State-Run Media and the SPLC

Anyone who has read this blog over the past 3 and a half years knows how I feel about the 'Southern Poverty Law Center' of Alabama. It is a sham of an operation that engages in race-baiting hysteria and the systematic propagation of lies against conservatives.

Here is something that should heighten your interest:

Look, ABC is state-run media, just like Pravda in the Soviet Union. Back then, the juxtaposition of stories on the front page always meant something. If they put a story about CIA spies next to an innocuous one about a member of the Presidium visiting Africa, you just knew that next year, whatever else happened, that guy was NOT going to have his dacha by the lake anymore.

Likewise, as the empire crumbled, disaffected typesetters or editors could put stories next to each other that, taken together, presented information damaging to the regime.

So, what is ABC, or one of its employees, trying to tell us here?

MARK POTOK AND HIS BUDDIES AT SPLC ARE ALL CRANKHEADS!

Nothing could be plainer! What else can explain such deep-seated paranoia? SPLC has been jumping at illusory boogeymen for years, seeing "racist terrorists" where there were none, exaggerating their prowess and danger when there were, claiming that their natural enemies, such as those of us in the constitutional militia movement, were supposedly their friends. I mean, real nutjobbery.

For more read the entire post at Sipsy Street Irregulars. But be very careful. Your head might explode from laughing too hard before you finish reading the piece.

Wondering if Gibson Will Bow to 'Dear Leader'

Tomorrow is the big day when ABC News will use all of its news broadcasts to promote Obama's plan for a government takeover of healthcare.

I wonder if Charles Gibson and company will bow to 'dear leader' when standing in his luminous presence.

Brian Williams of NBC News did exactly that a few weeks ago after interviewing Obama at the White House.

Is this now what the Fuhrer expects from his loyal subjects?

It only stands to reason that NBC, which is owned by GE, which is solidly in the tank for Obama and his 'green initiatives'--and now ABC/Disney, which has thrown its journalistic integrity out the window in order to become part of the new 'Pravda'--would be expected to act as loyal little subjects to the headmaster. He owns them now.

Watch the body language tomorrow if you think you can stomach this charade. As for me, I won't watch a single minute of it. Of course, I gave up on Couric and Williams too. I don't depend on the government propaganda machine for my news.

ABC RESPONDS. But I Smell a Rat

ABC News issued a response to GOP outrage over the new ABC News-Barack Obama coup. Read it HERE.

Pay close attention to the subtle wording. ABC contends Americans have already heard opposing opinions on Obamacare.

It is clear they are using this dubious argument to justify their infomercials for Obama!

NEWS MEDIA COUP! ALL BARACK CHANNEL

ABC News and the White House are now one. The 'All Barack Channel.' ABC will use its news division to bombard the public with free infomercial type news reports aimed at gaining support for Obamacare.

Read my commentary on this outrage at Columbia Conservative Examiner!

Palfrey's List Under Tight Wraps at ABC News

Washington, DC (TLS). Never in the history of tabloid news has a news organization paid so much for exclusive rights to a story for so little in return. ABC News somehow mysteriously became the only recipient of the now-infamous Palfrey's List--the 'DC Madam's' list of high-profile clients--only to report days later that it may not be 'appropriate' to disclose the names to the public.

Now wait just a minute here. There is nothing 'appropriate' about this story in the first place. ABC obviously planned on using the information, or else they would not have made such a public display of the fact that they were in possession of the dreaded 'list.'

This only leads to a few fairly obvious conclusions. ABC News saw that the names on that list are not exclusive to the ones it intended to put on display as examples of the 'culture of corruption' among Republicans. Obviously, there are probably Republicans on the list, but you can bet your sweet box of condoms that there are Democrats on the list as well...some who are very powerful.

Immediately after ABC hinted at who was on the list by claiming that there is another Bush Administration official and the head of a conservative think-tank, suddenly and inexplicably ABC went silent. This can only mean one thing. They found some names on that list that would be very embarrassing to Democrats and Liberals.

Why, GASP!, there may even be some ABC News execs on that list! And what if.....oh my....

What if there are some high profile REPORTERS on the list?

My friends, this is the ONLY plausible reason I can think of as to why ABC News would suddenly get an attack of conscience. Suddenly, out of the blue, they 'want to do the right thing.'

Methinks there's something rotten here, and it sure ain't in Denmark.

At this point, it would be highly problematic to place any credence on any disclosures ABC News made concerning the list, given that they have had plenty of time to cull through it and remove the names of those they wish to protect.

Sorry, guys, but you blew it.

DC Madam--the Marketing of 'Palfrey's List'

Washington, DC (TLS). The nagging question among news reporters and news organizations today is, how did ABC News get a copy of the now-infamous 'Palfrey's List' when other news organizations were deprived of that opportunity?

What is quickly becoming known as 'Palfrey's List' is the documentation of the names and phone numbers of clients that alleged DC Madam Deborah Palfrey provided the Court in her prostitution ring case. Somehow ABC News winds up with a copy of at least a partial list of the clients.

How? Why? Who decided to release this information to the Press? Who decided it would be ABC News to receive a copy? Why were not ALL of the major news organizations given a copy?

More importantly, is this an indication of the marketing of Palfrey's List? If so, what was the price? What did ABC do to receive this favor from the Court?

The entire scenario smacks of privilege. It does nothing but raise suspicions for one news organization to have the opportunity to pour over these sensitive documents before anyone else besides the Court has a chance to see what's in them.

Until the questions concerning the involvement of ABC News are answered, a cloud of suspicion hangs over the entire process of making the list public.