CNN Fires Entire Jewish Staff Of Israel Bureau - And Retains Only Arab Reporters

CNN's Israel bureau is downsizing, reportedly to cope with a reduced budget due to falling advertising revenues.

That doesn't explain why they fired four Israeli Jewish journalists (out of a crew of 8), and retained only Arab journalists. The local chief editor of CNN is now an Arab.

Among the long time news personnel let go were Moshe Cohen, editor, fired after 10 years with CNN; Izi Landberg, Producer, about 25 years with CNN; Avi Kaner cameraman fired after 10 years with CNN; and Michal Zippori desk producer.

CNN's usual procedure in the past was to send both a Jewish and an Arab reporter out on stories. Now, they're only going to send an Arab journalist, with all that implies. It's no secret to anyone that Arab journalists have to toe the Fatah and Hamas line if they want to do reporting on stories in Gaza and the Arab occupied areas of Judea and Samaria without taking the risk of being murdered.

CNN's coverage of Israel and the Middle East conflict has been questionable for a very long time, and it's going to get even worse now that it will only be reported from one side's point of view. The fact that this also coincides with the brass at CNN's point of view and their willingness to take steps to ignore even basic journalistic ethics to promote shows how far a once respected news source has fallen.

(hat tip, Jean-Patrick Grumberg at www.Dreuz.info)

CNN Fires Entire Jewish Staff Of Israel Bureau - And Retains Only Arab Reporters

CNN's Israel bureau is downsizing, reportedly to cope with a reduced budget due to falling advertising revenues.

That doesn't explain why they fired four Israeli Jewish journalists (out of a crew of 8), and retained only Arab journalists. The local chief editor of CNN is now an Arab.

Among the long time news personnel let go were Moshe Cohen, editor, fired after 10 years with CNN; Izi Landberg, Producer, about 25 years with CNN; Avi Kaner cameraman fired after 10 years with CNN; and Michal Zippori desk producer.

CNN's usual procedure in the past was to send both a Jewish and an Arab reporter out on stories. Now, they're only going to send an Arab journalist, with all that implies. It's no secret to anyone that Arab journalists have to toe the Fatah and Hamas line if they want to do reporting on stories in Gaza and the Arab occupied areas of Judea and Samaria without taking the risk of being murdered.

CNN's coverage of Israel and the Middle East conflict has been questionable for a very long time, and it's going to get even worse now that it will only be reported from one side's point of view. The fact that this also coincides with the brass at CNN's point of view and their willingness to take steps to ignore even basic journalistic ethics to promote shows how far a once respected news source has fallen.

(hat tip, Jean-Patrick Grumberg at www.Dreuz.info)

Muslim Shooting Out Of Car Shouting "Allahu Akbar" Pleads Guilty -WAPO: 'Motive Unclear'

Today's Washington Post provides a superb example of why the majority of the dinosaur media is not to be trusted when it comes to reporting about Islamists or about jihad activity, particularly in the United States.

Yonathan Melaku, an ex-marine reservist and a naturalized citizen from Ethiopia pled guilty today in a plea bargain to three counts, including shooting at the Pentagon on Oct. 19, 2010, and attempting to vandalize veterans’ memorials on U.S. property. As part of a plea agreement, Melaku admitted to shooting at the National Museum of the Marine Corps, the Pentagon and two military recruiting offices in October and November of 2010. Here's how the WAPO described this, under the headline 'Motive of Shooter is Unclear':

Yonathan Melaku was sneaking through Fort Myer and Arlington National Cemetery, his backpack filled with plastic bags of ammonium nitrate, a notebook containing jihadist messages, and a can of black spray paint. The 23-year-old former Marine was heading to the graves of the nation’s most recent heroes, aiming to desecrate the stones with Arabic statements and leave handfuls of explosive material nearby as a message.

Before police foiled the plan in June, the vandalism was to be Melaku’s sixth attack, months after he went on a mysterious shooting spree that targeted the Pentagon, the National Museum of the Marine Corps and two other military buildings in Northern Virginia. A video found after Melaku’s arrest showed him wearing a black mask and shooting a 9mm handgun out of his Acura’s passenger window as he drove along Interstate 95, shouting “Allahu Akbar!”

Yes, 'mysterious'. Wait, it gets better:

FBI officials and prosecutors said Melaku was on a personal terror mission. They said he researched jihadism on the Internet and had references to terrorism in a notebook and on his computer. It also seemed like he was gathering materials to make an improvised explosive device, though there was no indication how he would have used it.

Melaku wanted “to create fear and terror, which is what terrorists do,” said Dana Boente, first assistant U.S. Attorney in Alexandria.

Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire, of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, said it was fortunate authorities caught Melaku before anyone was injured. She said it appears Melaku acted alone.

“This case shows that violent homegrown extremism is present in our community, whether by one person or by many,” Maguire said.

Even the FBI won't mention the words 'Islam' and 'terrorism' in the same sentence, but they at least mentioned an amorphous, undefined 'extremism' without mentioning the obvious. Listen to how the accussed's defense attorney is spinning this:

Gregory English, Melaku’s defense lawyer, said after the hearing that Melaku’s family is of the Coptic Christian faith and that they were stunned to learn of his involvement in the crimes and the references to Islamic jihad. English said the shootings were out of character for Melaku, and he wonders whether his client suffers from a psychological problem, which he has asked the court to evaluate.

“As bad as it is, this is someone who essentially broke windows,” English said. “It’s vandalism. He has no link to terrorism. . . . He had a message, but I don’t understand what that message was supposed to be.”

Either Mr. English is stupid, or he thinks we are.The only reason this home grown jihadi didn't hurt anyone is because we were extremely lucky, and that luck might not have held if Melaku had managed to escape and proceeded to manufacture the IED for which he was already putting together the ingrediants. As for Melaku's Coptic background, here's a tip...find the imams he was associating with that converted him to Islam and you'll find where the 'violent homegrown extremism in our community' Special Agent Maguire was talking about is coming from.

Melaku agreed to the plea bargain which carried a sentence of 25 years only because he was looking at a possible mandatory sentence of more than 85 years in the face of solid hard evidence. He's only 23, and he'll likely be out in 10 to 15, and you'll notice that no one is talking about deporting him when his sentence is served.

'Ssssh! Don't mention the word jihad! Nothing to see here.

Muslim Shooting Out Of Car Shouting "Allahu Akbar" Pleads Guilty -WAPO: 'Motive Unclear'

Today's Washington Post provides a superb example of why the majority of the dinosaur media is not to be trusted when it comes to reporting about Islamists or about jihad activity, particularly in the United States.

Yonathan Melaku, an ex-marine reservist and a naturalized citizen from Ethiopia pled guilty today in a plea bargain to three counts, including shooting at the Pentagon on Oct. 19, 2010, and attempting to vandalize veterans’ memorials on U.S. property. As part of a plea agreement, Melaku admitted to shooting at the National Museum of the Marine Corps, the Pentagon and two military recruiting offices in October and November of 2010. Here's how the WAPO described this, under the headline 'Motive of Shooter is Unclear':

Yonathan Melaku was sneaking through Fort Myer and Arlington National Cemetery, his backpack filled with plastic bags of ammonium nitrate, a notebook containing jihadist messages, and a can of black spray paint. The 23-year-old former Marine was heading to the graves of the nation’s most recent heroes, aiming to desecrate the stones with Arabic statements and leave handfuls of explosive material nearby as a message.

Before police foiled the plan in June, the vandalism was to be Melaku’s sixth attack, months after he went on a mysterious shooting spree that targeted the Pentagon, the National Museum of the Marine Corps and two other military buildings in Northern Virginia. A video found after Melaku’s arrest showed him wearing a black mask and shooting a 9mm handgun out of his Acura’s passenger window as he drove along Interstate 95, shouting “Allahu Akbar!”

Yes, 'mysterious'. Wait, it gets better:

FBI officials and prosecutors said Melaku was on a personal terror mission. They said he researched jihadism on the Internet and had references to terrorism in a notebook and on his computer. It also seemed like he was gathering materials to make an improvised explosive device, though there was no indication how he would have used it.

