Why I’d like to find a liberal Instapundit

Instapundit links to Byron York at The Washington Examiner, who gave an overview of who is, and who isn’t, covering the Nasa’s Main Goal is to reach out the Muslims story. 

As I’ve noted before, I don’t trust any one news source for my news, and I try to hit a lot of sources.  But it’s not like I don’t have other responsibilities.   I can catch what Fox and CNN are saying while I’m doing other things around the house (MSNBC has flat out given up in these parts), and check their sites at work, and I love to hit Instapundit and Althouse on my down times, as well as a number of other news and blog sites periodically.  But I always worry that maybe I could be missing some liberal positive story that some bunch of liberal blogs I’ve never gotten to are pointing to as “ignored by Fox.”  Now, granted, I’ve never know that to happen (I’ve never really seen a story that I thought was important that Fox didn’t cover), but I meet a lot of ignorant, uninformed people who aren’t picking up stories like this one, and I don’t want to risk becoming anything like them.  But I can’t handle the big liberal blogs on a regular basis- too negative and nasty.  Give me someone more moderate, like Glen Reynolds, but with a liberal state of mind and huge aggregation, and I’d be really happy.

What’s the liberal spin on the New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation Case?

I”ve been trying to figure that out most of the day, since I noted that former Dept. of Justice employee J. Christian Adams would be testifying before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights today.  That is, I noted it on Fox News’ website.  I regularly check CNN, then Fox (hate their site, plus I want to get as much as I can), during the workday.  CNN had no mention of the case, and a check in their archives indicated that it had not been mentioned at all this year. 

Is what Adams had to say important?  What do you think? 

J. Christian Adams, testifying Tuesday before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, said that “over and over and over again,” the department showed “hostility” toward those cases. He described the Black Panther case as one example of that — he defended the legitimacy of the suit and said his “blood boiled” when he heard a Justice official claim the case wasn’t solid. 

“It is false,” Adams said of the claim. 

“We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens,” he later testified. 

The department abandoned the New Black Panther case last year. It stemmed from an incident on Election Day in 2008 in Philadelphia, where members of the party were videotaped in front of a polling place, dressed in military-style uniforms and allegedly hurling racial slurs while one brandished a night stick. 

The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a “deadly weapon” near a polling place until 2012. 

In a statement Tuesday, a Justice spokesman said the civil rights division determined “the facts and the law did not support pursuing claims” against the two other defendants and denied Adams’ allegations. 

“The department makes enforcement decisions based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved. We are committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of both the civil and criminal provisions of the federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation,” the spokesman said. 

The Civil Rights Commission, which subpoenaed Adams, has been probing the incident since last year. Adams said he ignored department directives not to testify and eventually quit after he heard Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez testify that there were concerns the Black Panther case was not supported by the facts.  

Adams has described the case as open-and-shut and said Tuesday that it was a “very low moment” to hear Perez make that claim. 

But he described the department’s hostility toward that and other cases involving black defendants as “pervasive.” Adams cited hostility in the department toward a 2007 voting rights case against a black official in Mississippi who was accused of trying to intimidate voters. Adams said that when the Black Panther case came up, he heard officials in the department say it was “no big deal” and “media-generated” and point to “Fox News ” as the source.  

But as the investigation unfolded, he said he discovered “indications” that the Black Panther Party was doing the “same thing” to supporters of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season in early 2008. He urged the commission to pursue testimony from other Justice officials to corroborate his story. 

It’s unclear how far the commission will get. The commissioners want to hear from Christopher Coates, the former chief of the Justice Department’s voting section, but the commission claims the Justice Department is blocking Coates from testifying about why the case was dropped. 

The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a “deadly weapon” near a polling place until 2012. 

In a statement Tuesday, a Justice spokesman said the civil rights division determined “the facts and the law did not support pursuing claims” against the two other defendants and denied Adams’ allegations. 

“The department makes enforcement decisions based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved. We are committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of both the civil and criminal provisions of the federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation,” the spokesman said. 

