Listeners Continue To Pound Sharpton From Left, Right And Center
700,000 BIG ONES
NO WONDER Al's Kept His Day Job!
Lost in the debt ceiling debate's news cycle black hole is an important story that sheds light upon the Reverend Al Sharpton's questionable career situation.
Thanks to Wayne Barrett's Daily Beast piece, we can now say it is highly unlikely Sharpton will be giving up his radio show anytime soon.
How his troubled employer, Radio One (NASDAQ: ROIA), manages to cover an Air America-like annual salary of $700,000 is truly baffling. Only a handful of the most successful syndicated hosts have ever cracked that level and they're heard on hundreds of major stations, as opposed to Sharpton's handful of mosquito swamp affiliates. Barrett notes that Sharpton was even unable to maintain a time slot on Radio One's own flagship Atlanta outlet.
It seems improbable that MSNBC will be paying that much for his new cable talk program, meaning hanging on to this strange ROIA deal is as important as ever.
If he does keep the radio show, however, are the days of open phones coming to a close? From left, right and center, Sharpton listeners are rebelling against his unquestioning loyalty to Barack Obama. For at least two years, we've been tracking the outcry, but it has absolutely escalated in recent weeks. African-Americans are increasingly emboldened in challenging the president and the regime's inner circle.
Confronting the anger must be exhausting as listeners increasingly seem to loath him. From Friday's program, here's the latest example, where a left-leaning caller tells Sharpton she feels duped by Obama's promises.
As usual, Sharpton responds with disrespectful bullying, rhetorical trickery and condescension:
CALLER MARY ANN IN NEW JERSEY (AL SHARPTON SHOW - 29 JULY 2011): Good afternoon. I’m calling about I am not a fan of President Obama. I think he is fooling the people. He’s getting ready to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, food stamps that help the very same people that put him in office. He getting ready to cut that.
If George Bush were doing this everybody on the left would be up in arms including you. And I think what he’s doing, I think he’s a Republican in Democrat's clothing. And I think he’s a dressed up well polished well spoken phony and I think he needs to be challenged from the left. I think we need to get a real Democrat in there.
SHARPTON: All right so let me ask you a question Mary Ann, what are the cuts in Medicaid and Medicare and social security that he going to make?
MARY ANN IN NEW JERSEY: Well, he said he’s going to make he’s going to increase the age, he gonna (Sharpton interrupts)
SHARPTON: He (Obama) has not said that.
MARY ANN IN NEW JERSEY: He said he’s gonna cut.
SHARPTON: He did not say that. He said that we gonna put it all on the table.
MARY ANN IN NEW JERSEY: Well, what is this what is this now (Sharpton interrupts)
SHARPTON: Wait a minute, don’t start hollering now cause you getting to not talk at all. SHARPTON: I asked you a question and you can’t give me an answer, you go to hollering.
MARY ANN IN NEW JERSEY: He said himself he’s gonna have a balanced approach.
SHARPTON: He said we gonna put it all on the table.
MARY ANN IN NEW JERSEY: Everybody gonna fell some pain.
MARY ANN IN NEW JERSEY: He said everybody gonna fell some pain.
SHARPTON: So, you calling him all these names and saying he gonna do something, I’m asking you what is he gonna do? Putting it all on the table does not say what he is going to do.
MARY ANN IN NEW JERSEY: He said everybody gonna fell pain.
MARY ANN IN NEW JERSEY: That’s what he said.
SHARPTON: You said he said he’s going to cut Medicaid and Medicare.
MARY ANN IN NEW JERSEY: Right. And that tell me he’s gonna male people feel pain who helped put him in office and this is not a balanced and fair approach.
SHARPTON: Well, it tells me that you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
The bottom line in Sharptonville: nobody "knows what they're talking about" unless they're calling in support of Obama.
When a political movement becomes ideologically bankrupt, what keeps its stubborn adherents from admitting defeat?
Reduced to this level, our ego-preserving "progressive" friends have responded by sinking ever lower into a swamp of name-calling, ranting and crazy (but hopefully distracting) sound effects.
During Washington's debt ceiling showdown, radio/TV/blogospheric lefties have been without a compass, leaving ridicule as the most effective way to kill time. When their party lacks a plan of its own, there are no budget-oriented talking points to utilize.
Sure, this is crazy Mike Malloy embarking on another of his rubber room rants, but he's no longer the outlier- other "progressives" now seem just as deranged, whether on the air or the Internet. Watch as he uses insults to fill their ideological deficit:
MIKE MALLOY (20:06): The Speaker of the House! To compare this piece of human waste to, say, oh, I don't know, Lyndon Johnson - wasn't he speaker of the House at one time? Nothing like a crying drunk right? Well, I'll tell ya....
Does this approach work? A few years ago, "progressives" successfully shouted down many Republicans and conservatives through bullying. But times have certainly changed.
When it becomes clear Sharpton doesn't have the facts needed to win the argument, he cranks the Bully-meter to the max, stepping all over the caller. After it grows particularly heated, Al blows his stack, accusing him of being a liar.
Watch as Sharpton slowly loses his cool, leading to an on-air meltdown:
CALLER VIRGIL IN ATLANTA (AL SHARPTON SHOW 27 JULY 2011): I marched with you. I followed you I did a lot of things. I voted for this President, President Obama as well, but a lot of the things you‘re typically doing is actually deceiving the people, you’re crossing the tooth. Social Security has nothing to do with this debt that we’re talking about.
SHARPTON: No, social security has nothing to do with the deficit.
VIRGIL IN ATLANTA: It has nothing to do with the deficit it’s not going to harm people’s social security. But you just told a caller not too long ago that you kind of entwined it and made it seem like it did.
SHARPTON: What I said was, slow down slow down slow down. What I said was and what the President has said and the Congress has said is that if they default that the President may not have the money to cover everything in the budget. At that point they will decide what they’re going to pay. And that’s up to, the decision whether they’re going to pay this that or the other includes social security. That does not mean money is not in social security. It means that when they have the options of when they’re options are we gotta make a payment; they can decide I’m paying this I’m paying that. That’s what I said and that’s what the President said and that’s a fact. That does not mean, nor did anyone say that social security caused the deficit. We’re saying the choices they’re going to make if they’re in default.
VIRGIL IN ATLANTA: But you gotta, you’re not clarifying that. You know (Sharpton interrupts)
SHARPTON: That’s exactly what I said Sir!
VIRGIL IN ATLANTA: It's 14 trillion dollars in debt as far as the military and the wars. We’re 52 trillion in debt as far as for the assistance programs. Those are two separate things. FSI (Sharpton interrupts)
SHARPTON: That has not one iota to do with what I just said, or what I said before. I said if they default they decide on what they’re going to pay based on what they have. You talking apples I’m talking oranges.
VIRGIL IN ATLANTA: But shouldn’t he had been making these decisions on (Sharpton interrupts)
SHARPTON: Now you’re talking about something different. You get on the radio.
VIRGIL IN ATLANTA: Okay here we go.
SHARPTON: distort what I said and said we’re misleading people. You’re misleading people. What I said was that if they default that they then have to choose what they’re gonna pay. Is that true or not?
VIRGIL IN ATLANTA: How is it that he can’t get 200 billion a month and he’s still 350 million (Sharpton interrupts)
SHARPTON: I asked you a question! I asked you a question! I’m going to ask you one more time and then I’m going to the next caller. Is that true or not?
VIRGIL IN ATLANTA: Well, you entwined them two.
SHARPTON: I’m not implying nothing. I’m asking you a question! If they default will they not have to choose what bills they’re gonna pay based on what reserve they have? Is that true or not?
VIRGIL IN ATLANTA: He presented his plan.
SHARPTON: Sir, you trying to hog, you trying to double talk. I answered you straight, answer me straight. Is that true or not?
VIRGIL IN ATLANTA: Some of what you saying is true some of what you saying is false.
SHARPTON: What is not true? What is not true Sir? What is not true? What is not true? If they default if they default, then they don’t have to choose who they’re gonna pay?
VIRGIL IN ATLANTA: Bottom line, he (Obama) cannot take from social security because that money does not come out of social security. Let’s address it that way.
SHARPTON: What do you, you what?!
VIRGIL IN ATLANTA: That money (social security) comes out of the taxpayer’s money for them to put aside. That money is set aside in a lockbox and for them to have at the time of their retirement and for things of that nature. That has nothing to do with that unless he has (Sharpton interrupts)
SHARPTON: It comes out of the lockbox, sir do you know what you talking about? It comes out of the lock box into the federal government to pay its bills on a monthly basis. That’s like saying if I have some money that is in a different account that funnels into my regular account to pay my bills of course it doesn’t mean you dealing with the lockbox, but it means when it comes out that money becomes in my general bill my general bill my general account that pays my bills and I may decide to pay my phone bill rather than my gas bill.
VIRGIL IN ATLANTA: Yeah that means you would be stealing from end a pot and putting in the next pot. That’s basically what you’d be doing, stealing. Unless the money is not there. Unless the money has already been spent.
SHARPTON: First of all, that’s the whole point we’re saying, which is why we’re saying that social security Medicare and Medicaid should not be touched. That is exactly what we’ve been saying. But he (Obama) is saying is that if they are in default, he has to choose what they are going to pay based on what is in the reserve. How many times I have to tell you the same thing.
VIRGIL IN ATLANTA: The problem is he should have already made those decisions. If we take in 200 billion a month and he spends 350 billion, if you’re going to over talk me (Sharpton interrupts)
SHARPTON: He (Obama) should have made what decisions if we in default? If we in default?
VIRGIL IN ATLANTA: Let people know the truth. All right Rev, let the people know the truth.
SHARPTON: YOU ARE LYING! YOU ARE LYING! THAT IS NOT THE TRUTH! DID THE PEOPLE, THE MONEY THAT COMES IN SIR, YOU’RE LYING! LET’S BE CLEAR!
