Latest Posts

By Brad Wilmouth | May 23, 2010 | 5:22 AM EDT

On Thursday’s The O’Reilly Factor, FNC’s Megyn Kelly appeared to give her take on the Arizona immigration law that the has so upset the left in America, relaying her conclusion that the law actually holds the police to higher standards against racial discrimination and the conditions under which police can enforce the law than current federal laws. Kelly: "And my legal opinion is, it is a little bit like the federal law, but if anything, it's less problematic. Did you know that the Supreme Court already ruled a few years ago that under federal law, cops can pull you over for no reason and demand to see your immigration papers? For no reason. They don't have to have reasonable suspicion."

She went on to recount a relevant Supreme Court case:

And the court, this was written by then-Chief Justice Rehnquist who said in that case, hold on, let me get it because it's here in front of me some place. He said the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Menia for her name, date, and place of birth, or immigration status. The cops do not need reasonable suspicion to ask you about immigration status. Under Arizona law, they do. They do.

Referring to restrictions against police application of the law, Kelly concluded: "It's tougher. Arizona's tougher."

She later summed up:

By Brent Baker | May 23, 2010 | 12:06 AM EDT
Collating my Friday night tweets on Bill Maher, my nominations for the slimiest, most paranoid and dumbest quotes from Maher on his HBO show, Real Time:
By Brad Wilmouth | May 22, 2010 | 11:35 PM EDT

On Saturday’s Huckabee show on FNC, as the show was broadcast from Las Vegas, singer Wayne Newton appeared as a guest to discuss the economic situation in the city, and, when asked by host Mike Huckabee his reaction to President Obama’s remarks from last year attacking businesses for indulging in trips to Las Vegas, Newton did not mince words: "I think that it was the most irresponsible, arrogant thing I have ever heard a President of the United States say."

Fellow guest and Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons related that hundreds of conventions were canceled after the President’s words, costing the city a fortune in lost business: "There's no doubt that the people of Las Vegas, the city of Las Vegas were severely hurt by the President's remarks. About 400 conventions, business meetings, and that were canceled because of his remarks; $100 million was lost by the community at that remark. People lost their jobs. This city took a real blow when the President made that remark. He was wrong then, and then he said it again, and I don't understand why he keeps picking on Las Vegas."

Newton jumped in again and suggested that the President has been hypocritical in holding political fundraisers in Las Vegas: "He was not so incensed with Las Vegas, that he then decided to come here and do two fundraisers."

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Saturday, May 22, Huckabee on FNC:

By Noel Sheppard | May 22, 2010 | 11:24 PM EDT

Kentucky senatorial candidate Rand Paul has struck back at MSNBC for its continuous implications that he is a racist.

In an interview with WHAS-TV in Louisville, Paul said, "I need to be very careful about going on certain networks that seem to have a bias."

He continued, "They went on a whole day repeating something over and over again, and it makes me less inclined to go on a network" (video follows with partial transcript and commentary, relevant section at 2:50, h/t HotAirPundit):

By Noel Sheppard | May 22, 2010 | 9:56 PM EDT

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on Friday posted a highly-humorous video on YouTube mocking members of the Obama administration that have voiced negative opinions about her state's new anti-illegal immigration law without even bothering to read it.

See if you can name them as you sing a long:

By Noel Sheppard | May 22, 2010 | 7:27 PM EDT

Stop the presses: a fill-in for Rachel Maddow on Friday actually busted the New York Times for misquoting Rand Paul in its article about the Tea Party senatorial candidate published earlier in the day.

As most readers are aware, Paul made some rather controversial statements on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show" Wednesday.

Two days later, Adam Nagourney and Carl Hulse of the Times wrote: "Asked by Ms. Maddow if a private business had the right to refuse to serve black people, Mr. Paul replied, 'Yes.'"

