better. Breastfeeding also helps stave off breast cancer.  But in addition, when a pregnancy is suddenly aborted, breasts that were preparing to nourish a baby are left with more undifferentiated, i.e., cancer-vulnerable cells, than before she was pregnant. The fact is, abortion can increase a woman’s risk factor up to 160%!

Update: 7/19/11


LifeSiteNews.com has published an article now detailing that Komen has been granting money for embryonic stem cell research.  The evidence comes from Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.

Now, Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer has spent time examining Komen’s 990 Forms for the IRS for 2010 and she found that Komen has active relationships with at least five research groups or educational facilities that engage in embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of unborn children in their earliest days for stem cells that have yet to help any patients.

Komen is careful in its documents to state that none of the funds directly support embryonic stem cell research, saying in its Group Return for 2010 under a section entitled “Grant Statement” that “While Komen affiliates do not fund research grants directly, a portion of the funds raised by every Komen affiliate (approximately 25%) go to support the research and training grants program at Komen’s International Headquarters.”

The return shows donations from Komen totaling $3.75 million to Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, $4.5 million to the University of Kansas Medical Center, $1 million to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, $1 million to the Society for Women’s Health Research, and $600,000 to Yale University.

Looking at those institutions, Yale not only engages in embryonic stem cell research but, in 2006, came under federal investigation for apparently mismanaging federal stem cell research grants. Also, a Johns Hopkins researcher also came under fire in December 2008 for trashing peer-reviewed research showing abortion’s link to negative mental health issues and problems for women. And the National Cancer Institute has been repeatedly blasted by pro-life advocates for denying the abortion-breast cancer link exists.

“Komen’s Parent Return for 2010 shows that millions of dollars in grants were given to research facilities that have policies supporting experiments on human embryos,” Malec says, adding that the list of schools is only a partial list of the facilities engaging in embryonic research that received grants.

Recent statements from the Catholic Bishop of Toledo, the Most Reverend Leonard Blair, bring up both abortion and the potential of Komen indirectly supporting embryonic research as reasons for Catholics to have misgivings about the breast cancer group. Malec says the statements from Bishop Blair “suggest that local Komen officials may have misled him and his associates with respect to the organization’s practices involving experiments on human embryos.”

“They are open to embryonic stem cell research and may well fund such research in the future,” the bishop noted.

Combined with the millions in donations to the nation’s biggest abortion business, Komen says the new information about the Komen ties to embryonic stem cell research centers makes it so the breast cancer group is not worthy of support. She says Komen needs to be honest with women about the abortion-breast cancer connection.

“It’s more than ironic that Planned Parenthood receives contributions from an organization allegedly dedicated to the eradication of breast cancer,” Malec says. “Abortion and the birth control pill – which Planned Parenthood sells – are risk factors for the disease. It’s certainly bad for business to tell women the truth about the abortion-breast cancer link. Knowledge of that risk would cause some to turn their backs on induced abortion and cut into Planned Parenthood’s profits.”

“On the other hand, warning women about the breast cancer risk of abortion would mean fewer breast cancer patients and, therefore, a reduction in donations for Komen. Telling donors that their previous abortions may have been responsible for their breast cancers is simply not a good fundraising tactic,” she concludes.

Before anyone starts formulating their arguments: does this mean that everyone who gets an abortion will get breast cancer?  No.  Did everyone with breast cancer have an abortion in the past?  No.  Does having an abortion increase the risk of breast cancer.  Undeniably, yes.

This is the simple truth:  Susan G. Komen for the Cure gives money and resources to Planned Parenthood.  That alone should give you cause for great concern, but they also deny critical information to women about the link between abortions and breast cancer.

If you support Susan G. Komen for the Cure, congratulations, you help support abortion.

Helpful Information: Fact Sheet by Life Issues Institute Linking Susan G. Komen with Planned Parenthood
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
Jill Stanek’s Blog
Life Issues Institute
OneNewsNow Reports On The Komen/Planned Parenthood Link

Read Full Post »

A quote from Norman Mattoon Thomas, six-time Presidential candidate of the Socialist Party of America:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.”

