The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

25 August 2005

Inside Air America Investigation: Sheldon Drobny

INSIDE AIR AMERICA

The Sheldon Drobny Files





By MICHELLE MALKIN AND BRIAN MALONEY


(This is part two, see Michelle's site for part one)



What's behind Sheldon Drobny's August 21st book-plugging C-SPAN appearance for a volume published nearly a year ago?

And will the interview prove to be one of his biggest regrets?

Since post-release media tours usually last just a few weeks, what made Road to Air America: Breaking the Right Wing Stranglehold on Our Nation's Airwaves, published in October 2004, noteworthy now?

If Drobny talked his way onto the show, it would be fitting: he's no stranger to convincing people to do what he wants.

He's long known that money talks, between raising capital for start-up companies, to making sizable campaign contributions. It's led to boardroom appointments and increasingly-open partisan doors.

While verification is hard to come by, Drobny says he's a former IRS agent and CPA. He's been a boardmember of several technology companies as well.

Politically, he flew under the radar for many years, surfacing in Democrat Party circles just recently with major contributions to the Edwards For President campaign ($2000, half from wife Anita) and the Responsibility Opportunity Community Political Action Committee ($5000), which gave money to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) and a number of 2004 Democrat candidates.


Fringe Sympathies


It would seem money well spent for an activist previously associated with fringe Democrat Lyndon Larouche, an extremist with a cult-like following. It was National Review's Byron York who first uncovered the connection in 2003.

At Make Them Accountable, Drobny wrote this in February 2003:


There is already too great a history of Jewish bloodshed caused by mistaken, shortsighted alliances. The Zionist pact with Hitler's Germany in 1933 is one example.

Most people are unaware of as unlikely an alliance as that between Hitler and the Zionists. My father taught me about this, among many other events that have been redacted from history books.

In 1985, Edwin Black wrote a detailed account of the pact in his book, The Transfer Agreement. Black reports a shocking account of shortsighted treachery by the Zionist movement to emigrate Jews from Germany to Palestine. The authors of the pact included David Ben Gurion, Golda Meir, and Chaim Weitzman.

The book never had an audience, and was quickly and surreptitiously taken off the shelves. What Black'’s book painstakingly proves is that in 1933, while the rest of world Jewry was organizing an economic boycott of the new Nazi regime in Germany, the Zionists based in Jerusalem decided to make Germany Palestine's chief trading partner.

The Nazis and the Zionists had one very important thing in common. Both wanted the Jews out of Germany.


To accommodate such a transfer of Jews, an agreement was arranged whereby each Jew wishing to leave Germany for Palestine would be forced to use his capital to purchase German goods. Thus, while World Jewry was busy fighting Nazi Germany economically, those Zionists were saving Germany from financial ruin.

The Zionists were also instrumental in canceling the economic boycott of Germany in 1933, with the understanding that all 500,000 German Jews would be allowed to immigrate to Palestine.


That 2003 article was recently amended to indicate Drobny's Air America leadership role.


Meanwhile, Drobny continued to push Larouche's conspiracy theories. Highest priority is convincing Americans of his "evidence" connecting the Bush family to the Nazi Party:


Nazi Germany's military industrial complex allowed it to rearm and start a second world war. Much of the support for Germany's rearmament came from American and international businesses, a scandal that has never been completely made public.

Very few Americans know that Prescott Bush, our president's grandfather, supplied Nazi Germany with such assistance. He did not stop until President Roosevelt, in 1942, froze some of his assets under the Trading With The Enemies Act.


The information is documented, but is not known by most Americans because, as in any successful fascist regime, the press is prevented from publishing it.

The news media are controlled by the same corporations that participate in the great partnership between government and business.

Should it not worthy of note in a presidential campaign that the wealth and power of one of the candidates was built in part by treacherous acts of one of the family'’s founders? Knowing it might have made some people who intended to vote for George W. Bush reluctant to do so.

War benefits the armaments and oil industries. The corporate masters and their current spokesman, George W. Bush, promote a dangerous policy of pre-emptive warfare. They use exactly the same excuses Hitler used to sell to the public his maniacal desire to conquer Europe. The real power for Hitler came from his corporate backers, who willingly supplied him the tools to execute his plan, their reward being profit.


Here he pushes a bizarre World War II theory that dropping atomic bombs on Japan was intended only to scare the Soviets, not win the war itself, making it a shameful episode in American history.

His essay isn't backed by a single factual reference.

In a June piece, he backs up Senator Durbin's now infamous remarks. Next, he defends the idea that Kerry really won Ohio in 2004.

One day he plays to the far left, the next to the extreme fringe.

After York's 2003 revelations about Drobny's ties to extremist groups, little more was said about it, other than an occasional blog entry questioning his connections.

Is it a coincidence that shortly after York appeared on FOX News with Brit Hume to expose the ties, Sheldon and Anita Drobny temporarily shifted to Air America's background, only to resurface months later?

Sheldon Drobny did contest York's reporting, but in mild terms. Instead of distancing himself from Larouche and the Bush-Nazi conspiracy theory, he tried to make the case that others were also touting them.


Reinventing Sheldon


His mainstreaming effort seems to have paid off: he somehow managed to secure a speaking slot at February's National Intelligence Conference and Exposition, joining former Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA) and others from both parties.

How did he slip through the cracks without a background check? It's hard to believe the conference intended to include a Larouche supporter. How was York's investigative work so quickly forgotten?