LET ME BE REAL CLEAR! WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS A LIE BECAUSE DEFAULT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. IF THEY’RE IN DEFAULT, THEY’RE IN DEFAULT.
YOU’RE TALKING LIKE WE SAY THAT EVERYTHING IS NORMAL AND LEVEL. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IF THEY DEFAULT NEXT TUESDAY, IF THAT BECOMES THE [unclear].
VIRGIL IN ATLANTA:All of our prices that we pay in these stores, prices are gonna go up if we up the debt ceiling. The process are already up. Its gonna double the prices. If not (Sharpton interrupts)
SHARPTON: What does that have to do with what we talking about.
VIRGIL IN ATLANTA: But you got to tell them, you got to tell them the repercussions and the consequences of raising this debt. You not telling them that. You not telling them that.
SHARPTON: Sir, you are every time someone answers a point you go to, now you talking about the prices doubling. We were talking about how you pay the government bills.
VIRGIL IN ATLANTA: Well I ain’t got but a couple more seconds and you know that, you gonna cut me out. I gotta say what I gotta say.
SHARPTON: Your problem is I haven’t cut you off cause I’m gonna let everybody understand you don’t know what you talking about. You wanted me to cut you off! I’m letting you talk so people know you just running a lot of rhetoric and don’t know what you talking about.
Will Sharpton keep the radio program once his MSNBC deal is finalized? This exchange certainly reminds us of that question.
Listeners are firmly challenging the reverend to explain his Obamist loyalties, leading to these uncomfortable exchanges. No need to take pesky callers on cable, right?
Thom Hartmann Equates Boehner With Norwegian Terrorist
THOM'S VERBAL BOMB
Left's New 'Terrorist' Def: All Of Our Enemies
Clever "progressives" have a new definition of "terrorist": anyone not adhering to their rigid doctrine.
Not advocating reckless spending? You're the Oklahoma City Bomber. Not demanding ever larger government? You're a 9-11 accomplice.
While Senator Al Franken (D-MN) rediscovers his inner alleged comedian unveiling a bizarre sign on the congressional floor, libtalker Thom Hartman isn't laughing. The syndicated host sees House Speaker John Boehner as having a direct connection to Norway's crazed shooter.
From yesterday's Thom Hartmann Show:
THOM HARTMANN (26 JULY 2011 - HOUR ONE - 2:01): If we had dealt with 9/11 the same way that we dealt with Oklahoma City [we would have said] 'We are gonna use the FBI, the CIA, Interpol...we're gonna find out who's backing [the terrorists] and we're going to arrest them.' That's what we did with Oklahoma City. That's what the Norwegians did with Anders Breivik, and...this is what we should [have done after] 9/11.
HARTMANN (3:32): The prime minister of Norway...said 'the answer to this [terror attack] is more democracy and a more open society'...George Bush said the response to [9/11] is to close down our society...to create a national-security state, to be...very afraid, and to hand over as much power as possible to corporations.
HARTMANN (5:57): What caused [Breivik] to go off the deep end? I would submit to you that there is an absolute correlation between [Breivik's attacks and] what John Boehner did last night on television, which is lie to the American people for political gain and turn the president into an enemy for the purpose of political gain.
It wasn't too long ago that extreme rhetoric of this nature was reserved for fellow libtalker Mike Malloy. Now, almost all lefty hosts on the air have met or surpassed his level.
Libtalkers: Geller, Beck, O'Reilly Deserve Share Of Norway Blame
NORDIC BLAME GAME
Massacre Exploited By Left For Partisan Gain
*** UPDATED WITH INCENDIARY NEW AUDIO, SEE BELOW ***
There's nothing like a horrific massacre to score cheap partisan points, especially when the incident can be blamed on one's ideological enemies. Extra credit is awarded for furthering the idea that all violence and hate originates in the US and then spreads globally.
Since Norway's gunman had written a lengthy manifesto citing two anti-Islamist websites based in America, our "progressive" friends have gone to town, liberally including a laundry-list of foes. All somehow share the blame.
Leading the left's hit list is blogger Pamela Geller, whose work was said to have been mentioned by gunman Anders Behring Breivik. That somehow opens the door for bringing Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and other American commentators into the mix.
From today's Stephanie Miller Show:
STEPHANIE MILLER (25 JULY 2011): Good morning your rudeness.
LEE PAPA (GUEST): Good morning.
MILLER: Wow! Chris just handed me, our Freeper friends, Freepers say they understand and support this Norwegian terrorist because he killed pro-Palestinian commies. Wow!
PAPA: Wow, that’s beautiful, and this is not to mention this great Wall Street Journal editorial that says essentially, wow, we really hope this doesn’t hurt the cause of our anti-Muslim crusade.
CHRIS LAVOIE (PRODUCER): Woooooo!
MILLER: Yeah how’s Pam Geller this morning I wonder?
PAPA: Yeah, well and (miller interrupts)
MILLER: "Atlas Jugs"
LAVOIE: Well, the shooter mentioned her specifically in his manifesto.