As the Nation's Chris Hayes amazingly pointed out Friday, that's not what Paul said (video follows with transcript and commentary, h/t Daily Paul via NB reader Russell Davis):

By Clay Waters | May 22, 2010 | 6:49 PM EDT
Texas-based New York Times reporter Michael Brick was in Austin in anticipation of a Board of Education vote on the political content of textbooks in Texas schools: “Texas School Board Set to Vote Textbook Revisions.”

Typical of the Times' coverage of the matter, Brick found lots of “conservatives” on one side of the debate over Texas textbooks in Friday's story, but no countervailing liberals, though they were in full protest mode at a hearing on Wednesday. Neither did Brick convey concerns of conservatives over liberal indoctrination in past editions of schoolbooks. Here's a sample of Brick's dense labeling:

After facing months of protest, conservative members of the Texas Board of Education were expected Thursday night to vote to teach schoolchildren a version of American history that emphasizes the roles of capitalist enterprise, the military, Christianity and modern Republican political figures.
By Clay Waters | May 22, 2010 | 5:42 PM EDT
Wednesday's Business Day column by the Times' liberal economic conscience David Leonhardt is another one for the food police files: “The Battle Over Taxing Soda.” Personal responsibility on such personal matters isn't a large concern in Leonhardt's worldview, as he readily compared lobbyists for the soda industry to lobbyists against tobacco companies and pollution laws.

Tobacco lobbyists spent years fighting regulation by claiming to be defending individual freedom, not the profits of tobacco companies. Detroit’s lobbyists did much the same to push back against seat belt and pollution laws. Wall Street has spent months opposing the financial regulation bill in the name of families and small businesses.

The latest example comes from Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and the rest of the soda industry, which is trying to defeat a soda tax now before the District of Columbia Council. The industry has succeeded recently in beating back similar taxes in New York and Philadelphia, and in keeping one out of the federal health overhaul bill. But the Washington Council seems to be seriously considering a penny-per-ounce tax on nondiet sodas, energy drinks and artificial juices. Council members are set to vote on the issue next week.
By Ken Shepherd | May 22, 2010 | 5:37 PM EDT

Perhaps Washington Post reporter Michael Birnbaum needs to brush up his reading comprehension skills. Either that or his bias is coloring what should be straightforward reporting.

Here's how Birnbaum opened his page A16 article in the May 22 paper:

The Texas state school board gave final approval Friday to controversial social studies standards that minimize the separation of church and state and say that America is not a democracy but a "constitutional republic." 

Really? The second point is ludicrous to describe as "controversial." The U.S. system of government is not direct democracy but a representative republic regulated by a constitution, hence a "constitutional republic."  As to the first allegation in Birnbaum's lead paragraph, this writer did some homework and found the actual text of the newly-approved standard in question, which applies to government courses:

Examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and compare and contrast this to the phrase “separation of church and state.” 

The notion that that standard "minimize[s]" the notion of "separation of church and state" must be read into the text of the actual newly-approved standard, it certainly isn't logically concluded from it.

Later in the article, Birnbaum insisted that "the new standards... draw an equivalency between Jefferson Davis's and Abraham Lincoln's inaugural addresses." Here's the actual language of the newly devised standard:

By Noel Sheppard | May 22, 2010 | 5:08 PM EDT

National Review's Rich Lowry on Saturday's "Fox News Watch" noted a bizarre relationship between Barack Obama and the media: "they're in love with the guy and he has contempt for them."

Host Jon Scott started the discussion by mentioning the peculiar irony of the President on Monday signing the Press Freedom Act while refusing to take any questions from media members at the event.

As the conversation ensued, Scott asked the National Review editor if anybody really cares that Obama hasn't had an official press conference in 43 weeks.

With the ball nicely teed up, Lowry knocked it way out of the park (video follows with partial transcript and commentary): 

By Sarah Knoploh | May 22, 2010 | 4:38 PM EDT

A video of young girls provocatively dancing in skimpy outfits recently surfaced on the Internet. The public outcry it garnered was so great that the girls’ parents appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” to defend the dance routine. But the inappropriate dancing shouldn’t really be surprising in an era when girls are exposed to less-than ideal role models and bombarded with sexualized messages in the media.

