HuffPo’s Anti-Israel Bias Exposed

Regarding the tense situation in Israel and the Middle East, I received an important message this morning from the folks at Huff-Watch who keep a watchful and corrective eye on the folks at The Huffington Post.  The subject:  His latest post, “HuffPost video “news” host pushes Hamas lies, ignores savage reality of Hamas”:

In my first major report (2010) on HuffPost’s bias and incitement of hate against Israel, “The Stimulus And The (Approved) Response: Anti-Semitism and Israel-Hatred on Huffington Post,” I documented how it was effectively acting as a PR tool and propaganda arm for Hamas – and that it knowingly violates its own “rules” in order to facilitate the outpouring of Nazi-like hate against Jews, from commenters. A major focus of that report was on HuffPost’s coverage of Operation Cast Lead, which made clear its pro-Hamas, anti-Israel bias. Back then, however, HuffPost was only a top-ten U.S. “news” site.

With the election of President Obama, since early 2009 HuffPost’s “journalists” began being welcomed all over Capitol Hill, and enjoy direct, preferred access to the White House.  It now boasts a blogging stable including many top figures of the Democrat party, and governments around the world.  Less well-known is that as of early 2011, nearly 10,000 unique visitors a day arrived from the three largest incubators of Islamist terror: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt, presumably in part because, as even Abe Foxman (a HuffPost blogger) noted, the comments that HuffPost publishes in response to his articles are “dripping” with anti-Semitism.  Since then, I have been documenting HuffPost’s escalating incitement and tolerance of hate against Israel and Jews — and how it ignores, whitewashes or downplays militant Islamists’ threats, acts and statements against Israelis and Jews.

In the past year, HuffPost’s reach and influence have dramatically escalated: it is now the #1 most-read online “newspaper” in the world. Most recently, it launched a video “news” venture, HuffPost “Live.”  One of its “host-producers” is Ahmed Shihab-Eldin, a former producer for Al Jazeera, and (surprise!) an ardent pro-Islamist, anti-Israel propagandist, as other online publications have documented (Algemeiner; HuffPostMonitor).

My latest report, “HuffPost video “news” host pushes Hamas lies, ignores savage reality of Hamas,” documents how it is now applying the exact same incitement and bias against Israel – but in the world of video – a far more compelling and dynamic medium. Highlights:

• In recent days, Shihab-Eldin has claimed that the only parties in the Middle East that live in justifiable fear are (a) Iran, and (b) the Palestinians, and that Israeli is “terrorizing” what he refers to as the “Occupied Gaza Strip.”

• Both HuffPost and HuffPostLive published not a single story on the front page or World page about the hundreds of rockets, missiles and mortars that Hamas fired into Israel from Nov. 10-14.

• The first story to appear on either page concerning the situation in Israel was Netanyahu’s threat to begin targeted assassinations – which HuffPost defined as against “Gazans” (not Hamas officials and installations).

• Since then, HuffPost and HuffPostLive have consistently published material framed to assail and incite hate against Israel – but not a single piece that reveals Hamas’s fake injury/death videos and photos, or its threat to resume suicide bombings in Israeli cafes and bus stations.

Israeli Defense Force pilot

I ask that you please give this report your urgent attention, and if you feel it is merited, to help publicize the reality of how HuffPost is advancing the cyber-jihad against Israel and Jews with an unrivaled level of influence and reach:

“HuffPost video “news” host pushes Hamas lies, ignores savage reality of Hamas”

Thanks,
“HuffWatcher”

Good points, all!

Bob McCarty is the author of “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice,” a nonfiction book that’s available in paperback and ebook via most online booksellers, including Amazon.com. His second book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” is set for release this fall.

Journalism Dead In America

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

We all know what physicians do, we all know what teachers do, we all know what scientists and engineers do, and we all know what lawyers do.  But do we understand what it is that journalists do?  We are told by those in the profession that the journalist is one who searches for truth so that the truth can be communicated to the masses.  But is that really the case?

