Justice for ACORN

I do ever so love being vindicated!

What most call “the Acorn scandal” is the “O’Keefe Smear Crusade” to me. This whole so-called “scandal” was all the brain-child of one sick and very likely racist individual.

To his discredit President Obama signed into law the bill that temporarily defunded ACORN.

I have remained steadfast in my stance against this propaganda promoted by the right-wing, and heavily by the far right-winger Glenn Beck.

I’ll admit it takes a few brain cells and a willingness to do more than just sound-byte a news story to understand exactly what James O’Keefe & Hannah Giles were doing in this “expose.”

But the bottom line here is that outright lies were told by O’Keefe on Sean Hannity’s show (named “Hannity" … vanity? No, Hannity) that the network refuses to clear up that directly address the credibility of all the accusations by these heartless propagandists.

Another day will decide if justice shall ever ring down on Fox News, but I wish to express that I didn’t point out some of the new revelations in a story I have taken up.

I smell justice and I like it because this age is lacking it a great many times over! Justice for ACORN means justice for America.

The removal of Senate funds based on nothing but a media-crusade was unconstitutional in nature, and I referred to it as a “war on the poor.”

It took a New York District Court Judge by the name of Nina Gershon citing separation of powers to see justice done in this case:

Gershon ruled Congress withdrew all funding with the "absence of a trial". She said the withdrawal would cause permanent harm to the organization. The Constitution requires "due process", which is normally interpreted as the jurisdiction of the judicial branch, not Congress's legislative branch.

These people still supporting this myth about ACORN truly believe that they can lie to the public and just cover it up with more lies. It is cases like these that draw the line between what is ideological differences and what is simply destructive, mindless, bigotry.

Let us not forget as well that this decision emboldens my argument that the popular figures on right-wing are standing against the very Constitution they claim to love as they fabricate reality and refuse to practice journalistic ethnics.

Kudos to LiberalViewer of YouTube

Have you ever seen this YouTube Channel called "LiberalViewer"?

I personally would aspire toward having a blog more to the nature of the work of LiberalViewer in days to come.

See for yourself:

Alan Colmes -- Talk Radio

Alan Colmes on The O'Reilly Factor

Find more videos like this on Alan Colmes Radio

Read Some News & Instantly Talk About It!

In my opinion, all these news-blogging websites are the same thing wrapped up in a different package. This age of faster and faster news-cycles combining with worldwide communications expanding to new heights has spawned a new phenomena of people like myself feeling the need to respond to every single news story in all the world.

Then expound upon some line of thought in some blog and someone comments-back: “Keep it short and sweet.” Sometimes there is none of that. Sometimes I run out anything and we end up with the new and famous and amazing micro-blogging (Tweet)!

--

The FOX Nation

The ‘protectors’ of the freedom of speech and ’balanced’ media have opened up a talking-back-at-you website. They let my liberal stuff through just like anyone else.

Huffington Post

This site has morphed from comment moderation taken to new tyrannical heights and has landed right back where all the internet is, sanity. Though I’ll the first to admit that almost every post on the website is written by a liberal.

The Guardian

I don’t live in the UK but this news-site has always caught my eye. I just think they have better articles than a lot of American media to discuss or reference.

Your Blog

I might have promoted you and you never knew it. I try and point out anything I think is great in both credible source and just pure internet source. If you have a blog I am the one who just randomly spread it around on Facebook or maybe Stumble.

YouTube Threads

I have no idea why people do this but YouTube comment threads often become beyond the limits of sanity in terms of length, and the dialogue goes beyond any measure of civility in about 90% of the cases. I can barely ever help myself, I’ve allowed myself to childish and tawdry while speaking to vile and hostile people. If you like car-crashes and Jerry Springer … you might want to just read the comments under a video without even bothering with whatever the original post was.

--

It’s just my point of view.

That it all fits in the same pale. One big not-so happy family and internet traffic.

The only credibility on most internet posting is attached to the credibility of the domain combined with the author. I’ll listen to anybody, but I’m not about to try and attach any level of credibility to myself. This is all just my opinion. But I think some certain few out there somehow manage to get opinion and real news confused in all the commotion of the New Media.

Bill O'Reilly versus Joan Walsh

YouTube of Joan vs. Bill

“This Tiller thing is bogus. And I think you know it‘s bogus. And if not I‘m gonna show you a sound byte that‘s gonna prove it to you.”

How many sound bytes do you have to show people to fix what they read in textbooks and newspapers?

If it’s in the Constitution, he has a sound byte for that. No need to read it yourself.

If it’s the truth of ideology that he claims to hold and only perverts and twists to his own ends, he has a sound byte for that. No need to speak to the people involved.

If he promotes domestic terrorism via lies about Americans and invasions of privacy in his ‘just crusade,’ he has a sound byte for that. No need to look at reality.

He has a sound byte ready for the day he starts getting right down to it and promoting violence against liberals and terrorism on the city of San Francisco. And another one ready as they fit him for an orange jumpsuit.

All of it to carefully explain away why he is not at fault, ever, and has nothing to do with anything except the so-called ‘truth.’ All it to make sure nobody in his audience ever actually reads anything except what he tells them to.

To me, this is proof of what I’ve always said about Bill O’Reilly:

This man cares nothing for facts and only for own personal set of biases.

--
The O’Reilly Tactic of Dirty Pool Debate revealed one of his trademark spin artist moves in the opening moments of this clip.

Bill’O brings up as a side-line, and states himself very quickly, in mentioning what Joan wrote on her website was “unconscionable” and then says he is going to “stick to it” by addressing the matter at hand.

This is classic Dirty Pool Debate. You slander your opponent and before they get a chance to respond then quickly you move to the ’real issue at hand.’ The whole point of Dirty Pool Debate is to demean the character of your opponent instead of argue the point with them.
Bill O’Reilly is a master at doing just this. Keeping the truth of a real debate away from his audience and helping them maintain narrow-minded thinking while feeling like they are ‘learning’ about politics, media and the nation.
Just screaming like an idiot into the camera and refusing the recognize the damage he does to society at large with this brand of partisan hate and untruthful propaganda on serious social issues in America.
--
Joan: “You crusaded against him.”
Bill: “You bet!”
Joan: “He had been shot twice already.”
Bill: “And I‘m sorry about that.”

Well if he was so sorry why didn’t he stop slandering and misusing his platform to spread lies about Americans that ultimately lead to domestic terrorism incidents?
Because that would have hurt his ratings. Oh, the precious ratings.
He should be sorry. He is the one with blood on his hands, after all.
--
What Bill O’Reilly does on television is wrong. It is a brutal set of lies and conjecture that provides no benefit to the nation whatsoever. FOX Broadcasting Studios should be ashamed to have their name attached to such a disreputable and dishonest man.

--
The need to scream over all that disagrees with your mentality is a clear example of partisanship and intolerance for the opinions of others.

The need to call everyone not aligned with you as "far left"is a clear example of a need to marginalize your opponent because you feel your own position is weak or lacking against theirs.

Considering conservatives are on the wrong side of history in every debate over social issues I can see why Bill O’Reilly is so threatened to use such shallow and childish tactics.
--
Joan is absolutely right about Bill O’Reilly being a vile man. A vile and lowly man who loves his ideologies more than he loves other humans.

He disrespects the nation and the intelligence of his audience with his so-called ‘facts’ and his so-called ‘reporting.’

Time and time again it is the true patriots who must stand up against the charlatans and propagandists who seek to destroy this nation in violence and ignorance.

Let our voices be heard, loud.

A domestic terrorist is in our amidst: Bill O’Reilly. A man who promotes vigilantism and misinformation that gets Americans killed.

Panetta versus Cheney

CIA Director Leon Panetta is quoted as saying in regards to the recent Cheney media appearances:

"It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics."

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney has responded by saying he hopes Panetta was misquoted in claiming his wish for an attack.

Panetta is absolutely right. The shameful, hawkish media-tour to promote torture policcy and degrade the Obama presidency should be met with even more harsh words than these of Panetta's. But they will do for the time being.

Difference Between a Liberal and a Conservative?

We hear this question posed often in our lives, if we are a political person ourselves.

I recently heard a response to this question on the radio that I disagree with, but I still believe desires to be heard. I offer it as but an anecdote:

Question: "What is the difference between a liberal and a conservative?"

Response: “Think in terms of kind and unkind.”

While this sentiment starts to address the huge gap between these ideologies it only touches the most bare and stereotypical edges of the matter.

The truth of the matter is more that historically both liberals and conservatives morph and relocate themselves throughout the political spectrum in all nations. Only certain key values and standards define each group and it is easier to grab one specific location and timeframe than to just say all liberals or conservatives are so.

Modern American liberals are clearly defined against modern American conservatives in terms of their views of separation of church and state.

Modern American liberals are clearly defined against modern American conservatives in terms of their views of the use of military budgets and international policies.

These kind of statements are the only real response to this question and it is obviously verbose to try to answer this question with what sounds like reading a textbook at someone.

It is said sometimes that these groups are defined by the members they attract.

I believe this only partly defines the ideology and the group.

The common views and desires are the true backbone of every movement.

Some claim the liberal movements to attract the more ‘fringe’ elements of society while conservative attracts a more ‘common’ element of society.

That may have been true in days past but in our world, right now, the conservative movement has attracted the truly fringe elements of our society in the past national campaign and to this day on talk radio and certain websites. Unquestionable willful destruction of non-partisan debate is expressly un-American.

I think my own answer to this question is more like an answer one might get from a wandering mystic:

Response: “Ask me again when you know which one you are.”

I think if someone is even asking this question they are just fresh into politics. All political types, even myself, must claw backwards into our memories to a time when we were mostly apolitical and remember that nobody comes out of the womb with a position on taxation rates.

We form all these things we call ‘opinions’ as we go. So cut a break to people who were spacing out on their nation when we needed them the most, because we still need them now that they are paying attention.

R.I.P. Harold Pinter

“The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law,” Pinter said in his Nobel lecture, which he recorded rather than traveling to Stockholm.
“How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand?” Harold asked, in a hoarse voice.

http://www.alan.com/2008/12/27/rip-harold-pinter-did-he-hate-who-we-are-or-what-we-did/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081225/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_obit_pinter

One more great man has passed on. We hardly knew ye Harold. Let your words and your writings live on by the generations behind you.