This is what happens when you have a liberal media that does not punish their own for liberal media bias …
In the wake of the media bias scandal where ABC’s George Stephanopoulos failed to make it known that he had donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation and at the same time running cover for the Clinton Foundation amidst its own scandal of taking foreign money as she was Secretary of State, Georgy Porgy decided to apologize for his actions. If you call it an apology. But it was not just that George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton White House political operative, donated money to the Clinton Foundation, Stephanopoulos acted as the Clinton defender when interviewing Peter Schweitzer on his book Clinton Cash and went after the author claiming that he was bias.
But check out the VIDEO below and the less than sincere apology. Listen to his snarky and elitist tone when he says, “Even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries, I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.” In his effort to make an apology he basically says, but look at me, I am great, because even though I made these donations to save the word, no the planet … I should have gone the extra mile. PLEASE GEORGY, SPARE US THE DRAMA. You knew damn well, being a former Clinton operative and a political news correspondent that the Clinton Foundation was nothing more than a slush fund. Would it really have been that difficult to do some research and investigation to find what were the best charities for Aids, helping children or the environment, if you were actually being sincere? After all, you are supposed to be some kind of correspondent for the media, is it that difficult to do a Google search of best charities?
But when you have a news organization like ABC News defending such actions of bias and a lack of transparency to protect their own agenda of liberal bias in the media, what would one expect from an ex-Clintonista but a hollow apology.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, I want to address some news you may have seen about me. Over the last several years, I have made substantial donations to dozens of charities, including the Clinton Global Foundation. Those donations were a matter of public record. But I should have made additional disclosures on-air when we covered the foundation and I now believe directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake. Even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries, I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. I apologize to all of you for failing to do that.
Welcome to the Corrupt Democrat Media Complex … ABC News Host George Stephanopoulos Caught in a Total Conflict of Interest and Bias News Event
DON’T EVER TRUST THE LIBERAL MSM … EVER!!!
It has been known for years that the MSM was bias to the LEFT and the Democrat party; however, many said that was just the GOP complaining and having sour grapes. One look at the recent George Stephanopoulos conflict of interest just shows one example of the ongoing media bias and a media that is so slanted to the LEFT that they cannot even admit to their bias because the Democrat party, liberals and the media is so incestuous, it is shameful, let alone dishonest, corrupt and unethical.
It is bad enough that George Stephanopoulos, who rose to prominence as the communications director for the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign of Bill Clinton and then becoming White House Communications Director for Clinton, became a correspondent for ABC News and co-anchor of ABC News’ Good Morning America. Yea, no bias there eh? Now we learn that he is still giving money to the Clinton’s while trying to pass himself off as a journalist. Can you imagine, this man gets paid $8 million a year to spew liberal lies and talking points to the masses and pass them off as objective journalism.
Check out the VIDEO below of a bought and paid for Stephanopoulos defending Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation and its questionable donations, all the while George Stephanopoulos was donating to the very foundation. SERIOUSLY, HOW CORRUPT AND UNETHICAL DOES THE MEDIA HAVE TO BE FOR SOMEONE TO BE FIRED. Because Georgie is a darling of the media and ABC, the network backed his obvious conflict of interest and stood behind this unethical and devious individual. Stephanopoulos acted as the Clinton defender when interviewing Peter Schweitzer on his book Clinton Cash. Stephanopoulos tried to discredit Schweitzer saying during the interview, the Democrats have said this this is an indication that you are partisan, they say you used to work for President Bush as a speech writer, your funded by the Koch brothers, how do you respond to that?” REALLY GEORGE … and you worked for who and gave $75,000 to who?
Washington Free Beacon:
ABC news host George Stephanopoulos admitted Thursday he had donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation and did not disclose this conflict of interest to viewers before interviewing the author of a book critical of the foundation’s foreign donors and influence over Hillary Clinton at the State Department.