Melaku wanted “to create fear and terror, which is what terrorists do,” said Dana Boente, first assistant U.S. Attorney in Alexandria.

Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire, of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, said it was fortunate authorities caught Melaku before anyone was injured. She said it appears Melaku acted alone.

“This case shows that violent homegrown extremism is present in our community, whether by one person or by many,” Maguire said.

Even the FBI won't mention the words 'Islam' and 'terrorism' in the same sentence, but they at least mentioned an amorphous, undefined 'extremism' without mentioning the obvious. Listen to how the accussed's defense attorney is spinning this:

Gregory English, Melaku’s defense lawyer, said after the hearing that Melaku’s family is of the Coptic Christian faith and that they were stunned to learn of his involvement in the crimes and the references to Islamic jihad. English said the shootings were out of character for Melaku, and he wonders whether his client suffers from a psychological problem, which he has asked the court to evaluate.

“As bad as it is, this is someone who essentially broke windows,” English said. “It’s vandalism. He has no link to terrorism. . . . He had a message, but I don’t understand what that message was supposed to be.”

Either Mr. English is stupid, or he thinks we are.The only reason this home grown jihadi didn't hurt anyone is because we were extremely lucky, and that luck might not have held if Melaku had managed to escape and proceeded to manufacture the IED for which he was already putting together the ingrediants. As for Melaku's Coptic background, here's a tip...find the imams he was associating with that converted him to Islam and you'll find where the 'violent homegrown extremism in our community' Special Agent Maguire was talking about is coming from.

Melaku agreed to the plea bargain which carried a sentence of 25 years only because he was looking at a possible mandatory sentence of more than 85 years in the face of solid hard evidence. He's only 23, and he'll likely be out in 10 to 15, and you'll notice that no one is talking about deporting him when his sentence is served.

'Ssssh! Don't mention the word jihad! Nothing to see here.

Senior Aide to Democrat Senator Kerry Charged With Leaking Classified Information

The Justice Department has charged John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer and former senior Democrat Senate aide to John Kerry with being the source of major media leaks compromising national security, disclosing the identity of an undercover officer and lying to the CIA about the origin of other sensitive material he published in a book. He faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted.

Kiriakou is also a popular Huffington Post columnist.Or was, at any rate.

He first surfaced in the public eye in a 2007 interview with ABC News, where he claimed to have played a major role as a CIA agent in the capture and interrogation of al-Qaeda terrorist Abu Zubaydah, who was waterboarded. He was a huge source for the 'waterboarding is torture' crowd.

Three years, when he published a book about his CIA experiences (and presumably after he cashed his advance check), he admitted on the second to last page that he hadn't participated at all in the capture and interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, but just relied on what he'd heard about it.

The charges of disclosing the identity of an undercover officer came about because information Kiriakou supplied to journalists at Guantanamo Bay enabled defense attorneys there to obtain photographs of CIA operatives suspected of being involved in interrogations. Some of the pictures were subsequently discovered in the cells of terrorist detainees.

A real prince, no?

I can't help but wonder if the Obama Administration is planning on prosecuting the journalists and defense attorneys who aided and abetted - not to mention the editors and publishers. I doubt it, but it would certainly be fair and just to do so.

Do you get the feeling Kiriakou learned about ethics and patriotism from his old boss Senator Kerry, who met with the North Vietnamese in Paris during the Vietnam War to plot strategy on how to undermine the US war effort?

Senior Aide to Democrat Senator Kerry Charged With Leaking Classified Information

The Justice Department has charged John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer and former senior Democrat Senate aide to John Kerry with being the source of major media leaks compromising national security, disclosing the identity of an undercover officer and lying to the CIA about the origin of other sensitive material he published in a book. He faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted.

Kiriakou is also a popular Huffington Post columnist.Or was, at any rate.

He first surfaced in the public eye in a 2007 interview with ABC News, where he claimed to have played a major role as a CIA agent in the capture and interrogation of al-Qaeda terrorist Abu Zubaydah, who was waterboarded. He was a huge source for the 'waterboarding is torture' crowd.

Three years, when he published a book about his CIA experiences (and presumably after he cashed his advance check), he admitted on the second to last page that he hadn't participated at all in the capture and interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, but just relied on what he'd heard about it.

The charges of disclosing the identity of an undercover officer came about because information Kiriakou supplied to journalists at Guantanamo Bay enabled defense attorneys there to obtain photographs of CIA operatives suspected of being involved in interrogations. Some of the pictures were subsequently discovered in the cells of terrorist detainees.

A real prince, no?

I can't help but wonder if the Obama Administration is planning on prosecuting the journalists and defense attorneys who aided and abetted - not to mention the editors and publishers. I doubt it, but it would certainly be fair and just to do so.

Do you get the feeling Kiriakou learned about ethics and patriotism from his old boss Senator Kerry, who met with the North Vietnamese in Paris during the Vietnam War to plot strategy on how to undermine the US war effort?

The Disgrace Of The Fourth Estate - The Obama Media Group

Interesting times, to say the least.

President Obama's surrogates in the dinosaur media are wasting no time in attempting to clear the way for him the same way this president has always won elections - by using Alinskyite tactics to destroy opponents in advance.

It worked with Jack Ryan, whose divorce records were mysteriously unsealed by Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama's pals on the Chicago Tribune to the point where Ryan dropped out of the race and Obama coasted to an easy victory in a race he likely would have lost otherwise.

It was done to John McCain, where the campaign started with a bogus front page New York Times story about an affair he supposedly had with a lobbyist, and even continued with attacks on his war record, his age and his spouse's character.

And it was done to Governor Sarah Palin, with tons of opposition researchers combing Alaska, the setting up an entire network of local Democrat operatives, using the Journolist network to plan media strategy to demonize her, having the campaign collude with with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson in advance of the Palin interviews, mounting an organized attempt to bankrupt the Palin family and even stooping to attacking her children.

The same forces are at work once again. We've already seen the media hit jobs on Michele Bachmann attacking her religion, her relationship with her husband, and her generosity of spirit in adopting foster children. We saw how anxious the media were to jump on Herman Cain. We saw how the dinosaur media attacked the record of one of the most successful governors in America. Rick Perry.

And now, the assault is focused on Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

I think Rush Limbaugh is entirely correct that Matt Drudge threw a monkey wrench into the works by exposing the ABC interview with Newt Gingrich's ex-wife in advance.

The day before, ABC had gone after Mitt Romney with two stories so bogus they don't even qualify as intelligent commentary, let alone journalism. The first one attacked his Mormon faith directly and his charitable contributions to the Church of the LDS in terms that were designed to convey the impression of a sinister, behind the scenes religious right wing mafia in which Governor Romney's part was now 'newly uncovered'. The second focused on portraying him as a tax cheat and plutocrat with 'millions parked in the Cayman Islands, a notorious Caribbean tax haven'.

The original waited until the very end of the story to inform you that what Governor Romney was doing was entirely legal and that he pays taxes on the money. It has since been changed to include a line in the second paragraph saying 'spokesperson for the Romney campaign says Romney follows all tax laws and he would pay the same in taxes regardless of where the funds are based.'

A number of people sounded off in the comments section on how ridiculous the article was. Here's a sampling:

This article is completely uninformed and misleading. Investment groups use Cayman entities to avoid DOUBLE taxation of capital gains for foreign investors. It is not in any way depriving the US IRS of any money it is entitled to. There is no "hidden" money in this. Will the reporters simply call any reasonable corporate attorney who knows about fund formation to understand this, and then do the responsible thing - retract their story or clarify the intent of these Cayman investments. It is driving me crazy to even think about how misleading this article is. And judging by the comments, people are buying into it. Again, ask ANY corporate attorney that knows about fund formation. There is NO tax evasion that comes from this, and there is NO undeclared money in these Cayman funds. This is allowing international investors to invest through a single Cayman entity as opposed to investing through hundreds of foreign companies (German, Italian, Singaporean, etc.).