He went on to say, “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

Related Posts: An Experiment On Socialism

Read Full Post »

WorldNetDaily is reporting that CNN is trying to remove copies of a video by FoundingBloggers.com that shows the crowd’s response to the report that CNN’s Susan Roesgen filed during the Chicago TEA Party.

Scrubbed! CNN yanking tea party ’embarrassment’

Demands YouTube remove video of fed-up citizens berating reporter


Posted: April 19, 2009
7:40 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Screenshot of CNN’s copyright claim status on YouTube video

Cable television news network CNN has attempted to block a video on YouTube.com that shows “tea party” protesters in Chicago confronting the network’s reporter Susan Roesgen over her allegedly biased and “not fair” coverage of the event.

Members of Founding Bloggers.com were on hand to videotape the crowd’s response to Roesgen’s report, in which she badgered protesters on air, summarizing her report by describing the tea party as “anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right-wing, conservative network Fox.”

Roesgen’s report included arguments with the tea partiers, tossing out contrary positions and demanding her subjects justify their positions, as well as an antagonistic interview with a protester whose sign read, “Obama is a fascist.”

“That’s not representative of most of the people out here,” charged an unidentified woman after the CNN cameras were turned off. Confronting Roesgen, she added, “You are not talking to regular, mainstream people; you picked people to talk to. … We’ve watched what you’ve been doing here, and it’s not fair.”

The man Roesgen had been interviewing right before CNN’s coverage stopped was also captured by the Founding Bloggers camera, saying, “We don’t have any respect for CNN, because it doesn’t respect us.”

When the blog posted the video on YouTube – showing a portion of Roesgen’s report, followed by its own footage – however, the clip was scrubbed and replaced with the message, “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Cable News Network, Inc.”

Want to know how to fight back against grossly biased news coverage? Get “Media Revolution: A Battle Plan to Defeat Mass Deception in America.”

Founding Bloggers contends its use of the CNN footage in its video falls under fair use guidelines, and it re-posted the film, which can be seen below – or, should it be removed from YouTube again, can be viewed at the website of KXMB-TV in Bismarck, N.D.

Editor’s note: The following video includes an instance of strong profanity.

News of CNN squelching the video in a copyright claim, despite the majority of the video consisting of original Founding Bloggers material, quickly spread through the blogosphere.

“It is hard to avoid the inference that in this case,” writes John H. Hinderaker of the Power Line blog. “CNN was motivated not by a desire to protect its intellectual property but by a desire to avoid embarrassment caused by the unprofessional performance of its reporter.”

“Obviously we hit a nerve with CNN because they forced YouTube to pull the video down, along with all of the comments people posted,” Founding Bloggers responded. “We are in the process of consulting our Founding Bloggers legal team to decide if we are going to file a counter claim against CNN. We believe that we are well within our rights under fair use, but we are not attorneys so….we’ll see.”

Ben Sheffner of the blog Copyrights and Campaigns, however, is an attorney who has served as a copyright advisor to NBC Universal, Fox and the John McCain campaign.

“CNN does own copyright in its own news footage and, as a general matter, has the right to demand its removal from YouTube,” Sheffner writes on his blog. “However, as to this particular video, I think Founding Bloggers has a very strong fair use defense. The purpose for Founding Bloggers’ posting of the CNN footage is crystal clear: to comment on and criticize CNN’s reporting on the ‘Tea Party.’ Such a use is right in the heartland of the fair use doctrine; the statute specifically mentions ‘criticism, comment, [and] news reporting’ as protected uses that are ‘not an infringement of copyright.'”

Sheffner adds, “Many fair use cases are difficult, close calls – but, given the facts as I know them, this is an easy one. … I’m surprised CNN made this claim in the first place.”

WND attempted to contact CNN for comment, but no one was available to speak during weekend hours.

Related Posts: TEA Party Turnout Estimated Around One Million
No Suprise: Mainstream Media Devolves Into Childish Humor Over TEA Parties
TEA Party Images

Media Covers Anti-Prop 8 Activists, Dismisses TEA Parties

Read Full Post »

WorldNetDaily reports that filmmaker John Zeigler was arrested at the University of Southern California campus after he tried ask questions about Katie Couric; she was there to receive the Cronkite award for her role in getting Obama elected as U.S. President 44.

Questions about Couric get filmmaker cuffed

Inquiring about Cronkite honoree not ‘legitimate purpose,’ officer says


Posted: April 17, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The producer of the film “Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected” was handcuffed and thrown off the campus of the University of Southern California for asking questions outside the hall where network anchor Katie Couric was to receive an award for her role in the presidential campaign.

Filmmaker John Zeigler went to the USC campus where Couric was given the Cronkite award this week by the Annenberg journalism school

Zeigler is not unfamiliar with the Couric’s work, having made a documentary that highlighted the news anchor’s interviews with GOP vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin.

It was for those interviews that Couric was given the award.

In a video created by Orange County Films and posted on breitbart.tv, Zeigler is shown asking questions about the award. He then is seen challenging police who accuse him of blocking access to the building. Finally, after being told that he is not qualified as “media” and in trouble because he did not stay where “media” members were supposed to be, he is escorted off campus.

In the interim, he was handcuffed tightly enough to leave deep marks on his wrist.

According to a statement from the film company, Ziegler wanted to ask questions about Couric and give away copies of his film. But, the company’s report said, he “was literally prevented from doing so.”


Filmmaker John Zeigler talking with police

“He did not go there hoping for or expecting any sort of confrontation, especially with law enforcement. He was simply shocked and horrified by what happened there, as should every freedom loving American. He did absolutely nothing wrong and was handcuffed, detained and literally abused by law enforcement at the event,” the company said.

“The video speaks for itself,” the company said.

“I’m not allowed, authorized to give a comment,” said Alex Boukelheide, a spokesman at the Annenberg center, when contacted by WND.

He referred callers to James Grant, a university spokesman, who insisted on having questions submitted by e-mail, which WND did. There was no further response.

“You can cut the irony with a knife here,” Zeigler said while being confronted by security officers.

The officers told him he could not be there because he was not there for a “legitimate purpose,” such as going to class or attending an event.


Officers handcuffing filmmaker for asking questions on a University of Southern California sidewalk

“I’m now being handcuffed for standing on a sidewalk asking questions,” he said. “Asking questions about an awards ceremony on journalism excellence. You can’t get more ironic than this.”

At one point in the video, several unidentified suited men are standing near the entrance to the building, and Zeigler shouts to them. “This is what journalism has become! This says it all right here!”

“I’m every bit as much a journalist as Katie Couric is,” he said. “I’m not a protester.”

While he is being physically detained in handcuffs with officers at each arm, he notes that he’s now seven feet from where he was arrested.

“Over there, breaking the law. Over here, not breaking the law,” he said, and as the camera pans around in a circle to reveal virtually empty sidewalks, streets and yards, he suggests, “You can see there’s a lot of people here that I’m blocking the path, causing quite a bit of commotion.”

The officers later tell him he’s in trouble because he’s not official media and then tell him he’s in trouble because he wouldn’t stay where the media was designated to stay.

Another official, whose face was not revealed, tells Zeigler that the campus is private property.

According to a school website article by Kirstin Heinle, Couric “made the trip to Los Angeles, taking time from her position as anchor and managing editor for the CBS Evening News to accept her award for ‘Special Achievement for National Impact on the 2008 Campaign.'”

The writer said Couric was honored for “her interviews with Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin.”

“At the podium, Couric told the audience she went to great lengths to be unbiased in her interviews, focusing on every facial expression and body position,” Heinle wrote.

“My goal was to be a conduit, to allow her a chance to express her issues and let the viewers decide for themselves,” Couric said, according to the report.

Zeigler previously released “Blocking ‘The Path to 9/11,'” which documented ABC’s editing of a television series about the U.S. government’s mistakes prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

On the Breitbart.tv site, some forum participants supported him: “Mr. Zeigler has now been declared a ‘right-wing extremist,’ and has been added to our database of potential terrorists. He has also been red-flagged, and may receive a visit from the I.R.S. later this year,” said one with irony. “Have a nice day John.”

“WOW, this is not what this age 68-year-old Navy veteran expects to see on a college campus at USC. Obviously a guy in a gray suit with a mic is threatening to California journal(ism) education. Handcuffs and physical torture by police is what my grandchildren can expect on a campus…!” said another.

Another was more critical of Zeigler’s actions, labeling them disturbing the peace and resisting arrest. The writer’s solution? “Haul this dope off to the lockup, keep him there as long as you can, and smash the camera.”

Still another lambasted Couric herself, not addressing the police actions or Zeigler’s behavior.

“Why is Katie Couric getting an award for anything?”

Read Full Post »

WorldNetDaily reports that the estimated turnout for the over 1,000 TEA parties held on Tax Day is about 1 million.

1 million attend tea parties in 50 states

‘Obama has awakened a sleeping giant’


Posted: April 17, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Jerome Corsi and Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Aerial view of Alamo tea party protest in San Antonio, Texas (photo: Texas Tea Parties)

An estimated 1 million Americans participated in at least 1,000 tea parties, according to reports by organizers tabulating the nationwide numbers, with documented protests held in 50 states.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform told WND, “The Obama administration has awakened a sleeping giant.”

Tax Day Tea Party national event coordinator Amy Kremer told WND she has confirmed that more than 850 parties took place. She has at least 100 more reports in her e-mail inbox that have not been posted.

Asked how many people attended the events, she responded, “I would estimate it at over 1 million. I’m waiting on more numbers to come in from organizers right now. I can tell you it is absolutely over 750,000 right now.”

The largest protests occurred in Atlanta, Ga., with 15,000 participants. As many as 10,000 protesters participating in Sacramento, Calif., and Overland Park, Kan., according to data compiled by Americans for Tax Reform on more than 207 tea parties.

Americans for Tax Reform has established an Internet page on the group’s website where organizers of tea parties can submit attendance estimates to be included in the running tally.

Michael DePrimo, special counsel to American Family Association President Tim Wildmon, told WND that AFA’s tea party website, Tea Party Day, had 2,031 confirmations that tea parties were to be held in as many cities.

“Since yesterday, we have had 394 cities give us reports, many with photographs, about the tea parties that were held,” he said. “We have not been able to get all the information up. We expect more to come in as the days go by.”

Glenn Beck reported yesterday on his Fox News program that official estimates of the participation in the Tea Party held in San Antonio, Texas, reached as many as 20,000 people.

The Glenn Beck show broadcast on Fox News live on April 15, from the Tea Party held at the Alamo in San Antonio.


Tea partiers in Sacramento, Calif. ( WND photo / Chelsea Schilling)

“The establishment in Washington, D.C., is terrified,” Norquist said. “There were no such demonstrations four months into the administrations of Democratic presidents Carter or Clinton.”

Norquist told WND that the Obama administration was taken by surprise by the nationwide protests because the administration had calculated increased government spending was supposed to be the popular part of President Obama’s economic stimulus plan.

Instead, Norquist said, the tea parties held in every state on Wednesday proved Americans nationwide are demonstrating in anger and disappointment against Obama administration plans for massive deficit spending.


Tax Day protester in Kansas City, Mo., holds sign (photo: Posted to Tea Party Day)

“Imagine what happens when President Obama, House Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid begin to pay for their ‘spend-fest’ with higher taxes and inflation,” Norquist said.

Kremer said the mainstream media have completely neglected their duty to accurately report on this nationwide movement.

“It’s amazing that the mainstream media is reporting it the way that they are,” she said. “It’s just crazy. It’s basically just going to come down to us. We’re now reporting it ourselves because they are not reporting it accurately.”

Many say the mainstream media attempted either to ignore the protests altogether or characterized tea partiers as disgruntled Republicans unable to accept that “they lost” the 2008 presidential campaign or as “rich taxpayers” unwilling to pay their fair burden of taxes.

However, Kremer said she is constantly receiving reports from organizers about the movement’s resounding success.

“I think it was an absolute success,” she said. “We want to send a message to them: We hired them; we can fire them. They work for us. They seem to have forgotten that.”

She continued, “If it means we have to go after every incumbent in office from now until 2012, we will do that. But the American people are tired of sitting by, and they are starting to step forward and take notice.”

Related Posts: No Suprise: Mainstream Media Devolves Into Childish Humor Over TEA Parties
TEA Party Images

Media Covers Anti-Prop 8 Activists, Dismisses TEA Parties

Read Full Post »

FOX News is reporting on the other media outlets’ coverage of the Tax Day TEA Parties.  Showing their true colors and maturity level, MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of the leftist media hosts show how they are in the pocket for Obama by their immature sexual references to “teabagging”, and the like, in reference to Government protests on taxation and spending as opposed to their glowing coverage of the anti-prop 8 crowd.

Cable Anchors, Guests Use Tea Parties as Platform for Frat House Humor

Cable anchors and guests covered the anti-tax tea party protests by cracking a litany of barely concealed sexual references.

FOXNews.com

Thursday, April 16, 2009

For CNN, MSNBC and other media outlets, it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to use the word “teabagging” in a sentence.

Teabagging, for those who don’t live in a frat house, refers to a sexual act involving part of the male genitalia and a second person’s face or mouth.

So when the anti-tax “tea party” protests were held Wednesday across the country, cable anchors and guests — who for weeks had all but ignored the story — covered the protests by cracking a litany of barely concealed sexual references.

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper interspersed “teabagging” references with analyst David Gergen’s more staid commentary on how Republicans are still “searching for their voice.”

“It’s hard to talk when you’re teabagging,” Cooper explained. Gergen laughed, but Cooper kept a straight face.

MSNBC’s David Shuster weaved a tapestry of “Animal House” humor Monday as he filled in for Countdown host Keith Olbermann.

The protests, he explained, amount to “Teabagging day for the right wing and they are going nuts for it.”

He described the parties as simultaneously “full-throated” and “toothless,” and continued: “They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending.” Shuster also noted how the protesters “whipped out” the demonstrations this past weekend.

Tea Party participants were not amused. The events were held in dozens of cities across the country, and while some demonstrators were criticized for wielding off-topic and sometimes insensitive protest signs, most took to the streets to speak out against government spending.

Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, said the media coverage was “insulting,” reacting specifically to CNN reporter Susan Roesgen’s combative interviews with Illinois demonstrators in which she declared that the protests were “anti-CNN” and supported by FOX News. She left the teabagging jokes to her colleagues, though.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” Bozell said. “The oral sex jokes on (CNN) and particularly MSNBC on teabagging … they had them by the dozens. That’s how insulting they were toward people who believe they’re being taxed too highly.”

Max Pappas, public policy vice president at FreedomWorks — a small-government group which promoted the tea parties — said it’s a “shame” media outlets cracked jokes at a genuine “grassroots uprising.”

“I think what that reveals is how worried they are that this might actually be something serious. You make fun of things you’re afraid of, I’d say,” Pappas said.

If anyone thinks the orally charged remarks on mainstream cable were just a coincidence, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s segments over the past week with guest, Air America’s Ana Marie Cox, would dissolve all doubt. Their on-air gymnastics, dancing around the double entendre of the week, looked like live-action Beavis and Butthead.

By one count, the two of them used the word “teabag” more than 50 times on one show. And on Monday, Cox even let the viewers in on their joke — referencing Urbandictionary.com, a site which offers a number of colorful definitions for the term “teabagging.”

“Well, there is a lot of love in teabagging,” Cox said. “It is curious, though, as you point out, they do not use the verb ‘teabag.’ It might be because they’re less enthusiastic about teabagging than some of the more corporate conservatives who seem to have taken to it quite easily.”

Jenny Beth Martin, a Republican activist who helped organize one protest in Atlanta, said she’s not too worried about the protests being dismissed by some media outlets. She estimated 750,000 people attended more than 800 protests in all 50 states, and that at the very least the local media and community newspapers documented it.

“Our message definitely got out where it needed to get,” she said.

Related Posts: TEA Party Images
Media Covers Anti-Prop 8 Activists, Dismisses TEA Parties

Read Full Post »

WorldNetDaily has a post with images from the TEA party in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Obama slammed: ‘Chains we can believe in’

Americans thrash president for perceived pursuit of socialism


Posted: April 15, 2009
10:22 pm Eastern

By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. – A sign with President Obama’s famous “O” logo stating, “Chains we can believe in” welcomed hundreds of protesters to a tea party event here this evening in one of the nation’s most affluent regions.


The well-known “O” logo of President Obama is combined with a play on his “Change we can believe in” slogan at a tea party protest April 15, 2009, in West Palm Beach, Fla. (WND photo / Joe Kovacs)

Those braving rain showers to sound their objections to Obama’s policies voiced a common theme, one suggesting America is rapidly racing toward socialism.

“We’re headed toward socialism, and socialism is anathema to everything this country’s ever stood for,” said Fritz Breland, a self-employed yacht broker from Boynton Beach, Fla. “I’m essentially unemployed because no one’s buying.”

Bearing a simple cardboard sign equating Obama with socialism and evil, Breland was outspoken in his disgust for the direction in which he believes the U.S. is now headed.


Fritz Breland of Boynton Beach, Fla., displays a sign associating President Obama with socialism and evil at a tea party protest in West Palm Beach, Fla., April 15, 2009 (WND photo / Joe Kovacs)

“I see through you, Mr. Obama. You’re a socialist, and I will fight you with my last dying breath,” he said.

(Story continues below)

A West Palm Beach police officer monitoring the event from several stories up in a parking garage estimated the crowd to be approximately 500 before a downpour began to disperse some participants.


Carole Buell of Wellington, Fla., holds sign protesting government spending at West Palm Beach’s tea party April 15, 2009 (WND photo / Joe Kovacs)

Among those seeking shelter from the weather was Cheri Goldberg of Boca Raton, Fla., who admitted this was her first political rally.

“I have never in my entire life demonstrated, and I’m in my mid-sixties,” she told WND. She said she was upset because lawmakers are “signing these bills giving out money. They haven’t even read them.”


An unidentified girl braves rain showers to display a sign at West Palm Beach’s tea party April 15, 2009 (WND photo / Joe Kovacs)

Her message to Obama and Congress was simple: “Obey the Constitution, stop the bailouts and stop spending. Spend only what we have.”

Tom and Carol Dekker of Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., said they fled California five years ago, closing their construction business because of a high tax burden there.

“In California, we were paying upwards of 70 percent of our income to the government in taxes,” said Mrs. Dekker. “Seventy percent! That’s socialism.”


Two unidenitified girls hold signs while relaxing during West Palm Beach’s tea party April 15, 2009 (WND photo / Joe Kovacs)

She said if she could talk to the president in person, her advice to him would be, “Step down. He’s ruining our country.”


A sign calling the Federal Reserve Bank a terrorist organization is displayed at West Palm Beach’s tea party protest April 15, 2009 (WND photo / Joe Kovacs)

Tom Dekker said Obama’s mantra of “change” and his new direction are not where America has been since its inception, and says it’s unfortunate the former state lawmaker and congressman hasn’t had “any knowledge of running businesses to appreciate what it’s like to be able to pay your taxes, pay your employees, pay all your bills.”

“He thinks that he’s got an endless pot of money that he can continue to spend, and he’s mistaken. He does not. People are just at the tipping point right now, and if they don’t change their ways in Washington, people are going to stop … maybe they just stop paying taxes. If everyone stopped paying their taxes, I think that would really impact what’s going on.”

Related Posts: Media Covers Anti-Prop 8 Activists, Dismisses TEA Parties

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »