Update (14:11): Video is no longer up on YouTube, so we pulled the embed. For more coverage, see Ed Morrissey's post at Hot Air.

Just in time to prove a major migraine for the Clinton campaign for the May 6 Hoosier State primary, a YouTube video alleges Clinton backer Mickey Kantor once derided Indianans as "sh*t" and "white n****rs." Fellow NewsBuster Seton Motley and I reviewed the video. There's no doubt Kantor actually said "It doesn't matter if we win. Those people are sh*t," but there is a dispute over who "those people" are and if the second slur is doctored. [see video embed below fold]

Ben Smith at Politico.com reports that D.A. Pennebaker, director of "The War Room" from which the clip is taken, insists the "white n****rs" comments were doctored. Au contraire, says the editor of the video, who insists he merely "enhanced" the audio to bring out the barely whispered epithet.

What's more, Smith reports, Pennebaker says Kantor was referring to then-President George H.W. Bush's political advisors as "sh*t", not the people of Indiana themselves:

Today is Earth Day, and you don't have to look any further than the home pages of the top Internet companies to see it. Green is the politically correct color of choice for firms that want to score cheap environmental points online.

The bias is most blatant at Google and its video-sharing subsidiary, YouTube. Google's logo has gone completely green, and the television screen within YouTube's logo is a snapshot of the earth.

YouTube also has turned over the prime real estate on its home page to earth-friendly videos, with headlines like "5 Easy Ways To Save The Planet" and "Veggie Cars." Oh, and don't forget, "Paris Hilton Is Greener Than You."

Video Below the Fold

Erick Erickson over at RedState tells us all of an anti-Christian video recently introduced with great frivolity by Internet philosopher and Obama technology advisor Larry Lessig. The video introduced at a Google Author series seminar shows Jesus singing the Gloria Gaynor tune "I Will Survive" in a very effeminate, theatrical way. As the song ramps up, Jesus throws off his robe and strips down to a diaper-like covering, then he sashays through a modern city until he gets hit by a bus in an intersection.

The worst thing about this is that this is also another scandal involving a Barack Obama campaign associate showing his disdain for the American mainstream, this time a disdain of Christianity. It turns out that Lessig is a somewhat secretive Obama campaign advisor, serving to assist the campaign on Internet and technology policies. As Erickson points out, Lessig hosts Obama's tech policy on his own lessig.org website.

Confirming the important role that NewsBusters played in exposing Hillary Clinton’s bogus “sniper fire” story, CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson told the Los Angeles Times’s “Web Scout” blog that it was in fact our March 18 NewsBusters item that prompted her to debunk Clinton’s claims in a March 24 report for the CBS Evening News.

According to the April 8 posting by David Sarno, the Times’ Internet culture and online entertainment writer:

CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson didn’t realize she had a story on her hands until a colleague e-mailed her a link to 12-year-old footage of the Bosnia trip that she herself had reported on, which had been posted on newsbusters.com [actually, NewsBusters.org] several days earlier. “I clicked on a link and was stunned to see it was the same trip,” Attkisson said in an interview.

A tip for today's starter: ReviveTube. This site lets you watch videos that YouTube has pulled from its public archive because of censorship complaints.

It seems to work by accessing the Flash files directly from YouTube's servers since when it "deletes" a video, really all that YouTube does is just deny access to the page it's on. The files are still cached an accessible, provided you know how to get at them. Luckily, ReviveTube does.

YouTube watchers have often marvelled at the video website's floating enforcement of copyright laws.

Another such incident guaranteed to cause a lot of conservative heads to be scratched is this weekend's decision by YouTube to yank an advertisement created by the Competitive Enterprise Institute -- as reported by NewsBusters March 12 -- harshly critical of Nobel Laureate Al Gore's hypocritical views on global warming.

As reported by the conservative CEI moments ago:

Are liberal Democrats less likely to have social lives than conservatives?

According to Karl Rove, the answer to that question is yes. The Republican guru all but made that argument explaining why he thought liberals are more likely to be on the web than conservatives.

"I hate to sound sort of diffident about it but it strikes me that a lot of people on the right have got active lives and are doing other things," Rove said. "The idea of spending a lot of time on the internet and taking their talents and displaying them there is not something [conservatives] really do."