Very common for American Companies to set up operations in Cayman Islands an Bermuda. Virtually all major corporations do it. The impact has been litigated several times overs - and the tax rules are clear cut. It is common largely for corporations that self insure. There aren't all that many jobs connected with the overseas operations - a few accountants generally. Some of the resasons they do it have to do with holding foreign currencies. I don't think it is allowed here - but managing currency re-evaluations is a major risk management necessity for corporations. Nothing to see here.


Average Americans making $36,000 - $55,000 only pay 3.1% in income tax.yes, 3.1%, that's it.I'm actually impressed that Romney pays 15%, because take Obama's buddy, Warren Buffett, for example: Warren Buffett is far, far more wealthy than Romney,and Warren Buffett pays Less Than 1% in income tax.


I am writing in response to your article about Mitt Romney's use of Cayman vehicles. This is truly irresponsible reporting. I know first-hand about these structures, and they are completely legitimate. There is NOTHING unethical about this as the article's innuendo implies. This is legitimate, ethical, and the responsible thing for Bain to do for its investors. The motive for doing this is exactly as they explained. The corporations that Bain invests in pay their corporate taxes. The partners at Bain pay taxes. The investors in Bain pay taxes. They are helping their investors avoid DOUBLE taxation on capital gains. A foreign investor in say... Germany can buy a US company stock in Germany on the stock exchange. The US company will pay its taxes, so the IRS gets everything it is due. The German stockholder is ONLY liable for capital gains taxes in Germany, not the US. Now for a fund like Bain, they have investors in many countries. If Bain sets up a US corporation, LLC, or Partnership as the holding vehicle for all of their investors, then every investor will be subject to US capital gains taxes - even if they have no business, presence, or operation in the US. Then they will also have to pay their taxes in their homeland. This is ONLY because of using a US holding company. If the German investor invested directly through a German company, they would not be subject to US capital gains taxes. It isn't practical for a company like Bain to set up hundreds of holding companies for each country that they have an investor from, so they set it up in a tax jurisdiction that is neutral such as the Caymans. That way Bain doesn't have to set up hundreds of holding vehicles, and foreign investors who WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY US TAXES ON CAPITAL GAINS ANYWAY can all invest through one vehicle. This is to reduce the number of necessary entities and avoid DOUBLE taxation on capital gains, not to avoid taxes period.


Being a CPA, I know that dividends and capital gains are taxes at a 15% tax rate, What this article fails to mention is that this income comes from corporations that pay 35% in income taxes. Therefore the effective rate of this income is closer to 50%.

The entire idea was to slime Romney enough so that Gingrich either won South Carolina or finished a strong second and then unleash the interview from his ex-wife to take him out as well. Matt Drudge simply forced them to unleash it prematurely..not that it mattered to the media. CNN's John King's opening question in last night debate was to ask Newt Gingrich to respond to his ex-wife's recent television interview describing his desire for an open marriage. Gingrich's response:

GINGRICH: I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.(APPLAUSE)

KING: Is that all you want to say, sir?

GINGRICH: Let me finish.

KING: Please.

GINGRICH: Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine. (APPLAUSE)

My two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate. (APPLAUSE)

KING: As you noted, Mr. Speaker, this story did not come from our network. As you also know, it is a subject of conversation on the campaign. I'm not -- I get your point. I take your point.

GINGRICH: John -- John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don't try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with it. (APPLAUSE)

Let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested because they would like to attack any Republican. They're attacking the governor. They're attacking me. I'm sure they'll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul.

I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.

Actually, they're already getting around to Rick Santorum, alleging that his wife had an affair with an abortionist before the Santorum's marriage - as if that has any place in a presidential campaign. They will not go after Ron Paul in great detail, and I've already explained to you why.

Meanwhile, hardly anyone in the dinosaur media has any interest in exploring Fast and Furious, Solyndra and the other Green Energy scams. Or President Obama's relationship with the Nation of Islam, Rashid Khalidi, Khalid al-Mansour and Edward Said, or his corrupt deals with people like jailed bagman Tony Rezco, Big Pharma and a host of others.

With few exceptions, they aren't journalists in any sense 0f the word. They aren't even commentators for the most part, because commentators of whatever viewpoint usually attempt to present things honestly from their own viewpoints.

They're just campaign operatives in masquerade, following marching orders from upstairs including from the White House. They're simply bought and paid for whores, with the exception that a whore generally provides value for money.

They're worthy of no respect or consideration whatsoever, and it's about time people let them know about it, and often.

The Disgrace Of The Fourth Estate - The Obama Media Group

Interesting times, to say the least.

President Obama's surrogates in the dinosaur media are wasting no time in attempting to clear the way for him the same way this president has always won elections - by using Alinskyite tactics to destroy opponents in advance.

It worked with Jack Ryan, whose divorce records were mysteriously unsealed by Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama's pals on the Chicago Tribune to the point where Ryan dropped out of the race and Obama coasted to an easy victory in a race he likely would have lost otherwise.

It was done to John McCain, where the campaign started with a bogus front page New York Times story about an affair he supposedly had with a lobbyist, and even continued with attacks on his war record, his age and his spouse's character.

And it was done to Governor Sarah Palin, with tons of opposition researchers combing Alaska, the setting up an entire network of local Democrat operatives, using the Journolist network to plan media strategy to demonize her, having the campaign collude with with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson in advance of the Palin interviews, mounting an organized attempt to bankrupt the Palin family and even stooping to attacking her children.

The same forces are at work once again. We've already seen the media hit jobs on Michele Bachmann attacking her religion, her relationship with her husband, and her generosity of spirit in adopting foster children. We saw how anxious the media were to jump on Herman Cain. We saw how the dinosaur media attacked the record of one of the most successful governors in America. Rick Perry.

And now, the assault is focused on Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

I think Rush Limbaugh is entirely correct that Matt Drudge threw a monkey wrench into the works by exposing the ABC interview with Newt Gingrich's ex-wife in advance.

The day before, ABC had gone after Mitt Romney with two stories so bogus they don't even qualify as intelligent commentary, let alone journalism. The first one attacked his Mormon faith directly and his charitable contributions to the Church of the LDS in terms that were designed to convey the impression of a sinister, behind the scenes religious right wing mafia in which Governor Romney's part was now 'newly uncovered'. The second focused on portraying him as a tax cheat and plutocrat with 'millions parked in the Cayman Islands, a notorious Caribbean tax haven'.

The original waited until the very end of the story to inform you that what Governor Romney was doing was entirely legal and that he pays taxes on the money. It has since been changed to include a line in the second paragraph saying 'spokesperson for the Romney campaign says Romney follows all tax laws and he would pay the same in taxes regardless of where the funds are based.'

A number of people sounded off in the comments section on how ridiculous the article was. Here's a sampling:

This article is completely uninformed and misleading. Investment groups use Cayman entities to avoid DOUBLE taxation of capital gains for foreign investors. It is not in any way depriving the US IRS of any money it is entitled to. There is no "hidden" money in this. Will the reporters simply call any reasonable corporate attorney who knows about fund formation to understand this, and then do the responsible thing - retract their story or clarify the intent of these Cayman investments. It is driving me crazy to even think about how misleading this article is. And judging by the comments, people are buying into it. Again, ask ANY corporate attorney that knows about fund formation. There is NO tax evasion that comes from this, and there is NO undeclared money in these Cayman funds. This is allowing international investors to invest through a single Cayman entity as opposed to investing through hundreds of foreign companies (German, Italian, Singaporean, etc.).


Very common for American Companies to set up operations in Cayman Islands an Bermuda. Virtually all major corporations do it. The impact has been litigated several times overs - and the tax rules are clear cut. It is common largely for corporations that self insure. There aren't all that many jobs connected with the overseas operations - a few accountants generally. Some of the resasons they do it have to do with holding foreign currencies. I don't think it is allowed here - but managing currency re-evaluations is a major risk management necessity for corporations. Nothing to see here.


Average Americans making $36,000 - $55,000 only pay 3.1% in income tax.yes, 3.1%, that's it.I'm actually impressed that Romney pays 15%, because take Obama's buddy, Warren Buffett, for example: Warren Buffett is far, far more wealthy than Romney,and Warren Buffett pays Less Than 1% in income tax.


I am writing in response to your article about Mitt Romney's use of Cayman vehicles. This is truly irresponsible reporting. I know first-hand about these structures, and they are completely legitimate. There is NOTHING unethical about this as the article's innuendo implies. This is legitimate, ethical, and the responsible thing for Bain to do for its investors. The motive for doing this is exactly as they explained. The corporations that Bain invests in pay their corporate taxes. The partners at Bain pay taxes. The investors in Bain pay taxes. They are helping their investors avoid DOUBLE taxation on capital gains. A foreign investor in say... Germany can buy a US company stock in Germany on the stock exchange. The US company will pay its taxes, so the IRS gets everything it is due. The German stockholder is ONLY liable for capital gains taxes in Germany, not the US. Now for a fund like Bain, they have investors in many countries. If Bain sets up a US corporation, LLC, or Partnership as the holding vehicle for all of their investors, then every investor will be subject to US capital gains taxes - even if they have no business, presence, or operation in the US. Then they will also have to pay their taxes in their homeland. This is ONLY because of using a US holding company. If the German investor invested directly through a German company, they would not be subject to US capital gains taxes. It isn't practical for a company like Bain to set up hundreds of holding companies for each country that they have an investor from, so they set it up in a tax jurisdiction that is neutral such as the Caymans. That way Bain doesn't have to set up hundreds of holding vehicles, and foreign investors who WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY US TAXES ON CAPITAL GAINS ANYWAY can all invest through one vehicle. This is to reduce the number of necessary entities and avoid DOUBLE taxation on capital gains, not to avoid taxes period.


Being a CPA, I know that dividends and capital gains are taxes at a 15% tax rate, What this article fails to mention is that this income comes from corporations that pay 35% in income taxes. Therefore the effective rate of this income is closer to 50%.

The entire idea was to slime Romney enough so that Gingrich either won South Carolina or finished a strong second and then unleash the interview from his ex-wife to take him out as well. Matt Drudge simply forced them to unleash it prematurely..not that it mattered to the media. CNN's John King's opening question in last night debate was to ask Newt Gingrich to respond to his ex-wife's recent television interview describing his desire for an open marriage. Gingrich's response:

GINGRICH: I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.(APPLAUSE)

KING: Is that all you want to say, sir?

GINGRICH: Let me finish.

KING: Please.

GINGRICH: Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine. (APPLAUSE)

My two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate. (APPLAUSE)

KING: As you noted, Mr. Speaker, this story did not come from our network. As you also know, it is a subject of conversation on the campaign. I'm not -- I get your point. I take your point.

GINGRICH: John -- John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don't try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with it. (APPLAUSE)

Let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested because they would like to attack any Republican. They're attacking the governor. They're attacking me. I'm sure they'll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul.

I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.

Actually, they're already getting around to Rick Santorum, alleging that his wife had an affair with an abortionist before the Santorum's marriage - as if that has any place in a presidential campaign. They will not go after Ron Paul in great detail, and I've already explained to you why.

Meanwhile, hardly anyone in the dinosaur media has any interest in exploring Fast and Furious, Solyndra and the other Green Energy scams. Or President Obama's relationship with the Nation of Islam, Rashid Khalidi, Khalid al-Mansour and Edward Said, or his corrupt deals with people like jailed bagman Tony Rezco, Big Pharma and a host of others.

With few exceptions, they aren't journalists in any sense 0f the word. They aren't even commentators for the most part, because commentators of whatever viewpoint usually attempt to present things honestly from their own viewpoints.

They're just campaign operatives in masquerade, following marching orders from upstairs including from the White House. They're simply bought and paid for whores, with the exception that a whore generally provides value for money.

They're worthy of no respect or consideration whatsoever, and it's about time people let them know about it, and often.

Netanyahu: "The Palestinians Have No Interest In Entering Peace Talks"

Well, it's about time someone admitted it.

“For the last three years, the Palestinians have refused to enter negotiations, thinking they could impose preconditions upon us,” Netanyahu told Israeli lawmakers in a closed parliamentary meeting.

“The Palestinians have no interest in entering peace talks. I’m ready to travel now to Ramallah to start peace talks with Abu Mazen, without preconditions. But the simple truth is that Abu Mazen is not ready,” he said. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is widely known as Abu Mazen.

Netanyahu’s comments were relayed by a meeting participant who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was closed.

Abbas says the Palestinians will not resume talks unless Israel stops building in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, areas Israel captured in the 1967 war from Jordan and claimed by the Palestinians as parts of their future state.

Actually, this WAPO article is somewhat..incomplete in details. Not only is Abbas insisting that Israel not build in the areas mentioned (most of whom are going to be off the table in any peace settlement anyway) but Abbas insists that Israel commit to making the pre '67 lines the starting point of the negotiations before any talks occur, and has said numerous times that he's unwilling to make a single concession of any kind to Israel in any negotiations he enters.

In other words, Abbas is only willing to 'negotiate' with the Israelis only if there's nothing much left to negotiate. This is roughly the equivalent of agreeing to go to Las Vegas and place a bet on the roulette wheel only if your winnings are guaranteed in advance.

Another building freeze is off the table, and Abbas knows it very well, which is exactly why he's insisting on it. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu already gave the 'Palestinians' a 10 month freeze as a unilateral concession before in an attempt to get talks going, something that caused him considerable political damage at home. It turned out to be worthless, because the 'Palestinians' stonewalled for 9 1/2 months and then used Netanyahu's refusal to extend the freeze indefinitely as an excuse to bail out of talks. Netanyahu isn't going to make the same mistake twice.

Actually, the reality is that the 'Palestinians' have little interest in living in peace beside Israel, but merely in getting Israel as close to the indefensible pre '67 lines as possible. People interested in living in peace don't display maps of 'Palestine' with Israel obliterated, don't hold up people who've murdered Israeli civilians as heroes and role models and don't preach Jew hatred in their mosques, schools and media:

PA Mufti calls for the killing of Jews quoting Islamic Hadith from Palestinian Media Watch on Vimeo.

Moderator at Fatah ceremony:
"Our war with the descendants of the apes and pigs (i.e., Jews)
is a war of religion and faith.
Long Live Fatah! [I invite you,] our honorable Sheikh."

The official Palestinian Authority religious leader, the Mufti Muhammad Hussein comes to the podium and says:

"47 years ago the [Fatah] revolution started. Which revolution? The modern revolution of the Palestinian people's history. In fact, Palestine in its entirety is a revolution, since [Caliph] Umar came [to conquer Jerusalem, 637 CE], and continuing today, and until the End of Days. The reliable Hadith (tradition attributed to Muhammad), [found] in the two reliable collections, Bukhari and Muslim, says:

"The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until you fight the Jews.
The Jew will hide behind stones or trees.
Then the stones or trees will call:
'Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'
Except the Gharqad tree [which will keep silent]."
Therefore it is no wonder that you see Gharqad [trees]
surrounding the [Israeli] settlements and colonies.."

Imagine the headlines worldwide if Israel's chief Rabbi had addressed the Knesset and called for genocide against the Palestinians.

Of course the Quartet certainly provides lip service on violent incitement of this kind, but since the 'Palestinians' never receive any penalties for it and the aid money continues to roll in, there's no incentive for them to stop it. Oddly enough, the UN is a member of the Quartet and calling for genocide against a member nation is expressly against Article 2 of the UN Charter...yet they happily continue to fund the 'Palestinian Authority'.

And to refer to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria as 'settlements'.

It's well worth remembering that 'Arab East Jerusalem' only became 'Arab' after the ethnic cleansing of every Jew there by the Arab armies after 1948.

The same applies to the 'Arab' areas of Judea and Samaria (AKA The West Bank), where again every Jew living there was ethnically cleansed, just like almost a million other Jews throughout the Arab world after 1948.

Strange, isn't it that an attempted Arab colonization of 19 years based on aggressive war and an occupation the UN itself didn't even recognize at the time is now considered legitimate, while Jewish communities that existed before 1948 on Jewish owned land like Ariel and Gush Etzion are considered temporary 'settlements' after being repopulated by Jews for over 40 years?

And isn't it odd that it's only Israeli building in the so-called disputed areas that continually comes under criticism as an obstacle to peace rather than that of the 'Palestinians'?

Not only East Jerusalem but the 'Palestinian' occupied areas in Judea and Samaria are rife with illegal and often unsafe construction, often done by squatters with no legal title to the land they build on. As I write this, the 'Palestinians' are attempting to build an entire city from scratch called Rawabi using EU and USAid funds in the middle of a primarily Jewish area that will actually encroach on the Israeli town of Ateret. Yet no one, especially President Obama or our State Department has ever referred to 'Palestinian' building as 'unhelpful'.

The truth of the matter is that the fabled two state solution doesn't exist,because there's no deal that Abbas is willing or able to accept that doesn't amount to the Israelis committing national suicide, especially since Fatah is now officially in a unity government with the genocidal Hamas.It's bad enough to have Hamas shooting missiles and mortars at Israel's sparsely populated south. It's quite another to cede the high ground in Judea and Samaria and the strategic area of the Jordan Valley to the same people in easy range of Jerusalem and Israel's densely populated coastal plain.

The real problem here is not building in Judea and Samaria. It's the Arab refusal to live with Jews in peace and equality. Since they insist on getting their apartheid, obscene little reichlet without a single Jew in it and refuse to make any concessions for real peace, there's no reason for Israel to accomodate them any further.

It might very well be time for Netanyahu to name some preconditions of his owntocontinue talks,like taking Jerusalem and the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria off the table, insisting on recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and a formal renouncing by th e'Palestinians' of any fictional 'right of return.' Abbas of course would never agree to any of this since it would be tantamount to recognizing that a peace settlement involves the end of the conflict, but the clarity might be helpful.

If the 'Palestinians' really dislike living in peace next to Jews that much, there are there are 22 Arab countries they can move to where Jews are already forbidden. The Israelis lack that option, in case no one has noticed.

Netanyahu: "The Palestinians Have No Interest In Entering Peace Talks"

Well, it's about time someone admitted it.

“For the last three years, the Palestinians have refused to enter negotiations, thinking they could impose preconditions upon us,” Netanyahu told Israeli lawmakers in a closed parliamentary meeting.

“The Palestinians have no interest in entering peace talks. I’m ready to travel now to Ramallah to start peace talks with Abu Mazen, without preconditions. But the simple truth is that Abu Mazen is not ready,” he said. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is widely known as Abu Mazen.

Netanyahu’s comments were relayed by a meeting participant who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was closed.

Abbas says the Palestinians will not resume talks unless Israel stops building in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, areas Israel captured in the 1967 war from Jordan and claimed by the Palestinians as parts of their future state.

Actually, this WAPO article is somewhat..incomplete in details. Not only is Abbas insisting that Israel not build in the areas mentioned (most of whom are going to be off the table in any peace settlement anyway) but Abbas insists that Israel commit to making the pre '67 lines the starting point of the negotiations before any talks occur, and has said numerous times that he's unwilling to make a single concession of any kind to Israel in any negotiations he enters.

In other words, Abbas is only willing to 'negotiate' with the Israelis only if there's nothing much left to negotiate. This is roughly the equivalent of agreeing to go to Las Vegas and place a bet on the roulette wheel only if your winnings are guaranteed in advance.

Another building freeze is off the table, and Abbas knows it very well, which is exactly why he's insisting on it. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu already gave the 'Palestinians' a 10 month freeze as a unilateral concession before in an attempt to get talks going, something that caused him considerable political damage at home. It turned out to be worthless, because the 'Palestinians' stonewalled for 9 1/2 months and then used Netanyahu's refusal to extend the freeze indefinitely as an excuse to bail out of talks. Netanyahu isn't going to make the same mistake twice.

Actually, the reality is that the 'Palestinians' have little interest in living in peace beside Israel, but merely in getting Israel as close to the indefensible pre '67 lines as possible. People interested in living in peace don't display maps of 'Palestine' with Israel obliterated, don't hold up people who've murdered Israeli civilians as heroes and role models and don't preach Jew hatred in their mosques, schools and media:

PA Mufti calls for the killing of Jews quoting Islamic Hadith from Palestinian Media Watch on Vimeo.

Moderator at Fatah ceremony:
"Our war with the descendants of the apes and pigs (i.e., Jews)
is a war of religion and faith.
Long Live Fatah! [I invite you,] our honorable Sheikh."

The official Palestinian Authority religious leader, the Mufti Muhammad Hussein comes to the podium and says:

"47 years ago the [Fatah] revolution started. Which revolution? The modern revolution of the Palestinian people's history. In fact, Palestine in its entirety is a revolution, since [Caliph] Umar came [to conquer Jerusalem, 637 CE], and continuing today, and until the End of Days. The reliable Hadith (tradition attributed to Muhammad), [found] in the two reliable collections, Bukhari and Muslim, says:

"The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until you fight the Jews.
The Jew will hide behind stones or trees.
Then the stones or trees will call:
'Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'
Except the Gharqad tree [which will keep silent]."
Therefore it is no wonder that you see Gharqad [trees]
surrounding the [Israeli] settlements and colonies.."

Imagine the headlines worldwide if Israel's chief Rabbi had addressed the Knesset and called for genocide against the Palestinians.

Of course the Quartet certainly provides lip service on violent incitement of this kind, but since the 'Palestinians' never receive any penalties for it and the aid money continues to roll in, there's no incentive for them to stop it. Oddly enough, the UN is a member of the Quartet and calling for genocide against a member nation is expressly against Article 2 of the UN Charter...yet they happily continue to fund the 'Palestinian Authority'.

And to refer to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria as 'settlements'.

It's well worth remembering that 'Arab East Jerusalem' only became 'Arab' after the ethnic cleansing of every Jew there by the Arab armies after 1948.

The same applies to the 'Arab' areas of Judea and Samaria (AKA The West Bank), where again every Jew living there was ethnically cleansed, just like almost a million other Jews throughout the Arab world after 1948.

Strange, isn't it that an attempted Arab colonization of 19 years based on aggressive war and an occupation the UN itself didn't even recognize at the time is now considered legitimate, while Jewish communities that existed before 1948 on Jewish owned land like Ariel and Gush Etzion are considered temporary 'settlements' after being repopulated by Jews for over 40 years?

And isn't it odd that it's only Israeli building in the so-called disputed areas that continually comes under criticism as an obstacle to peace rather than that of the 'Palestinians'?

Not only East Jerusalem but the 'Palestinian' occupied areas in Judea and Samaria are rife with illegal and often unsafe construction, often done by squatters with no legal title to the land they build on. As I write this, the 'Palestinians' are attempting to build an entire city from scratch called Rawabi using EU and USAid funds in the middle of a primarily Jewish area that will actually encroach on the Israeli town of Ateret. Yet no one, especially President Obama or our State Department has ever referred to 'Palestinian' building as 'unhelpful'.

The truth of the matter is that the fabled two state solution doesn't exist,because there's no deal that Abbas is willing or able to accept that doesn't amount to the Israelis committing national suicide, especially since Fatah is now officially in a unity government with the genocidal Hamas.It's bad enough to have Hamas shooting missiles and mortars at Israel's sparsely populated south. It's quite another to cede the high ground in Judea and Samaria and the strategic area of the Jordan Valley to the same people in easy range of Jerusalem and Israel's densely populated coastal plain.

The real problem here is not building in Judea and Samaria. It's the Arab refusal to live with Jews in peace and equality. Since they insist on getting their apartheid, obscene little reichlet without a single Jew in it and refuse to make any concessions for real peace, there's no reason for Israel to accomodate them any further.

It might very well be time for Netanyahu to name some preconditions of his owntocontinue talks,like taking Jerusalem and the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria off the table, insisting on recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and a formal renouncing by th e'Palestinians' of any fictional 'right of return.' Abbas of course would never agree to any of this since it would be tantamount to recognizing that a peace settlement involves the end of the conflict, but the clarity might be helpful.