Stephanopoulos, a former Bill Clinton communications aide, interviewed Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer on the April 26 edition of This Week, where he pushed back against his reporting and Schweizer himself, repeating Democratic attacks that he had a “partisan interest” in disparaging the Clintons.
“They say you used to work for President Bush as a speech writer. You are funded by the Koch brothers,” he said. “How do you respond to that?”
“As you know, the Clinton campaign says you haven’t produced a shred of evidence that there was any official action as secretary that supported the interest of donors,” he asked later. “We’ve done investigative work here at ABC News, found no proof of any kind of direct action. An independent government ethics expert at the Sunlight Foundation Bill Allison wrote this: ‘There’s no smoking gun. No evidence that the changed policy based on donations to the foundation. No smoking gun.’ Is there a smoking gun?”
LEFTWING MEDIA HAS GONE TOO FAR THIS TIME … CNN’s Brooke Baldwin Blames Military Veterans for Baltimore Riots (Update: Apologizes on Twitter. Finally on TV)
LIBERALISM TRULY IS A MENTAL DISEASE … WELCOME TO THE DEMOCRAT-MEDIA COMPLEX.
While doing an interview with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) in the midst of the turmoil on the streets of Baltimore, CNN’s Brooke Baldwin had the audacity to blame military veterans for the Baltimore riots. WHAT? This liberal media-insanoid literally blamed vets coming home saying, “I love our nation’s veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don’t know the communities, and they are ready to do battle.” Really, you love them, I would hate to see if you didn’t love them what you would say. Welcome to the LEFT-wing media of today that does not report the news, but instead tries to pain a narrative that does not exist. Sorry, ESPN suspended foul-mouthed ESPN reporter Britt McHenry went off on a tirade on a impound lot employee, CNN should fire Brooke Baldwin for these false and ugly comments. But they won’t because this is the hate and bias that consumes liberal media outlets today.
Hmm, so what is Brooke Baldwin’s message, or should i say smear … Don’t hire vets because they are too unstable to be trusted? But don’t worry, she loves them.
After more than a year of CNN pouring gasoline all over America with hysterical, and oftentimes phony, stories of American racism, the left-wing network’s afternoon anchor Brooke Baldwin finally took it to the next level by blaming American veterans for the Baltimore riots.
In a pathetic suck-up interview with Democrat Congressman Elijah Cummins, Baldwin never once had the moral courage to ask the failed Baltimore City congressman if the left-wing policies ushered in by a half-century of a Democrat monopoly in Baltimore might have something to do with the city’s ills. Instead, she said of young military veterans who become police officers, “I love our nation’s veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don’t know the communities, and they are ready to do battle.”
The context was a discussion about increased training and retraining for the Baltimore police.
There’s no question Baldwin is hoping to launch a narrative with that smear.
UPDATE I: Brooke Baldwin apologized like a coward hiding behind her Twitter account. Sorry Brooke, you don’t get to make such inflammatory, hateful and defamatory comments like you did stereotyping our brave American vets on TV and then apologize on Twitter. What a brave soul you are. Get your butt on TV and apologize. Then I want you to go to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, she’s not that far away and apologize in person to wounded vets.
Twitter – BrookBaldwin@BrookeBCNN
CNN’s Brooke Baldwin this morning may have done the impossible: Deliver a mea culpa that the nation’s apology police cannot possibly puncture, dismantle, nitpick or otherwise trash.
Sweeping, tendentious nonsense. Baldwin offered no evidence to support her case that somehow battle-scarred veterans from recent wars were responsible for any of the policing problems in the country’s big cities, let alone in Baltimore. People on the Internet let her know of their disapproval. Baldwin’s first response was a bit weak:
That defense doesn’t work at CNN, which sells itself as a purveyor of straight-up journalism around the clock. So what if some hack “vocalized” a concern to Baldwin? Isn’t it her job to filter that concern, fact-check it and pat it down before “re-vocalizing” it?
Given some more time to think about it all, Baldwin this morning came around. Early this morning, she tweeted.
On CNN’s “New Day” program Baldwin said the following:
I made a mistake yesterday. We were in the middle of live TV, I was talking to a member of Congress, and I was recounting a story, a conversation I had had recently just referring to police. And I absolutely misspoke, I inartfully chose my words 100 percent and I just wish speaking to all of you this morning: I wholeheartedly retract what I said. And I’ve thought tremendously about this, and to our nation’s veterans, to you — this is just who I want to speak with this morning — I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform. And I wanted you to know that this morning, so to all of you, I owe a tremendous apology. I am truly sorry.
Sorry Brooke if I don’t believe a word of your apology. You meant every word you said, and that’s okay, just own it. You are a bed-wetting liberal who doesn’t know any better and repeats hateful BS. That’s okay, just say it.
EXIT QUESTION: Replace “VET” with “BLACKS” and does Brooke Baldwin have a job this morning?
Some one has gone from a tingly feeling up his leg to very, very bitter …
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews loses it again as he went on a tirade for his pathetic network that no one watched, MSNBC, stop airing “Goddamn” right-wing ads. I guess Matthews only wants MSNBC to air only “Goddam” LEFT-wing ads. Matthews denouncing the troubled network for playing commercials paid for by “piggish” conservative groups. Hey Chris, you do realize how a network makes money, right … by commercial ad play? At this point MSNBC would take ad money from Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levine. MSNBC’s needs all the commercial dollars it can get to keep the lights on. But isn’r it great to see Chris Matthews lose it, makes my day.
MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts ended up under friendly fire on Tuesday when his colleague Chris Matthews launched into a tirade against his own network for airing “goddamn” ads by rightwing groups.
Matthews appeared irritable from the beginning of the segment on Robert’s afternoon show and brushed off small talk with his fellow host.
Matthews said that unlike the “piggish” elites of the Republican Party, average voters who send their children to war would not be interested in more hawkish foreign policy.
“Those people are not impressed by these goddamned ads,” Matthews said, scowling.
“I certainly wouldn’t put them on free, Tom. That’s what we should stop doing,” Matthews added in an apparent reference to the clip that had been played. “Stop running rightwing ads for free on our network.”
Hey Chris Matthews, how’s that far LEFT Obama foreign policy working with Russia, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yeman and the list goes on and on and on.
Bill O’Reilly Says on The O’Reilly Factor … “I Think I Trust Iranian Regime More Than American Press”
Last night on the O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’ Reilly during his Talking Points memo stated that many Americans and Congress do not trust Obama to do anything. At issue now is the so-called Obama-Iranian nuclear framework deal that is questionable at best. O’Reilly went on to say that he did not trust the American Press to interpret the discussion with their Obama bias. O’Reilly then went on to say that he trusts Iran more than the America press. Sadly, that is the state of affairs with the liberal MSM today.
“Here’s what I don’t want. I don’t want the press, cause I don’t trust the press, I think I trust Iran more than I trust the American press. I don’t want the American press interpreting this for me.”
AMERICA IS FINALLY LEARNING WHAT MOST HAVE KNOWN FOR A WHILE,
MSLSD MSNBS MSNBC IS UNWATCHABLE …
As reported at Deadline Hollywood, MSNBC is pretty much on life-support as the TV ratings of the liberal left leaning, Democrat party bias, Obama propaganda network is at all-time lows. Simply speaking, the product that is put forth on MSNBC is unwatchable. Not only does the network suffer from the fact that it is completely bias for the LEFT, but its reporting of the news is suspect as well and falls for along a liberal ideology than the facts, see coverage of Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman, Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson and any of their political coverage.) As correctly stated by Hot Air, “Strident demagoguery may sell for a short period of time, but it has little staying power. In contrast, the talking head shows on Fox and CNN deal with dissent in a much more mature manner, and usually features more of it than MSNBC prime-time shows do.”
