Posts Tagged ‘Assertions’

Media Matters’ systematic removal of my responses from their website, also most of my responses to their attacks in one place

by John Lott on Friday, July 11th, 2014

This is article 556 of 556 in the topic Media
Media Matters’ practices what I call hit-and-run journalism, where they make an attack and ignore any response that is provided.  I have tried over about seven years to put up comments on their website responding to these claims (often quotes out of context or deliberately misread data).  It appears to me that Media Matters wants to leave their readers with the impression that the other side never provides a response to their claims.

Media Matters has removed all sorts of comments that I have placed on their website (indeed, I never kept count, but it is a lot), even ones that involve me explaining to people why my eyebrows are deformed because of surgery that I had as a kid.  Here is one case recently where they made the mistake of removing my comments, but not the comments that responded to my original post.

 

After Erik Wemple from the Washington Post contacted them about their removal of my comments, some recent ones reappeared.  In this screen shot you can see Media Matters putting back the links to my response to one of their attacks (in this case see the second comment from the bottom).

 

Media Matters apparently told Wemple that my comments were removed because their readers had tagged them as offensive.  But Media Matters only very recently changed their system for putting up comments.  Prior to that they would have to approve someone twelve times before their comments would automatically be posted on their website.  The problem is that their screeners would virtually never let any of my comments through (surely not enough that I ever got close to the magic number of twelve).  This problem over many years had absolutely nothing to do with their readers supposed complaints.

More information will be provided soon.  But you can see that I have long complained about Media Matters sanitizing its comment section.  Indeed, I have complained in person several times to people from David Brock on down at least 2008.  I have also made notes about this attempt to shield their readers from my responses on my website (see links below) as well as on Twitter.  A couple of my many responses to Media Matters posts on Twitter can be seen here.



When Media Matters has attacked me, I would write up a response and post a link to the comment on their website.  Here are 23 times that I wrote up and posted, though I haven’t gone through everything that I have written and I am sure that there were more responses.  Below I first show Media Matters’ title and then a link to their claims and then my response.

Click to continue reading “Media Matters’ systematic removal of my responses from their website, also most of my responses to their attacks in one place”
Go straight to Post

Media Matters’ systematic removal of my responses from their website, also most of my responses to their attacks in one place

by John Lott on Thursday, June 19th, 2014

This is article 555 of 556 in the topic Media
Media Matters’ practices what I call hit-and-run journalism, where they make an attack and ignore any response that is provided.  I have tried over about seven years to put up comments on their website responding to these claims (often quotes out of context or deliberately misread data).  It appears to me that Media Matters wants to leave their readers with the impression that the other side never provides a response to their claims.Media Matters has removed all sorts of comments that I have placed on their website (indeed, I never kept count, but it is a lot), even ones that involve me explaining to people why my eyebrows are deformed because of surgery that I had as a kid.  Here is one case recently where they made the mistake of removing my comments, but not the comments that responded to my original post.

After Erik Wemple from the Washington Post contacted them about their removal of my comments, some recent ones reappeared.  In this screen shot you can see Media Matters putting back the links to my response to one of their attacks(in this case see the second comment from the bottom)

Media Matters apparently told Wemple that my comments were removed because their readers had tagged them as offensive.  But Media Matters only very recently changed their system for putting up comments.  Prior to that they would have to approve someone twelve times before their comments would automatically be posted on their website.  The problem is that their screeners would virtually never let any of my comments through (surely not enough that I ever got close to the magic number of twelve).  This problem over many years had absolutely nothing to do with their readers supposed complaints.

More information will be provided soon.  But you can see that I have long complained about Media Matters sanitizing its comment section.  Indeed, I have complained in person several times to people from David Brock on down at least 2008.  I have also made notes about this attempt to shield their readers from my responses on my website (see links below) as well as on Twitter.  A couple of my many responses to Media Matters posts on Twitter can be seen here.

When Media Matters has attacked me, I would write up a response and post a link to the comment on their website.  Here are 23 times that I wrote up and posted, though I haven’t gone through everything that I have written and I am sure that there were more responses.  Below I first show Media Matters’ title and then a link to their claims and then my response.