If the 'Palestinians' really dislike living in peace next to Jews that much, there are there are 22 Arab countries they can move to where Jews are already forbidden. The Israelis lack that option, in case no one has noticed.

It Begins - ABC Attacks Romney For Donations To Mormon Faith

ABC began what is likely going to be a concerted attack on the Church of the Latter Day Saints now that Mitt Romney is the front runner for the GOP nomination.

Under the headline "Mitt Romney Sent Millions to Mormon Church" the story opens like this:

Underscoring the prominent, if little discussed role that Mitt Romney played as a Mormon leader, the private equity giant once run by the GOP presidential frontrunner carved his church a slice of several of its most lucrative business deals, securities records show, providing it with millions of dollars worth of stock in some of Bain Capital's most well-known holdings.

Romney has always been a major donor to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which requires that members "tithe," or give 10 percent of their income to the church. His family charity, called the Tyler Foundation, has given more than $4 million to the church in the past five years, including $1.8 million in 2008 and $600,000 in 2009. But because Romney, whose fortune has been estimated at $250 million, has never released his personal tax returns, the full extent of his giving has never been public.

Newly uncovered stock contributions made during Romney's Bain days suggest there is another dimension to Romney's support for the church -- one that could involve millions more than has been previously disclosed.

'Carved his church a slice'...brilliant choice of words. The story gets more balanced towards the end, but the opening paragraphs are all a lot of people will read, conveying the impression of a sinister, behind the scenes religious right wing mafia in which Romney's part is now 'newly uncovered'.

First of all, this is Mitt Romney's money, honestly earned and he is entitled to do what he pleases with it.The fact that he chose to give his money to an entity he has confidence will put the money to uses he approves of rather than the federal government is immaterial, and a decision a great many Americans make.

If Governor Romney wanted merely to avoid taxes, there are plenty of other avenues he could choose. Only the dinosaur media could take someone's admirable charitable impulses and try to turn it into a negative - if that someone is a Republican. Has ABC ever questioned how much money the Obamas gave over the years to Reverend Wright's bigoted little church? Based on the mansion the Obama's Trinity Church built for him when he retired, it must have been a nice chunk of change.

The LDS, by the way, is not the only religion that asks its members to tithe and just as with other faiths it is an ideal, not a requirement as ABC would have it. Moreover, while I'm not an LDS member I have personally seen how the LDS uses its money to take care of members facing financial, personal and medical emergencies. This kind of self reliance was something Mormons cultivated when they faced prejudice and persecution in the Church's early history..something they have in common with Jews, I might add.

This sleazy non-story is not going to be the last attempt to attack Governor Romney and the LDS by the dinosaur media. They're just getting warmed up.

It Begins - ABC Attacks Romney For Donations To Mormon Faith

ABC began what is likely going to be a concerted attack on the Church of the Latter Day Saints now that Mitt Romney is the front runner for the GOP nomination.

Under the headline "Mitt Romney Sent Millions to Mormon Church" the story opens like this:

Underscoring the prominent, if little discussed role that Mitt Romney played as a Mormon leader, the private equity giant once run by the GOP presidential frontrunner carved his church a slice of several of its most lucrative business deals, securities records show, providing it with millions of dollars worth of stock in some of Bain Capital's most well-known holdings.

Romney has always been a major donor to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which requires that members "tithe," or give 10 percent of their income to the church. His family charity, called the Tyler Foundation, has given more than $4 million to the church in the past five years, including $1.8 million in 2008 and $600,000 in 2009. But because Romney, whose fortune has been estimated at $250 million, has never released his personal tax returns, the full extent of his giving has never been public.

Newly uncovered stock contributions made during Romney's Bain days suggest there is another dimension to Romney's support for the church -- one that could involve millions more than has been previously disclosed.

'Carved his church a slice'...brilliant choice of words. The story gets more balanced towards the end, but the opening paragraphs are all a lot of people will read, conveying the impression of a sinister, behind the scenes religious right wing mafia in which Romney's part is now 'newly uncovered'.

First of all, this is Mitt Romney's money, honestly earned and he is entitled to do what he pleases with it.The fact that he chose to give his money to an entity he has confidence will put the money to uses he approves of rather than the federal government is immaterial, and a decision a great many Americans make.

If Governor Romney wanted merely to avoid taxes, there are plenty of other avenues he could choose. Only the dinosaur media could take someone's admirable charitable impulses and try to turn it into a negative - if that someone is a Republican. Has ABC ever questioned how much money the Obamas gave over the years to Reverend Wright's bigoted little church? Based on the mansion the Obama's Trinity Church built for him when he retired, it must have been a nice chunk of change.

The LDS, by the way, is not the only religion that asks its members to tithe and just as with other faiths it is an ideal, not a requirement as ABC would have it. Moreover, while I'm not an LDS member I have personally seen how the LDS uses its money to take care of members facing financial, personal and medical emergencies. This kind of self reliance was something Mormons cultivated when they faced prejudice and persecution in the Church's early history..something they have in common with Jews, I might add.

This sleazy non-story is not going to be the last attempt to attack Governor Romney and the LDS by the dinosaur media. They're just getting warmed up.

What NewsWeak And Sully Think Of The Rest Of The Country

Unfreakingbelievable.

UPDATE: Sarah Palin weighs in:



Love it!

What NewsWeak And Sully Think Of The Rest Of The Country

Unfreakingbelievable.

UPDATE: Sarah Palin weighs in:



Love it!

Last Night's Debate - 'Moderator' Stephanopoulos Does His Bit For Obama

Last night's debate in New Hampshire was most notable for proving once again that Republicans and especially conservative Republicans should avoid the dinosaur media like the plague.

Last night's debate was hosted by ABC, and moderated by George Stephanopoulos - ex-campaign operative, Senior Advisor on Policy and Strategy and press spin jockey for President Bill Clinton, who walked into his job with ABC as soon as he resigned from the White House.

Stephanopoulos' 'moderating' lacked even a semblance of objectivity or journalistic ethics as he fired over the top broadsides , often hypothetical ones at the GOP candidates to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if he got an early morning call from the White House beforehand. Here's a sample:

“Now, there have been questions about that calculation of 100,000 jobs. So if you could explain it a little more,” Stephanopoulos asked Romney of the former governor’s claims about jobs created by companies he has helmed. “I’ve read some analysts who look at it and say that you’re counting the jobs that were created but not counting the jobs that were taken away. Is that accurate?”

“No, it’s not accurate,” Romney bluntly responded. “It includes the net of both. I’m a good enough numbers guy to make sure I got both sides of that.”

Stephanopoulos did not cite any analysts by name.

In another line of questioning, Stephanopoulos asked Romney if he believes “that states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”

Romney responded by questioning Stephanopoulos’ logic and his choice to raise a hypothetical situation that would never happen.

“You’re asking — given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so — you’re asking could it constitutionally be done?” Romney asked, with a hint of incredulity.

Stephanopoulos, undeterred, pressed Romney again: “I’m asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?”

Amid a chorus of “boos” from the audience, Romney again parried the impossible hypothetical.

“George, I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception,” Romney responded. “No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do, and asking me whether they could do it or not, is kind of a silly thing, I think.”

Stephanopoulos also took shots at the other candidates, notably Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. And he deliberately encouraged the candidates to squabble among themselves rather than actually doing what a moderator is supposed to do, keep things on track and on topic. I'm sure that pleased the Obama campaign no end.

Oh, I hear what you're thinking...'hey,George Stephanopoulos is a human being,he has his views, you can't expect him to shut them off.'

Actually, that's exactly what I expect, from him and anyone else in the media who bills themselves as journalists and news professionals rather than commentators or opinion writers.

Tell me, when you go to work in an office, in a factory, or a business environment do you make a point of trumpeting your politics? Do you let them affect your job performance? Let's say you're Democrat plumber whose boss sends you on a job, you make a point of talking politics with the customer and modify your charges and your performance based on their ideology. How long do you think you'd stay employed?