It's not as though he's abandoned his extremist ideas, instead he has two political faces: as a "progressive" activist in public and outer-fringe beliefs in more obscure settings.

In fact, this appears to be conscious effort. From his weak defense of York's research:


The theme of the article was to give the reader a prospective of what "fascism" or "corporatism" mean in the context of modern nonracial economic and political terms. It was written in January of this year on a web site that surely has little influence on political discourse in this country.



In other words, he sure doesn't want national attention drawn to his "hobby".

He also wrote something that might interest investigators looking into Air America's finances. It came from his piece outlining how Kerry "won" in Ohio:


As a former C.P.A and auditor, I have used statistical sampling throughout my career with great confidence. With electronic record keeping, it's easy to create a program to falsify the books. But there are ways to uncover that. Auditors have developed statistical ways to cut right through corruption in companies. You don't even need a paper trail. These statistical approaches can be used with almost 100% accuracy to uncover fraud.


If Drobny knows so much about how auditors operate, does he know how to beat them?


Fumbling An Easy Interview


That brings us to Drobny's unfortunate C-SPAN interview.

While the callers seemed heavily stacked in his favor, Drobny looks visibly shaken by one from Dallas.

He asked Drobny basic questions about the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club scandal, where $875,000 in taxpayer funds intended for the community nonprofit seemed to find their way to the network's coffers.

Drobny looked shocked, as though he didn't expect critical, questioning callers during the interview. Was there an understanding they'd be kept off the show?

Or has Drobny failed to recognize the amount of publicity the scandal has now generated?

Whatever the reason, he appeared flustered, his eyes shifted around and he looked very uncomfortable, in stark contrast to his relaxed demeanor just moments earlier.

This is a portion of the written transcript (thanks to Siobhan for help here):


Dallas caller: Yes, I was wondering, you talk about the road to Air America, I've been reading in the New York Sun and articles by Michele Malkin that $875K approximately was acquired in a loan from a children's center and an Alzheimer's center in NY.

And you just mentioned you had funding and introductions from VP Gore and former president Clinton and I was wondering are you proud of the fact that you've obtained money from a partially federally funded children's center in New York and that you are now in default on that loan?

What is your explanation on that because I think that is pretty troubling.

Drobny: Well, ah, if you go to the website www.airamericaradio.com they have a very, very appropriate response. Ah, I would love to be able to answer the question and you would love my answer but the, ah, that particular transaction occurred from the previous ownership and, ah, I cannot legally talk about it although I'd love to. But that was not our loan. That was a loan to the previous owner.

Host: For those who are not familiar with the issue, can you explain?

Drobny: (cough) Well, because we had difficulty funding the project, our firm was willing to allocate up to 10 million to an all liberal radio network and, ah, we were not able to raise any more than that and we needed about 30 to 40 million dollars.

So about, ah, about August or September of 2003, and we had already hired, or got Al Franken to commit, we had our executive team and whatever, we didn't have enough money to fund the thing to the process of. We were introduced to the former owner who acquired our network at the time and, ah, supposedly had the funding to take it forward and to get it on the air.

They got it on the air but unfortunately they ran into financial difficulty and I suppose one of those difficulties was this Boys Club situation. And, ah, then they defaulted when we sold the station or network, they defaulted on our loan.

So they also defaulted on our credit. So what happened was we had to reacquire, we reacquired the, ah, the network through a different company.

Host: But as you've been reading, Michelle Malkin and others have been quick to point to it as one of the problems in the financial structure of Air America.

Drobny: That was the former ownership. We are very solid right now. And I can tell you if you just read the Air America statement it will tell you that (unclear...)



Was it really a different company? In a technical sense, perhaps, but that seems pretty generous, given what we now know about Air America.

Is it really possible the loans occurred during a time when the Drobnys had no Air America connection?

Take these statements, from Multicultural Broadcasting's legal complaint against the network:

Page 8

"In November 2003, the Drobnys and AnShell Media conveyed all of the assets concerning the proposed liberal radio network to Progress Media, a holding company for Cohen and Sorensen..."

Page 9

"Notwithstanding its narrow mission, and limited resources, between October 3, 2003 and March 15, 2004, the Boys and Girls Club loaned Radio Free America and Progress Media a total of $875,000."

The dates do seem to at least partly overlap.


Clinton-Gore Role?


Sheldon has also recently been talking about the Clinton-Gore role in Air America Radio's founding. Newsmax also noticed it and filed this report.

Back to the transcript:


When asked where former president Bill Clinton and former VP Al Gore helped to direct him for funding for Air America:

Host: Who did they bring to the table?

Drobny: Well, uh, they didn't bring any major funding to the table.

Host: You write in the book they helped you.

Drobny: They helped us, yes. They tried to get funding for us but they weren't successful. I mean we really had to work hard to make believers of even liberals and rich liberals didn't even believe there was a liberal radio audience.

How they helped us was made introductions to a lot of good people, and especially Al Gore who introduced me to Al Franken who I had to convince along with our COO that he could transition from stand-up comedy and publishing into talk radio. He was my dream franchise player when we first conceived of the idea...


What I find hard to fathom is this: if the Clintons and Gores really wanted to fund Air America, it's amazing to think they couldn't line up millions from the first five liberals on speed dial.

Drobny laments their lack of real assistance in this essay.


Another Interview Blunder


Things get really comical when Drobny can't name his network's African-American hosts. There are two, one was recently demoted to make way from Jerry Springer's so-far floundering radio show.