What is it about humor? It seems inevitable now. Whenever one of our NewsBusted episodes gets popular, it inevitably attracts left-wing haters who get enraged that something poking fun at their sacred cows is allowed to even exist at all.

I'll be checking in later today with a few choice examples of today's dose of liberal peace and love but in the mean time, have a look at the comments yourself. Notice also how many of these left-wingers blindly rate us "one-star" just because NewsBusted is conservative.

The Islamofascists are mad at YouTube... or at least there were. They aren't anymore, of course, because YouTube has folded to a cyberterror campaign launched in Islamabad, Pakistan. Islamists in Pakistan launched a cyber attack against YouTube over the video service's hosting of the trailer to a Dutch documentary that claims that Islamic doctrine is an "inspiration for intolerance, murder and terror."

So, in another strike against freedom of expression, YouTube has promised to eliminate any content that is deemed by extremist, Islamists half way across the world as "highly provocative and blasphemous" against Islam.

Once again, extremist, Islamists win another battle against the ever more weak spined and compliant west. And this win is ominous for the Internet because now the Islamofascists don't even have to take control of a government or a population to impose their oppression on the people of the world. They can do it all across the world at once with cyberterror.

If you haven't been asleep or out of the country the past seven days, you are fully aware of two rather controversial skits performed last Saturday on NBC's "Saturday Night Live."

In one, CNN Democrat debate moderators were depicted, "like nearly everyone in the news media," as being "totally in the tank for Senator Obama." Later, host Tina Fey basically gave a campaign speech for Hillary Clinton.

Videos of these skits began appearing at YouTube almost as soon as they were performed on the East Coast. Apparently for copyright infringement reasons, these unauthorized videos were pulled, sometimes within hours of them being posted.

Yet, as suggested by NewsBusters reader Myron Howard, there appears to be a political element at play for this clip from Saturday's show featuring Republican candidate Mike Huckabee was posted at YouTube on Sunday, and has not been removed:

Choice excerpts of Media Research Center Founder and President Brent Bozell on C-SPAN's Washington Journal on February 22, 2008.

Bozell speaks of the Bill Keller New York Times disaster, its implications for the 2008 Presidential race and more.

C-SPAN's posting of the full video of the 30-minute segment from Washington Journal.

Back in 1986, Time and other news organizations attempted to whip up hysteria about a new firearm on the market, the Glock 17, attempting to state that it could pass easily though airport metal detectors, and therefore become a favored weapon for terrorists or hijackers

The manufactured Glock hysteria was of course false; the barrel, slide, sights, and of course the pistol cartridges themselves are made of dense metals, and the promised "new guns made entirely of plastic" have never materialized on the consumer market.

Yesterday I ran across another attempt to create a false hysteria, this time about painted guns. Yes, really. (video below page break)

After provoking a small scandal among pro-lifers, YouTube has restored a video which it had previously removed from its database. The show, produced by the American Life League, was originally yanked by YouTube after being "flagged" as inappropriate by YouTube viewers.

Now that the video has been restored, it seems that this was yet another case of liberals abusing YouTube's flag feature. Originally designed to alert the video sharing service of inappropriate content or copyright violations, flagging is often the tool of angry people upset at speech they find disagreeable. (Many Muslims seem to be similarly inclined.)

Of course YouTube has every right to disallow any video they deem unworthy of their service, this goes without saying. But, when YouTube sets up it's own criteria for removing a video and then removes videos that do not fit its own criteria, then we have cause to wonder if a particular reason for banning videos is one that is kept secret from users. That secret reason would be a certain political bias used by Youtube to eliminate content. And, naturally, that bias is in favor of leftist causes and against the conservative ones.

Such is obviously the case with the recent removal of a video created by the American Life League that criticizes several promiscuous Planned Parenthood condom advertisements. The videos were removed, according to Youtube, because of an "inappropriate nature" and also because of complaints by YouTube members. But, the claim by YouTube that the ALL's ad breached Youtube's "inappropriate nature" rule does not stand up to logic or scrutiny, nor does it seem to fit their own publicly stated rules.

Last Monday, ALL received an email message from YouTube announcing the decision. The ALL website reports that, "The e-mail sent to American Life League said, 'After being flagged by members of the YouTube community and reviewed by YouTube staff, the video below has been removed due to its inappropriate nature.'"

Allahpundit has the video of Fox News anchor letting the former Al Gore [fashion] adviser have it in a posting over at Hot Air. This happened in the 3 o'clock half hour of "Studio B." Here's an excerpt:

SHEP SMITH to NAOMI WOLF: I want to apologize to you for pointing my finger at you. I just get tired of people like you saying every time you're challenged on something that you say that it's something about Fox. It's not something about Fox. I don't have a horse in this race and for you to suggest such a thing is both inaccurate and insulting.

WOLF: Okay, Shep, if you knew my long relationship with Fox--

SMITH: I do know your long relationship with Fox, but I don't think it's fair to just take shots at us because we ask questions. And I think to say that we want to get our babies out of Iraq -- last time I checked everybody over there's at least 18.

I mentioned earlier how whenever one of our "NewsBusted" episodes gets especially popular on YouTube, it inevitably attracts left-wing haters who simply can't take the joke being on them. It's pretty much axiomatic. Popular "NewsBusted" creates angry liberals.

Read past the jump for some of the vile stuff the hate-filled left is saying about the current "NewsBusted" episode now that it's the #1 comedy video on all of YouTube and #4 in all categories:

Is CNN capable and professional enough to host presidential debates? After last week’s CNN-YouTube debate fiasco, even Tim Rutten, a media writer for the left-leaning Los Angeles Times, was giving CNN a big fat F for failure: "In fact, this most recent debacle masquerading as a presidential debate raises serious questions about whether CNN is ethically or professionally suitable" to host debates. CNN had the opportunity to perform a journalistic swan dive. Instead it produced an enormous belly flop. It’s far worse when you realize this mess of a production was the highest-rated primary presidential debate in history.

Back in May, after the Democrats stiff-armed the Fox News Channel invitation to debate, many conservatives believed the Republicans should return the favor with CNN and its proposed CNN-YouTube debate. I disagreed. I suggested in this space that Republicans should accept debates on CNN, but be more forceful in setting the terms and selecting the hosts. It seemed correct to assume at the time that CNN would attempt to be more fair and balanced simply because so much was riding on the outcome, namely CNN’s very credibility as an impartial observer of the political process.

I was wrong. We can’t expect CNN to be an honest broker.

CNN Washington Bureau Chief David Bohrman appeared on Sunday’s Reliable Sources to defend the CNN selection of liberals and Hillary supporters in disguise as questioners at the CNN-YouTube debate. Bohrman made several odd claims. They Googled Gen. Keith Kerr, the gay endorser of Hillary Clinton, but didn’t find the Hillary campaign documents, which was allegedly new to Google when it was found in minutes during the debate. They stopped investigating Kerr because he had a "great question...regardless of where he was from." Bohrman took the same position with the Edwards supporter they used. CNN does not agree that investigating the backgrounds of alleged grass-roots questioners is important. And in the wake of the Kerr backlash, CNN wishes they’d decided on a different Victim of Social Conservatives: "Let's use the gay linguist from Guantanamo who was dismissed."

First, the ever-changing Google exchange:

Here’s an update on the St. Petersburg Times report on CNN’s snarky response to conservative bloggers. Eric Deggans, one of the reporters on the CNN-YouTube debate, brought his own skepticism on Friday to CNN’s responses to the secret Hillary Campaign questioner on his blog The Feed. (Deggans is not a conservative, as my earlier Koulter Klan blog illustrates.)

Deggans mentions the anti-CNN complaints of bloggers on both sides, but suggests the liberals should consider how they would respond if the shoe was on their foot: "even though some liberal bloggers are saying the political background of questioners shouldn't matter, I have a hard time believing they would have tolerated seeing Hillary Clinton asked a tough question on an issue important to conservatives by someone with hidden ties to Rudolph Giuliani or George W. Bush."

CNN is defending its job in vetting questions for last night's debate, reports Politico's Kenneth Vogel:

The retired general who quizzed Republican presidential candidates about gays and lesbians in the military was not the only person linked to a Democratic presidential candidate who got to ask a question at Wednesday’s CNN/YouTube debate.

CNN also aired questions from supporters of Democratic candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama.

And that’s fine by the network, which is standing by its question selection process and lashing out at critics who say the debate demonstrated CNN’s liberal bias.

“We’re focused on the questions, not the questioners,” said Sam Feist, CNN’s political director.

There might be something to that approach. As our own Brad Wilmouth reported, the questions largely pressed the Republican field from the right.: