NPR Hack Whines About Breitbart

These folks living on the public dole just can't accept the fact that Andrew Breitbart is marching through liberal icons like Sherman plowed through the South. Today some bitter guy named Jack White rehashes discredited lies about Breitbart in a futile attempt at downplaying the fact he nearly single-handedly toppled Anthony Weiner.

Get over it.

It's a pity that the 19th-century Austrian novelist Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach was not still around this week to witness a spectacular vindication of her most famous aphorism: Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

That old adage applies to Andrew Breitbart, the right-wing-media hit man previously best known for manufacturing a charge of racism that forced the heroic Shirley Sherrod to resign from the Department of Agriculture and for publicizing a highly edited sting videotape supposedly showing employees at the now defunct community organization ACORN advising a prostitute on how to avoid paying taxes. His track record establishes that Breitbart's grasp of the facts is no firmer than Sarah Palin's command of American history.

But in, er, exposing the eponymously named Rep. Anthony Weiner, Breitbart finally managed to hit his target. It will be a relief when Weiner finally realizes that he should resign from Congress and devote himself to his pregnant wife. He is an embarrassment.

But does bagging Weiner mean that Breitbart has restored his credibility, or that his numerous liberal and journalistic critics owe him an apology for writing him off as a purveyor of sleaze, as some conservative bloggers have maintained? I don't think so.

It's people like this who'd rather we return to the days of several media outlets (no doubt including NPR) as our sole sources of information.

If it weren't for Breitbart and several others then Anthony Weiner today would likely still be sexting young women, going wild in front of television cameras and spreading misinformation about his political enemies. Instead, Breitbart helped grease the skids to where Weiner is now a national punchline. But no, let's not ever give credit where it's due. Just can't man up and do that. Instead, just more lies about Breitbart. The fact he's using long-ago discredited stales about the Sherrod and ACORN cases just shows he's living in deep, deep denial.

NPR: Al-Qaida Had Great Vacation Plan and Excellent HR Benefits

If Osama had just played his cards right he might've gotten that ObamaCare waiver. These folks have their priorities. Forget what intelligence we might be finding, damn, doesn't AQ have a great benefits plan?

Al-Qaida "didn't function as a traditional or typical terrorist organization did," he says. "It functioned really like a multinational. On the eve of 9/11, for example, the State Department has stated that al-Qaida had 60 offices worldwide. I mean, in essence it was a multinational."

More proof of its corporate structure: As odd as it sounds, al-Qaida had excellent HR benefits. The seized documents showed that al-Qaida paid an unusual amount of attention to its fighters and their families. Married members were allowed to have seven days of vacation for every three weeks worked. Bachelors got five days off a month.

Married members also got a salary of $108 a month. The pay was smaller for single men and larger if the fighters had more than one wife. Now that the organization has less money and is under such pressure, it is unclear whether the benefits are as generous as they used to be.

Hope they've paid up on premiums for future death benefits.

NPR Honcho: Cutting Off Our Taxpayer Money Will Harm Millions of Americans

When even liberals realize NPR has to move away from taxpayer subsidies, you know which way the wind is blowing. But the executives there just don't get it, do they?

These days, I’m frequently asked, “Can public broadcasting survive without federal funding?” I understand the reason for the question — we all understand the terrible burden of our national debt — but the real question is, “What’s the cost to the nation of defunding public broadcasting?”

Eliminating federal funding would seriously damage public broadcasting and harm millions of Americans who rely on us. Period.

So clearly this woman isn't prepared to argue coherently why they should continue to empty our pockets to spread their message. Plain and simple, it's scare tactics. Without your money, it will harm millions? Uh, it stands to reason far more many millions will be harmed by an economy in ruins and a lifetime of debts, not by the potential loss of some obscure radio station they never listen to.

Defunding public broadcasting would eliminate thousands of jobs in public radio alone. It would cause a significant number of small NPR member stations to turn off their microphones, shut down their transmitters and close the door permanently.

NPR is successful not because we’re smarter than anyone else — we aren’t. And it’s not because we don’t have to worry about the bottom line. Believe me, we do.

Up until they were busted and beaten down by James O'Keefe they sure did have that air of smug superiority. But now they're admitting they're not smarter than us? My, how a video sting sure changes things.

She also claims a poll supports public funding, without citing the source. Not a very credible argument.

Americans believe in federal funding for public broadcasting. Last month, a bipartisan national survey showed that 69 percent of Americans oppose the elimination of federal funding for public media.

Where is this so-called "bipartisan" survey? I could just as easily cite an online poll where 72% say they do not want public funding.

The sooner these people get with the program and learn to support themselves they better off they'll be. Enough of the hysteria and scare tactics. If the Democrats insist on staying the course here and forcing Americans to subsidize a biased news operations they're just going to face a greater backlash.

I See White People: Juan Williams Firing Leaves Sudden Lack Of Diversity On Air at NPR

Headline: Diversity Efforts Uneven In U.S. Companies

The United States is becoming an increasingly diverse nation, but progress in the workplace has been a bit slower.

Last night NPR fired Juan Williams, their only on-air minority.

The CEO of NPR, which you help pay for, suggested Williams should seek psychiatric counseling.

Oops. Time for damage control.

"I spoke hastily and I apologize to Juan and others for my thoughtless remark."

I think she should seek psychiatric help. And maybe attend some diversity training.

Search Google for "NPR diversity" and you have 1,150,000 hits, mostly stories lamenting the alleged lack of diversity in America.

Yet the taxpayer supported organization now has zero people of color on air, according to Williams tonight on the O'Reilly Factor.

I say this calls for a Congressional investigation and condemnation. No doubt Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will be leading a march on NPR headquarters demanding minority hirings.

Here's the current NPR program schedule. Can you find any African Americans?

I didn't think so. Just imagine if Fox News fired Juan Williams over a perceived slight against Muslims. The condemnation from the left would be deafening. Today pretty much the only friends of Williams are on the right. Considering the history of outrageous statements at NPR, why are they still sucking down our money?

From calling Tea Party members “Tea Baggers,” to saying that "the evaporation of 4 million" Christians would leave the world a better place, to suggesting that God could give former Sen. Jesse Helms or his family AIDS from a blood transfusion, NPR's personalities have said some pretty un-PC things in the past.

Yet none have been fired for it.

Taxpayer-Funded Leftwing NPR Changing Its Name to New, Catchier 'NPR'

Lord only knows how much money will be spent on this effort to "streamline" themselves. My question is does anyone refer to NPR as anything other than NPR already? Yes, I know it stood for National Public Radio, but who even calls them that?

No need for formalities here: National Public Radio now says it wants to be known simply as NPR.

So the Washington-based organization has quietly changed its name to its familiar initials. Much like the corporate names KFC or AT&T, the initials now stand for the initials.

NPR says it's abbreviating the name it has used since its debut in 1971 because it's more than radio these days. Its news, music and informational programming is heard over a variety of digital devices that aren't radios; it also operates news and music Web sites.

Hence: "NPR is more modern, streamlined," says Vivian Schiller, NPR's chief executive. She points to other "re-brandings" by media organizations, such as Cable News Network, which has been plain old CNN for years.

Alternative Energy Sources..Not So Fast

This is why why we are in the energy mess that we are in. Stories like this and the thousands of other ones that preceded this one.

Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has halted new solar projects on public land, pending environmental impact studies. They're expected to take about two years and could paralyze the solar industry.

You either want more energy sources, both conventional and alternative or you don't, but the constant stone walling and roadblocks thrown up by the government and those all so concerned about the environment wackos, will never allow it to become a reality. In this case it is the government bowing down to the enviro wackos. So while you are paying $5 a gallon for gas and your home heating cost go up, make sure to hug a tree hugger to show them how much you appreciate their efforts to help us with our energy problems

Sky Is Blue, Weekend Edition

God love the folks at Rasmussen. They apparently have enough disposable income to do a poll on a subject settled eons ago.

For what it's worth, they got the precise results you'd expect.

Americans See Liberal Media Bias on TV News

By a 39% to 20% margin, American adults believe that the three major broadcast networks deliver news with a bias in favor of liberals. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% believe that ABC, CBS, and NBC deliver the news without any bias.

Similar results are found for CNN and National Public Radio (NPR). By a margin of 33% to 16%, Americans say that CNN has a liberal bias. The nation’s adults say the same about NPR by a 27% to 14% margin.

There is one major exception to the belief that media outlets have a liberal bias—Fox News. Thirty-one percent (31%) of Americans say it has a bias that favors conservatives while 15% say it has a liberal bias.

Of course, the left sees opposite results. So far gone, they actually think there's a conservative bias to the news. Meaning, of course, they're beyond hope.

But we already knew that.

Not surprisingly, there are huge partisan and ideological differences in the data. For example, among self-identified liberals, all of the media outlets are believed to have some net bias in favor of conservatives. However, 50% of liberals say that NPR is unbiased. Forty-three percent (43%) say the same about CNN. As for the major television networks, 49% of liberals believe they have a conservative bias. Just 10% of liberals see a liberal bias at ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Conservatives throughout the nation see things entirely differently. Sixty-two percent (62%) see a liberal bias at the major broadcast networks and 55% say the same about CNN. Forty-five percent (45%) of conservatives see Fox as unbiased and the rest are evenly divided. Eighteen percent (18%) of conservatives see Fox News as having a liberal bias while 21% say the opposite.

Via Hot Air.

Read the rest...

Griffin: Not Sure Global Warming A Problem

Well, this surely will get the treehuggers in a lather. Actually, I see it already has greatly upset one of the Kos Kids. Aw, the poor baby.

Michael Griffin NASA Administrator has told America's National Public Radio that while he has no doubt a trend of global warming exists "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."

In an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep that will air in Thursday's edition of NPR News' Morning Edition, Administrator Griffin explains: "I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

Considering one of the pillars of liberalism is arrogance, that's not a stretch.

Meanwhile, a House panel will hold a "mountaintop summit" to hear from climate change experts. I'm sure sure that'll be a balanced discussion.

The U.S. House's special panel on global warming will hold a "mountaintop summit" next week to hear from climate change experts.

The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will hold a hearing at a mountain lodge in Franconia, N.H., Monday morning, chairman Ed Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, announced today in a pun-laden press release.

"With concern over global warming reaching new peaks, the will ascend a White Mountain peak to hold the first ever mountaintop 'summit' on the issue," read the release.

Markey will call on several local witnesses to hear how global warming may affect New England and its tourism, jobs, and culture.

"I think it is important for the members of this new committee to get out of Washington, where concern about this issue has lagged, and engage directly with businesses, government and concerned citizens at the local level," Markey said.

With any luck, a spring blizzard will hit.