Click to continue reading “Media Matters’ systematic removal of my responses from their website, also most of my responses to their attacks in one place”
Go straight to Post

Bill O’Reilly – Apostles Mistaken, Mixed Up, or just Plain Liars?

by Rev. Michael Bresciani on Tuesday, October 29th, 2013

This is article 211 of 240 in the topic Religion

Killing-OR.JPG

​After reviewing ‘Killing Jesus’ I thought it could be laid to rest for this writer and I could move on to more serious critiques, perhaps those written by people whose theological foundations were more solid.

O’Reilly continues to answer those concerned enough to send him emails about the last words spoken by Christ on the cross and he insists that because no other record besides the biblical record speaks to the subject, that the bible record must be wrong.

O’Reilly has said that because he is Catholic it must have been the Holy Spirit that prompted him to write his book, but unless he was appointed as the new modern or last day’s apostle he is skirting the realm of high pride and pretentiousness.

We are not sure if O’Reilly was chosen to scrutinize the record of the apostles but we are sure that the apostles were chosen to be eyewitnesses to every word and deed that Jesus Christ uttered or performed for a solid three year period.

We also know that neither he, nor Martin Dugard were on the scene and the historians they choose to present as authorities on the subject were not present as eyewitnesses to the events.

If the twelve were hand-picked to be eyewitnesses would it not follow that they were also ‘earwitnesses.’ Did God miss this one? Had he simply forgotten that these chosen men were all hard of hearing or given to exaggeration and hyperbole that could only be corrected when in time, O’Reilly and Dugard would arrive on the scene to set the record straight?

Before calling in the biblical record to answer O’Reilly’s assertions let’s look at the O’Reilly record on other subjects. For the first two years of the Obama administration, O’Reilly often declared that Barack Obama was a ‘very smart man.’ Now five years underway with IRS scandals, Benghazi, failed bailouts, Solyndra and all the rest of the whopping big snafus of the Obama legacy along with the famous failed rollout of Obama’s signature legislation, ObamaCare, who should we believe history or O’Reilly?

If O’Reilly could be so wrong about Obama why would he venture out to correct twelve hand-picked apostolic messengers who lived two millennia before he and Dugard took their first breaths?

Has the Harvard education gone to his head, has the Holy Spirit decided to contradict himself, or should we feel lucky that O’Reilly has finally reached the heights and is now able to see that God himself made a bit of a mistake in choosing these ‘liars’ or bombastic fools given to exaggeration and fibbing, to follow his Son around and set the record straight?

;

Did these common men take it upon themselves to alter the record like some wannabe script writers for the great narrative they knew would traverse the ages and become the most repeated story on the planet earth? Why does the word ‘pompous’ keep coming to mind when we think of O’Reilly’s assertions?

The Foundations of Heaven Witness against O’Reilly’s Assertions

Heaven is described in the book of Revelation. The same book that alone contains a strong warning that anyone who deletes any part of it, or adds anything to it will be cursed forever. Call it allegory or figurative or wishful thinking to your own peril.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Sleepless in New Jersey – Christie Drinks the LGBT Kool-Aid

by Rev. Michael Bresciani on Wednesday, August 21st, 2013

This is article 54 of 61 in the topic Gay Rights

tn_Christie.jpgWhether it’s a hurricane or a storm of LGBT assertions of junk science, it is certain that it doesn’t take the discovery of an actual ‘gay gene’ to blow Chris Christie into the great RINO Sea.

The Governor played doctor for the press in exclaiming that the health risks of changing a child’s sexual orientation outweigh the concerns over the government setting limits on parental choice. This choice bit of nonsense may make sense to government officials and low IQ’d societal dropouts, but anyone with a speck of gray matter knows this is just high sounding nonsense.

In a Pelosi-esque exhibition of apostasy from his own religion (Catholic) Christie has to climb over the churches’ teaching, the Bible and every bit of common sense his mother may have tried to instill in him.

Shouldn’t we hang on until the still missing, mysterious magic ‘gay gene’ is found? The alcoholic gene is still undiscovered and in 1997 the Fed chose to end all aid to alcoholics under Social Security disability.

Christie used the seven deadly words that are associated with all spiritual and sometimes civil rebellion. He said “I’ve always believed that people are born with…” a predisposition to be homosexual. What part of the word ‘predisposition’ has anything to do with genetic science, medicine or legitimate psychiatry?

Who cares what Christie or the LGBT “believes” – is fostering the gay agenda a faith movement? There isn’t even junk science to support Christie’s goofy assertion, so are we now making laws from the personal beliefs of governors?

Will Chris begin a systematic thinning out of New Jersey prisons by deciding which prisoners had a predisposition to rape, murder, robbery, et al? Why punish them, why rehabilitate them, why bother them at all? ‘Predisposition’ is a barely definable term that can be arbitrarily used to cover just about any behavior known to mankind. Come in for a landing Gov.!

How quickly the mighty have fallen. Apostasy knows no boundaries. Catholics, Protestants, eighth graders and governors are all susceptible to the great leader’s (Barack Obama) influence. The almighty God cannot get a word in edgewise.

Not so – when we reach out and touch the little ones we will run headlong into an angry God.

“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Mt 18: 6)

Depending on what age the so called ‘pre-disposition’ begins to occur in children is all important. In God’s economy children are not supposed to have any pre-disposition of a sexual nature. God hasn’t moved over for Sigmund Freud or any other classic icon of modernity. Children should be allowed to have a childhood. Any involvement or coercion in their childhood to direct their inclinations would be an ‘offense’ in God’s eye.

Banning gay conversion therapy is elevating an abominable sin that God hates to the level of idolatry. So what, you say?

If we can’t legislate morality, how long will a civilization last when we begin legislating immorality? With the stroke of the pen the Governor has sent God to the back of the bus.

Click to continue reading “Sleepless in New Jersey — Christie Drinks the LGBT Kool-Aid”
Go straight to Post

Is the Obama administration distorting how many terrorist attacks are being stopped by the surveillance programs?

by John Lott on Sunday, July 28th, 2013

This is article 577 of 773 in the topic Terrorism
Ron Wyden claims the assertions about the benefits of collecting telephone calls is false.  From Politico:

. . . “There has been an effort by officials to exaggerate the effectiveness of the bulk phone records collection program by conflating it with the collection of Internet communications under section 702 of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] statute. This collection, which involves th ePRISM computer system, has produced some information of real value,” Wyden said in a speech to the Center for American Progress. “I won’t deny that this value exists. Meanwhile, I have not seen any indication that the bulk phone records program yielded any unique intelligence that was not also available to the government through less intrusive means.

. . . “The public was not just kept in the dark about the Patriot Act and other secret authorities. The public was actively misled,” he said.

The Oregon Democrat contended that the conflation of the phone-call tracking program, sometimes called Section 215, and the foreign web interception program, often called Section 702, fit this pattern of deliberate distortion.

“When government officials refer to these programs collectively, and say that ‘these programs’ provided unique intelligence, without pointing out that one program is doing all the work and the other is basically just along for the ride, in my judgment that is also a misleading statement,” Wyden said. . . .

On a strange note, liberal Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is taking credit for killing Rep. Justin Amash’s amendment to limit telephone surveillance to those who the government has a reason to suspect.  From The Cable:

Ahead of the razor-thin 205-217 vote . . . Pelosi privately and aggressively lobbied wayward Democrats to torpedo the amendment, a Democratic committee aid with knowledge of the deliberations tells The Cable.

“Pelosi had meetings and made a plea to vote against the amendment and that had a much bigger effect on swing Democratic votes against the amendment than anything Alexander had to say,” said the source, keeping in mind concerted White House efforts to influence Congress by Alexander and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. “Had Pelosi not been as forceful as she had been, it’s unlikely there would’ve been more Democrats for the amendment.” . . .

Go straight to Post

Eric Holder and Occam’s Razor

by Alan Caruba on Sunday, June 2nd, 2013

This is article 312 of 448 in the topic Government Corruption
The 14th century philosopher William of Occam gained fame for what became known as “Occam’s Razor,” an axiom often stated as, “The simplest explanation is usually the best.”  The original Latin — “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate” — adds some nuance. This translates roughly as “One ought not posit multiple variables unnecessarily.”
Therein lies the explanation for Attorney General Eric Holder’s scandals, “Fast and Furious”, seizing the Associated Press phone records of editors and reporters, and the assertion that Fox News reporter, Jim Rosen, was a criminal “co-conspirator” in the leak of information from a State Department employee. Holder is no stranger to scandals or behavior that has drawn criticism.
He is and long has been little more than a political operative.
The simplest explanation for Holder’s problems can be found in an examination of his long career in public service. He is a liberal ideologue, not unlike the President. Beyond that, he has displayed an extraordinary indifference to the law if it conflicted with fulfilling presidential agendas and policies.
The most famous Attorney General in the modern era was Nixon’s John Mitchell who served nineteen months in jail (1977-1979) as the result of his participation in the Watergate scandal. In an earlier scandal known as “Teapot Dome” during the Harding administration, Attorney General Albert Hall was found guilty of bribery in 1929, fined $100,000, and sentenced to a year in prison. He would become the first cabinet member to go to prison. So there is precedent as Congress continues its investigations into the actions and assertions of Eric Holder.
It would be easy to write off Holder’s problems to simple incompetence, but he has held a number of positions in which he was judged to have performed well. His rise in government has a lot to do with his personal ambition and, while politics has a lot to do with ambition, it has its limits when it comes to adhering to the law. In Holder’s case, he has displayed a lack of memory, a too convenient alibi, for many of the decisions and actions he has taken over the years. Some call it perjury.
I first became aware of Holder in 2000 when he was the Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton and supervised the seizure of Elian Gonzalez, a six-year-old Cuban refugee whose mother had drowned in an attempt to flee Cuba for freedom in the U.S. Elian was seized at gunpoint from the Miami home of his uncle when Fidel Castro demanded his return.
On April 23, 2000 Fox News’ former judge Andrew Napolitano interviewed Holder, pointing out that he had not secured a court order to authorize the seizure. Holder said he did not need one, but Napolitano asked him “Then why did you ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for such an order if you didn’t need one?” Holder even denied that the child was taken at gunpoint though there was a photograph of it.
Holder insisted the INS had the right to do this even though, on December 1, 1999, the INS had asserted that his uncle was the child’s legal custodian. Even the liberal attorney, Alan Dershowitz stated at the time that “They never made clear just what kind of warrant” it was and that “neither would it have been legal.”
Holder has had a long career in the law.

Click to continue reading “Eric Holder and Occam’s Razor”
Go straight to Post

DISHONEST SCIENCE: “Most Scientists Agree: Humans are Causing Global Climate Change”

by Stephen Levine on Friday, May 31st, 2013

This is article 243 of 322 in the topic Global Warming

The problem of researchers “doing science” by reporting the published works of others does not mean diddly-squat!

  1. “Peer-review” is part of the publishing process of a scientific journal to insure that the submitted paper meets the journal’s standards and does not contain obvious errors or unclear passages. In the majority of cases, the reviewers do not have access to the author’s underlying data, the means to verify the author’s assertions, nor do they vouch for the accuracy or truth of the underlying position being presented.
  2. Many prestigious institutions demand that their professional scientific staff attracts research money and/or publish as part of their academic duties. Hence the term “publish or perish.”  Thus, there is an inherent bias in the work being performed at these institution – projects that are most likely to attract funding are also more likely to agree with the funding agencies’ political views or mainstream viewpoints. A form of self-sustaining wrongness.
  3. You cannot judge science by counting authors. One revolutionary paper can overturn thousands of published journal articles. Consider the thousands of papers on Newtonian mechanics that were proven grossly incomplete when quantum mechanics indicated that Newtonian laws were but approximations of observations under normal conditions, but the underlying science appears to be null and void at extreme distances involving the universe, or at molecular levels involving the fundamental nature of matter and energy.
  4. Science is not performed by consensus. Nose counts don’t count.
  5. Many scientists are afraid to jeopardize their lives and income by publishing contrarian viewpoints. In fact, the climate-gate e-mails specifically demonstrate the lengths to which climate activists go to disparage colleagues and prevent publishing if they are not part of the activist crowd. A crowd that has a significant conflict of interest as they protect billions of dollars in research grants, equipment, facilities, and personnel.
  6. For those that care, I can easily explain the carbon dioxide phenomena with real science. As the Earth warmed, natural for a planet emerging from an ice age, dissolved carbon dioxide was released from the oceans into the atmosphere. Just like opening a cold beer on a hot day. Because the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide lags the rise in temperature (by 800 – 1000 years, depending on the chosen dataset), it cannot be causal. As to why carbon dioxide was chosen to be demonized, because it involves the exploration, generation, storage, distribution and use of energy – the lifeblood of man and machine. The only way the progressives could achieve control over our economy, our lives, and our existence using public policies.

So I call bullshit …

Most Scientists Agree: Humans are Causing Global Climate Change

Do most scientists agree that human activity is causing global climate change? Yes, they do, according to an extensive analysis of the abstracts or summaries of scientific papers published over the past 20 years, even though public perception tends to be that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of climate change.

The researchers did not even read the papers they purportedly analyzed, only the abstracts or summaries. No nuance there – and in most cases, significant probabilistic measures of errors may be contained within the text.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Left Tries to Redefine IRS Scandal

by Roger Aronoff on Monday, May 27th, 2013

This is article 251 of 300 in the topic Taxation/IRS

The liberal media, liberal non-profits, and Congressional Democrats are urging the public to look the other way from the IRS targeting scandal. The problem, they argue, is the presence of 501(c)(4)s that engage in political activity—instead of being “exclusively” social welfare organizations. What, exactly, do they mean by social welfare? These liberals assert that a regulation by the IRS, active since 1959, which contradicts a U.S. statute, is to blame.

Such was the argument recently promoted on the MSNBC show, “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell.” “The original statute passed by Congress requires [that] 501(c)(4) organizations engage exclusively in social welfare activities,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) on the May 22 show. “But in 1959, [the] Treasury Department issued a regulation that requires these entities only to be primarily engaged in social welfare activities. As a result, many groups now believe they can spend up to 49 percent of their funds on campaign-related activities,” he asserted.

O’Donnell, who bragged and gloated that “you heard it here first,” uses quotes from eight liberal Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen to make his point. “And so, the real scandal here is not that the applications were delayed but that they were ever approved,” he said (emphasis added). He further said, “But by either standard, the standard of the law written by Congress or standard of the regulation as misinterpreted by the IRS, any organization with the name of a political party in its title of any size from the Democratic Party to the Tea Party to local Tea Parties to Socialist Workers Party to the Green Party—every single such application should have been rejected for 501(c)(4) status as a matter of law.” O’Donnell made similar assertions on his show throughout the week.

Others have made similar points. ProPublica, a liberal non-profit organization that does investigative journalism, at least offered a more substantive argument than O’Donnell. They recently outlined six facts they believe are being left out of the IRS scandal story. Among them are that social welfare non-profits are supposed to be engaged “primarily” in social welfare activities, not politics, and that “Most of the money spent on elections by social welfare nonprofits supports Republicans.” They said that “Of the more than $256 million spent by social welfare nonprofits on ads in the 2012 elections, at least 80 percent came from conservative groups, according to FEC figures tallied by the Center for Responsive Politics.” Is this supposed to be a fact they object to, or do they believe that the mere fact that conservatives are more successful at using these groups means prima facie that conservative 501(c)(4)s deserve further scrutiny?

Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI) authored a letter, dated May 23rd, to the new IRS Commissioner asking about this same regulation. “The Subcommittee asked the IRS why it was not enforcing the 501(c)(4) statute which states that social welfare organizations should be used ‘exclusively for the promotion of social welfare’ and instead enforcing the more lenient IRS regulation which states that a social welfare organization may be used ‘primarily’ for social welfare,” stated the letter.

MSNBC’s O’Donnell—and its entire primetime lineup of liberal activists—typically operates as a defense team and apologist—as well as a mouthpiece—for President Obama’s narratives.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Somebody please give Joe Klein the revised Benghazi talking points

by Doug Powers on Tuesday, November 27th, 2012

This is article 380 of 556 in the topic Media

Judging from his appearance on MSNBC this morning, Time magazine’s Joe Klein hasn’t received the revised memo about the Benghazi attack. Klein’s still using the “Susan Rice/Jay Carney/September 16th” playbook which has since been mostly revised to purge initial claims of “the video made them do it” and “it wasn’t a premeditated terrorist attack.”

From Newsbusters:

Here were some of Klein’s astounding assertions: There are no unanswered questions about Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens had all the security he wanted. Rice’s talking points were “absolutely accurate” — it was a spontaneous demonstration by extremists. Al qaeda was not involved in the attack. Not clear that reports from Stevens asking for more security exist.

Obviously the DNI has successfully edited Klein’s brain to exclude any references to the facts in this matter:

Go straight to Post

What I Heard at the Debate

by Alan Caruba on Wednesday, October 17th, 2012

This is article 1099 of 1300 in the topic 2012 Elections

As civil as the debate may have seemed, it was a brawl. Central to it were all the lies President Obama continues to tell about his record in office and about his challenger, Mitt Romney. And Romney would not let him get away with it. Time and again he rose to his feet to rebut and debunk those lies and I suspect a lot of people who saw him in the first debate were in agreement with him in this second debate.

In a column on Tuesday, Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens perfectly anticipated Obama’s lies. Under the headline, “To the Wavering Voter” it repudiated the Obama campaigns assertions about a totally bogus “war on women” saying, “No, abortion rights and access to contraception will not be jeopardized if Mitt Romney becomes president. Not remotely, not vaguely, not even close.”

He went through the claims that Romney would engage in another Middle East War or that the nation would become a global pariah with Romney as president. Moving on, Stephens said, “No, your taxes will not go up by a couple of grand” noting that “As for the $5 trillion tax cut the Obama campaign insists Mr. Romney is offering, Obama campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter admitted on CNN that ‘It won’t be near $5 trillion,’ once deductions and loopholes are closed.”

I cite Stephen’s prescient column because, if he could anticipate Obama’s lies, than you can be sure Mitt Romney did and that was demonstrated throughout the debate. At the very end, Obama could not resist misrepresenting Romney’s earlier “47%” comment during a closed fundraising event. Romney described that as an “inelegant statement” and then repudiated it, but Obama repeated it in his closing statement.

Throughout the debate Romney called Obama a liar in the most gentlemanly way possible, but a liar he was and is.

One lie that jumped out at the very beginning of the debate was Obama responding to a college student’s question saying “Your future is bright”, adding “I want to build on the five million jobs we’ve created.” What jobs? Half of today’s college graduates cannot even find a job comparable to their educational level, if at all. And the future is most demonstrably not bright.

Romney responded with the fact that there are 23 million Americans out of work. The truth! He cited the phony official unemployment rate and said it was a lot closer to 10.7%. Obama said, “What Gov. Romney said just isn’t true.” He lied. Romney cited figures that appear daily in newspapers.

Throughout the debate Obama demonstrated how obsessed he is with class warfare, returning time and again to observations about the nation’s wealthiest class.

He lied about his energy policies and claimed that Romney’s plan was “to let oil companies write energy policy.” The absurdity of this was seen as Romney cited the cost of gas at the pump, Obama’s veto of the Canadian pipeline, and the refusal of his administration to allow drilling for oil and natural gas on federal lands. He cited the fact that the coal industry was targeted and the loss of coal-fired plants to generate electricity.

And Obama’s respond was to lie again! “Very little of what Governor Romney said isn’t true.” But it was and it is. It’s not even a secret.

Click to continue reading “What I Heard at the Debate”
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin