Video: CNN's John King identifies arrested suspect as 'dark-skinned male individual'

John King trips all over himself while identifying an arrested suspect in the Boston marathon bombings as 'dark-skinned'.

Via Daily Caller:

Finally! Someone throws Fast and Furious into gun control debate (Ted Nugent vs. Erin Burnett)

Regular visitors to this blog know that I've been calling for gun rights advocates to go on a counter-offensive with the gun grabbers, instead of playing defense all the time. The best way to do that is to contrast the exploitation of Sandy Hook by the Obama administration with how it handled Operation Fast and Furious.

Practically every point, argument, and position taken by Obama's media ventriloquist dummies can be responded to with a Fast and Furious reference.

Selling guns to bad guys: You want to talk selling guns to bad guys? In Fast and Furious, Obama's ATF didn't allow gun store owners to sell to bad guys; they ORDERED them to.

Background checks: You want to talk background checks? How about the gun store owners who didn't want to sell to straw purchasers they knew were going to walk guns into Mexico? It was Obama's ATF that insisted those gun store owners make the sales despite background checks that told them not to.

Murder: You want to talk about guns being used to murder people? How about the straw purchasers mentioned above, giving those guns to Mexican drug cartels who have used those guns to murder hundreds of Mexicans and at least one American border patrol agent? All with the approval and mandate of the ATF.

Banning assault weapons: You want to talk about banning assault weapons? Why did the ATF allow thousands of assault weapons (AK-47s and .50 Cal.) to be placed into the hands of the most violent cartels on earth?

Shutting down gun stores: You want to talk about shutting down operations? How about leaving the responsible gun store owners, who didn't want to sell weapons to bad guys, alone and shutting down the ATF, which mandated those gun store owners sell those weapons to bad guys?

Gun Trafficking: You want to talk about gun trafficking? How about the ATF - after mandating that gun store owners sell to bad guys - looking the other way as those bad guys not only trafficked weapons out of the country but gave them to hardened criminals whom they knew would murder innocent people with them.

In this clip below (fast forward to the 6:18 mark), Nugent hits Burnett with a question about stopping gun traffickers. Burnett, predictably agrees right before Nugent asks her if she thinks Attorney General Eric Holder should be arrested for... gun trafficking.

Burnett's reaction tells the whole story. She was rendered speechless.

If the gun rights crowd wants to win this debate, it must make these arguments. Hopefully, this is the first instance of many.



h/t GWP

About that CNN Hit Piece on Michele Bachmann...

First of all, that CNN in general - Anderson Cooper in particular - is given any credibility is amazing in itself. CNN has a history of featuring dishonest flacks and news stories. Consider what Drew Griffin did to Walid Shoebat and Sarah Palin or what Sara Sidner reported from Gaza, or the Pallywood news footage that featured a large man faking an injury that Cooper was busted airing on his program and had to retract.

In the case of Sidner, she featured a news story that left viewers to believe that a Palestinian boy was killed by Israeli rocket fire. When it became apparent the boy had to have been killed by an errant Palestinian rocket, CNN's Don Lemon issued a pseudo-retraction right before he went to... wait for it... Sara Sidner for an update.

At about the same time, Cooper had to issue a retraction for airing the footage of the large man faking an injury. It's good he did so but c'mon, Palestinians staging scenes and passing it off as news is incredibly pervasive and none of it should be trusted, which would seem to indicate the retraction was issued only because the error was so egregiously obvious.

This brings us to the hit piece on Michele Bachmann this week by Cooper and Dana Bash, which focused on aspects of Bachmann's CPAC speech that included examples of Barack Obama's extravagant lifestyle as President. Cooper's report began with a short clip of Bachmann demanding answers to the attacks in Benghazi, after which Cooper said CNN has been critical of Benghazi and then began to move on to the small portion of Bachmann's speech about lavish White House spending.

The items of interest for Cooper were Bachmann's reference to a book that charged Obama as being the $1.4 Billion president. Examples provided were five chefs on Air Force One, two projectionists at the White House, and someone being paid to walk BO the dog. Cooper then proceeded to introduce reporter Dana Bash, who was almost apoplectic that she had to chase Bachmann down a hallway to ask her about the Congresswoman's statements during the speech.

Roger Aronoff does a good job of dismantling the report by Cooper and Bash and exposes it for what it is - a hit piece. It's quite apparent after reading it that Bachmann's words were twisted to intentionally smear. By airing a clip of Bachmann's comments on Benghazi and then saying CNN has been critical of the handling of Benghazi, Cooper asks viewers to accept the premise that he is balanced, objective, and without an agenda.

The premise is faulty. Whatever criticism CNN has had for Benghazi, it's been nowhere near interested enough in getting to the truth and unless I've missed something, I don't recall Bash chasing / badgering any administration official for answers, though I could be wrong. In any event, the attention given to a small part of a CPAC speech by a congresswoman could have been better spent doggedly pursuing answers to Benghazi, hey Dana?

The larger picture that CNN is obviously missing is the runaway spending, a $17 Trillion debt, and annual deficits the likes of which we've never seen. Focusing exclusively on Bachmann's examples without seeming to care about those larger issues is also quite revealing. In fact, instead of doing so, perhaps Cooper could do his job and investigate why there IS so much spending and where all the money is going?

At the 5:00 mark, Cooper also makes reference to the Huma Abedin controversy, saying:

"Congresswoman Bachmann has made other claims that simply do not stand up as well, namely that Huma Abedin, a top adviser to then Secretary of State Clinton, may be under the sway of the Muslim Brotherhood. That allegation was found factually groundless, drew sharp criticism at the time from both sides of the aisle..."

Hey Anderson, how would you know? You never addressed the facts about Abedin's familial background and actually aired news reports that defended her without exploring any of those facts. Ironically, while Cooper was dismissing Abedin's connection to the Brotherhood, he aired B-roll of her actually talking to the president of the Muslim Brotherhood's group in America - Mohamed Magid of the ISNA - at the 5:19 mark (though Magid not seen in the portion of the video that was aired during Cooper's report).

As for the Bash-chasing-Bachmann footage that was shown shortly thereafter, Cooper and Bash were both amazed that Bachmann turned the question about Obama having a "dog walker" back on Bash, when it was Bachmann who brought it up. Actually, as Aronoff points out, Bachmann never said Obama pays for a "dog walker", only that someone is paid to walk it, which is true.

A central theme of the Tea Party that was formed in early 2009 was that its members were willing to defend neither Obama nor his predecessor, George W. Bush when it came to spending. Hindsight is 20/20 but Bachmann could have responded to Bash by reinforcing this sentiment, saying that both administrations have been responsible for our monstrous debt, though it can't be denied that Obama shifted the debt-mobile into overdrive. Bash and Cooper wanted to contrast the money spent on the Obama presidency with that of the Bush presidency.

The fact is that both were (and are) out of control. If only Cooper was as interested in that self-evident truth as he is in smearing a congresswoman who desperately wants to do something about it.

If CNN is effective at anything, it's smearing those it wants to marginalize and running interference for those it wants to protect.

Maddening Video: Ted Nugent FAILS to bring up Fast and Furious in debate when Piers Morgan serves up the opportunities

Why. Do. Gun. Rights. Activists. Refuse. To. Go. On. Offense. In. Debates?!

The latest very frustrating example takes place in a debate between Ted Nugent and Piers Morgan.

Take note at the 5:40 mark when Nugent is asked to respond to Barack Obama's gun control argument. Instead of bringing up Fast and Furious - a very deadly gun walking operation, led by the ATF / DOJ - he brought up Benghazi:

"...the Scammer-in-Chief, who claims that just to save one life would be worth this... He had a chance to save four American lives in Benghazi and refused to do so and now he's sending F-16's to Egypt..."

Both valid arguments to be sure but neither drives a stake into the heart of the administration's position on Gun Control. The ATF knowingly placed thousands of assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels who used those guns to commit hundreds of murders. On top of that, just a little over one month ago, the ATF in Milwaukee allowed a machine gun (automatic) and a 9mm to be stolen from one of its vehicles. Those two weapons are still loose on the streets of Wisconsin.

There were plenty of opportunities for Nugent to hammer on this. He got very close when he made reference to a 'gun free zone' in Mexico that isn't working. It was the perfect opportunity to demonstrate how defenseless Mexican citizens were when the U.S. Government flooded that 'gun free zone' with assault weapons (AK-47's and .50 Calibers) that were used by criminals to kill innocents. Nugent missed a huge opportunity.

Beginning at the 7:10 mark, Morgan actually tees up a Fast and Furious reference that Nugent completely missed. When talking about the increase in gun sales nationally, Morgan said:

"Do you think America is going to be safer because gun stores like this are selling so furiously and so much faster, weapons and ammunition increasing both in America?"

Talk about a slow, high-hanging curveball right in Nugent's wheelhouse! Guess what? He whiffed. Instead of saying something like, "Let me talk to you about Fast and Furious, Piers..." Nugent apparently didn't see the natural connection.

I love Ted Nugent but frankly, it is getting beyond tiresome to see second amendment proponents like him completely blow by the slam-dunk argument in the gun control debate.

A take-away line begins at the 3:30 mark when Nugent says, "Leave us the hell alone!" This perfectly captures the problem with gun rights proponents in these debates. They're never on offense and the best way to do that is to highlight the deadly irresponsible / nefarious operations of Obama's ATF / DOJ.

h/t MediaIte:

Two Woefully absent arguments in Gun Control debates

"I've been sitting here, getting more and more fed up with all of this talk about these pieces of machinery having no legitimate sporting purpose, no legitimate hunting purpose. People, that is not the point of the second amendment. The second amendment is not about duck hunting and I know I'm not going to make very many friends saying this but it's about our right, all of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there." - Suzanna Gracia-Hupp in 1993 Congressional testimony about banning assault weapons.

It may seem like I'm beating a dead horse but remember, doing so is warranted when the truth lies in that horse's bones. Like Gracia-Hupp in that 1993 hearing, I too am getting "fed up" with the gun control debate, not because I don't think it's legitimate but because practically everyone who is engaging in it is arguing the wrong points while playing defense instead of going on offense.

There are two arguments that second amendment proponents never seem willing to address. First, the reason for the second amendment is to protect against tyranny and second, it's the government that should be the subject of a gun control debate relative to Operation Fast and Furious.

To his credit, CNN's Piers Morgan is giving plenty of gun rights advocates their say on his show but few of them seem all that interested in deviating from the terms of Morgan's debate, which is that no one needs an AR-15 for home defense. When guests argue the point that they do, it sounds a bit loopy. Most of the arguments have to deal with fending off multiple intruders. When that's the argument, people like Morgan are more successful than they should be.

It's like pro-lifers allowing leftists to make the argument about whether abortions should be permitted in the cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother's health. Those cases are so rare as a percentage of the overall number of abortions that they're outside the bounds of the central issue, which is whether abortion is murder. Conservatives constantly allow the debate to shift away from the real issue.

The same thing continues to happen with the gun control debate. Here are two examples. First, staunch conservative radio talk show host Dana Loesch does battle with Piers Morgan. Notice what the debate is about - the nuances of the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons. While Loesch is correct and makes some good points, Morgan is far more successful with viewers because Loesch doesn't shift the debate to what the second amendment is really about (see Gracia-Hupp quote above).

Pay attention at the 3:00 mark. Morgan's question to Loesch is:

"What would you personally do and authorize Washington's politicians to do, to curb gun violence in America?"

Her answer:

"Stop disarming law-abiding citizens."

She's right but doesn't go on offense. She also has a problem coming up with another example when prompted by Morgan to do so but does ultimately add that there should be...

"...tougher penalties for criminals who kill people with illegally obtained firearms."

Once again, this would have been a perfect opportunity to inject the government's role in Fast and Furious into the debate. Consider Morgan's response if Loesch would have said something like:

"Well, Piers, perhaps we could start with more transparency in Operation Fast and Furious. How about you demanding that President Obama lift Executive Privilege on subpoenaed documents by the House Oversight Committee that Eric Holder doesn't want you to see? How about we dig a little deeper into how the ATF - with the approval of the Justice Department - was allowed to put assault weapons, to include .50 Caliber rifles, which are much more powerful than AR-15's, into the hands of drug cartels? It seems to me, Piers, that you're being a little biased in this debate."

Until conservatives engage in the real debate, the progressives will continue to make gains. It's really a shame because Loesch is very conservative and never afraid to debate the hard issues.

The AR-15 lighter was a nice touch, though.

Via GWP:



Here is another example. Two young conservative women in an interview with Piers Morgan do the same thing Loesch did; they allow Morgan to make the debate about whether an AR-15 is necessary for home defense (See Suzanna Gratia-Hupp quote again). This is not the reason the second amendment was put in the Constitution. While one of these women accurately cited a news story about how an AR-15 came in handy relative to home defense, the pro-second amendment crowd has got to start going on offense instead of simply playing adequate defense.

Via WND:

The Truth about the shooting of Democratic Congresswoman on Joe Biden Gun Control task force

In 1978, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) was a legal aid to Rep. Leo Ryan (D-CA), the only U.S. Congressman to be murdered in the line of duty. In 2011, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) almost became the second. Speier barely survived the trip to Jonestown, where an insane preacher had moved his insane Temple, but not before she herself had been shot five times.

Incredibly, not only is she still a Democrat but the Joe Biden gun control squad appears to be enlisting her help in developing a plan of action, as she is one of twelve Democratic congressmen who make up the House Democrat Task Force on Gun Violence. The group met with Biden yesterday.

Make no mistake. Speier's presence on that Task Force has to do with her very real and personal history when it comes to being on the wrong end of a gun. After the meeting, CNN interviewed Speier and asked her about her experience at Jonestown in 1978 (beginning at the 2:00 mark). Conspicuously absent from the exchange is any mention of Jones' ideology and who he was in bed with - the Democratic Party. Jones was a Marxist. More on his relationship with very prominent Democrats after the video.

Via Daily Caller:



Jim Jones was a professed Marxist and moved up through the ranks of political power in San Francisco with the aid and assistance of several Democrats. He helped Democratic Mayor George Moscone get elected. In fact, through the use of Community Organizing, Jones and his Temple were very much responsible for Moscone's victory. As a result, Moscone rewarded Jones with a seat on the San Francisco Housing Authority, which oversaw more than $14 million, and later enlisted the help of then California State Assemblyman Willie Brown (D) to introduce legislation that would ensure Jones would become chairman.

Ralph Nader has a little known legacy of disgrace when it comes to Jim Jones as well. An extremely terrified couple who had defected from Jones' cult reached out to Nader for help, in confidence. He betrayed them. Their plea for assistance found its way from Nader to Jones.

Jones also ingratiated himself with other Democrats like then Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally and Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who once said of Jones:

"I am really pleased and inspired by what I have seen. Here is truly a man - Pastor Jim Jones - who is touched by God."

How about then Democratic Governor Jerry Brown (yes, the one who is in office today)? Brown made several visits to Jones' Temple and clearly turned a blind eye to what was going on. Jones also rubbed elbows with Rosalyn Carter and Walter Mondale (see video below). Speaking of that video, note how Jones boasts about the fact that he was a Marxist (Obama has a history that very much involves studying Marxism and associating with Marxists). Also keep in mind how more than 900 people died in Jonestown; Jones was responsible but it wasn't done with guns:



In a book entitled, Six Years With God, written by Jeannie Mills (a pseudonym), the woman who was betrayed by Nader and ultimately lost her life, wrote:

"Just a few doors down the street from the San Francisco temple the Black Muslims had their temple. Jim made strong overtures of friendship to this strong group, even sending large contingencies of our membership to attend their services, to which they responded by sending their members to our services."

Two more ironic realities about Jim Jones that should raise bold red flags with Speier...

Jones attempted to buy favorable California media coverage - to some degree, successfully - with payoffs labeled as "commendation" awards to show support for the first amendment. Laughable, isn't it? Not surprisingly, the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle received the largest amounts. Eerily salient today, isn't it?

The other reality the mainstream media will not touch is the fact that just prior to the mass murder / suicide in Jonestown, the group bequeathed all of its assets to the Soviet Union.

I cover all of this (and more) in much greater detail in Chapter five of Unsung Davids: Ten Men who Battled Goliath without Glory. The Unsung David in that chapter is a man named David Conn.

Instead of playing defense, the Republican leadership should be exposing the truth behind the groups and individuals responsible for Speier's shooting. In fact, it was the Democratic Party that enabled Jim Jones to acquire the power he did.

That Speier is still a Democrat defies any and all logic, unless one believes that Stockholm Syndrome is a real condition.

Parting thought: In an interview Speier gave last year, she talked about how many people approached her delegation in 1978 to SECRETLY ask for escape from Jonestown. If Speier were honest, would she ask for escape from the Democratic Party?

Video: Larry Pratt dismantles Piers Morgan... Again

Piers Morgan is apparently a glutton for punishment because after being thoroughly and roundly defeated in a debate with Larry Pratt last month, he had Pratt on again. The result was the same. This time, Pratt even brought up Fast and Furious. Morgan's reaction was predictable.

Via Gun Owners of America:

Pratt also brought up Operation Fast & Furious and tagged Morgan for refusing to discuss the Obama Administration’s “culpability to commit mass murder” while supervising an operation that flooded our southern border with illegal firearms.

Fast and Furious should be brought up by gun rights activists in EVERY. SINGLE. GUN. CONTROL. DEBATE.

It's the magic bullet (metaphorically speaking) in this entire saga.



For posterity, here is Round One again:

Video: The Appeal and Absurdity of Alex Jones in under three minutes

I must admit, absent Alex Jones' accusation that Piers Morgan is a 'hatchet man for the New World Order', the former seemed to be winning the debate with the CNN host until about the 1:50 mark of this clip. If I had been watching this with a Frank Luntz dial device, you'd have seen my line take a plunge right about there (after dipping slightly during the Piers-is-a-NWO-apparatchik line).

It's easy to see how the overly emphatic indignation of Jones - Ron Paul's biggest media mouthpiece - gathers him a following. That said, the combination of his over-the-top choleric diatribes mixed with his belief that 9/11 was an inside job torpedoes his credibility.

Piers Morgan knew that, which likely goes a long way to explaining his calm demeanor during Jones' rant on the gun control debate. Just before the 2:00 mark, Piers changed the subject and asked Jones who was responsible for 9/11. Without missing a beat, after having carried on a mocking rendition of Morgan's dialect a bit too long, Jones went right into his belief that the Bush administration blew up Building 7.

Via GWP:



The video above was edited by a gun control nut and was intentionally made to look Jones look as kooky as possible. Here is the full, unedited version of Part one of the interview:



While Jones made excellent points, his delivery (and 9/11 Trutherism) made Morgan look reasonable, unlike the CNN host's interview with Larry Pratt last month, in which the opposite happened:

The Selective Outrage of CNN's Piers Morgan (Sandy Hook vs. Fast and Furious) speaks volumes

First up, this exchange between CNN's Piers Morgan and Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA). Take note of all the name-calling and where it's coming from. According to Morgan, Pratt is a "dangerous" and "stupid" "idiot" who offends Morgan by "laughing". Though the issue of Fast and Furious doesn't come up, a central theme in this post is Morgan's behavior, so pay particular attention to it.

It's 11 minutes but you won't want to stop watching until the very end, at which point, Pratt even manages to successfully drop a Neville Chamberlain line on Piers.

Via Sipsey Street:



CNN's Piers Morgan has been frothing at the mouth over the issue of gun control since the horrendous Sandy Hook shootings less than one week ago. Yet, for the last two years, his righteous indignation over Operation Fast and Furious has been conspicuously absent, if he has addressed the government-sanctioned operation at all.

At Sandy Hook, a man who reportedly worshipped 'Satan', illegally accessed legally registered guns and murdered people with them. As a brief aside / reminder, Barack Obama's hero, Saul Alinsky, had reverence for 'Lucifer' as well. The resulting carnage is being exploited by people like Morgan and Obama to argue for more gun control.

Conversely, Fast and Furious was the result of the U.S. Government (ATF / DOJ) intentionally putting assault weapons (the same weapons Obama and Morgan want to ban) into the hands of Mexican drug cartels so that there would be similar carnage that could be exploited in the same way that Sandy Hook is currently being exploited. Those plans went sour when it was learned - thanks to whistleblowers - that two guns from the operation were found at the murder scene of U.S. Border patrol agent, Brian Terry. Since then, it has been learned that hundreds of Mexicans have been murdered with guns placed into the hands of those cartels by the ATF.

To put this in the proper context, what the ATF did in Fast and Furious would be akin to someone breaking into the home of the Sandy Hook shooter, getting access to his mother's guns, giving them to the shooter, and letting him do what he did.

The silence from mainstream media types like Morgan on Fast and Furious, coupled with his caterwauling over gun control because of Sandy Hook, says far more than if Morgan had remained measured in his reporting of the Newtown / Sandy Hook shootings. The attempt to gin up a climate for more gun control is exactly what Fast and Furious was supposed to do. Morgan is essentially implicating himself with his own bi-polar behavior when it comes to Fast and Furious vs. Newtown.

Here is an exchange on Morgan's network from June of this year, in which CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin completely dismissed any hint of Eric Holder being culpable in Fast and Furious. In reality, if Morgan were consistent, Holder would be responsible for the DOJ / ATF not only failing to control guns but for giving them to bad guys.

How is CNN different from makers of anti-Muhammad video?

On September 11, 2012 attacks on U.S. embassies took place all across the Middle East, most notably in Cairo. Attackers blamed an anti-Muhammad video called Innocence of Muslims. Magically, those who laid siege were not responsible for their own actions. There was evidence of foul play in the video's production as well. In post-production editing, the words Muslims found most incendiary appeared to be dubbed in; the actors said they were duped.

We have now learned that CNN is responsible for putting forth egregious propaganda... on video. It is the kind of propaganda that, in the past, has been blamed for - you guessed it - violence in the Middle East. Like in the year 2000, it involves the exploitation of a young Palestinian boy.

In 2000, a Palestinian cameraman who was a stringer for France 2 shot what he claimed was news footage (rushes) at Netzarim Junction in the Gaza Strip. When Talal Abu Rahman sent the rushes to Charles Enderlin at France 2, he claimed to have footage of the now infamous shooting death of a young Palestinian boy named Muhamad al-Dura at the hands of Israeli forces. This news report was pointed to as being responsible for the second intifada; mass riots ensued.

Osama bin Laden pointed to the death of al-Dura as a motivating factor in the 9/11 attacks; Daniel Pearl's murderers blamed the al-Dura shooting for Pearl's murder; and two weeks after al-Dura was allegedly gunned down by Israelis, two Israeli soldiers were literally torn to pieces by an angry Palestinian mob in Ramallah.

There was one problem. The world was set on fire over a lie. The rushes captured nothing more than manufactured scenes that were passed off as news.

Boston University professor Richard Landes had a chance encounter with Enderlin in 2003 when the latter thought he had an ally in Landes after the professor was introduced to Enderlin by the Israeli ambassador to France. Upon visiting the France 2 studios, Landes was exposed to staged scene after staged scene. In 2006, he produced the first of three documentaries that would reveal the truth about a conspiratorial culture he identified as "Pallywood".

Fast forward to 2012. As Israel bears down on Gaza after having to endure rocket attack after rocket attack, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Egypt's Prime Minister Hisham Kandil attempted to capture some of the al-Dura / Pallywood glory while Kandil was visiting Gaza. Photos of the two men holding and kissing a dead Palestinian child appeared to lay the foundation for the narrative that Israel's attacks on Gaza was responsible.

It wasn't. The child was killed by Hamas, the same group led by Haniyeh, who was all too willing to exploit the young boy over a lie. In hindsight, perhaps the propagandists wish they hadn't included Kandil in the photos; there were no Israeli rockets fired into Gaza while he was there.

CNN's Sara Sidner, in much the same way that Charles Enderlin did in 2000, produced a news report that echoed the narrative of Hamas, saying that the boy's death was the result of Israeli rocket fire. You can watch that report here.

This report from Sidner is an outright lie, Pallywood style:



That is not the only example either. Earlier, the BBC had captured video of a large man, allegedly injured, being carried away by several Palestinians. Moments later, the man was walking around as if nothing happened. During a CNN report anchored by Anderson Cooper, the footage of the man being carried away, as if injured, was used to portray Palestinian suffering at the hands of Israelis.

In a word - fraudulent.

CNN is now officially complicit in Pallywood. If, as many on the left believe, a video can spawn outrage in the Middle East, then CNN is using fraudulent footage of a boy's death that could lead to the same outcome.

Can someone please explain how CNN, Anderson Cooper, and Sara Sidner are any different from the makers of Innocence of Muslims?

If you haven't seen the 2006 Pallywood documentary, please have a look:

Pallywood is back... in Gaza

The term "Pallywood" was coined by Boston University professor Richard Landes, who by an encounter that resulted from sheer happenstance, was exposed to raw video footage (rushes) shot by a stringer for France 2 in the Gaza Strip in 2000. What Landes uncovered was jaw-dropping. He was exposed to a tactic of war used by Palestinians and captured a glimpse, via those rushes, of what goes on behind enemy lines.

In essence, Palestinians were caught staging scenes for the cameraman, who then proceeded to send the footage to France 2, who would use those scenes in a news report that ultimately favored the actors and made the Israelis look bad. What Landes subsequently discovered what that this phenomenon was actually part of the Palestinian culture. It is gross journalistic malfeasance and he blew the lid off of it with his 2006 Documentary, Pallywood: ...According to Palestinian Sources.

Now, fast forward to today. As Israelis seem to have reached their breaking point again, killing Hamas Military commander Ahmed al-Jabari. Pallywood is now back. Watch this short video, shot by the BBC. In 30 seconds, you will understand fully what Pallywood really is. This is not an isolated incident but a stratagem of war.



Unsung Davids consists of an entire chapter on Richard Landes, along with his discovery of and fight with... Pallywood.

h/t Shoebat

***UPDATE*** Warner Todd Houston over at Breitbart has noticed that CNN is using the footage from Pallywood above, in its newscast (Anderson Cooper in particular).

Did CNN drop conservative talk show host Dana Loesch for comments about Huma Abdein?

Dana Loesch is a conservative radio talk show host based in St. Louis. Over the last year, she was seen quite a bit on CNN as a conservative counter-balance. Since August, Loesch has been absent from the CNN set. Matt Gertz, at the far left, George Soros-funded Media Matters thinks it has something to dow with Loesch's comments about Huma Abedin, not on CNN but on her own radio show.

Via Media Matters:

In mid-July, shortly before her most recent appearance on CNN, Loesch began using her radio show to promote conspiratorial claims that State Department official Huma Abedin has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. At the same time, CNN co-workers Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper were dismissing such charges as "questionable," "outrageous," and "McCarthy-like." Blitzer said that Rep. Michele Bachmann, who had pressed the issue, "does owe Huma -- who I know well -- an apology."

An August 21 CNN.com article describes Loesch as a "conservative radio host," but does not mention her role as a CNN contributor. The same day, CNN's Piers Morgan referenced Loesch on his program without saying that she works for the network.

As has proven to be the case with virtually ever defender of Abedin, the issue is not even open for discussion. There's a very simple reason for that. Her defenders cannot defend the irrefutable facts about her distinct familial connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and an Al-Qaeda financier.

On another note, if CNN has let Loesch go for comments she made about Abedin on her own radio show, that might help explain why Blitzer and Cooper went out of their way to defend Abedin - job preservation appears to be a bit of concern relative to that issue. Perhaps it was better to go overboard defending Abedin than to say nothing.

CNN's Crowley comes to Obama's rescue on Fast and Furious and Benghazi-gate

There are two scandals that Barack Obama desperately wants to avoid talking about. One is Fast and Furious. The other is Benghazi-gate. Both came up in last night's debate and both times, CNN's Candy Crowley came to the president's rescue.

First, on Fast and Furious. Mitt Romney took the opportunity to segue from a question about an assault weapons ban and discuss the failed gun-walking operation, which was quite relevant. ATF, with the knowledge of Department of Justice leadership, allowed assault weapons to walk into Mexico and be placed into the hands of drug cartels. Hundreds of Mexicans were killed as well as Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. The most credible argument for why the operation was implemented was to make the case that an assault weapons ban was necessary.

Evidence points to the administration creating a crisis it could exploit, to push its assault weapons ban treaty. That said, Romney was very much on point but Crowley didn't think so. In fact, watch as Obama makes eye contact with Crowley in this clip as soon as Romney starts talking about Fast and Furious. Finally, Crowley cut Romney off and essentially told him he was off-topic.

h/t Midnight Rider:



The next - and most blatant - effort to protect Obama by Crowley came on the matter of Benghazi-gate. Barack Obama asserted that on the day after the attack on the U.S. consulate there, he called it an 'act of terror'. Romney called him on it and when Obama told his opponent to look at the transcript, Crowley agreed with Obama, so much so, that Obama asked her to repeat herself in order to underscore the point.

The problem is that Obama never referred to the attack in Benghazi as an act of terror. In fact, for fourteen days, his administration - to include himself at the United Nations - repeated the lie that the attack was spontaneous and the result of a video.

Here is the exchange (h/t GWP):



In reality, this is what Barack Obama said in the Rose Garden on 9/12/12:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

While this may seem an exercise in semantics, it's really not. The difference between a terror attack and a spontaneous eruption is very simple; it's called premeditation vs. spontaneity. Not only did that statement in the Rose Garden not refer to Libya specifically but fourteen days later, at the United Nations, Obama was still pushing the lie that the Benghazi attack was the spontaneous result of a video.

For some reason, the way Crowley came to Obama's defense reminded me of this:

Video: Newt Gingrich calls for liberating Big Bird from the Bureaucracy

Two separate exchanges here. First, Piers Morgan asks Rick Santorum if Big Bird should be killed. Santorum says he's voted to do so in the past before saying, "you can kill things and still like them." The next exchange involves Newt Gingrich who says "Big Bird will be fine" and then flips the coin by saying we "should liberate Big Bird from the bureaucracy".

Big Bird is definitely having a 'Joe the Plumber' moment by being mentioned in a debate.

h/t Right Newz:

Video: Obama voted against sending money to New Orleans after Katrina

This video from CNN, circa October of 2008. This news report takes on added significance in light of the video posted at the Daily Caller of Obama on June 5, 2007. Of course, while going off-script at Hampton University, Obama chastised the Federal government for its double standard on the Stafford Act, which requires local governments to pay $1 for every $10 paid by the Feds during times of emergency.

Obama cited 9/11 and Hurricane Andrew as instances in which the Feds waived the 10% requirement of local governments. He then alleged that when it came to Hurricane Katrina, the Feds demanded that 10% be paid.

That leads to the CNN report below. Not only did then Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden vote to fund the now infamous 'Bridge to nowhere' in Alaska but they voted against re-directing that money to New Orleans where it would be used to repair a bridge damaged by Katrina.

Obama is that which he derides.

You really can't make this stuff up.



h/t Free Republic

Video: Darrell Issa on CNN about Benghazi 9/11 attack

Oversight Chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has shown real leadership over the last two years. Here he is with CNN's Erin Burnett to discuss the letter he and Rep. Jason Chaffetz sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Video: CNN Reporter's absurd interpretation of events in Benghazi

Though this is a rather lengthy CNN video report from correspondent Arwa Damon in Benghazi, the portion relevant to this post comes very early on. Pay attention beginning at the :20 mark. Note how Damon is interviewing a man who recorded the attack on his cell phone. Yes, it's legitimate to ask why he wasn't doing something a bit more productive but that's not the most bizarre portion of her report.

At the :40, Damon narrates over the video, reporting that the body of Ambassador Stevens is found and that he's alive, as you see men pulling him out of the consulate. Damon then actually said the crowd cheered (because Stevens was alive) and shouted 'God is great'.

The CNN reporter would have you believe that the attackers were all gone and that this was a mob of pro-American rescuers who were thrilled to find the U.S. Ambassador still alive.

No, really.

Via CNN:



**UPDATE** It appears I was a bit premature on this one. I have it on good authority that it is actually quite possible that the crowd was actually cheering because they thought Stevens was alive.

Video: Newt hits Romney for not being tough with Obama

The Newt Gingrich presidential campaign peaked in South Carolina. In the days leading up to the primary, the former House Speaker was on offense. He was hitting Obama on Saul Alinsky, he was hitting CNN's John King on the debate floor, and he called out Juan Williams for the latter's obvious race-baiting. Gingrich was rewarded with a primary victory in that state.

Media outlets were reporting that candidates who win South Carolina almost always win the nomination. If Gingrich had proceeded to carry Florida one week later, he may have pulled away to victory. In the days after the South Carolina primary, the Romney campaign went to work, destroying Gingrich, who had a sizable lead in Florida shortly after that South Carolina victory only to see it eaten up by vicious Romney attack ads. It was essentially the end of Newt's campaign; he never recovered.

When it comes to destroying Obama, Romney has no interest and this fact is not lost on Newt who, during an appearance on Piers Morgan's show, called Romney out on it.

Good for Newt. He's right.



h/t Right Newz

Video: Pamela Geller interview cut short when she discussed CAIR

I know this may be a day or so late but we had technical difficulties with the blog yesterday and thought this too important not to post (there is also a new development anyway).

People in the media business know the downsides and pitfalls of recorded interviews. They can be edited to distort or alter context or, in some cases, relevant material omitted altogether, which is what happened with an interview between CNN's Erin Burnett and Pamela Geller.

First of all, evidence of CNN running interference for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is not new. They were caught red-handed in 2011 collaborating with CAIR according to a man who was the target of a CNN smear levied by Anderson Cooper and Drew Griffin, a proven liar.

On the September 20th, the cable propaganda network aired an interview between Burnett and Geller that had been pre-recorded. The subject of the interview was a judge's ruling to allow Geller's anti-Jihad ads to be posted in the New York City subways. The full-length interview was somewhere between 12 - 14 minutes. However, CNN only aired the first nine minutes of the interview. One might be inclined to say it was for the sake of time and that a programming decision was made to allow for the airing of other content.

That might seem legitimate to some but it was indeed interesting that the interview that aired was cut off at precisely the time when Geller referred to CAIR and the group's involvement in the Holy Land Foundation trial - CAIR's biggest soft spot. The other red flag is the degree to which Burnett is willing to take the opposing view. There is a clear line between playing devil's advocate and being in the tank. Burnett crossed it in this interview.

Geller posted a YouTube on 9/21 that included the entire interview. After the point when CNN cut off what aired live, you only hear the audio, which was recorded by a separate source.

Via Atlas Shrugs:



Later on the 21st, as Geller points out, CNN did post the entire interview.

Video: Newt destroys CNN's Piers Morgan on Economy

I jumped aboard the Newt for President bandwagon after his two South Carolina debates prior to that state's primary, which he won handily. He was subsequently destroyed by Romney' Super PAC ads, lost the Florida primary, and never recovered.

Last night, Gingrich demonstrated why he was a better choice than Romney. In addition to thoroughly spanking CNN's Piers Morgan for blatant left-wing partisanship and vacuous amount of economic knowledge, Gingrich is much better at going on offense.



h/t Hot Air