From Lindsay Lohan to Britney Spears, positive role models are hard to find in the entertainment industry. Even teen sensation Miley Cyrus, known for her breakout role in Disney’s wholesome “Hannah Montana,” has been shedding her good girl image. Despite wearing her religious faith on her sleeve, Cyrus has had some controversies in the past and was recently hit with a couple more scandals. Her new music video, “Can’t Be Tamed” featured her dancing provocatively, and footage recently emerged of her grinding with a man in his forties at a party.

By Mark Finkelstein | May 22, 2010 | 3:24 PM EDT
On this weekend's Fox News Watch, panelist Jim Pinkerton cited this NewsBusters item in which Joe Scarborough passed along the comment from an unnamed conservative insider questioning "what the hell was [Rand Paul] doing on MSNBC?", a reference to Paul's appearance on the Rachel Maddow show in which he made comments on the 1964 Civil Rights Act that have caused controversy.  The irony of course is that Scarborough is himself an MSNBC host. H/t NB reader Gat New York.

Pinkerton and his fellow News Watch panelists got a chuckle out of this NewsBuster's fond wish which concluded the item: "Oh to be an olive when Joe and Rachel sip martinis together at the MSNBC TGIF."
By Brent Baker | May 22, 2010 | 2:35 PM EDT
ABC and NBC rushed to get stories onto the air Friday night delivering left-wing talking points against the new social studies curriculum guidelines passed by the Texas State Board of Education, as both portrayed conservative Christians as the enemies of accurate history. Reality wasn’t good enough for ABC, which framed its lead story around “Rewriting History?” and saw no liberals in the “big controversy,” yet also tried to discredit the conservatives by highlighting “some of the things the conservatives tried and failed to do.”

ABC’s Dan Harris fretted “the new standards require that textbooks mention pillars of the conservative movement, like the Moral Majority the National Rifle Association, and the Contract with America with no liberal counter balance.” Harris, acting as more of a prosecutor than a journalist, then ran archived clips of him demanding from board chairman Don McLeroy:
- What do you say to people who say that you are, in essence, imposing your political and religious views on school children?

- If the Founding Fathers really wanted this to be a Christian nation, why is there no mention of Christianity or Jesus in the Constitution?
Instead of citing any other examples of awful new guidelines, Harris went to ones not added: “Here are some of the things the conservatives tried and failed to do: Have the President called by his full name, Barack Hussein Obama, which some called an attempt to raise questions about his faith, and even rename the slave trade as the Atlantic Triangular Trade.”
By Noel Sheppard | May 22, 2010 | 12:58 PM EDT

"Dating is difficult. In fact, many times it's so uncomfortable that you have to look for creative ways to unwind after an unsuccessful night out."

So begins NBC's synopsis for a new "romantic comedy" expected to premiere in 2011.

In "Friends With Benefits," "Ben, Sara, Hoon, Aaron and Riley are a group of close friends who do just that. After a bad date, they turn to each other for moral (and sometimes physical) support."

The synopsis continues, "Hey, what are friends for?" (preview video follows with commentary):

By Tom Blumer | May 22, 2010 | 10:48 AM EDT
DanielPearlInIslamistCaptorsVid2002President Barack Obama's statement just before he signed the Freedom of the Press Act on Monday painfully avoided reality to the point of giving offense. If it became widely known, it would likely become very problematic.

Here is what the President said that was particularly offensive (bolds are mine):

And obviously the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is, and it reminded us that there are those who would go to any length in order to silence journalists around the world.

Two key administration-protecting original news disseminators picked up on the need to keep the bolded words out of their news coverage of the event. The Associated Press, which usually (i.e., almost always) quotes the president in related stories, provided no quotes in its terse five-paragraph report, the first four of which follow (for fair use and discussion purposes, of course):