Media Matters: Righties-With-Head-Up-Arse Syndrome

Olbermann crowned Bozell "Worst Person" runner-up for claiming NY Times is "rooting for the homosexual revolution"

Summary:
On the July 13 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann awarded Media Research Center president and nationally syndicated columnist L. Brent Bozell III the second-place spot in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for Bozell's July 12 column attacking The New York Times' sponsorship of the 2006 Gay Games. According to Bozell, the Times, in its articles and sponsorship of events such as the Gay Games, is "rooting for the homosexual revolution" and "actively spread[ing] the gay gospel."

From the July 13 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: Our runner-up, the humorist Brent Bozell, ripping The New York Times
for being a corporate sponsor of the Gay Games, just like Absolut Vodka is a
corporate sponsor of the Gay Games, and Walgreens, and American Airlines. Bozell
says this means the Times is, quote, "rooting for the homosexual revolution."
Brent, have you checked lately to see if your trolley is still on its
tracks?
— S.S.M.

http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200607140003

Interviewed yet again on MSNBC/NBC, Coulter attacked 9-11 widows for purported acts of "cruel[ty]"

Summary: In her fifth appearance on NBC or MSNBC since the release of her latest book, Coulter denied that her previous remarks disparaging the 9-11 widows were cruel, claiming that the widows' actions "put a lot of other women at risk for becoming widows."

On the July 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, guest host Norah O'Donnell interviewed right-wing pundit Ann Coulter. Based on a Media Matters for America review* of the Nexis database, this was at least the fifth time Coulter has been interviewed on MSNBC or its parent network, NBC, since the June 6 release of her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006). As she has in her book and in her previous television appearances, Coulter unleashed a stream of attacks on the widows of 9-11 victims.

During the interview, Coulter denied that her previous remarks disparaging the 9-11 widows were, in O'Donnell's words, "cruel." Rather, she asserted that it is the 9-11 widows themselves who are "cruel," citing the following purported actions by the widows, which she said "put a lot of other women at risk for becoming widows" due to terrorism:

"[F]oisting a 9-11 Commission on the nation, making terrorist attacks more likely by turning it into a Clinton whitewash committee."

"[E]ndorsing John Kerry for president in the middle of a war on terrorism, the guy who voted for funding the troops before voting against it."

"[G]oing around claiming the president of the United States is responsible for these women's husbands' deaths."
Further, as she has done before, Coulter hid behind certain unnamed 9-11 widows to defend her accusation that liberals have used other 9-11 widows as "human shields" to blunt criticism of their views: "[T]here are a lot of 9-11 widows out there, Norah, and I'm hearing from a lot of them who think I wasn't harsh enough."
Coulter previously appeared on the following MSNBC and NBC programs:

The June 6 broadcast of NBC's Today;
The June 6 edition of MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson;
The June 14 broadcast of NBC's The Tonight Show with Jay Leno; and
The June 26 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country.

From the July 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

O'DONNELL: Well, Ann, some would argue that your soulmate, Bill O'Reilly on
Fox --

COULTER: OK, now you're just insulting me, Norah.

O'DONNELL: Oh. So you don't like Bill O'Reilly.

COULTER: I love Bill O'Reilly, but he's been viciously attacking
me.

O'DONNELL: He has, and you know -- and so we -- we've got those made up
into full-screens for you. He says what you said about the 9-11 widows was
brutal, to say something like that, he says it sounds awful, and in order to say
that to specific people you're going to have to prove it. And that's only
--[Rep.] Peter King [R-NY]: Coulter's comments about the widows went beyond the
pale of limits about decency --

COULTER: OK, yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard it all. On -- on O'Reilly,
he's just bitter because he kept saying "I end this issue. I did it. I did it
first." Well, OK. Congratulations to you.

O'DONNELL: But you -- Ann, you admit that it was cruel, and you don't
want to be cruel.

COULTER: No, I don't. No, I don't at all. I don't think it's at all
cruel. I think it's -- I think it's cruel to be --

O'DONNELL: Do you ever admit you're wrong?

COULTER: Yeah. When I'm wrong, I admit I'm wrong. I think it's cruel to
be foisting a 9-11 Commission on the nation, making terrorist attacks more
likely by turning it into a Clinton whitewash committee. I think it's cruel to
be endorsing John Kerry for president in the middle of a war on terrorism, the
guy who voted for funding the troops before voting against it. I think it's
cruel to be going around claiming the president of the United States is
responsible for these women's husbands' deaths. I think that's cruel because
it's going to put a lot of other women at risk for becoming widows. And there
are a lot of 9-11 widows out there, Norah, and I'm hearing from a lot of them
who think I wasn't harsh enough.

*Search of Nexis MSNBC and NBC News transcript databases: ann coulter and allcaps (coulter) and date(geq (6/6/06) and leq (7/14/06))
— J.B.
Posted to the web on Friday July 14, 2006 at 8:07 PM EST
http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200607150002

Coulter again called for NY Times staff to be "executed"

Summary: Ann Coulter again suggested that New York Times staff members should be "executed" over the paper's reports on the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program and a Treasury Department program designed to track international financial transactions for terrorist activity.

On the July 12 edition of The Jon Caldara Show on Denver radio station KOA, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter again suggested that New York Times staff members should be "executed." Referring to the Times' decision to report on the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program and a Treasury Department program designed to track international financial transactions for terrorist activity, Coulter declared that the Times had done "something that could have gotten them executed, certainly did get the Rosenbergs executed." As Media Matters for America noted, Coulter agreed with radio host Melanie Morgan's assertion that if New York Times executive editor Bill Keller were convicted of treason she "would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber," writing in her nationally syndicated July 12 column that if Times executive editor Bill Keller were convicted of treason, "I prefer a firing squad, but I'm open to a debate on the method of execution."

Noting that The Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times each also printed a story about the bank monitoring program on the same day as the Times, Coulter added "I have no problem with prosecuting them for treason either." Further blasting the Times for publishing the story, Coulter said on the newspaper's purported mindset: "[A]s with all insane liberals' ideas, they seem to think they can keep the consequences of their insanity limited to the outer boroughs of New York. It won't affect Manhattanites when the nuke hits." Coulter also defended McCarthyism, stating: "[L]iberals always do this. When they're committing treason, they always scream about how they're being persecuted. They did it with Joe McCarthy while they were sheltering Soviet spies."

From the July 12 edition of The Jon Caldara Show:

COULTER: I mean, for one thing, as I've mentioned here and there in a
column, what is going to happen to The New York Times? As I wrote in this week's
column, Ronald Reagan called Nixon after December 1972; Nixon was president
then, Reagan [California] governor. After Reagan had seen Walter Cronkite's
report on CBS News on the Vietnam War, Reagan called Nixon to say that if this
were World War II circumstances, CBS News would be prosecuted for treason. This
quote is also in my book Treason, by the way. Can you imagine --

CALDARA: Do you have a book for sale? I didn't know that.

COULTER: No, this is one that isn't for sale, but it's a magnificent
book. Well, it is for sale --

CALDARA: It is for sale.


COULTER: -- all my books are for sale. But it's not the book that I'm
supposed to be hawking right now --

CALDARA: Currently pimping, yes.

COULTER: -- I'm just mentioning it because it's relevant to the topic
at hand, The New York Times' treason. Thus, the aptly titled of my book -- title
of my book is Treason. And do you think there is any possibility any action will
be taken against The New York Times for something that could have gotten them
executed, certainly did get the Rosenbergs executed?

CALDARA: Of course not.

COULTER: Well, OK. That's why I'm saying I don't think Bush has
--

CALDARA: Bring it back to 1985 for me. There was a Times columnist who
went after Reagan. It was Tony Lewis.

COULTER: Ah, yes, whom I quote in this week's column.


CALDARA: You do indeed. And in fact, that's why I brought it up. See,
that's what is known as a subtle plug. Just jump right in there.

COULTER: Part of the theme of this week's column, in addition to
continuing the drumbeat for a treason trial against the Times, is how liberals
always do this. When they're committing treason, they always scream about how
they're being persecuted. They did it with Joe McCarthy while they were
sheltering Soviet spies: "Oh, we're being persecuted! McCarthyism! If you
mention that you like Russian vodka, you'll be investigated in this country!"
That was said by a Soviet spy, now proved by Venona papers, also in my book
Treason. Nixon and Anthony Lewis, in his column back in the 80s, complained that
-- oh, sorry, this was Reagan.
CALDARA: Right.


COULTER: Of course, Nixon was supposed to be so brutal to the press, so
horribly, horribly brutal. And yet, he didn't prosecute Jane Fonda for treason.
And then Ronald Reagan, and Anthony Lewis complaining about "Oh, Nixon, he is
trying to intimidate us, trying to intimidate us." You know, I read the Times
back then, and I don't recall noticing any intimidation on the part of the
press. And now we're getting it again with the New York Times -- you know,
having a drop-off box at the New York Times building for, you know, for
classified top-secret programs.

CALDARA: For those people who might not be following this all that
closely, it's not that you're hacked off at the Times because they spin every
story; that's not it. You're not going after them because they make up stories.
You're not going after them for treason because their editorial page is written
in Cuba. You're going at them very specifically because they're giving out,
shall we say it, trade secrets.

COULTER: Right. They're revealing classified programs that will
unquestionably help Al Qaeda, help terrorists launch another attack on New York
or on America someplace. The irony of this is that New York is certainly one of
the very likely targets. And they are in New York. But as with all insane
liberals' ideas, they seem to think they can keep the consequences of their
insanity limited to the outer boroughs of New York. It won't affect
Manhattanites when the nuke hits. And this latest one, I mean, they've done it
before. They did it with the NSA spying program, but this latest one is
particularly outrageous. There's no -- there's no news value in how we are
tracking terrorists in this particular case. This is a top-secret program. When
you have 9-11 commissioners -- I mean, forget the president and the Bush
administration pleading with the Times not to run this. How about both 9-11
commissioners, who are not exactly ferocious hawks, and even Jack Murtha, who
wants to pull troops out of Iraq in the middle of a war -- even Murtha asked the
Times not to print this, and yet the Times goes right ahead.
CALDARA: The
Times is doing something very, very smart, by the way. The first couple of
stories, they went out all on their own, so it was very easy to beat up just the
Times. Now they realize that there is safety in numbers, and that they are
sharing stories with other newspapers, including, of all newspapers, The Wall
Street Journal. I mean, explain this one to me.
COULTER: And by the way, I
don't know the details of who printed what when, but I've heard liberals, you
know, their big talking point seems to be, "Well, what about the LA Times? And
what about The Wall Street Journal?" I have no problem with prosecuting them for
treason either. Right? Whatever the facts are, fine, but I'll let the
prosecutors and the jury and the judge deal with that. The point is, we know
what the Times is up to because they have a pattern of conduct here. And it's
especially -- I mean, as I said in last week's column, what if the Rosenbergs,
Julius and Ethel, instead of passing secrets about our nuclear program at Los
Alamos, instead of passing it secretly to Soviet agents, instead of that, they
just, you know, printed up a newsletter and published it in their newsletter?
Would that have immunized them from a treason prosecution?
— R.D.

Posted to the web on Friday July 14, 2006 at 6:07 PM EST
http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200607140015

Sometimes that make it soooooooooooooo easy for me!
polybi

Can you say.........Mark of the Beast?

From America's (barf!) Anchorman!:

A lot of people are asking me, Rush, what is this biometric card that the
president was talking about? A key part of the system would be a new ID card for
every legal foreign worker. All right, now, this is interesting. One of the
cards under consideration is a card called IronGate. It's by a company, Digital
Defense, and you can go to their website and see it; mydigitaldefense.com
is their Website, and the IronGate biocard basically works because it has your
fingerprint deeply embedded in the card, and it can't be duplicated; it cannot
be counterfeited. What happens is, according to the website, an IronGate biocard
user registers their biocard and self-enrolls their fingerprints by placing a
finger or thumb on the biocard scan engine. This generates a unique digital
certificate directly onto the biocard.

Once an IronGate
biocard user is registered and enrolled, only then can the industry's first
on-card authentication process take place through the wireless transmission of a
multi-frequency band sending only the digital certificate. A user's biometric
data never leaves the IronGate biocard. The stored biometric information can't
be breached, cannot be duplicated if the card is lost or stolen, provides
maximum security. This is just one of the cards that I think is being considered
for this. Now, stop and think, though, for a minute. Every legal foreign worker
will be given one of these cards. Theoretically if you don't have one of these
cards, you don't get a job; you don't get a paycheck; you don't get a welfare
check. You don't get any of this. How long is it going to take to get one of
these cards if this actually happens, and I don't know if this is in the
"compromise bill" in the Senate. How long is this going to take to register and
find every legal foreign worker, get them one of these cards, thereby
establishing who's illegal? It may be possible, but the people that believe in
this say there's no way that you can counterfeit this, there is no way that you
can transfer this to somebody else. It is one of the latest cutting edge
technological advances. I'm just responding to some of the e-mail. I've been
reading it last night, because I've been fascinated by people's reaction to the
speech. This issue is crucial to the future of the country. When you read the
reports, and we put them on the website, we linked to them last night, the Jeff Sessions analysis and the
Heritage Foundation analysis, anywhere from 193 to 217 million new legal
immigrants in the next 20 years. We were never intended to assimilate that many
people. That's two-thirds of the population of the country as it exists today.
The Heritage Foundation report that was released by Robert Rector, who is one of
the nation's leading authorities on poverty and welfare, by the way, and I've
quoted him countless times during the history of this program.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051606/content/america_s_anchorman.guest.html

.guest.html

Well, lets see. We give one of these cards to every single legal alien that comes into this country so we can track where they go and make sure they are legal. Sounds great, right?

I have, up until recently, never been one of those believers that secret cabals are rubbing thier hands plotting our enslavement. I have not put too much stock in those. But now THIS comes up. Think this is good idea? Then let's take that fun ride down that slippery slope together, eh?
The ONLY way something like this would work is that if EVERYBODY.....not just immigrants, had card like this. Illegals could just get fake copies of drivers licences or state ID cards. Sop the only way this would work is if we ALL had that biometric card.

A card that would track you wherever you go. Every move. Every job. Every paycheck.

Missing an alimony payment? Check the database. Reporting taxes? Check the database to see if you are fudging. It can track where you live because you will need it. In fact, they can set it up where if you are illgeal....or anyone else does not does not conform to the social norms...cannot buy any goods, use any services, go on a train, plane, bus or ship, without that new biometric card. We have to protect ouselves against illegal Mexicans (and that IS what we are talking about, not illegals from other countries) and AL-Quida cell members (who have probably all taken thier oaths and a fill fledged citizens already anyway), right??

Now where did I hear this idea before.......

Revelation 13
13:16
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive F21 a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
13:17
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
13:18
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

I'm not saying that's where we are headed, but it would not take much. Would it be a good idea....don't know. But you got to hand it to President Curious George: he does know how to slip this under the radar.

The undocumented tomato picker as a trojan horse. Whadd'l they think of next?

Whatever the answer is, I'm afraid of it!

polybi

Girl, 11, will be Britain's youngest mother

Girl, 11, will be Britain's youngest mother By IAN DRURY, Daily Mail
A girl is to become Britain's youngest mother after becoming pregnant at 11.
The girl smokes 20 cigarettes a day despite being eight months' pregnant. She conceived aged 11 when she lost her virginity to a boy of 15 on a drunken night out with friends.
The 15-year-old has since been charged with rape by police, and is due to appear again at Edinburgh sheriff court on July 10.
Her 34-year-old mother, who gave birth to her youngest child eight months ago, said she was 'proud' of her daughter.
She will be 12 years and 8 months when she has the child next month. Jenny Teague, Britain's youngest mother until now, was a month older when she gave birth in 1997.
How can we best tackle this problem? Tell us in reader comments below
The youngster, who lives near Edinburgh, says looking after her younger brothers has prepared her for motherhood.
But the girl admits she "panics and cries" when babies are unwell and does not feel able to bathe them.
The mother-to-be, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had unprotected sex with the teenage boy, who also cannot be identified, while drunk last August.
'Excited'
She told the Sun: "I didn't think I'd get pregnant because it was my first time. But I'm really excited and looking forward to being a mum.
"I can't wait to take the baby swimming and out for walks in the pram. I think I'll be able to cope as I've had lots of practice looking after my brothers.
"I know how to feed a baby its bottle and I can change nappies. But I panic and cry if they're sick and I don't like giving them a bath because I'm a bit frightened.
"It's good to know I'll have my mum here to help me if I need her."
Concerned she might be pregnant, the girl visited a GP three times but tests proved negative. She learned the truth after buying a home-testing kit from a supermarket.
After the device displayed two blue lines, indicating she was pregnant, she pleaded with a female relative to break the news to her mother. The girl, who has been suspended from her first year of secondary school for fighting, said: "I was paranoid about what my mum was going to say and just frightened about being pregnant too.
"I knew straight away that I couldn't have an abortion because that's something I don't believe in.
"I was upset and so was my mum, especially as she'd just had my wee brother. We had a big argument and I ended up locking myself in my room and running away to a friend's.
"It was really hard but it's brought me and my mum closer, which is good. I knew my mum would stand by me no matter what, but I told her straight away I was going to keep the baby.
"The social worker suggested I got rid of it but I'd never do that."
Smoking at nine
The girl, who has shoulder-length dark hair, began smoking at nine and started drinking tonic wine and vodka cocktails at ten. She claimed her cigarette habit was not harming the health of her unborn child.
She said: "I can give up smoking at any time, but I don't find it affects my pregnancy."
The girl, whose parents split up several years ago, said she would like a baby boy - and may call him Leo.
She is currently being educated at a local community centre but knows she must return to school.
She told the Sun: "My mum has said she will look after the baby so I can go to school. I don't know what I want to do with my life when I leave. I used to want to be a nursery nurse, but now I'm not so sure."
'Proud of my daughter'
Her mum said: "I'm not ashamed of my daughter at all - in fact, I'm proud of her for keeping the baby.
"I know she's worried what other people will say but she can walk out there with her head held high.
"At first I wasn't too happy about becoming a gran. But now I'm used to the idea. I'm really looking forward to having another baby in the house."
The Scottish Conservatives has called for society and families to unite to change attitudes towards sex following the news.
Find this story at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=385968&in_page_id=1774
(C)2006 Associated New Media

You will be glad to know after reading this that the folks in Britian have the same insight and intellegence about this matter as thier cousins across the pond. Namely....absolutely none. Read and barf....

13/03/06 - Femail section

Time to get tough on teenage mums by KATIE HAMPSON, Mail online
Samantha McCall fell pregnant at 16 and says she receives child tax credit, income support, child benefit and a £500 maternity grant.
The shocking extent of benefits made available to such gym-slip mums as Samantha were detailed in the Daily Mail's article today about the young mothers-to-be - all of whom have been likened to the teenage tearaway Vicky Pollard.
The girls interviewed, some as young as 14, are attending a £100,000 course funded by the taxpayer, where they have classes in everything from claiming benefits to writing a CV and understanding the dangers of smoking while pregnant.
Each 'student' is paid £30 a week to attend - and receives a £100 bonus if she completes the 16-week course without missing a lesson.

'Makes a mockery of the Government'
However, it is by providing these financial incentives that the government is effectively condoning under-age sex. It also puts a gloss on teenage motherhood, with the result being many youngsters consider it an attractive lifestyle.
Perhaps most crucially, handouts like these make a mockery of the Government's strategy aimed at cutting teenage pregnancies.
The Government has vowed to half the number of pregnant under-16s by 2010. But how can it achieve this goal when it is offering teenagers such 'help' as £500 maternity grants? These policies are simply encouraging pregnancies among young women.

'Benefits need to be curtailed'
A report published in the Daily Mail from the Prince's Trust revealed single teenage girls on sink estates admire their peers who have given birth and often seek to copy their status and acquire the free flat they think having a baby usually brings.
Such alarming attitudes should provide the government with a stark warning that welfare benefits to single teenage mothers need to be curtailed.
Britain has long had among the highest teen pregnancy rates in the EU. The initiatives introduced to tackle the problem are not working. But this is shrugged off by the Government, which claims the situation will improve.

'Say no to sex'
But how can it improve when teenagers are confronted at every turn with the notion that teenage sex is acceptable?
Teenage pregnancy plotlines are now are in all of our television soaps.
High Street stores are targetting youngsters with sexy underwear and makeup.
Then there's the government's promotion of abortion and contraception among school-aged children which in effect condones and encourages sexual activity.
The Government must change tack and adopt a tougher line.
The message to teenagers should be 'say no to sex'.

'Bring back old-fashioned values'
Advocating abstention is a policy which has worked in America. So, if America can cut teen pregnancies, why can't we?
Britain has effectively made under-age sex acceptable by handing out condoms to children and proposing confidential sex counselling to girls under 16.
Why aren't we reinforcing the meaning between sex and love and the importance of committment between sexual partners?
Education is vital in combatting teenage pregnancies, not the incentives for young mums-to-be that come with generous financial handouts.
Children must be provided with the confidence and techniques to resist peer pressure and be shown the negative side to having children so young.

'Don't back down'
I have just turned 27 years-old and yet I am adament we need to carefully re-introduce old-fashioned values such as modesty and dignity so they are no longer ridiculed.
It's not good enough for parents, or the government, to throw their hands up in their air and say the battle can't be won.
Our role as responsible parents is to tell our teenagers that sex under 16 is wrong and against their best interests. Terrify them with the consequences, show them examples of the uphill battle children who have children face. And don't back down.
Meanwhile, the government needs to back parents up with policies that have the power to change and reinforce more traditional social attitudes.
The promotion of 'safe sex' is important for teenagers, especially once they turn 16.
But the 'say no to sex' approach is the message we need to get through to young people now.

Find this story at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=379738&in_page_id=1879 ©2006 Associated New Media

Where do we start..........well, I won;t say much, since the handful of people in both countries who do have a brain can see through the folly of this.

Just a couple of queries, tho'. First...you want to cut off benefits to kids? Innocent bystanders in all of this? Fine. Do that. Just don't write to me when the product of your prudery crawls through your window and steals your telly.

And as for say no to kids. How do you expect your kids to do what you wouldn't at age whatever. Once and for all, your kids are having sex. Have been. Always will. Probably you did. Nothing changes.

What MUST change is the rampant erotophobia that permeates thoughts like "just say no." Tell that to a 16 years-old's hormones. Maybe you might have dodged that bullet, staying a virgin through high school, but I would surely like to see your high school picture to see if that virginity was in any danger.

Unless we get REAL about teen's sexuality, there will be more children having children, among other things. Maybe, instead of calling sexuality this evil thing that mus be avoided at all costs, maybe we should be truthful and tell our children how wonderful sex really is, but with that comes responsibility. That pregnancy CAN happen the first time. That you may not be ready for sex physically or emotionally. But most important, if something does happen, you have a loving mom and dad with you to support you and care for you all the way.

But for that to happen, we need a seachange on thought of gargantuan porportions. A total elimimation of erotophobia from all segments of our sociey and life.

They'll find those WMD's in Iraq before then. Way before.