The Civil Rights Commission, which subpoenaed Adams, has been probing the incident since last year. Adams said he ignored department directives not to testify and eventually quit after he heard Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez testify that there were concerns the Black Panther case was not supported by the facts. 

 

Adams has described the case as open-and-shut and said Tuesday that it was a “very low moment” to hear Perez make that claim. 

But he described the department’s hostility toward that and other cases involving black defendants as “pervasive.” Adams cited hostility in the department toward a 2007 voting rights case against a black official in Mississippi who was accused of trying to intimidate voters. Adams said that when the Black Panther case came up, he heard officials in the department say it was “no big deal” and “media-generated” and point to “Fox News ” as the source. 

 

But as the investigation unfolded, he said he discovered “indications” that the Black Panther Party was doing the “same thing” to supporters of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season in early 2008. He urged the commission to pursue testimony from other Justice officials to corroborate his story. 

It’s unclear how far the commission will get. The commissioners want to hear from Christopher Coates, the former chief of the Justice Department’s voting section, but the commission claims the Justice Department is blocking Coates from testifying about why the case was dropped.

I’ve got a few problems with this: First, I make a it a rule to be extremely sceptical when people speak out against former employers.  They almost always have a bias and unresolved issues against the employer.  That doesn’t mean they’re wrong, necessarily; they’re likely to be the only ones who can show problems where they exist, but it means that I’m looking for other support.  Second, I don’t trust Fox News.  Or rather, I’m not any more willing to put my full trust in Fox News any more than I would any other news network.  “Trust, but verify” as Reagan would say.  I know what some people think when they hear “Fox News,” so I want to be sure that I’ve gotten independent support.  I’ve never had a problem before.  Third, I simply don’t think I believe that the Justice Department in my own country could be so blatantly, unabashedly, corrupt and racist.  I realize that Holder hasn’t exactly been politically correct about race in the past, but I still can’t believe that things are this bad.  The voter intimidation case was air tight; the man was video-taped brandishing a weapon.  Why does the Justice Department think that this is OK? 

And yet, I have not heard any explanation from the DOJ.  Adams’ accusations, if there is even a chance they are true, are surely more important than whatever the hell Lindsay Lohan is doing these days (which got three stories today, as well as a breaking news alert) or a basketball player’s Twitter account.  I’d say it’s a lot more important than the World Cup, which has been front paged most of the day.  And yet, nothing, no explanation, no cover up, no counter-story.  I could not find anything about this story on any other non-conservative media sites as well.  I’m willing to consider an explanation, if only one is offered. 

Magic Money from the Government’s Tree

I can’t imagine why this wasn’t a bigger story, because it explains so much.  A Fox News poll in March (via Amy Alkon, sort of) found:

Where does the government get its money anyway? While 65 percent understand the government’s money is their taxpayer dollars at work, some 24 percent think the federal government has “plenty of its own money without using taxpayer dollars.”

Now, how many of that 24 percent (and of the 35 percent that doesn’t understand that the government’s money is their taxpayer dollars) voted for Obama?  I”m guessing a full 100 percent.

OMG! An Attractive Woman!!

That’s a pretty accurate summary of Troy Patterson’s (Slate’s TV writer) “review” of Megyn Kelly’s new FoxNews midday show. 

First of all, it’s a mid-day show.  Which means that we’re not supposed to care about it.  Which he explains, but never provides any explanation (other than the obvious pointed out above) that he (or his readers) should care about it. 

The program itself is not anything special, nor does it need to be. As a midday show, its sole purpose is to keep a stream of information—meaningless and otherwise—flowing at a decent pace. As a Fox News offering, it just needs to throw out some red-state red meat, U.S. commercial grade or higher, every other block.

While he does throw in a few notes about her being an “up and coming” star (although she’s been a FoxNews regular for years, so I’m not sure what that’s all about), it’s pretty clear that his only reason for bringing her show to our attention is so that he can write stuff like this:

Megyn’s Manhattan studio offers a view of Sixth Avenue by way of a video screen and of her legs by way of a clear plastic desk. The desk is positioned atop a map of the 48 contiguous states such that Kansas City would seem to have a good view up her skirt. If it is less than gallant to make such an observation, it is more than fair to believe that Kelly would be OK with that.

My understanding of the concept of “post-feminist,” which Mr. Patterson insists that her show demonstrates, is that a woman can be a woman, including being attractive and feminine, and not have that limit her from being intellectual and reliable. Mr. Patterson’s understanding appears to be “she asked for it by wearing that skirt.”

These sorts of things need to get more coverage

Peace-loving, American Muslims say down with terrorism such as the actions of the Christmas Day Crotch Would-be Bomber:

Chanting “No more terrorism,” about 150 Muslim and Nigerian protesters waved U.S. flags as they rallied in the cold outside the federal courthouse during a hearing for the suspect accused of trying to bomb a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas Day.

“Muslims here to tell you: Go to hell,” read a sign held by Majed Rizki, 48, of Dearborn. “It was a sin against humanity, against civilization,” Rizki said of the attempted attack.

“Islam is not a terrorist religion,” Bilal Amen, 27, vice chair of the Islamic Institute of Knowledge in Dearborn, said while holding an American flag. “Islam is a peaceful religion.”

Amen and others said they were concerned that the Muslim suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab, was giving the wrong image of Islam.

“I’m an American, born and raised,” Amen said. “Islam teaches us to abide by the laws of our land.”

I saw a clip on FoxNews that showed one of the men looking the camera dead in the eye (well, lens), and saying something along the lines of “you want to kill us, we’re right here on TV, put a bullet right there” (pointing to his forehead.  I couldn’t find it online, but it was chilling and beautiful.

FoxNews and the Culture Wars

While normally, I like FoxNews (as I like most things that the left demonizes), I do have a problem with this “war on Christmas” story that I’ve seen a couple times today on their website and on their morning show. 

  A Massachusetts father is standing by claims that his 8-year-old son was sent home from school after the boy drew a stick figure of Jesus on a crucifix.

Chester Johnson, 40, said his son did indeed draw the picture circulated to reporters and that Taunton School District officials later said was not the same drawing discovered by the second-grade student’s teacher earlier this month.

“I swear to God, on my grave, you could kill me if I’m lying,” Johnson, 40, told FoxNews.com. “I wouldn’t make nothing up. This is the holiday season — I don’t have time for that.” . . .

School officials said Tuesday that the boy was not suspended due to the sketch.

“This report is totally inaccurate, and the student was never suspended,” a statement read.

The school claims the incident took place nearly two weeks ago and says the incident was handled “appropriately.”

School officials also denied Johnson’s claim that students were asked to draw something that reminded them of Christmas or another holiday.

“Contrary to what has been reported, there was no request or assignment by the teacher for students to sketch something that reminded them of Christmas or any religious holiday,” the statement continued.

Johnson said his son made the drawing on Dec. 2 after his teacher asked children to sketch something that reminded them of the holiday season.

Now, I don’t know who’s to believe here (although the claims that the teacher “asked children to sketch something that reminded them of the holiday season” do sound a little odd).  In fact, I’d bet that even if the dad is wrong, it’s probably more of a case of miscommunications combined with jumping to conclusions than outright lying.  Either way, though, dad gets what he wants, his name in lights and sympathy for being a victim.   

Fox and the war on Christmas folks incentivize this, just like liberal groups do to “victims” of their pet causes. 

Added: Fox isn’t specifically pushing this as a war on Christmas story, but the teasers given for the morning show story certainly gave that impression, and that’s what pulls the viewer in.  In case you wanted one, here is a real war on Christmas story.

Wow, FoxNews Really is Evil

They just found a way to make me feel bad about eating Thin Mints!

Inside the [UN Climate] conference was an exhibit hall with everyone from Yale University to the Girl Scouts (did you know when you buy their cookies you help support their global warming efforts?) to the International Trade Union Confederation, who explained to me that their needs to be a “just transition” which includes a global jobs retraining program as well as a global welfare program for displaced workers who cannot be retrained.