Talk about a tale of two cable news networks. With its 53rd consecutive quarter total audience win, Fox News Channel saw a 10% primetime rise among adults 25-54 in first-quarter 2015 over last year. In fact, with 321,000 on average among the 25-54s in primetime, Fox News thrashed rivals CNN (187,000) and MSNBC (132,000) with more news demo viewers than the other two combined, according to Nielsen.
Contrast that to the fate of the NBCUniversal-owned MSNBC, which not only saw a 39% drop in the demo compared to Q1 2014 but its worst quarterly result in the category since Q2 2005. If that almost decade-old result wasn’t enough of a blow, and rising CNN’s fourth consecutive win over MSNBC in prime didn’t cut deep enough, take a look at the gutting the cabler newser’s nighttime offerings are suffering.
With just 145,000 viewers among the 25-54s on average over the December 29, 2014 – March 29, 2015 period, the once-proud flagship The Rachel Maddow Show hit an all-time quarter low with the worst result since its September 8, 2008 launch. Not only is Maddow down 46% in the demo, but her 9 PM show is also down 19% in total viewers. Fellow primetime show All In With Chris Hayes and Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell fell to their worst quarterly demo ratings since their respective 2013 and 2010 debuts. O’Donnell’s show also had its lowest total quarterly viewership results. And 7 PM’s Hardball With Chris Matthews had its lowest-rated quarter in the demo since 2Q 2005 with an average viewership of 126,000.
With ratings like this, who does not think there are Internet websites and blogs that have a higher viewership?
But what else would one expect for results when you are marketing to a fringe group of an audience? Check this out from 5 pm to 11 pm MSNBC has the following shows to watch. Serious, this is a prime time line up? Unless I am looking to watch liberals lose their minds on election night and the insanity that comes from their mouths when they get routed in an election, the only show in their entire morning, afternoon and prime time schedule I can stomach is ‘The Morning Joe’. Check out their prime-time lineup below and some suggestions we have as replacements that would draw a higher audience.
- 5-6 – The Ed Show [reruns of Mr. Ed would of course, of course get better ratings]
- 6-7 – Politics Nation with Rev. Al Sharpton [Simply unwatchable and painful to listen to this man butcher trying to read a teleprompter. Although as a comedy show, maybe just having Rev. Al read important speeches in US history would be a good laugh for a short period of time. Or they could just show an endless loop of Al Sharpton getting knocked on his ass by Roy Inis.
- 7-8 – Hardball with Chris Matthews – He has lost that tingly feeling running up his leg. These days Chris is just becoming more and more bitter as he sees his career fade into obscurity. Hardball, hell, just run a continuous lop of Die Hard.
- 8-9 – All In with Chris Hayes – Honestly, a TV test pattern would get a higher ratings.
- 9-10 – The Rachel Maddow Show. Nuff said, just play reruns of Law & Order.
- 10-11 – The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell. How about no word with Lawrence O’Donnell or maybe they could just have Jennifer Lawrence or maybe Chris O’Donnell.
Candidate Barack Obama Called President George W. Bush “Unpatriotic” for Adding $4 Trillion to National Debt
OH THAT MSM DOUBLE STANDARD …
The MSM, the LEFT and all those whiny Democrats were no where to be found, never condemned hims and never asked for an apology when Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 called President George W. Bush “unpatriotic” for adding $4 trillion to the national debt, but they certainly have a different agenda when Obama is said to not love America. In fact the LEFT cheered. Double standard, you think?
Oh by the way Barack, have you seen what you have added to the National Debt now that it is at $18,135,185,690,000 and counting every second. By Obama’s own standard, if GWB was “unpatriotic,” that would mean Obama committed treason.
Ed Henry questioned White House spokesperson Josh Ernest a to whether Barack Obama regrets questioning the patriotism of the president of the United States. Of course the WH
spox liar found a way to spin his way thru his answer. The truth, there are two sets of rules when it comes to Obama/Democrats and Republicans. You can call a Republican, Tea Party member, Conservative,r Republican anything you want. However, you can say nothing bad about a Democrat, even if it is true. And when it comes to Barack Obama, question anything of Obama and you are a racist.
Ed Henry to White House – Does Obama Regret Calling Bush ‘Unpatriotic’?
The Leftist MSM , otherwise known as the Obama/Democrat media complex is in a tizzy following Giuliani’s comments that Obama does not love America.
Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani was at a private fundraiser for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker when he said the following, “When I hear the President speak I don’t believe that he expresses the love of America as much as he does criticism of America.” Of course the LEFT, the MSM and Democrats are aghast at such comments. REALLY? I know, how dare anyone question anything to do with Barack Obama, the Obamamessiah. They must be racist. Does the truth hurt, Barack Obama was not brought up the same as most people with a love of country.
“I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the President loves America. He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.”
Honestly, who would not question someone who is president who continually feels the need to apologize for America? A president of the United States who cannot utter the words “radical Islam” or admit that radical Islam is at war with the United States? Instead, Obama tells us that we have to get off our high horses because of the Crusades that took place centuries ago and said that terrorists have “legitimate” concerns. WHAT? Sorry folks, had Jimmy Carter made such comments in the late 1970′s in dealing with Iran, had JFK made such comments regarding the Soviet Union or had FDR made comments like this regarding the Nazi’s, Italy or Imperial Japan during WWII, they all would have been rode out of office on a rail and called traitors, let alone been questioned about their love of America.
Look for the LEFT and the MSM to run with this as a news distraction and running cover for Obama rather than report on the domestic and foreign disasters that are currently taking place. CNN has already called Rudy’s comments ugly and divisive. Isn’t that rich … in that the former NYC mayor was talking about the most divisive president ever!
Rudy Guilliani went on Fox & Friends to explain what he meant by his comments, instead of having the Obama propaganda media doing it for him. Guilliani said that he was not questioning Obama’s patriotism, he was questioning Obama’s rhetoric in that you rarely ever hear him talk of America in glowing fashion like former presidents Ronald Regan or even Bill Clinton did. However, what you do hear from Obama at every turn is criticism of America. Sorry, but Guiliani is correct in his interpretation. Barack Obama does not talk about “American exceptionalism”. Obama does not talk about America being “a shiny city on the hill”. Obama cut his teeth being a community organizer, which by definition means that he is a community agitator who is against what exists and looks for change.
Probably what Guilliani really meant to say is not that he does not love America, but as president he does not express his love of America enough, but instead he talks of the criticism of it instead. Who honesty can say that Obama has been a cheerleader for America? His past and upbringing would prevent that from happening. Obama in his heart thinks America is a western colonialist country responsible for evils around the world and still holds slavery against the United States, even though a black president has been elected.
Like it or not, Rudy Giuliani spoke what many believe and all too many have been afraid to say. Thus the reason why Democrats are up in arms and most cowardice Republicans are too Lilly-livered and gutless to stand up and say so.
Rudy Giuliani Discusses what he meant regarding Obama not Loving America
Attorney General Eric Holder Blames Fox News For Talking About ‘Radical Islam’ (VIDEO) … Watch Reaction
Hasn’t this Fox News obsessed hater left office yet?
From The Daily Caller comes the following … At the National Press Club on Tuesday, outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder mocked Fox News for having the audacity of talking to much about the Obama administration’s refusal to use the term “radical Islam.” WOW, how dare they. Because you know Eric, if they didn’t report on it, we all know that the bias, left-wing liberal Democrat media complex would not. This is yet another example of just how small, petty and thin-skinned the Barack Obama White House is. Seriously, the media’s job is to question government. To single out a news media outlet like that is just so low rent. Holder said, we spend more time on what do you call it. Hmm, isn’t this the same person who calls out the Tea Party by name and calls police officers racists?
Huh, 21 Coptic Christians beheaded, a Muslim Jordain pilot burned alive in a cage, terror attacks in Paris and Copenhagen and the Obama administration refuses to use the term “radical Islam.” Instead they attack Fox News for actually doing their job. Why does it appear that the Obama administration talks tougher to Fox News than ISIS?
HOLDER: Whenever you’re getting criticized by both sides, it probably means you’re probably getting right. We spend more time, more time talking about what you call it, as opposed to what do you do about it, you know? I mean really. If Fox didn’t talk about this, they would have nothing else to talk about, it seems to me.
Radical Islam, Islamic extremism; I’m not sure an awful lot is gained by saying that. It doesn’t have any impact on our military posture; it doesn’t have any impact on what we call it, on the policies that we put in place. What we have to do is defined not by the terms that we use, but by the facts on the ground. So I don’t worry an awful lot about what the appropriate terminology ought to be.
I think that people need to actually think about that, and think about will we be having this conversation about words as opposed to what our actions ought to be? This is a difficult problem. This is going to be an ongoing issue. This is something that requires us to think as a nation how we are going to deal with the domestic issues that I was describing in my previous response, and how are we going to deal with the foreign policy consequences of some very, very serious problems that our allies face, and that we face, particularly in a particular part of the world. The terminology, it seems to me little to no impact on what ultimately we have to do.
Holder Blames Fox News For ‘Radical Islam’ Controversy – Greta Van Susteren
Watch the reaction to Holder’s comments. These may be some of the most truthful and honest comments ever made of the Obama administration. Its time to send the JV packing. Note to Obama, Holder et all … the jihad is not because they can’t get jobs at Arby’s.
The Five: Eric Holder Lashes Out At Fox News – Part 1
The Five: Eric Holder Lashes Out At Fox News – Part 2
Barack Obama Chief Strategist David Axelrod Says Hillary Clinton ‘Wasn’t a Very Good Candidate’ in 2007
BARACK OBAMA POLITICAL STRATEGIST SAYS HILLARY CLINTON WAS NOT A GOOD CANDIDATE IN 2007 …
David Axelrod, Barack Obama chief strategist during his first run for president, said that Hillary Clinton “was not a very good candidate” in 2007 during the Democratic presidential nomination. Some one seems to be poking the bear. This is one of the few times I might actually agree with Axelrod. Obama’s top strategist is saying that because Hillary had a sense of entitlement and was the sure bet to win the Democrat nomination for president in 2007, she made no effort to campaign or tell people why she should be president.
So what has changed now, but what difference does it make?
David Axelrod on Thursday jabbed at Hillary Clinton, saying that she wasn’t a very strong candidate during the first part of her campaign for the 2008 presidential nomination.
The chief strategist for Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign said that Clinton, who lost to Obama in the Democratic primary that year, was too cautious during the early stages, when she was considered the prohibitive favorite.
Axelrod also said that Clinton failed to provide a convincing rationale for her candidacy in her unsuccessful bid, echoing a criticism he made in November. “In 2007, the mistake they made was they allowed the candidacy to get out ahead of the rationale for it,” he said of Clinton’s team.
“It wasn’t clear what the campaign was about. And I think campaigns have to be about something,” Axelrod added.
Axelrod stated, Clinton failed to provide a convincing rationale for her candidacy in her unsuccessful bid. Flash-forward to 2015, what has changed for Hillary Clinton? Why should she be any better candidate now? Once again it seems that the powers that be want to coronate Hillary Clinton the Democrat nominee for the 2016 presidential elections. Recent polls show that Hillary is far and away the Democrat party front-runner. But will that be her undoing like in 2007? Or will it be all the political baggage? Or will it be that the Democrat LEFT is even further left than Hillary?