Host: An email from Geraldo Mathis: Are there any African-American hosts on Air America?

Drobny: Yes. Um, I believe his name, I can't remember his name (chuckle). The morning show has Marc Maron and um, I can't remember the co-host but he is an African-American. Ah, and we have one other, ah, um, the name escapes me. It's on the website.


If his passion is really about Air America's "progressive" programming, wouldn't he be able to recite its program schedule at the drop of a hat?

It appears that he may not have even met them, particularly the black hosts.

Is that because, to the Drobnys, Air America Radio really has some other purpose?


Join Michelle Malkin as my guest on the Rusty Humphries Show, 9pm EDT tonight, on Talk Radio Network affiliates nationwide.

AAR Scandal Graphic by Darleen Click. Transcript by Siobhan.

Your Amazon orders support these efforts, thanks!


49 Comments:

  • Drobny is a transparent phony. If there were any smart leftists remaining, they'd dump loser con artist Drobny and the failure AAR, and start a real media empire, based on sound fiscal principles. But I guess there aren't any.

    By Blogger Buffy, at 25 August, 2005 16:25  

  • What I find hard to fathom is this: if the Clintons and Gores really wanted to fund Air America, it's amazing to think they couldn't line up millions from the first five liberals on speed dial.

    Maybe what you should deduce from that is that Clinton and Gore really had no interest in getting involved.

    Is that because, to the Drobnys, Air America Radio really has some other purpose?

    Like maybe to make money? You know what they say; a fool and his money are soon seperated.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 16:51  

  • Brian (or anybody),

    Can you post the time in the C-Span clip when a caller tripped up Sheldon? There is 44:31 worth of tape here. I'd like to see his face when that call came in.

    Thanks in advance.

    By Blogger Mike McConnell, at 25 August, 2005 16:58  

  • Brian,

    My Ex is a CPA, did statistical accounting for audits. You could 'beat' an eaudit if you knew the audit profile before hand. But as procedure for certification, the external auditor is not permitted to disclose to the customer the audit profile till the Findings meeting, ie. after the audit has been completed.

    So Drobny would have needed to have an inside track to be successful.

    By Blogger johnm, at 25 August, 2005 18:54  

  • AAR has a bunch of african-americans on air.

    Mark Riley
    Wayne Gillman
    Bill Crowley
    Kyle Jason
    Chuck D

    By Blogger WHT, at 25 August, 2005 22:01  

  • The ship be shinking.

    How low can it go?

    http://www.radiobs.net/thebluestateconservatives/archives/2005/08/air_america_rat_2.html


    --------------
    In Washington, D.C., WWRC fell to a 0.3 rating and is in last place in the market.

    In Boston, the two AAR stations take up the last two spots in the ratings chart with ratings of 0.4 and 0.2.

    In New York, the flagship AAR station, WLIB has just a flat 1.0 rating and is in 24th place.

    In Detroit, WDTW was a flat 0.4 which is tied for last in the city.

    In Chicago, WCPT is stuck at 0.4 and just out of the cellar in the market.

    In San Francisco, KQKE increased slightly to a tiny 1.4 in the most liberal city in the county and is in 23rd place. Still the station is down 0.5 from last summer. In San Jose, KQKE improved to 1.1, but is also down 1.5 last summer.

    In Los Angeles, KLTK improved slighty to 0.9, but is in 30th place in the market.

    In Monterey-Santa Cruz (CA) area, the AAR station didn't even make the ratings list.

    In San Diego, KLSD, which was once considered one of the AAR stations that was succeeding, is flat at just a 1.7 rating. That is down nearly a full point from last Summer.

    In Riverside-San Bernardino, CA (my hometown), KCAA doesn't even make the ratings list.

    In Philadelphia, WHAT turned in a 0.5 rating which is up from its spring rating of 0.0, but is down from last summer's 0.8.

    In Akron, Ohio, WARF is stuck at 0.4 -- good enough for last place -- and that is down from a 1.1 rating this winter.

    -----------

    The sky's the limit!

    By Blogger Tom C, at 25 August, 2005 22:04  

  • Hey Tom C, where has Dick Tuck been? He hasn't popped in and posted the latest "huge" ratings in places like Hardeman County, Tennessee!

    What I'm always a bit surprised by is that people like the Dronby's and LaRouche himself, who are wealthy embrace marxism. They denounce the very system that enabled them to accumulate the wealth.
    Though I assume under their socialist paradise they get to keep their spoils and the rest of us live in poverty...

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 22:19  

  • It's interesting that Maloney and his blind lemmings are ignoring Cohen and beating on Franken and the Drobnys. It's a transparent attempt to smear them with the wrong-doing of the most likely perpetrator, Cohen.

    Here's a good objective reference about Cohen.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Montvel_Cohen

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 26 August, 2005 00:02  

  • Actually we're "beating" up on Cohen and the Drobny's to get to the bottom of this financial dishonesty and mess. Al Franken does a fine job beating up himself with the way ratings are concerned.

    By Blogger Mike McConnell, at 26 August, 2005 00:57  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Jack, at 26 August, 2005 07:20  

  • Correction of my last post. The Transfer Agreement does involve some dealings with the Nazis by Zionists before WWII, however the "evil right wing media cabal" or whatever has not suppressed publishing and distribution. You can buy it on Amazon.com easily today - and read its reviews.