If one were to believe the hype that is circulated in the media on behalf of one of their own, the recently departed Mike Wallace, it would require what Hillary Clinton might describe as a “willing suspension of disbelief.”  One does not have to be a “news junkie” to understand that the mainstream media is governed by left wing political bias and that it is just as important to know which stories they fail to report as it is to recognize the bias in the stories they do.

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, tells us that, “Depending on the context, the term journalist may include various types of editors, editorial writers, columnists, and visual journalists, such as photojournalists…  Journalism has developed a variety of ethics and standards.  While objectivity and a lack of bias are often considered important, some types of journalism, such as advocacy journalism, intentionally adopt a non-objective viewpoint.” 

Not once is the word truth mentioned.  That part of the conventional wisdom about the journalism profession… the notion that the journalist engages in a search for truth… is a fiction that has been created by “journalists” in order to enhance their standing as professionals.

So the question arises, is it possible to have a free nation without a free press?  The answer to that question is… perhaps, but only for a brief period of time.

What causes us to consider this question now is the growing body of evidence surrounding the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be president of the United States.  From the day that he announced his candidacy, it was widely known that he lacked status as a “natural born Citizen,” one of the three principal qualifications for the office.  Yet, the men and women of the media totally ignored that critical shortcoming.

Then, throughout the 2008 presidential primaries, when Obama’s principal opponent was Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), hundreds of bloggers and freelance writer of the “alternative media” researched his background, producing thousands of authoritative articles and editorials for print media and the Internet.  The “journalists” of the mainstream media, captivated by the notion of helping to elect the first black president, ignored the story.

As powerful as the Clinton political machine might have been, they were no match for the fraud, violence and intimidation practiced by the Obama forces.  Hollywood producer Bettina Viviano produced a documentary, titled We Will Not Be Silenced, which told the story of the criminal misdeeds committed by the Obama campaign against Clinton supporters.  The men and women of the mainstream media ignored the documentary evidence, and Obama was nominated by the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, 3,188.5 votes to Clinton’s 1,010.5.

At the close of the convention, it was the responsibility of the convention chairman, Nancy Pelosi, and convention secretary Alice Travis Germond, to certify the names, home addresses, and constitutional eligibility of the party’s nominees to the 50 state election boards so that ballots could be printed.  Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, the certification sent only to the State of Hawaii contained the following affirmation:

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” 

The remaining forty-nine states received the following certification:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:”

Affixed were the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  However, the phrase, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” was omitted from certifications sent to those 49 states.  Other than that, the documents were exactly the same… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications.  Hawaii is the only state with a law requiring the certification of constitutional eligibility.

Clearly, Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond… and presumably other senior Democratic officials… were aware when they nominated him that Obama was ineligible to serve as president of the United States.  But if the top leaders of the Democratic Party knew, then so did the men and women of the mainstream media.  Yet, they looked the other way, knowing that the Democrats had nominated a man who was ineligible to hold the office of president.

Throughout the 2008 General Election campaign, writers and bloggers of the “alternative media” continued to publish details of Obama’s lack of qualifications, but the men and women of the mainstream media continued to look the other way.

In the three and one-half years that Obama has been in office, numerous lawsuits have been brought against Obama, charging that he is ineligible to serve in the office he occupies.  A number of cases were examined by the members of the Supreme Court for grant of certiorari, but all were denied for “lack of standing,” taking the position that the people of the United States had no right to demand that their president be eligible to hold that office.  The men and women of the mainstream media were fully aware of those efforts but, again, they looked the other way.

Finally, during the month of April 2011, billionaire developer Donald Trump took an interest in the issue and openly questioned the circumstances of Obama’s birth.  With the added attention brought by Trump’s inquiries, Obama caused what appeared to be an authentic long form birth certificate to be uploaded to the White House website on April 27, 2011.  Within days, dozens of the nation’s most knowledgeable forensics experts examined the document and found it to be a poorly crafted forgery.

Finally, on Thursday morning, Aug. 18, 2011, the leaders of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party presented Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio with a petition bearing the signatures of 242 county residents.  The petition questioned whether or not a fake birth certificate could be used to document Barack Obama’s eligibility to have his name appear on the Maricopa County ballot in the November 2012 General Election.  The petition requested that Sheriff Arpaio conduct a criminal investigation of the alleged forgery.

Sheriff Arpaio assigned the task to a five-member team of retired attorneys and law enforcement professionals, known as the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse.  Following a six month intensive investigation, Sheriff Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse presented their findings on March 1, 2012 at a nationally televised press conference.  Their findings provided conclusive evidence that the Obama birth certificate… and the Obama draft registration card… were, in fact, forgeries.

Inasmuch as Obama himself testified to the authenticity of his birth document, the findings of Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse represent a felony crime by Barack Obama.  But, again, the men and women of the mainstream media refused to report the story.

Barack Obama’s usurpation of the office of the presidency is the greatest crime ever committed against the people of the United States… a crime greater than the attack on Pearl Harbor, a crime greater than the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.   But what is most shameful and most unforgivable about the crime is that the men and women of the mainstream media, those who are supposed to be the eyes and ears of the people, the ever-watchful guardians of our precious freedoms, stood idly by and allowed it to happen.  They are as complicit in the crime as if they themselves had planned it.

When the terrible national nightmare of the Obama presidency is finally behind us, Obama must be called to answer for his crimes.  He deserves to spend the rest of his days behind bars.  But those who were his principal enablers: the leaders of the Democrat Party, the men and women of the Congress who refused to properly vet him, and the men and women of the mainstream media who failed to properly vet him, must also be held accountable.  Until that work is done, we must conclude that journalism is dead in America.

We the People will have to find a way to ensure that future generations will have all the benefits of a free press… a press for which the search for truth and justice is the paramount purpose.

Paul R. Hollrah

Hollrah is a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate and the New Media JournalHis blog is found at OrderOfEphors.comHe resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma.

Be sure to check out Bob McCarty’s new book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.

Media Bias Exposed… and Then Some!

As one who scooped The New York Times by 100 days on a pretty serious story back in April, I really appreciate the latest effort put forth by muckraker James O’Keefe and Project Veritas to expose media bias at the “Old Gray Lady.”

In the video above, a New York Times consultant and a New York University journalism professor — both self-identified members of the media “elite” — discuss strategy to legitimize Barack Obama, help Occupy Wall Street succeed, preserve National Public Radio‘s tax loophole and defeat GOP presidential candidates Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann.  One, Jay Rosen, says, “We are the one percent.”

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BobMcCarty. Thanks in advance for your support!

Biased Reporter to Anchor ‘CBS Evening News’ (Update)

Scott Pelley will take over the “CBS Evening News” anchor chair from Katie Couric, effective June 6, according to a story published on the network’s web site, but that’s no cause for excitement.

Contrary to glowing comments made about the veteran reporter by CBS executives, the truth about Pelley’s biased reporting is quite disturbing. One stark example of his bias aired two years ago today in the form of the “60 Minutes” segment, “Amazon Crude,” (below) which painted Chevron Corporation in a particularly bad light for alleged wrongdoing in Ecuador.

Even before it aired, there was plenty of evidence to refute claims Pelley let stand as facts in his piece.   After that report aired, a virtual laundry list of new and irrefutable facts surfaced to change the complexion of this case.  Still, neither Pelley, “60 Minutes” or CBS News has seen fit to set the record straight.  Thankfully, someone else has.

As I reported in a post almost six months ago, the person chiefly responsible for so many new facts coming to light in the case is Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York:

On May 6, 2010, Judge Kaplan granted the San Ramon, Calif.-based oil giant’s request to have outtakes from Joe Berlinger’s controversial documentary, “CRUDE,” about the lawsuit released.

On Oct. 7, 2010, Judge Kaplan wrote in a memo to his court clerk that copies of the outtakes should be provided to three requesters — Thomson Reuters, American Lawyer Magazine and ALM Media — as well as to “any member of the public who requests (them) upon payment of the reasonable cost of duplication and blank media.” In other words, they should be made public.

On Oct. 20, 2010, Judge Kaplan ruled that Chevron can question and obtain evidence from Steven Donziger, lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

Finally, on Nov. 6, 2010, Judge Kaplan issued a 54-page legal opinion that could be considered the “death blow” to the case against Chevron. Not only did he turn down Donziger’s requests to limit Chevron attorneys’ access to certain information and subject areas, he wrote described Donziger’s legal proposal as “not persuasive.”

Most newsworthy in Judge Kaplan’s opinion were three entries appearing under the heading, “The Nature of Donziger’s Activities,” on the table of contents. Each foretold the volatile content of the opinion itself.

In “The March 30, 2006, Intimidation of the Judge,” Judge Kaplan wrote the following:

The outtakes depict Donziger and other plaintiffs representatives traveling to an ex parte meeting with a judge on March 30, 2006. At least parts of the meeting appear in Crude. Prior to the meeting, Donziger described his plan to “intimidate,” “pressure,” and “humiliate” the judge:

“The only language that I believe this judge is going to understand is one of pressure, intimidation and humiliation. And that’s what we’re doing today. We’re going to let him know what time it is. . . . As a lawyer, I never do this. You don’t have to do this in the United States. It’s dirty. . . . It’s necessary. I’m not letting them get away with this stuff.”

Donziger repeatedly referred to the Ecuadorian judicial system as “weak,” “corrupt,” and lacking integrity. He further explained to the camera:

“The judicial system is so utterly weak. The only way that you can secure a fair trial is if you do things like that. Like go in and confront the judge with media around and fight and yell and scream and make a scene. That would never happen in the United States or in any judicial system that had integrity.”

Beneath “The Plan to Pressure the Court With an ‘Army,’” the judge wrote the following:

Over a year later, the Crude crew filmed a conversation between Donziger and Fajardo in which Donziger and Fajardo discussed the need to “be more and more aggressive” and to “organize pressure demonstrations at the court.” In the same clip, Donziger referred to the litigation as a “matter of combat” that requires “actually . . . put[ting] an army together.”

The outtakes captured a June 6, 2007 meeting in which Donziger outlined a strategy to pressure an Ecuadorian court. Donziger told those present that the Lago Agrio plaintiffs needed to “do more politically, to control the court, to pressure the court” because Ecuadorian courts “make decisions based on who they fear most, not based on what the laws should dictate.”

Donziger expressed concern that no one feared the plaintiffs, and he stated that the plaintiffs would not win unless the courts begin to fear them. Donziger described also his desire to take over the court with a massive protest as a way to send a message to the court of “don’t f— with us anymore – not now, and not – not later, and never.” He then proposed raising “our own army” to which Yanza interjected “a specialized group . . . for immediate action.”

At that point, Atossa Soltani of Amazon Watch interrupted and asked whether “you guys know if anybody can, uh, subpoena these videos.” Donziger responded, “We don’t have the power of subpoena in Ecuador.” Soltanithen asked, “What about U.S.?,” but Donziger interrupted her and ignored the question. She persisted, saying “I just want you to know that it’s . . . illegal to conspire to break the law” to which Donziger said, “No law’s been conspired to be broken.” The conversation about raising an army to pressure the court then continued, with Yanza waving the camera away as he told Donziger that the “army” could be supplied with weapons.

Two days later, speaking directly to the camera, Donziger continued to emphasize the importance of pressuring the judge in the Lago Agrio litigation. According to Donziger, the plaintiffs’ “biggest problem” had been their inability to pressure the judge. He explained that suing Chevron for moral damages or pressuring the Prosecutor General to open criminal investigations was not sufficient to make the judge feel pressure. Donziger asserted that the plaintiffs needed to do things that the judge would “really feel” such as being “called out” by the president of the country or the supreme court, implying that Donziger and others could develop strategies that would result in such actions.

Finally, Judge Kaplan added more thoughts under the section, “Killing the Judge?” as follows:

Finally, Donziger participated in a dinner conversation about what might happen to a judge who ruled against the Lago Agrio plaintiffs. One or more other participants in the conversation suggested that a judge would be “killed” for such a ruling. Donziger replied that the judge “might not be [killed], but he’ll think – he thinks he will be . . . which is just as good.”

To Judge Kaplan’s findings, we can add several other revealing reports:

Carter Woods’ report, ‘Crude’ Footage Reveals Lies Behind Trial Lawyers’ Suit Against Chevron, was published Aug. 2, 2010, on the National Association of Manufacturers’ Shop Floor blog. As the headline makes clear, the outtakes yielded proof of many lies on the part of the Amazon Defense Coalition, the group representing the plaintiffs in the 17-year-old lawsuit against Chevron.

My Jan. 21, 2011, report, Company That Earned Millions from Gulf Cleanup Tangled in Suit That Could Cost Chevron $113B, which scooped The New York Times by almost 100 days, highlighted connections between the firm that wrote a controversial “expert opinion” for the plaintiffs in the case the “Old Gray Lady” would later describe as a “racketeering” lawsuit.

Carter Woods’ Feb. 3, 2011, report which needs no further explanation beyond the headline, In Chevron Shakedown, Ecuador’s Government Plays a Part.

Of course, I could cite more milestones in the history of the lawsuit, each of which should have prompted Pelley and his CBS News brethren to revisit the case.  Unfortunately, I don’t think doing so will prompt members of the CBS News team to have a collective epiphany of objectivity that results in them wanting to set the record straight.

And so, CBS News continues on its path.  Going the way of the dinosaur.  Toward extinction.

UPDATE 5/05/11 at 5:25 p.m. Central: Cross-posted at Andrew Breitbart’s BigJournalism.com.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!

Media ‘Carrying Water’ for Democrat Congress

WARNING: To ensure you realize you’re not in the middle of a bad dream, pinch yourself before watching the Breitbart.com video below.

Every thinking American knows the 111th Congress was, perhaps, the worst — definitely not the “most productive” — Congress in this nation’s history as news anchors nationwide might have us believe. The new Harris Interactive poll results I published this morning seem to prove that.

Now, everyone who watches the video above needs to make an effort to ensure everyone they know watches it prior to the 2012 election cycle.  Only then can we be certain — I know, it’s wishful thinking — that every American voter truly understands what media bias is.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you enjoy this blog and want to help keep stories like the one above coming, you can show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support! Have a wonderful 2011!

Consumer Confidence Numbers Reflect Lack of Confidence in Obama Administration

I just finished a 10-minute interview with Jeff Horwich, a reporter with American Public Media’s “Marketplace“, a program carried on more than 500 public radio stations across the country.

Asked questions about the recently-released consumer confidence numbers and the relationship between those numbers being down and the news media’s reporting on the economy, I focused on my belief that consumer confidence is as much a reflection of lagging confidence in the Obama Administration and his poor handling of matters (i.e., the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, healthcare, foreign policy and the economy, to name a few) as it is dollars-and-sense economics.

As soon as a link to the program becomes available, I will post it here.  Stay tuned!

UPDATE 6/29/10 at 9:26 p.m. Central: Looks like my interview ended up on the cutting room floor.  “Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)”

CBS Radio Fails to Mention Muslims’ Role in Massacre of Hundreds of Christians in Nigeria

The differences between news reports on the recent massacre of hundreds in Nigeria are stark.

Listening to St. Louis’ KMOX-AM 1120 this morning, I heard the CBS Radio News report about about some 200 people being killed in “sectarian violence” during the past few days had left at least 200 dead in Nigeria.  Conversely, Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald reported that the latest violence appeared unrelated to national sectarian political frictions.

What else did the report from “the land down under” mention that CBS chose to omit?  Two key facts:

  • The vast majority of people killed were Christians; and
  • Those doing the killed — primarily with machetes — were Muslims.

The Independent Television Network (UK) report below offers more information about the persecution of Christians in central Nigeria.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I tried unsuccessfully to locate online audio of the CBS Radio News report referenced above.  If you find one, please share it with me.  Thanks in advance.