The same thing is true in most work environments...with the exception of academia,Hollywood and the dinosaur media, where voicing conservative views can impact your employment prospects unless you're too well established and entrenched to touch.

A detached, balanced and non-biased attitude ought to be the standard in broadcast news and journalism, and it used to be, at least on the surface. Not any more. If George Stephanopoulos received any negative feedback from his employers at ABC for his performance, it was for not being more subtle about it.

That's exactly why the stocks, the readers and the audience are plummeting at the dinosaur media papers and the alphabet networks, and why the internet, talk radio and FOX, whose motto 'Fair and Balanced' is exemplified by their having Democrat Chris Wallace as their main anchor are seeing their readership and audiences surge. Since the dinosaur media's whitewash of President Obama, more and more people simply aren't drinking the Kool-ade anymore.

If I were running, I wouldn't even go near a debate like this. I think NewtGingrich had a decent idea of making these things Lincoln -Douglas style, with no moderator but a timekeeper and the candidates forced to think on their feet to counter each other's arguments. At the very least, I wouldn't go near one sponsored by the alphabet networks unless I badly needed exposure.

As for the rest of the debate, it was notable that once again, no one has really been able to lay a glove on Mitt Romney. There were a few attempts, mainly by Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, mainly focusing on Romney's changes in his positions and his time at Bain Capital, but they didn't really seem to do much damage and seemed fairly ineffectual.

The primary is Tuesday, and Romney is expected to win. It will be interesting to see how Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum end up finishing as we proceed on to South Carolina.

ADDENDUM: Hugh Hewitt notes that the execrable David Gregory did exactly the same thing that Stephanopoulos did last night in the NBC debate Gregory 'moderated' this Sunday morning.

No question in my mind now that this was coordinated from the White House. Disgraceful.

Last Night's Debate - 'Moderator' Stephanopoulos Does His Bit For Obama

Last night's debate in New Hampshire was most notable for proving once again that Republicans and especially conservative Republicans should avoid the dinosaur media like the plague.

Last night's debate was hosted by ABC, and moderated by George Stephanopoulos - ex-campaign operative, Senior Advisor on Policy and Strategy and press spin jockey for President Bill Clinton, who walked into his job with ABC as soon as he resigned from the White House.

Stephanopoulos' 'moderating' lacked even a semblance of objectivity or journalistic ethics as he fired over the top broadsides , often hypothetical ones at the GOP candidates to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if he got an early morning call from the White House beforehand. Here's a sample:

“Now, there have been questions about that calculation of 100,000 jobs. So if you could explain it a little more,” Stephanopoulos asked Romney of the former governor’s claims about jobs created by companies he has helmed. “I’ve read some analysts who look at it and say that you’re counting the jobs that were created but not counting the jobs that were taken away. Is that accurate?”

“No, it’s not accurate,” Romney bluntly responded. “It includes the net of both. I’m a good enough numbers guy to make sure I got both sides of that.”

Stephanopoulos did not cite any analysts by name.

In another line of questioning, Stephanopoulos asked Romney if he believes “that states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”

Romney responded by questioning Stephanopoulos’ logic and his choice to raise a hypothetical situation that would never happen.

“You’re asking — given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so — you’re asking could it constitutionally be done?” Romney asked, with a hint of incredulity.

Stephanopoulos, undeterred, pressed Romney again: “I’m asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?”

Amid a chorus of “boos” from the audience, Romney again parried the impossible hypothetical.

“George, I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception,” Romney responded. “No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do, and asking me whether they could do it or not, is kind of a silly thing, I think.”

Stephanopoulos also took shots at the other candidates, notably Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. And he deliberately encouraged the candidates to squabble among themselves rather than actually doing what a moderator is supposed to do, keep things on track and on topic. I'm sure that pleased the Obama campaign no end.

Oh, I hear what you're thinking...'hey,George Stephanopoulos is a human being,he has his views, you can't expect him to shut them off.'

Actually, that's exactly what I expect, from him and anyone else in the media who bills themselves as journalists and news professionals rather than commentators or opinion writers.

Tell me, when you go to work in an office, in a factory, or a business environment do you make a point of trumpeting your politics? Do you let them affect your job performance? Let's say you're Democrat plumber whose boss sends you on a job, you make a point of talking politics with the customer and modify your charges and your performance based on their ideology. How long do you think you'd stay employed?

The same thing is true in most work environments...with the exception of academia,Hollywood and the dinosaur media, where voicing conservative views can impact your employment prospects unless you're too well established and entrenched to touch.

A detached, balanced and non-biased attitude ought to be the standard in broadcast news and journalism, and it used to be, at least on the surface. Not any more. If George Stephanopoulos received any negative feedback from his employers at ABC for his performance, it was for not being more subtle about it.

That's exactly why the stocks, the readers and the audience are plummeting at the dinosaur media papers and the alphabet networks, and why the internet, talk radio and FOX, whose motto 'Fair and Balanced' is exemplified by their having Democrat Chris Wallace as their main anchor are seeing their readership and audiences surge. Since the dinosaur media's whitewash of President Obama, more and more people simply aren't drinking the Kool-ade anymore.

If I were running, I wouldn't even go near a debate like this. I think NewtGingrich had a decent idea of making these things Lincoln -Douglas style, with no moderator but a timekeeper and the candidates forced to think on their feet to counter each other's arguments. At the very least, I wouldn't go near one sponsored by the alphabet networks unless I badly needed exposure.

As for the rest of the debate, it was notable that once again, no one has really been able to lay a glove on Mitt Romney. There were a few attempts, mainly by Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, mainly focusing on Romney's changes in his positions and his time at Bain Capital, but they didn't really seem to do much damage and seemed fairly ineffectual.

The primary is Tuesday, and Romney is expected to win. It will be interesting to see how Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum end up finishing as we proceed on to South Carolina.

ADDENDUM: Hugh Hewitt notes that the execrable David Gregory did exactly the same thing that Stephanopoulos did last night in the NBC debate Gregory 'moderated' this Sunday morning.

No question in my mind now that this was coordinated from the White House. Disgraceful.

Tom Friedman vs. Israel

That's the title of a brand new Pajamas Media column by David Gerstman, whose Middle East media analysis appears here from time to time. Here's a slice:

Two weeks ago, columnist Thomas Friedman created a controversy in his column “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir“ when he wrote:

I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.

By using language evoking antisemitic imagery of Israel “owning” Congress, Friedman seemed to step over a line. In an effort to control the damage of his ill-advised language, Friedman defended himself to Gary Rosenblatt of the The Jewish Week. At the end of the article Rosenblatt wrote:

Friedman has often written of his support for the State of Israel, despite his sometimes sharp criticism of Jerusalem’s policies.

Last year Bradley Burston of Ha’aretz quoted Friedman:

“Israel doesn’t have to worry about me,” Friedman had stressed early in the interview. “At the end of the day, Israel will have my support — it had me at hello.”

Supporters like Rosenblatt portray Friedman as a friend of Israel. However a survey of his extensive writing about the Middle East shows that Friedman is hostile to Israel. The problem isn’t simply his “sometimes sharp criticisms” of Israel, rather it is his ever-shifting standards that always find Israel wanting.

In 1999, Friedman wrote a hypothetical column titled “How Bibi got Re-elected.” The conceit of the column — actually written before Netanyahu lost the premiership to Ehud Barak — was that Netanyahu tackled the most important issue facing Israel at that time — withdrawing Israeli troops from Lebanon. Friedman wrote:

Now that Israeli troops are out of Lebanon, noted Mr. Netanyahu, everything is reversed: Politically, if the Iranian-directed Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas try to come across the border, they will be invading Israel, and Israel will be justified in massively retaliating against Lebanese, Syrian and Iranian troops that abet such an invasion. And if Israel does retaliate, it won’t be with guerrilla warfare, but with the Israeli Air Force massively striking Lebanese, Iranian and Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and maybe inside Syria.

The Israeli move has totally unnerved the Syrians, the Hezbollah guerrillas and Iran. ”They are all now in a quandary,” said the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen. ”The Hezbollah guerrillas are saying to themselves: ‘Now that we have liberated Lebanon, do we want to use that as leverage to rule Lebanon? Or do we want to use that as a springboard to move on to Jerusalem?’ If they want to do the latter, now they’re really going to have to pay for it.”

Over the next six years Hezbollah violated the internationally approved border no less than 20 times, killing and wounding Israeli civilians and soldiers. In 2006 — following a particularly egregious incident in which Hezbollah crossed the borders, immediately killing eight soldiers and kidnapping (later killing) Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, Israel struck back. How did Friedman describe Israel’s response?

In a column titled “War, Timeout, War, Time …” Friedman wrote about Israel’s three recent wars against terror:

What is different about these three wars, though, is that Israel won them using what I call “Hama Rules” — which are no rules at all. “Hama Rules” are named after the Syrian town of Hama, where, in 1982, then-President Hafez el-Assad of Syria put down a Muslim fundamentalist uprising by shelling and then bulldozing their neighborhoods, killing more than 10,000 of his own people.

In Israel’s case, it found itself confronting enemies in Gaza and Lebanon armed with rockets, but nested among local civilians, and Israel chose to go after them without being deterred by the prospect of civilian casualties. As the Lebanese militia leader Bashir Gemayel was fond of saying — before he himself was blown up — “This is not Denmark here. And it is not Norway.”

The brutality of the Israeli retaliations bought this timeout with Hezbollah and Hamas, and the civilian casualties and troubling TV images bought Israel a U.N. investigation into alleged war crimes.

Even as Friedman acknowledged that Israel was fighting an enemy embedded among civilians, he still compared Israel’s second Lebanon War with Hafez Assad’s brutal assault on civilians. Rather than defending Israel’s right to self-defense, Friedman equated Israel’s self-defense with Assad’s all out assault on civilians. Even though Israel heeded his advice by withdrawing from southern Lebanon, Friedman didn’t defend Israel when the withdrawal resulted in a new threat.

While Israel fought against the terror infrastructure that Arafat had built up subsequent to Oslo, there was international pressure for diplomacy. Ahead of the Arab League summit scheduled for March 2002, Friedman wrote a column (in the form of a fictional memo from President Bush) titled “Dear Arab League“:

Memo to: President Hosni Mubarak, Crown Prince Abdullah, King Abdullah, President Bashar al-Assad and the rest of the Arab League
…
We’re just bystanders. You’re the ones with the power to really reshape the diplomacy, not me. And here is my advice for how to do it. You have an Arab League summit set for March in Lebanon. I suggest your summit issue one simple resolution: “The 22 members of the Arab League say to Israel that in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the June 4, 1967, lines — in the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem and on the Golan Heights — we offer full recognition of Israel, diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees. Full peace with all 22 Arab states for full withdrawal.”

Since you’ve all told me privately that this is your position, why not make it public and get the benefit? This is how to bury Osama bin Laden and define for the world who the Arabs really are. If you can’t take that risk, why should I?

An excellent takedown of one of Israel's self-proclaimed 'friends. Read the rest here

Tom Friedman vs. Israel

That's the title of a brand new Pajamas Media column by David Gerstman, whose Middle East media analysis appears here from time to time. Here's a slice:

Two weeks ago, columnist Thomas Friedman created a controversy in his column “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir“ when he wrote:

I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.

By using language evoking antisemitic imagery of Israel “owning” Congress, Friedman seemed to step over a line. In an effort to control the damage of his ill-advised language, Friedman defended himself to Gary Rosenblatt of the The Jewish Week. At the end of the article Rosenblatt wrote:

Friedman has often written of his support for the State of Israel, despite his sometimes sharp criticism of Jerusalem’s policies.

Last year Bradley Burston of Ha’aretz quoted Friedman:

“Israel doesn’t have to worry about me,” Friedman had stressed early in the interview. “At the end of the day, Israel will have my support — it had me at hello.”

Supporters like Rosenblatt portray Friedman as a friend of Israel. However a survey of his extensive writing about the Middle East shows that Friedman is hostile to Israel. The problem isn’t simply his “sometimes sharp criticisms” of Israel, rather it is his ever-shifting standards that always find Israel wanting.

In 1999, Friedman wrote a hypothetical column titled “How Bibi got Re-elected.” The conceit of the column — actually written before Netanyahu lost the premiership to Ehud Barak — was that Netanyahu tackled the most important issue facing Israel at that time — withdrawing Israeli troops from Lebanon. Friedman wrote:

Now that Israeli troops are out of Lebanon, noted Mr. Netanyahu, everything is reversed: Politically, if the Iranian-directed Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas try to come across the border, they will be invading Israel, and Israel will be justified in massively retaliating against Lebanese, Syrian and Iranian troops that abet such an invasion. And if Israel does retaliate, it won’t be with guerrilla warfare, but with the Israeli Air Force massively striking Lebanese, Iranian and Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and maybe inside Syria.

The Israeli move has totally unnerved the Syrians, the Hezbollah guerrillas and Iran. ”They are all now in a quandary,” said the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen. ”The Hezbollah guerrillas are saying to themselves: ‘Now that we have liberated Lebanon, do we want to use that as leverage to rule Lebanon? Or do we want to use that as a springboard to move on to Jerusalem?’ If they want to do the latter, now they’re really going to have to pay for it.”

Over the next six years Hezbollah violated the internationally approved border no less than 20 times, killing and wounding Israeli civilians and soldiers. In 2006 — following a particularly egregious incident in which Hezbollah crossed the borders, immediately killing eight soldiers and kidnapping (later killing) Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, Israel struck back. How did Friedman describe Israel’s response?

In a column titled “War, Timeout, War, Time …” Friedman wrote about Israel’s three recent wars against terror:

What is different about these three wars, though, is that Israel won them using what I call “Hama Rules” — which are no rules at all. “Hama Rules” are named after the Syrian town of Hama, where, in 1982, then-President Hafez el-Assad of Syria put down a Muslim fundamentalist uprising by shelling and then bulldozing their neighborhoods, killing more than 10,000 of his own people.

In Israel’s case, it found itself confronting enemies in Gaza and Lebanon armed with rockets, but nested among local civilians, and Israel chose to go after them without being deterred by the prospect of civilian casualties. As the Lebanese militia leader Bashir Gemayel was fond of saying — before he himself was blown up — “This is not Denmark here. And it is not Norway.”

The brutality of the Israeli retaliations bought this timeout with Hezbollah and Hamas, and the civilian casualties and troubling TV images bought Israel a U.N. investigation into alleged war crimes.

Even as Friedman acknowledged that Israel was fighting an enemy embedded among civilians, he still compared Israel’s second Lebanon War with Hafez Assad’s brutal assault on civilians. Rather than defending Israel’s right to self-defense, Friedman equated Israel’s self-defense with Assad’s all out assault on civilians. Even though Israel heeded his advice by withdrawing from southern Lebanon, Friedman didn’t defend Israel when the withdrawal resulted in a new threat.

While Israel fought against the terror infrastructure that Arafat had built up subsequent to Oslo, there was international pressure for diplomacy. Ahead of the Arab League summit scheduled for March 2002, Friedman wrote a column (in the form of a fictional memo from President Bush) titled “Dear Arab League“:

Memo to: President Hosni Mubarak, Crown Prince Abdullah, King Abdullah, President Bashar al-Assad and the rest of the Arab League
…
We’re just bystanders. You’re the ones with the power to really reshape the diplomacy, not me. And here is my advice for how to do it. You have an Arab League summit set for March in Lebanon. I suggest your summit issue one simple resolution: “The 22 members of the Arab League say to Israel that in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the June 4, 1967, lines — in the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem and on the Golan Heights — we offer full recognition of Israel, diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees. Full peace with all 22 Arab states for full withdrawal.”

Since you’ve all told me privately that this is your position, why not make it public and get the benefit? This is how to bury Osama bin Laden and define for the world who the Arabs really are. If you can’t take that risk, why should I?

An excellent takedown of one of Israel's self-proclaimed 'friends. Read the rest here