    By Blogger Jack, at 26 August, 2005 07:26  

  • Jack:

    Did you even read the relevant quote by Drobny regarding The Transfer Agreement? "1933" is mentioned multiple times. There is no reference to "WWII". Not that there is much of a distinction between the evil of the Nazis at either point in history.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 26 August, 2005 07:32  

  • I see... Posts can be deleted when one of Maloney's parrots demonstrates to be too lazy to read or just doesn't understand a simple quote. More dishonesty...

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 26 August, 2005 07:40  

  • Speaking of dishonesty, Drobney's reference to the Zionists and the Nazis in 1933 conveniently glances over the fact that the Zionist leaders were not officially in power until 1948 and such leaders as Ben Gurion and Golda Meir were all socialists - leftists. So if they were making deals with the Nazis to save Jewish lives and/or enhance themselves, it was the actions of left ists that Drobney is denouncing as a "capitalist" Jewish plot.

    As for the deleted post, it was mine. That post was a hasty innacurate recollection of The Transfer Agreement,a book I own and read years ago. After I quickly read over the Amazon review, I didn't want to leave the earlier misleading post on this blog. Don't try to read all kinds of things into this. As I said earlier, go to an online book seller's review, such as Amazon, and draw your own conclusions. You will find my statements a good deal more honest than Mr. Drobney's.

    By Blogger Jack, at 26 August, 2005 07:51  

  • It's funny how almost all of Maloney's links go to FOX News. No wonder the MSM doesn't take him seriously.

    And so how is Drobny portrayed as a "Larouche supporter". In an interview of Byron York by Brit Hume on FOX News no less. (LOL) These right-wing panderers are real credible sources. (Yeah right!) Oh and how does York make the link between Drobny and Larouche? York asks Drobny about Prescott Bush's dealings with the Nazis and Drobny tells York to just find out for himself by googling "BUSH and NAZIS". And so York finds the George Bush biography which is published by a Larouche organization, and then York makes the leap that Drobny is a Larouche supporter.

    More dishonesty and smear...

    But the real funny thing is Maloney is pulling a fast one on all of you chumps. He's simply assuming that you're either too lazy or too stupid to piece the the real story together or that you're ideological blindness will not allow you to challenge his BS.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 26 August, 2005 08:14  

  • Speaking of dishonesty, Drobney's reference to the Zionists and the Nazis in 1933 conveniently glances over the fact that the Zionist leaders were not officially in power until 1948 and such leaders as Ben Gurion and Golda Meir were all socialists - leftists. So if they were making deals with the Nazis to save Jewish lives and/or enhance themselves, it was the actions of left ists that Drobney is denouncing as a "capitalist" Jewish plot.

    I don't subscribe to Drobny's view but what is your point? The Zionists as an organized group were dealing with foreign governments for several decades leading up to the formation of Israel. And comparing "kibbutz" collectivism of early Israel with hard-left socialism reveals a complete misunderstanding of the relevant history. Do yourself a favor and ask an Israeli or a local Jewish person their views about Ben Gurion and Golda Meir (as it's apparent you never have). You also might want to remove those ideological blinkers and you'll perhaps you'll get a better understanding of this history.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 26 August, 2005 08:38  

  • It's interesting that Maloney and his blind lemmings are ignoring Cohen and beating on Franken and the Drobnys. It's a transparent attempt to smear them with the wrong-doing of the most likely perpetrator, Cohen.


    More like it is interesting that Franken (who has been caught lying about this matter), et al are trying to deflect attention from the current ownership group, most of whom were there when Cohen was, by placing the blame on Cohen who is MIA.
    Funny huh?
    What is also interesting is that if "Cohen is the likely perpetrator", why Piquant is paying the money back.

    Makes sense.

    By Blogger Ace, at 26 August, 2005 09:18  

  • Suppose the blind lemmings are actually of Franken's who says "Nothing is going on here...nothing to see....move along..move along..."

    With $875,000 still not repaid after more than a year when AAR got caught with their hands in the cookie jars for inner city kids. If AAR is on "solid" ground in terms of financing, well, then get the whole $875,000 paid off in one fell swoop and lessen the damage already done.

    How simple is that for AAR to do that?

    Of course, unless they're lying about being "very solid" in terms of, I suppose that was Drobny was referring to, AAR current finances.

    Pay it up. Simple as that.

    By Blogger Mike McConnell, at 26 August, 2005 09:39  

  • All the poor hungry kids and disabled old folks, thanks to Al Franken.

    How long before the starving children start to camp out on the sidewalk outside Franken's penthouse apartment, demanding a meeting with the rich unfunny sod?

    Imagine a lefty talk show host willing to steal from hungry kids to support his luxurious lifestyle? Meet with the kids, Al!

    By Blogger al fin, at 26 August, 2005 09:57  

  • More AA ratings:

    Up slightly in Cinci and Denver. Down slightly in Minneapolis and stable in Dallas.

    By Blogger Justin, at 26 August, 2005 11:27  

  • Yes indeedy Al Fin - how long before the Cindy Sheehan campaign is cloned by "GW's kids" :-) and promoted just as actively and unskeptically by the press?

    Since Cindy Sheehan didn't exactly organize or promote herself ;-), and since - according to commenters like Mitchell and PhilM - the MSM double standard doesn't exist, then certainly a powerful coalition of right-wing interest groups can support these poor kids without generating anything but the most lavish, glowing, fawning press coverage. Right?

    After all, as Maureen Dowd would say, these victims' "moral authority" to pick a symbolic target to blame (in this case, Al Franken) with no burden of proof and yet have it deemed credible by default is "absolute". (At least as "absolute" as Cindy Sheehan's...)

    By Blogger RD, at 26 August, 2005 12:06  

  • More like it is interesting that Franken (who has been caught lying about this matter), et al are trying to deflect attention from the current ownership group, most of whom were there when Cohen was, by placing the blame on Cohen who is MIA.

    Now now A$$... You're not really is a position to accuse anyone of lying - are you? - given that you've been caught red-handed lying about the sources of some your posts here.

    What is also interesting is that if "Cohen is the likely perpetrator", why Piquant is paying the money back.

    Piquant have acknowledged the debt and have stated that they will pay it back voluntarily. But they're not going to accept responsibility for a questionable loan arranged by a an ex-GOP flake like Cohen. Why should they?

    Hey A$$, here's how easy it is to acknowledge sources -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Montvel_Cohen

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 26 August, 2005 12:57  

  • Piquant have acknowledged the debt and have stated that they will pay it back voluntarily

    "Volutarily" huh? So companines that are struggling financially, and are being sued, make "voluntary" payments now-a-days?

    Seems like you're again ingorant of the facts (shocking I know), since they are responsible for the debts of Progress, even though they are a 'new' company and everything.
    There is nothing "voluntary" about it.


    You're not really is a position to accuse anyone of lying - are you?

    Its not an "accusation" its a fact.

    But they're not going to accept responsibility for a questionable loan

    So by not "accepting responsibility" they are paying it back?
    Makes sense. Too bad they are under investigation for "not accepting responsibility", huh?

    As I've asked you before, please stop posting. You only embarrass yourself and expose a stupidity that is embarassing.

    By Blogger Ace, at 26 August, 2005 13:06  

  • Since Cindy Sheehan didn't exactly organize or promote herself ;-), and since - according to commenters like Mitchell and PhilM - the MSM double standard doesn't exist, then certainly a powerful coalition of right-wing interest groups can support these poor kids without generating anything but the most lavish, glowing, fawning press coverage. Right?

    Perhaps you could indicate where I said anything about a media double standard or a lcak thereof. I know you want to believe that I did but that does not make it so. I understand though. You've shown yourself to have trouble with accurately attributing words to the appropriate persons.

    But I agree with you completely. The right wing should go right ahead and support these poor kids in anyway they can. I think that's great. I suggested some time ago that if Brian was really concerned about the poor kids he'd have been soliciting donations for their cause rather than just groping for amazon.com kickbacks from his listeners.

    After all, as Maureen Dowd would say, these victims' "moral authority" to pick a symbolic target to blame (in this case, Al Franken) with no burden of proof and yet have it deemed credible by default is "absolute". (At least as "absolute" as Cindy Sheehan's...)

    Do you expect me to be responsible for something Maureen Dowd said? You attribute things to me that I never said AND you want me to be beholden to MoDo's blather as well. Perhaps I can get a cut from her paycheck?

    I've made no comment about Cindy Sheehan here. But if you'd like to know I think she's making a spectacle of herself in the same way the parents of Terri Schiavo did. I just think it's rather sad. One should deal with such emotional loss in a private way.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 26 August, 2005 13:36  

  • Oh A$$man... I'm sorry if feel so hurt by being exposed as fraud. (And a moron for thinking that you would get away with it.) You see... my post was consistent with the source to which I have full credit. (But you prefer to lie about sources don't you?). The content from that source I gave is put together from input from millions of people world-wide and goes through a process that seeks to eliminate any partisan point of view. I prefer to rely on this source than you (because you've been demonstrated to be a stupid liar), or Maloney because he is just a mercenary pundit who provides partisan content for you idiots from the captive "right-wing nut-job" market. You suckers will probably buy his book and he may very well become rich. And you'll still be a nobody liar and thief.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 26 August, 2005 14:43  

  • Pay back a debt? The Drobnys? Hah! You must be thinking of somebody else.

    By Blogger Buffy, at 26 August, 2005 14:45  

  • Summer ratings usually suck, and are ignored by people with a brain. However, it looks like AAR is still growing in the the #18 market and in Denver.

    Keep on doing your hoodoo that you do so doodoo.

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 26 August, 2005 17:29  

  • Does the fact that ass pimple claimed that Hillary rolled Vince up in a rug and dumped him in Ft. Marcy give you wingnuts pause?

    The fact remains that Bush's Grandpa financed the Nazis and continued to do so after they declared ware on us.

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 26 August, 2005 17:31  

  • AAR has a bunch of african-americans on air.

    Do you really expect Brian to get a story right? He makes the bottom feeding lazy pondscum look like journalists. If it ain't on google or in the freebie Arbitron, Brian doesn't believe it exists.

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 26 August, 2005 17:35  

  • Tom C, you set the record on bull poop. Anyone who wants to see how Tom C is a liarhead, go see his post and the facts.

    http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRRatings/

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 26 August, 2005 17:47  

  • [me] Since Cindy Sheehan didn't exactly organize or promote herself ;-), and since - according to commenters like Mitchell ... - the MSM double standard doesn't exist, then ...

    [Mitchell] Perhaps you could indicate where I said anything about a media double standard or a lack thereof. I know you want to believe that I did but that does not make it so. I understand though. You've shown yourself to have trouble with accurately attributing words to the appropriate persons.

    Mitchell: The meaning of "according to commenters like ..." is that of typecasting, not direct attribution; and I said, "commenters", NOT "comments". From a previous discussion I typecast you as someone unconvinced, even dismissive, of Goldberg's opinion that there's a "double standard" in the media. If I've typecast you unfairly, then just say so.

    While we're on the subject however: *do* you see the kind of double standard in the media that Brian and other posters insist there is? (FWIW I do.)

    Their claim is that the mainstream media typically requires a higher standard of proof before a target like Air America is deemed "newsworthy" (i.e., the case against AAR has to be more "cut and dry" as you've put it) than a target like Karl Rove or Tom Delay (which are aggressively pursued by the MSM even when the matter is nowhere near "cut and dry".)

    That's the rap anyhow, and it suggests even less faith in the NYT's judgment than you've suggested previously. So unless your thinking has evolved on this issue, I'll assume you - like me - are "standing pat".

    By Blogger RD, at 27 August, 2005 12:09  

  • Apparently, Dickie, PhilM, and Mitchell get their news from Indymedia.

    Let me know when you get back on planet Earth, guys.

    By Blogger Purple Raider, at 27 August, 2005 13:43  

  • PhilM, you still haven't answered the question: where is the lie?

    By Blogger Purple Raider, at 27 August, 2005 13:44  

  • Brian, thanks so much for the info on Drobny. I figured that Air Shamerica could have some bigots in its employ, and Drobny's deeds certainly prove it. That's one more reason why this sham radio station should be avoided, and rating results certainly reflect that.

    By Blogger Avi Green, at 27 August, 2005 14:53  

  • The Transfer Agreement is indeed a painful matter for knowledgeable Jews and Zionists.
    From what I know about the Transfer Agreement, the purpose on the Zionist side was to enable Jews fleeing Nazi Germany to get some of their property out. Otherwise they would have lost what resources they had because even at that early stage the Nazis were blocking Jews leaving Germany from taking any major sums with them, etc.
    The agreement was that the Germans would ship goods to the British-controlled Land of Israel [Palestine mandate, juridically constituted as the Jewish National HOme by the League of Nations] and that when the goods were sold, Jews who had gone there from Germany could be compensated with the sale money. Thus Germany was not letting money out but only goods which had to be sold in the Palestine mandate. Quite possibly, the Germans got a discount. Most likely the German govt paid for the goods at the wholesale price and may have been credited at the retail price against the value of abandoned Jewish property, according to the agreement.
    Many people believe that the agreement was a mistake, but on the other hand, it is not certain that the Jewish boycott of Nazi German goods --sponsored, as I recall, by the American Jewish Congress-- could have brought down Hitler and the Nazi regime. Drobny makes this claim but it is obviously very iffy. It's the kind of thing that we can't know since it wasn't done. Which does not mean that the Agreement was the right move.
    Next, someone made a good point in reminding us that Ben Gurion, Golda Meir, etc., were socialists. If it was a mistake, it was a mistake of leftists, of socialists. Further, the Communist Soviet Union was buying from Nazi Germany. In the 1920s, Soviet Russia helped Germany evade the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles which restricted German military training and production. Was the German-Soviet accord called the Rapallo Pact? As to Nazi Germany's foreign trade, which country was not buying from Nazi Germany? So whether the boycott could have succeeded is quite iffy. Drobny wants to see the Agreement very narrowlly, ignoring aspects that might not fit his own prejudices.
    An interesting sidelight on this period is that Hayim Arlozoroff, one of Ben Gurion's associates in the Zionist leadership of that time, a fellow socialist and the man sent to negotiate the agreement with the Germans, was shot to death by Communists in Tel Aviv [according to Israeli historian Shmuel Dothan], not especially on account of the Transfer Agreement. Now, there is a certain Stalinist scent about Drobny. So he should be confronted with the question about the Arlozoroff assassination and socialist identity of those who actually made the accord on the Zionist side. Hitler by the way was anti-Zionist and declared himself in favor of "Arab liberation" [when he met Haj Amin el-Husseini, the chief Arab Nazi collaborator. Husseini told the Bosnian Muslim SS division in a speech that there was much in common between Nazism and Islam; see Joseph Schechtman, The Mufti and the Fuehrer].

    By Blogger Eliyahu m'Tsiyon, at 27 August, 2005 16:35  

  • The content from that source I gave is put together from input from millions of people world-wide and goes through a process that seeks to eliminate any partisan point of view.

    "millions of people", really?
    It takes "millions of people" to write a newspaper article on a news release?
    Wow phillis, you're quite intelligent.

    You see... my post was consistent with the source

    No, your post was consistent with a source, Piquant/AAR who have put out conflicting and misleading statements on this matter.

    If it has no "partisan" point of view why can't you answer a simple question that I posed? Further, why haven't they paid the money back?
    Finally, your "source" is partisan and biased for the content you cited, and you're too dumb to see the contradiction in your silly statements.

    By Blogger Ace, at 27 August, 2005 16:58  

  • Hey there A$$brains! Beautiful weekend so far, don't you think? I can't play for too long because I'm going out to dinner with the wife soon.

    Come on buddy... I can see you're mad. Mad enough to use any low-life lawyer's cheat in an attempt to make meaningless points. But that's OK... I understand. You know... you could have avoided all of this frustration... If only you had told the truth... If only your hadn't stolen from other people.


    No, your post was consistent with a source, Piquant/AAR who have put out conflicting and misleading statements on this matter.

    If it has no "partisan" point of view why can't you answer a simple question that I posed? Further, why haven't they paid the money back?
    Finally, your "source" is partisan and biased for the content you cited, and you're too dumb to see the contradiction in your silly statements.