MILLER: Really now!
PAPA: Quoted quoted Pam Geller and quoted jihad watch another right wing blog sixty four times. So so go America.
MILLER: Yeah, I mean that’s the thing rude and yet when will the press in this country stop ignoring the fact that you know Bill O’Reilly targeted you know Dr. Tiller how many times on television until what happened happened. That you know the guy who shot up the Tides Foundation did it specifically because Glenn Beck talked about it and he said that. Who’s the other one, Byron Williams was the guy who shot up the cops. I mean you know it is all part and parcel of the same thing.
Luckily for the liberals, the Unabomber never wrote a manifesto citing "progressive" books and essays as inspiration, nor did any number of socialist revolutionaries pen lefty love letters before committing historic atrocities across the globe.
UPDATE: Thom Hartmann and guest / author Frank Schaeffer crank up the hate rhetoric by a factor of one hundred, see below
FRANK SCHAEFFER (GUEST / AUTHOR) (25 JULY 2011 - HOUR TWO 4:20): [The Norwegian terror attacks were] blow[s] aimed at the heart of Western culture, not just Norway, and it was the same blow that is being aimed at the heart of our culture when you give people like Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and others a megaphone, which Murdoch has done, and it's the blow that's being aimed at the heart of our country by the eighty or so freshman [Tea Party] congresspeople who are now trying to literally make a point by destroying the U.S. economy.
Stephanie Miller: Murdoch May Have Staged Pie Attack As Stunt
RUPERT'S PIE SHOP Libtalker: Incident Staged As Sympathy Ploy
Who knew News Corporation Chairman Rupert Murdoch was also in the bakery business?
While the rest of the world is concerned with terrorism in Norway, collapsing debt negotiations, war and famine, our "progressive" friends are still stuck on the big fish that got away.
Just one week ago, it seemed as though the collapse of News (and with it, archenemy Fox News Channel) was imminent, only to have it later slip right through the left's fingers. In a desperate bid to keep the controversy alive, the Smear Machine's Conspiracy Factory got to work.
The result: a new "theory" that Murdoch himself set up the pie delivery as a sympathy ploy. From today's Stephanie Miller show:
JIM WARD (MILLER PRODUCER) (22 JULY 2011 - 30:36): There’s some talk that that [pie incident] may have been staged, that whole thing.
HOST STEPHANIE MILLER: Yeah, that was a little weird to somehow make the story all about her (Wendi Deng)
WARD: [attempting to imitate Murdoch] ...Make me more sympathetic. [Inaudible] trying to throw a pie in my face. GUEST JOHN FUGELSANG: It’s funny how one pie on the face can make the world forget about a dead whistleblower.
MILLER: Ha yeah! Isn’t that the most amazing thing, the police don’t consider it suspicious, well I do! Huh, really! I think everyone else does.
WARD: You conspiracy theorist!
MILLER: Yeah, I know
FUGELSANG: Oops, the wind.
At least liberal talk radio can occasionally be entertaining, too bad that only occurs when they've gone completely over the edge.
CurrentTV's David Shuster: Too Bad Rupert Did Such A Good Job
Libtalker Sorry Murdoch Came Across As Human
Think our "progressive" friends have moved on from their increasingly-futile crusade against News Corp?
Guess again: just when a corporate implosion seemed probable, Rupert Murdoch's "surprisingly" human performance before a parliamentary committee spoiled the party. Touchiness remains, however, as the mere suggestion Murdoch had done "just fine" was enough to send Media Matters into a tizzy.
Now, dreams of vanquishing Fox News Channel have faded, at least until the emergence of the next flap.
What's surprising in the clip below is the unusual degree of honesty and candor exhibited by (infamous former MSNBC talker, now of CurrentTV) David Shuster, who admits to being frustrated by Rupert's inability to show his monstrous side.
From the Bill Press Show, where Shuster was filling-in as host:
DAVID SHUSTER (BILL PRESS SHOW FILL-IN HOST - 20 JULY 2011 - 7:18): I must say, as somebody who detests Rupert Murdoch, I found myself somewhat surprised and frustrated by how well he did. I thought he came across as-- he was defiant, he spoke, he didn't really give much ground.
He was much more sort of clear in his answers than his son, James Murdoch. And I thought he came across -- and this pains me to say this -- but actually as a likable character.
PRODUCER: I actually told someone yesterday, I go, 'I hate to say this: I sort of feel bad for the guy.' I know I shouldn't feel bad for him because it's his company, but he came off as a sad, old man who's out of touch with his company, and it's kind of like, man. I don't want to beat up on him too much.
What a tough break for the left: the cartoonish demon image they'd created didn't match Rupert Murdoch's actual appearance in a public setting. Don't believe for a moment they're ready to back off of Fox, however, the soldiers are merely regrouping for the next battle.
Libtalkers Invent Accusations To Bolster 'Case' Against Fox News Channel
Lefty Anti-Fox Quest Increasingly Irrational
You've got to feel sorry for our "progressive" friends: their greatest enemy has survived what until a few days ago seemed like certain defeat.
Following a parliamentary hearing that failed to show News Corp Chairman Rupert Murdoch as a scary monster (perhaps even slightly human), the left can no longer count on a breakup of the company. Worse, Fox News Channel (not a focus of any allegations in the phone-hacking scandal that brought down a London tabloid) is likely to emerge unscathed.
But that hasn't prevented our libtalk buddies from keeping up the fight, adding helpful "evidence" to prove their case.
Too bad it's all made up.
First, watch as talker Stephanie Miller accuses Fox personalities of inciting violence and even murder. Then, giggle as MSNBC's Ed Schultz tell his radio audience that Murdoch is responsible for hijacking the 2004 presidential election:
STEPHANIE MILLER (19 JULY 2011): This (Phone hacking scandal) is like too good to be true for Liberals, isn’t it? Ha ha ha. We’re like we couldn’t have even written this.
MIKE IN CHICAGO: When can we go to the top of Mount Everest and scream, 'we told you right wing tools about Fox News but none of you believed us.'
MILLER: Yeah I mean, somebody wrote a piece Mike that ah we’ve been pointing out from our friends at Media Matters and others for the longest time that you know Glenn Beck for instance has incited actual violence you know this Byron Williams you know Bill O’Reilly in my opinion is largely responsible for Dr. Tiller’s murder. You know it’s stuff like that that you go we have known for a long time that this place is just a, not to mention that it is an arm of the Republican Party. That’s what it is.
And watch as fellow libtalker Ed Schultz claims Murdoch stole the 2004 presidential election away from John Kerry!
ED SCHULTZ (Hour One - 18 July 2011 - 00:58): Two big stories out there - number one, I mean, I'm just hoping and praying that this Fox News story, this Rupert Murdoch thing just doesn't end. Holmy, this could be the downfall, I mean, the only savior could be the personalities across the street at Fox, if they're clean.
SCHULTZ (02:39): This is a product of deregulation. Because if you didn't have the deregulation of the media, Murdoch would have never been able to put himself in this position. Why isn't anybody doing that angle of the story?
SCHULTZ (08:24): OK, here's the point. Did Murdoch want Kerry to win?
HOLM: No way.
HOLM: No way!
SCHULTZ: Did he have the power? Did he have the way? Did he have the means? Did he have the template to infiltrate a political campaign? And the answer to that, unequivocally, yes! So, do you think, let me ask you this question, do you think we would have been a different country had John Kerry been president versus Dubya the second time around?
This is big stuff! And the Democrats are sitting there saying, well, let's have an investigation. Investigation?! Hell, let's put the throttle down. This, there's no more, there's no bigger story in America, outside of course whether we're going to pay our bills or not.
It only gets better from here- stay tuned for the next update.
'Progressives' Want Fox Hosts Moved To Fast-Food Counter
With more recklessly dishonest rhetoric added by the hour, our "progressive" friends are continuing their campaign to eliminate the Fox News Channel.
Not surprisingly given their history of deceit, libtalkers are adding what they can to the mix, without regard for actual facts connecting FNC to the UK's tabloid phone-hacking scandal.
Libtalker/ notorious trial lawyer Mike Papantonio, known for his work on MSNBC and association with Robert F Kennedy Jr, insisted there was a direct connection between Fox employees here and News Corporation staffers under fire in Britain. But he offered no evidence of wrongdoing by anyone at the cable talker.
And in an even more brazen approach, syndicated radio host Randi Rhodes told listeners she won't be happy until Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and other Fox personalities are working behind the counter at a fast-food restaurant.
While insisting Fox is "hiding everything", she too included no facts to back up an assertion of improper behavior inside FNC.
Here are brief excerpts from both programs:
MIKE PAPANTONIO (Friday 15 July 2011 Hour Two - 08:33): We know that the same people who worked across, across the Atlantic, in Europe, are now over here in the United States working for our media. They're working at the Wall Street Journal. They're working [laughs] at Fox.
I mean, look, the same people who have been involved in all of this, you can't tell me that they didn't understand the methodology for going about tapping people's phones. It was a whole, a whole technology scam they had.
GUEST / PR SPECIALIST CLIFF SCHECTER: Yeah, I mean, and look, you, you're a lawyer and, you know, you need to see these kinds of patterns for a living. Public relations, what I do isn't much different in that way. I'm sorry, you know, I can't make any accusations on, you know, info I don't have. I can only say that seeing how the company has behaved, seeing the types of people they've hired, seeing what they've been accused of abroad, I would be utterly shocked if we didn't find out that the companies here were engaged in the exact same thing.
PAPANTONIO: Yeah, we don't know at this point but I can tell you something. I've seen enough of these stories to understand that there is a pattern and right now what we have is a pattern of, you know, think about this ...
And here's Rhodes:
RANDI RHODES (Friday 15 July 2011 Hour Three - 03:13): I'm not going to be happy, you know, until the only question Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly answering [sic] are, would you like fries with that?
RANDI RHODES (03:26): every time I - I hear Steve Douchy [sic], I want to take a shower! In fact, I do! Steve Douchy [sic], shower time! Time to boil my body! You know!
To our libtalk/MSNBC friends: until any of you can provide evidence of wrongdoing at Fox News, you are LYING. So let's see what you've got.
Here's a quick example of how our "progressive" friends are playing fast and loose with the facts regarding News Of The World's phone-hacking scandal. Yes, the now-defunct newspaper's actions were deplorable, resulting in one of history's greatest lapses of professional media judgement.
At this time, however, there isn't a shred of evidence connecting News Corporation properties in the US (specifically Fox News) to NOTW's spying campaign.
But that hasn't stopped libtalkers and others on the left from recklessly recasting this as a "Fox News" issue, as though the cable talker's reporters and hosts were somehow teamed up with their tabloid cousins in Britain.
Listen as one host dishonestly relabels it a "Fox News" scandal:
STEPHANIE MILLER (3:50): Roland, our tour director, who knows everything about everything.
PRODUCER: He does, he’s very smart that one.
MILLER: Yeah, ah sent us some fun facts on the hack, you know, the Fox News Scandal. Cause I was asking, cause you know I’m not technical, how do you hack someone’s phone. It’s a horrible story, hack 9/11 victim’s phones.
PRODUCER: You don’t even know how to get into your own voice mail!
MILLER: I can’t get into my own voice mail.
With Dow Jones CEOLes Hinton the latest to find his neck chopped off (he oversaw the firm's UK tabloids at the time), it's only a matter of time before our "progressive" friends succeed in damaging FNC. But until (if ever) evidence emerges of similar behavior from News employees in America, this is quite a dishonest campaign to destroy one's ideological enemies.
Is the Reverend Al Sharpton about to permanently join MSNBC's lineup? The longtime activist/ libtalk radio host has been filling in on the ratings-challenged network quite a bit recently and is now dropping hints of a greater role to come.
Given the beleaguered lefty outlet's current roster of white "progressive" elitists, Sharpton could add a rare bit of contrast to the schedule. After all, he's a black "progressive" elitist.
There's another reason to push for a TV gig: his radio show's coming apart at the seams. With increasingly emboldened African-American callers challenging Sharpton to reconsider his insider establishment views, opening the phone lines has recently become a miserable experience.
Of course, that doesn't stop Sharpton from fighting back using regrettable bullying techniques, revealing a side he'd tried hard in the past to hide behind a pleasant facade.
Watch as Al and a member of his regular entourage gang up on a female caller who dared to challenge his doctrine:
AL SHARPTON (14 July 2011): It seems like the Republicans have run out of maneuvers here and they are not getting a lot of the traction they thought. In fact there’s been an internal fight now because one of the founders of the Tea Party that was on my MSNBC program last night saying that Boehner ought to resign.
SYLVIA IN BURNHAM ILLINOIS: I was listening to the program yesterday and today and I’m just wondering why is everything has to be about racial issue, like we have a bad economic problem in this country and I think we should salvage it such, not you know use race, put race into the mix of what’s going on. We overspent, we’re trillions of dollars in debt and we’re all going to suffer. I don’t care red yellow black white or brown, we’re all going to suffer if this economy goes under. So, why is it about race?
SHARPTON: What are you talking about that was about race?
SYLVIA IN BURNHAM ILLINOIS: I mean I mean it’s like you always put race in the mix no matter what the topic.
SHARPTON: What? I’m asking you what you talking about.
DR CHARLES OGLETREE (SHARPTON ENTOURAGE): I don’t know that race has been used today about the debt ceiling.
SHARPTON: You have to be specific. No one
SYLVIA IN BURNHAM ILLINOIS: Against the Republicans.
SHARPTON: Well the Republicans is not a race.
SYLVIA IN BURNHAM ILLINOIS: I know it’s not a race, it’s a political Party.
SHARPTON: So then what are you talking about? If you’re going to make a statement, tell us what you’re talking about. We’ve been talking about the President and Republicans today and you’re (Ogletree interrupts)
OGLETREE: About politics! Not about race.
SHARPTON: Yeah, what are you talking about race what are you talking about?
SYLVIA IN BURNHAM ILLINOIS: It was in the mix and when I turned it on again
SHARPTON: When?! Who?! What?! What are you talking about? We can only address it if we know what you’re talking about. Cause I don’t know what you’re talking about.
SYLVIA IN BURNHAM ILLINOIS: Well, I don’t believe that Rev. Sharpton. I believe you know exactly what I’m talking about.
SHARPTON: Well you can believe what you want. You don’t have to believe but you hear you’re talking to me, I’m telling you. Hold it a minute. I’m telling you that I don’t know what you’re talking about. So you can’t, you can believe something. But, if you’re talking to the person and their telling you that they don’t understand what you’re talking about then I mean then then then then you can say that’s what you want to believe. But I’m telling you and Dr. Ogletree’s telling you he’s been on the whole show.
SYLVIA IN BURNHAM ILLINOIS: Let me ask you.
SHARPTON: Tell us what you’re talking about.
SYLVIA IN BURNHAM ILLINOIS: Let me ask you this, do we have an economic problem?
OGLETREE: Yes we do. That’s what we’re talking about right.
SHARPTON: Absolutely absolutely.
SYLVIA IN BURNHAM ILLINOIS: How we gonna solve it? That’s the question.
OGLETREE: We’re going to get people I’m going to answer your question
SYLVIA IN BURNHAM ILLINOIS: If we have a problem, the next question is how we gonna solve it.
OGLETREE: I’m going to give you an answer, you put people to work. You create jobs for people at every level of our society.
SYLVIA IN BURNHAM ILLINOIS: Yeah and how do you so that?
SHARPTON: Well wait a minute if you want an answer Mame you got to let him answer.
OGLETREE: And Congress has the power to enact laws to put people to work. Let me
SYLVIA IN BURNHAM ILLINOIS: How does Congress enacting a law put people to work?
OGLETREE: Because that’s how we have the jobs bill.
SHARPTON: That’s how you get a jobs Bill.
SYLVIA IN BURNHAM ILLINOIS: No, that’s not answering my question answer my question.
OGLETREE: I just told you
There aren't any pesky Sylvias on the television side, just rigorously-controlled content free of unpleasant surprises. We're willing to bet any TV deal will mean a quick end to his syndicated radio career.
Caller Not Afraid To Challenge Al Sharpton Over Confiscatory Tax Hikes
Uncool Sharpton In Rare On-Air Meltdown
The Reverend Al Sharpton would have us believe he's incapable of losing his cool on the air. After all, callers are mere mortals, right? Would could they possibly say that's worth ruffling one's feathers?
During Tuesday's syndicated radio broadcast, however, a listener managed to push Sharpton's buttons, with explosive results.
Watch as caller Gregory in Detroit demands to know why Sharpton and other Obamists support confiscatory tax hikes on working people:
GREGORY IN DETROIT: Listening to your show, Reverend, all right I have heard so many people with low self-esteem issues. To actually advocate that politicians take someone else’s wealth or property is wrong. It just shows how jealous people are, you and your guests and your callers who actually are standing there saying hooray take that person’s income. They’ve earned it, it belongs to them, not to Obama, not to the Democrats, nobody! But yet still, you and your guest and your callers are advocating that their (rich people) property, their wealth be confiscated and be given away to someone else. I think there are low self esteem issues there. (Sharpton interrupts)
REVEREND AL SHARPTON: Wo - wo - wo - wo
DAVID A WILSON (Sharpton Entourage): How so?
SHARPTON: How to ask rich people and people of a higher income that ah to pay the same taxes that they were paying before Bush gave them a tax cut, just like everybody else is paying taxes, how is that confiscating they stuff, and is low self esteem for people that are middle class and poor to be paying a higher percentage of taxes than the rich? It would be low self esteem for me allow rich people to pay less than me and I don’t say something. Do you know the definition of self esteem?!
GREGORY IN DETROIT: I sure do.
SHARPTON: What then how can that be self, self esteem is to say that a man does not have to pay tax on a corporate jet, but I gotta pay tax on everything I got!
GREGORY IN DETROIT: Nobody should pay taxes because the money belongs to whoever earns it. Not to there (Sharpton interrupts again)
SHARPTON: Then how come the money middle class and poor people make don’t belong to them?!
GREGORY IN DETROIT: It belongs to them too!
SHARPTON: IT WHAT!
GREGORY IN DETROIT: Their money that they earn belongs to them too!
SHARPTON: Why are they paying taxes at a higher rate than the rich? GREGORY IN DETROIT: Don’t ask me!
SHARPTON: Oh I see.
WILSON: Greg let me ask you this, how does how can the government then make any money to take care of just basic how would police operate, how would teachers operate if no one should pay taxes? GREGORY IN DETROIT: Okay, to answer your question, go back to the way it was when it was the import taxes that supported the military and only the military, then there were contributions that teachers were in the private sector and the customers or the parents who sent their child to their schools to be taught by their person, they paid out their pocket because they weren’t paying the taxes back in those days. What you have is wealth confiscation by politicians who can; I’ve never seen a poor politician. I’ve never they can fly anywhere in this world using tax money. They can (Wilson interrupts)
WILSON: So you’re a libertarian Greg?
GREGORY IN DETROIT: Dyed in the wool Libertarian and I support individual rights, but y’all, I mean why are you so jealous of somebody (Wilson interrupts again)
WILSON: No no Greg Greg Greg no one jealous Greg.
SHARPTON: I’m trying to make sure it’s fair and equal. Well why are you protecting people who get an uneven advantage?
GREGORY IN DETROIT: Nobody’s unequal, it’s their income, they earned it! SHARPTON: It’s everybody’s income. You agreed with that, if everybody has, if it’s everybody’s income then why isn’t everybody paying the same percentage? Why are you so for an unequal percentage? If it’s everybody’s income Greg, then what’s the difference? GREGORY IN DETROIT: I have said that however much you earn you should be able to keep every last red cent.
SHARPTON: What? Then you should say that for everybody! GREGORY IN DETROIT: I have said that!
SHARPTON: What is how’s that jealous then? I’m saying that it’s unequal. That ain’t jealous, that saying that we gonna have one standard. Do you understand that?
GREGORY IN DETROIT: Yeah, nobody pays taxes and you keep all of the money that you earn. I don’t care if it is Warren Buffett, Gates Oprah you or me or the neighbor down the street. They’re should not be any foreign aid. There should not be any welfare whatsoever.
SHARPTON: Okay good I got that, but as long as we have to pay tax we all gonna pay the same tax. You got that!?
GREGORY IN DETROIT: Then don’t advocate for it Reverend, you advocate that we repeal the 16th Amendment?
SHARPTON: No no no don’t tell me what no no slow down slow down slow down lets slow down. Let’s go back to the front. You’re name Greg I’m Al, you advocate what you believe. I don’t believe what you believe. But, what I’m telling you is I’m going to advocate the same across the board. If we end up with no tax than nobody should have it., but, if we have a tax as we do now we should have one tax structure where the percentage are basically the same. Where you do not give tax cuts to rich people, talking about they’re going to trickle it down to jobs when that has not happened. That’s what I’m advocating! I’m not unclear about what I’m advocating. Now I’ll give you the opportunity to say what you want and you did say that, but don’t instruct me to advocate what you believe, cause I don’t believe that.
WILSON: Apparently Greg you don’t believe in any social services, right?
(Sharpton hangs up on the caller as Wilson asks him a question)
SHARPTON: Lily in Detroit. Lily you’re keeping it real with Al Sharpton.
Of course, when the debate really heated up, Sharpton chose to hang up on the caller.
Times have certainly changed: it was just two or three years ago that almost no one dared to challenge the Obamist Doctrine on Al's show (or nearly anywhere else). Now, dissenters are no longer afraid and that's most likely the real reason for Al's obvious frustration evident here.
Following the town's insistence that July 4 celebrations focus on moving forward rather than dwelling on the past, festivities were kept free of disaster planning, Red Cross tents and other reminders of the May 22 calamity.
After Joplin fans won a listener contest, Rush personally delivered 3800 cases of Two If By Tea, his new iced beverage, free of charge to attendees. In addition, the Missouri native was to make a contribution to the tornado relief fund while there.
Your Radio Equalizer caught up with Rush just before his plane landed to get a sense of the visit's aims: "It's all about keeping the spotlight on Joplin, dropping in here personally. The Tea is second, it's just a gift," Limbaugh said.
"I'm personally donating to the relief fund here and am paying all the vendors here $500 each to offset any missed sales because of free tea. [There's a] huge semi-trailer, chilled, with 3800 cases of Two If By Tea. [I'll give] a 25-minute little speech between bands about 8:15 on why America, and Joplin, are unique and great. No politics. No mention of conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican. It's about the people of Joplin," he added.
Earlier, he explained how Joplin came to win the contest (via All Access):
This really isn't about the tea. We're talking here about American exceptionalism. You ought to see some of the entries. Some of the entries we got were from people not in JOPLIN, suggesting that we go to JOPLIN because of the E5 tornado that literally wiped out two thirds of the city. The people there have been working together as a community to rebuild. They haven't been complaining, they haven't been whining, they've been doing whatever they can on their own. There has been a lot of charitable outreach, but this is how Americans come together in the darkest hour.
Stay tuned for updates on any State-Run Media coverage of the appearance.
Sharpton Just Can't Stop Talking About GOP Candidate
While political pundits all but rule out Herman Cain's chances in securing the GOP presidential nomination, you wouldn't know it from listening to Al Sharpton's syndicated radio program.
In recent weeks, the Reverend has appeared obsessed with picking apart the African-American candidate's every word, coming across as incensed that Cain has dared to throw his hat in the ring.
Of course, having a black Republican candidate in the race certainly damages the Democrat's projected image of a "racist" GOP, but Sharpton also seems particularly peeved at the former corporate CEO's passionate (and clearly effective) denunciations of Obama.
During Friday's syndicated radio program, Sharpton and a member of his entourage took turns riling up listeners over the apparent menace that is Herman Cain:
AL SHARPTON (16:55): This is what he’s [Herman Cain] done several times. He first went on Jon Stewart, I mean not went on Jon, but I mean he got into it with Jon saying that he that they ah liberal media didn’t want, hated seeing a black conservative, but he doesn’t want to bring up race. Well, he had just brought it up.
Now he goes on a diatribe about the president and him and who’s black and whether who’s the strong black, but then he doesn’t want to bring in race. It’s almost like I’m gonna call you two or three names, but then say I don’t want to get into name calling when I’m the one who brought it up. Nobody’s brought up in the discussion about race anything but Herman Cain.
So which is it, is Herman Cain an also-ran not worth discussing, or major threat to Sharpton, Obama & Friends?