    Now you're only making things worse for yourself. That Wikipedia page presents various references including your favorite Murdoch rags the NY Sun and the NY Post as well Malkin and Baloney. Heck, there's even a reference to Byron York there. And you think that the source I provided is "partisan"?!! Yeah sure. If that page is partisan, it's in favor of you blind wing-nuts. Your anger has obviously made you delusional. Or simply hindered your ability to read.

    You know...there's some lessons in all of this for you, don't you see A$$brains? It's absolutely amazing how justice is dished out sometimes. You were bleating on over and over again about how Franken lied, how AAR stole money from little kids, asking leading questions that are only intended to smear. Then fittingly, you were very soon after shown to be a stupid liar who steals from other people.

    I don't know if you're a Christian. If you are, perhaps you should take a good hard look inside of yourself when you're in church tomorrow morning.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 27 August, 2005 19:57  

  • RD said:


    Their claim is that the mainstream media typically requires a higher standard of proof before a target like Air America is deemed "newsworthy" (i.e., the case against AAR has to be more "cut and dry" as you've put it) than a target like Karl Rove or Tom Delay (which are aggressively pursued by the MSM even when the matter is nowhere near "cut and dry".)


    You know what, RD? I don't entirely disagree with you. But Rove and Delay are key players in our current government and have significant influence over policies and decisions which affect everyone of us. The accountability of our government is serious stuff. And - at the risk of being attacked for not caring about under-privileged kids - in comparison, the matter surrounding GWBCG, Evan Cohen, and AAR is small change. (Just a suggestion to you wing-nuts: if you are really concerned about these kids, then how about ponying up some cash instead of bleating about Franken.)

    Then there is the issue of credibility. The likes of Maloney and Malkin have absolutely no credibility with the MSM. They are viewed as merely providing a product to the right-wing market. They deliberately misrepresent research and they rely far too heavily on partisan sources such as FOX news and the Murdoch press. And they depend on their market being too lazy or too ideologically blind to question their work.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 28 August, 2005 00:33  

  • Purple Redneck idiotically said:


    Apparently, Dickie, PhilM, and Mitchell get their news from Indymedia.

    Let me know when you get back on planet Earth, guys.


    You see purple redneck... you are a member of what Maloney refers to as his market. You no doubt watch Fox, listen to Limbaugh, and read the NY Post. You're one of those suckers who are going to hand over your money to Maloney, Malkin, Murdoch, etc, for a regular dose of uninformed bigotted bullshit. There are other Maloney supporters here who know about this scam and want a piece of the action. But then there are the likes of you, who are too simple to catch on. I wish I could help you but that would be impossible.


    PhilM, you still haven't answered the question: where is the lie?


    OK purple redneck! First of all keep up. It's A$$brains who has been bleating about Franken lying. But if you mean Maloney. Well, he lied about Drobny being a Larouche supporter. (See my post earlier in this thread.)

    But I don't expect you to be convinced. You're a simple uninformed idiot who is going to be used by Maloney to make money. And if and when he is rich, he is not going to give a damn about you or any other wing-nut on this blog.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 28 August, 2005 01:00  

  • But PhilM, you just lied, Drobny is a LaRouche supporter.

    He helped Sheila Jones win the Democratic Primary for lt governor in the 1980's. He even bragged about it.

    You have told me Mr Maloney and Ace has lied. What are the particulars of this lie?

    Medication will clear that mental condition right up.

    By Blogger Purple Raider, at 28 August, 2005 17:07  

  • BTW PhilM, the Drobny's have tried this shell game at least twice, and they are going on a third.

    "You no doubt watch Fox, listen to Limbaugh, and read the NY Post. You're one of those suckers who are going to hand over your money to Maloney, Malkin, Murdoch, etc, for a regular dose of uninformed bigotted bull."

    Since I work 18 hour days, that does not leave a lot of time to read, listen, and watch anything.
    As a result, what I watch is high quality, and not CNN or MSNBC. Murdoch doesn't get any of my money, neither does Rush, Michelle, or Brian. As for uninformed & bigotted, most people who fit that description are solidly on the left.

    People like you.

    By Blogger Purple Raider, at 28 August, 2005 17:15  

  • phillis, being a silly, ignorant liberal has many drawbacks, and one of them is that you obviously can't read and comprehend basic sentences.
    As I clearly wrote, the source of the content you referred to is biased and partisan. The biased source's content appearing in the NY Post doesn't make it any less biased. Your failure to comprehend such basic concepts is astounding.

    . You were bleating on over and over again about how Franken lied, how AAR stole money from little kids, asking leading questions that are only intended to smear

    1. Franken Did lie
    2. Government grant money intended in part for children went to fund AAR
    3. I am making no attempt to ask "leading" questions. I've asked logical questions based on the false information you've continually posted, and you refuse to even try to answer them because you are lying and are ignorant on the matters anyway.

    By Blogger Ace, at 28 August, 2005 20:15  

  • Hi A$$brains. Did you reflect on your lying and stealing in church this morning? Did those lessons we talked about change your attitude?


    As I clearly wrote, the source of the content you referred to is biased and partisan. The biased source's content appearing in the NY Post doesn't make it any less biased. Your failure to comprehend such basic concepts is astounding.


    You must be getting quite flustered because you're making absolutely no sense whatsoever now. I read what you wrote. I just didn't believe it. You know... because of that little problem you have with lying... and because of your ideological blindness... oh... and you're stupidity. So just because you say something is partisan, well forgive me if I'm just more than a little skeptical. Besides, if you knew how content was created on Wikipedia (all partisan POVs are flagged, debated, and eliminated) you might pause to reconsider your conclusion. But you don't know... and you're a liar... and you're an ideological wing-nut who only wants to smear AAR and Franken, etc. So no one is going to take you seriously and it's pointless discussing anything with you.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 29 August, 2005 01:56  

  • Hi A$$brains. Did you reflect on your lying and stealing in church this morning? Did those lessons we talked about change your attitude?


    As I clearly wrote, the source of the content you referred to is biased and partisan. The biased source's content appearing in the NY Post doesn't make it any less biased. Your failure to comprehend such basic concepts is astounding.


    You must be getting quite flustered because you're making absolutely no sense whatsoever now. I read what you wrote. I just didn't believe it. You know... because of that little problem you have with lying... and because of your ideological blindness... oh... and you're stupidity. So just because you say something is partisan, well forgive me if I'm just more than a little skeptical. Besides, if you knew how content was created on Wikipedia (all partisan POVs are flagged, debated, and eliminated) you might pause to reconsider your conclusion. But you don't know... and you're a liar... and you're an ideological wing-nut who only wants to smear AAR and Franken, etc. So no one is going to take you seriously and it's pointless discussing anything with you.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 29 August, 2005 01:57  

  • Purple redneck, if you want to play, please post something with at least some semblance of coherence. Copy and paste some BS from Baloney or Malkin or FOX News if you have to... anything but your mindless drivel.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 29 August, 2005 02:08  

  • So just because you say something is partisan, well forgive me if I'm just more than a little skeptical

    Phillis, that is irrelevant. The source of the content your claims is AAR/Piquant, a biased and partisan source. Your insistence that this was some deal between "Progress and Cohen" is coming from a biased source. Not terribly complicated, as I said.

    But you don't know... and you're a liar.

    I've lied about nothing (but you have), and I obviously do know about the subjects at hand.

    You, are a complete and utter buffoon who is ignorant of many subjects, as demonstrated by your posts here.

    By Blogger Ace, at 29 August, 2005 14:18  


  • The source of the content your claims is AAR/Piquant, a biased and partisan source. Your insistence that this was some deal between "Progress and Cohen" is coming from a biased source.


    I'm only going to go through this once A$$brains so concentrate. OK?

    A review of the revision history of this page in Wikipedia shows that in this month of August alone, 11 independent contributors made 83 individual edits. Over the lifetime of this page, 19 distinct contributors are shown to be the source of the content of this page by making 156 separate edits.

    A review of the relevant edits by these contributors demonstrates that changes have been made from many different perspectives. The revision history and edit versions of the page in question can be found at:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Montvel_Cohen&action=history

    The page in question has no outstanding NPOV disputes (Neutral Point of View) which signifies that all contributors from all their respective viewpoints have reached agreement concerning the content of this page. Details about the NPOV policy and process of Wikipedia can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV

    Thus any claim that the source of the content of this page is AAR/Piquant is demonstrably false.

    Furthermore any subsequent judgement that this page is partisan and biased flies in the face of the fact that in this month alone 19 individual contributors from varying perspectives including both sides of politics acted as sources for the content in question and ignores the reality that Wikipedia enforces a strict Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy and process.

    A$$brains, if you still want to claim that the source of the content is AAR/Piquant and is thus partisan and biased, that's fine - you can stay in your deluded state of mind. The justification that the content is NOT from AAR/Piquant and is NOT partisan or biased is above.


    I've lied about nothing (but you have), and I obviously do know about the subjects at hand.


    Oh please A$$brains. You were caught red-handed on this blog posting material that you stole from another source. And when challenged about it, you lied to try to cover your tracks. It's there, plain as day in your posts. Typical of a wing-nut to lie about something, then be stupid enough try to deny it when the lie is recorded in posts to this blog.


    You, are a complete and utter buffoon who is ignorant of many subjects, as demonstrated by your posts here.


    And you're a lying little bitch who puts out for the likes of Maloney. (I didn't want to miss out on the name-calling either.)

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 30 August, 2005 00:36  

  • Phil, Wikipedia is an unreliable source as the content of the website and everything in it can be changed upon a moment's whim by anyone, lib or conservative alike.

    Face it, Ace is right. And you, sir, have just been pantsed.

    Also, nice touch with the name calling. Shows how irrelevant you really are.

    By Blogger Sailor Republica, at 30 August, 2005 05:11  

  • sailor girl... you really shouldn't be out on your own like this - your mother will be worried.


    Phil, Wikipedia is an unreliable source as the content of the website and everything in it can be changed upon a moment's whim by anyone, lib or conservative alike.


    Wrong. Any random changes are reviewed by the relevant contributors and are approved or reverted. Any changes which violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy are reverted. Details of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and procedures are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV


    Face it, Ace is right. And you, sir, have just been pantsed.


    A$$brain's claim that the source for the content of the Wikipedia page is AAR/Piquant has been demonstrated to be false; that its content is partisan is his deluded opinion which entirely ignores reality.

    And you're obviously as deluded as him. Has A$$bitch turned you a trick to come in on this one like this? It sounds like he's been really pantsed.


    Also, nice touch with the name calling.


    HA! I'll give as good as I get.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 30 August, 2005 09:39  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger