02/28/17

Andrew Breitbart, Controversial as Ever Five Years After his Death

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

Wednesday, March 1 marks the fifth anniversary of the death of conservative icon Andrew Breitbart. We think it is important to remember his legacy, as his name is heard often these days, and his influence looms large. For those not familiar with him, Andrew was a larger than life character who figured in the establishment of several prominent media institutions that play significant roles in today’s journalistic landscape. He was first associated with the Drudge Report, famous for scooping Newsweek on its Monica Lewinsky story; The Huffington Post, the very popular leftwing blog; and Breitbart News, from which came the left’s chief bogeyman, and Donald Trump’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon.

Five years after his untimely death, we at Accuracy in Media want to remind people who Breitbart was, and why he is so influential in an age of so much fake news by the mainstream media. AIM presented Andrew with the Reed Irvine Award for Excellence in Journalism in 2010, and he gave an historic speech before a packed room that called out the media for its dishonesty.

“I want to convert these people, not to conservatism,” Breitbart said of the media during his acceptance speech. “[Reporters will] eventually get there if they get to see the facts. I want to hold these people accountable to the standards that they offer at the J school, that is objective journalism.”

Breitbart was greatly concerned about bias in the media. During a 2011 interview on Accuracy in Media’s Take AIM, he spoke extensively about the “Democrat Media Complex.” The extent of cooperation between the media and Democrats was more recently revealed through leaked emails during the 2016 presidential election.

“I’m filling in a void where the mainstream media, the Democrat Media Complex, will not report stories that hurt the Democrat Media Complex,” said Breitbart on Take AIM. “So these are boom times for my site, and the people who are writing for me are passionate citizen-journalists who now realize if Katie Couric’s not going to tell the truth, then we as average citizens—lawyers, doctors and actors, housewives, retired people—can report. They can expose, they can videotape—and it’s the most exciting time in the history of media.”

Matt Gertz of Media Matters, a fringe, left-wing “watchdog” that is really just an attack dog for the Clintons, recently penned a hit job reprinted by Salon about what he sees as the dangers of Breitbart’s legacy.

“Breitbart.com spent years shilling for Trump’s candidacy,” writes Gertz. In particular, in the two years since 2015, “the Republican establishment has been routed by the Breitbart-led forces who pushed Trump to the front of the Republican presidential primary field and supported him at every step of the way,” writes Gertz. “Bannon moved seamlessly from head of Breitbart, to head of Trump’s campaign, to Trump’s top White House aide.”

It is to Breitbart’s credit that left-wing columnists still write reactionary pieces about his movement five years after his death. Media Matters and its founder, David Brock, have come to be viewed as quite an albatross for the Democrats, many of whom would like to see him go away. According to an article last month in The Daily Beast, “Many in the party—Clinton loyalists, Obama veterans, and Bernie supporters alike—talk about the man [David Brock] not as a sought-after ally in the fight against Trumpism, but as a nuisance and a hanger-on, overseeing a colossal waste of cash. And former employees say that he has hurt the cause.”

Breitbart’s enduring legacy is not only the influence that his successors have had on President Trump, but also the influence he has had on the conservative movement as a whole. Breitbart News follows in its founder’s footsteps by offering an incisive alternative to the biased media. Breitbart’s views of the so-called mainstream media certainly belong in today’s discussion about fake news, journalistic bias, and the integrity of reporters. Contrary to Gertz’s negative insinuations, the media’s attempts to delegitimize Trump and his presidency through the use of trivial fact checks, or fake news, must be combatted by new media reporters from organizations such as Breitbart. These conservative writers have the power to push back against the media’s lies and fearmongering.

Andrew was a friend of Accuracy in Media. I conducted what may be the most comprehensive interview covering his background and views of the media. For example, Breitbart contended that “the reason why there are so many default cultural liberals out there is because so few conservatives are willing to go into the liberal world to espouse their point of view.”

“And if you go out there and you fight the fight, you tell the truth, oftentimes you can expose the interviewer—who’s never really been challenged—that he’s a fraud,” Breitbart continued.

“I’m appalled by the Democratic Party as relates to race,” he said during the interview. “For these people, with their track record of enslaving black people, telling them they only have one point of view in this country, while, at the same time, destroying their communities, it’s a crime against humanity—and I’m willing to fight. And if being called a racist for wanting to create a better society where black people have the freedom to think freely, if they want to call me a racist on national TV, I’m going to go there, and I’m going to fight back.”

Ironically, five years later Media Matters is accusing Breitbart reporters of becoming a platform for the alt-right, a code word used by the left to mean racism. Bannon has made clear that he has an entirely different definition for the term. He told The Wall Street Journal, “Our definition of the alt-right is younger people who are anti-globalists, very nationalist, terribly anti-establishment.”

Gertz also criticized Breitbart for his favorable view of Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy, calling Gaffney a “paranoid conspiracy theorist.” Accuracy in Media, and the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi members, are quite aware of liberal columnists’ predilection for labeling conservative messages as conspiracy theories. As for Gaffney, Breitbart had it right, as we have demonstrated, and Media Matters is once again peddling fake news.

“An ascendant Breitbart.com and President Trump are truly Andrew Breitbart’s greatest legacy,” writes Gertz. Actually, Breitbart’s legacy is a burgeoning conservative movement ready to take on a mainstream media which has long since abandoned its objectivity and journalistic standards. And we are proud to stand with him, and to remember this great American.


Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

03/15/16

Breitbart Implosion – Conservatives Take a Stand Against Trump Bias

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Breitbart

Things are not going well over at Breitbart these days. It all started at a Trump rally where Michelle Fields, a Breitbart reporter, tried to interview Donald Trump. Suddenly, Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski grabbed her arm forcefully and yanked her away from Trump. Minutes later, bruises would form on her arm.

Continue reading

07/14/15

Conserve What? Where’s the Outreach? in Comics? Graphic Novels? at Comic-Con?

By: Arlen Williams
Gulag Bound

Comic-Con-Logo-264wFrom Judson Phillips, Tea Party Nation:

Do you wonder why conservatives are losing the culture wars as well as the political wars?

Conservatives are losing wars on both fronts. Because conservatives lose the culture war, political wars are lost as a matter of course. The late Andrew Breitbart explained why this happened and what conservatives needed to do.

What was Breitbart’s advice and how is the left using it and the right isn’t?

Andrew Breitbart warned that politics flows downstream from popular culture. Liberals understand popular culture and engage it.

From Roll Call:

Rep. John Lewis not only dressed as a revolutionary leader during his second appearance at Comic-Con International, he behaved like one — seizing the opportunity to shape young minds by taking the future firmly in his hands.

The Georgia Democrat returned to the pop culture smorgasbord on July 11 to promote the second installment of his illustrated biography, “March.” Lewis co-wrote the ongoing series of graphic novels, which chronicle the life-threatening situations he often found himself in throughout the civil rights era, with right-hand man Andrew Aydin.

The duo has been working for several years now with artist Nate Powell on a trilogy of books detailing Lewis’ ongoing crusade to vanquish inequality….

continues at TPN

Well said, Judson.

Where people of principle and perspective don’t stand for and explain righteousness — and call wrongdoing, including collectivism, the destructive harm that it is, the world around us suffers, our own children suffer, and even we suffer from an underactive and corrupted conscience.

When we don’t take our messages to the people, especially to the young, that corruption is inevitably at work in us.

——GB——

John Lewis Grooms Activists at Comic-Con

Comic-Con International: San Diego

04/13/15

Judge Jeanine Pirro, Chris Plante, and Rep. Lamar Smith to Receive Accuracy in Media Awards in D.C.

AIM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Spencer Irvine
(202) 364-4401 ext. 103
[email protected]

Washington, D.C.Accuracy in Media will honor Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro, WMAL talk show Chris Plante and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) with this year’s Reed Irvine journalism awards at a cocktail reception on Tuesday, April 21st at the Capitol Hill Club.

Jeanine Pirro will receive the Reed Irvine Award for Investigative Journalism for her Fox News program, “Justice with Judge Jeanine,” during which she regularly pierces the veil on issues that the mainstream media misreport or ignore, such as the vulnerability of our electrical grid to an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, and the unfolding Benghazi scandal and government cover-up.

AIM will also honor Chris Plante, a Washington, D.C. talk radio host who will receive the Reed Irvine Award for Excellence in Journalism. As host of “The Chris Plante Show” on WMAL, he serves as a one-man media watchdog powerhouse from 9 am to noon, five days a week.

Rep. Lamar Smith, founder and chairman of the Media Fairness Caucus, will receive the Reed Irvine Award for Accountability in Journalism for his tireless efforts to challenge the media’s biased reporting and raise the standards of mainstream press coverage.

WHEN: Tuesday, April 21, 2015
6:00 pm to 8:00 pm
The event will begin promptly at 6:15 pm.

WHERE: Capitol Hill Club
300 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
Room: Eisenhower Room (1st Floor)

The Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award was established in 2005 to honor journalists for their courageous and principled reporting in the tradition of AIM founder Reed Irvine. Previous award winners include Andrew Breitbart, Sharyl Attkisson, Michelle Malkin and the late M. Stanton Evans.

For further information, please RSVP using EventBrite or contact Spencer Irvine at [email protected] or 202-364-4401, ext.103.

02/3/15

The Tea Party: Then and Now

By: Michael Johns

The largest and most impactful political movement, at least since the civil rights movement and perhaps in all of American history, originated in the minds and efforts of less than a dozen American citizens.

It was late February 2009, just weeks after the inauguration of Barack Obama, and there was every reason for conservatives to fear the worst: That we had elected a polarizing, far left and ultimately ineffectual president who would prove a threat to constitutional law, our economy and America’s global standing in the world.  Most concerning was that he would gradually or even quickly erode our nation’s two centuries of respect for individual rights and liberties upon which America was founded, “fundamentally transforming” (as he promised) our nation in destructive ways.

On the morning of February 19, 2009, as was often the case, I had the financial media outlet CNBC playing on a distant television in my suburban Philadelphia home.  This particular cold February morning, Rick Santelli, a Chicago-based CNBC reporter, was doing his usual stand-up reporting from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade (COMEX).  Santelli began reporting on Washington’s federal subsidies of housing under Obama when mid way through his report his sense of outrage began to escalate passionately.

Santelli accused the Obama administration of “promoting bad behavior” in subsidizing mortgages then at default risk with a $75 billion housing program, known as the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan. He then turned and, while still live on CNBC, stated assertively to COMEX floor traders: “We’re thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party!” Santelli’s suggestion of a Tea Party response to the federal government’s overreach was greeted with supportive applause and whistles of approval from COMEX traders. Santelli then said: “What we are doing in this country is making our founders roll over in their graves.”

I found Santelli’s Chicago comments accurate, inspirational and even bold for a mainstream reporter in a media world that really never challenged Obama on much of anything during or since the 2008 campaign. What I did not realize was that his remarks were viewed similarly by several other conservative-leaning Americans, who would go on to inspire a national political movement that would shake the nation.

Just a few days following Santelli’s rant, 12 or so conservative activists, including me, were invited to participate in a strategic organizing Tea Party conference call moderated by Nashville-based, Stanford educated conservative Michael Patrick Leahy.  It was Leahy who earlier launched the now famous #tcot (Top Conservatives on Twitter) hashtag, where it remains today one of Twitter’s most commonly used hashtags and a key methodology for conservative communication.

Most on the call, unlike me, were new to political engagement.  They had largely never worked in government, public policy or politics. Aside from Leahy and me, the others had never managed an organization either.  They had largely never written or spoken on political or public policy themes, even though all of us would soon be called upon to articulate our Tea Party message nationally in the weeks to come.  Most had never even worked on a political campaign.  But the passion on that call was infectious.  The 12 or so of us left it with a feeling that a potentially influential national political movement was emerging—and quickly.

Several follow-up calls were scheduled, and they led us to devise a now well-known plan for Tea Party protests across the nation on Tax Day, April 15, 2009.  The aggressive six-week timeline, like much that the Tea Party movement has undertaken since its creation, was organized hastily, with a sense of urgency, and not without its errors. But April 15, 2009, is now a fairly notable day in American history in the sense that it was the physical manifestation of a national political movement, comprising tens of millions of Americans and quite possibly the largest in American history, that would go on to impact significantly the nation’s political debate.

The day of April 15, 2009, was a busy one. For my part, in the afternoon, on Boston Square in downtown Boston, just blocks from the original Sam Adams-led Tea Party on December 16, 1773, I spoke to a large and passionate crowd furious with Obama and the country’s direction.  I then left Boston to speak that evening at one of the nation’s largest tea parties of the day, held in lower Manhattan, not far from the memorialized 9/11 attack location. Three days later, on the grounds of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, I spoke for a third time in just three days to a very large and vibrant Tea Party rally organized by the Independence Hall Tea Party Association, of which I was then an officer.

The years 2009 and 2010 were full of flurry and a sense of urgency for the national Tea Party movement, an urgency that has continued to this day.  In 2010, in Quincy, Illinois, where Lincoln held his sixth debate with U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas on October 13, 1858, I joined Leahy and the late media personality Andrew Breitbart in addressing a large Tea Party crowd on the precise location where Lincoln pointedly articulated his anti-slavery message: “We (the Republican Party) also oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread itself,” Lincoln said that day in Quincy.

By this time, the message of our movement was being refined and polished, comprised mostly of three universal themes that were and continue to be broadly popular with the American people: First, the federal government has grown too big and its taxes vastly too excessive.  Second, the sovereignty of the United States—in controlling its borders, in developing its national security and foreign policies — must be defended at all costs.  And third, that the U.S. Constitution was a document containing absolute truths to which government needed to adhere if it was to avoid lawlessness and chaos.

As I was in Boston and New York City, Leahy and others organized one of the day’s largest and most successful events in Nashville, drawing thousands.  In downtown Chicago, just a couple blocks from where the Santelli rant heard round the world took place, another Tea Party founder organized a large and hugely successful Tea Party rally.  His name was Eric Odom.

Quickly, the passionate and activism of this small cadre spread to thousands, then tens of thousands, and ultimately to millions of Americans who identified themselves as being supportive of the Tea Party movement. On November 2, 2010, a highly motivated Tea Party movement rocked the nation, sending 65 new Republican House members to Washington and thus forcing then Speaker Nancy Pelosi to surrender her gavel to new Republican John Boehner. Four years later, on November 4, 2014, the Tea Party movement again proved a huge difference maker, further increasing Republican presence in the U.S. House and increasing its U.S. Senate seats by nine, including pulling out wins in hugely contentious races in many states, including Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, and South Dakota.

Meanwhile, in the U.S. House of Representatives, a Tea Party Caucus, chaired by former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, had been developed with the movement’s input to coordinate the Tea Party agenda in Congress.  And the national strategy discussions continued. In Chicago, for instance, Odom and I spent three long days in detailed discussion on the movement’s strategy, messaging and allocation of limited resources.

In the months and years since, along with other Tea Party founders from the February 2009 conference call, we continued tireless efforts of what by then had become a vast, influential, though sometimes chaotically organized movement of political consequence. All the Tea Party movement founders from Leahy’s first conference call are impressive in their own ways, and have their own personal stories about what sparked their leadership in this now historical movement.

In the years that followed, along with other national Tea Party leaders, Leahy, Odom and I crisscrossed the nation articulating the Tea Party message and helped to organize the movement politically in order to prevail in elections.

In Dallas, Leahy organized a national Tea Party leadership meeting that included many of the founders from the original February 2009 call participated.  “Let’s begin this meeting with a prayer to God for His guidance of this movement,” I suggested privately to Leahy, who agreed. We began the meeting exactly that way.  Later, also in Dallas, we organized a two-day training course for regional and other Tea Party leaders on political and public policy activism.

One of those leaders was Chicago-based Eric Odom.  In fall 2010, from Las Vegas, we poured ourselves into the campaign of Nevada State Senator Sharron Angle in hopes of replacing the Obama administration’s strongest U.S. Senate ally, Harry Reid.  As the movement’s prominence (and the associated strategic questions facing it) evolved, Odom and I spent several days in Chicago asking and discussing those questions and developing our best answers.  And there was the day in Philadelphia where I invited Odom to join me in addressing an important pre-election Tea Party rally held on the iconic grounds of Independence Hall in front of the very building where 56 founders of our nation pledged with a “firm reliance of the protection of divine providence,” their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor” to remove imperial British forces and rule and establish a self-governed nation rooted in liberty and the rule of law.

The Tea Party movement’s efforts, as even its detractors would concede, have since proven hugely consequential, ensuring that Obama, at least since 2011, was not given full reign of the legislative and executive branches of government.  A Tea Party-influenced Republican House and Senate, along with our extensive grassroots efforts, have held liberal Obama’s agenda at bay, despite the Tea Party’s ultimate inability to defeat Obamacare.

Since that first February 2009 conference call, the founding and ongoing development of the historic Tea Party movement is one of many intriguing personal stories, and a singular collective story.  Along the way, we have done many things well (removing Pelosi and then Reid as Speaker and Majority Leader, respectively).  We have strengthened the Republican Party as a party that stands more than before for conservative principles expressed (but too often ignored) in the GOP platform.  We also quickly obliterated the 2008 progressive political culture that maintained that Obama was a man who singularly held the answers for the nation.  Time has proven those ideas were not at all innovative and were actually just a rewording of those from the liberal playbook of more government and more taxes.  In all these ways, since those February 2009 planning calls, the national Tea Party movement has exceeded the accomplishments of the effective and well-constructed 2008 Obama for America campaign that ultimately propelled Obama to the presidency.

All this history is important because it reaffirms the veracity of Margaret Mead’s famous statement: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.  Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” It’s worth asking: If those first organizing calls had not been launched, would Republicans today control the U.S. Senate and House? If no, that means that Obama’s entire far-left political agenda would have been rubber stamped by an equally liberal Congressional leadership.  Has the Tea Party movement saved the nation?  I believe it likely has.

Yet, to be truthful about the inner workings of the Tea Party movement, we have done many things well, but failed in others.  In 2015, the Tea Party and patriot movement’s top priority must be communicating and impacting public opinion and explaining why and how Tea Party principles can make America great again: creating jobs and economic prosperity, restoring rigid adherence to the U.S. Constitution, and restoring a strong America that can defeat serious national security threats.

With a reliance on divine providence again, let’s roll back this utterly destructive, unconstitutional government and welcome in a century or more of strong liberty leadership.  Next step: We must explain our Tea Party vision and solutions for America.

12/31/14

CNN Moves on to New “Scandal”

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

CNN contributed to the atmosphere in which two New York City police officers were murdered last week. Then, it shed tears for the dead cops. Their contribution included their inaccurate and sensationalized coverage of police confrontations with black criminals. Now, CNN is moving on, as Republicans prepare to take over both Houses of Congress. The new target: a top House Republican who associated with extremists.

CNN wants people to believe the GOP is racked by various New Year’s scandals, including that House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) spoke to a pro-white group in 2002. Scrambling to answer to the liberal media mob, Rep. Scalise is putting out various statements, such as that he didn’t know what the group was all about. He said he now finds the group’s pro-white views abhorrent.

But why hasn’t there been a smidgeon of attention on CNN for the fact that Democratic Rep. Danny K. Davis (IL) was honored at the Communist Party’s headquarters in Chicago for a lifetime of “inspiring leadership.”

The Davis “honor” was only two years ago, in 2012. Scalise spoke to the pro-white group 12 years ago.

Welcome to the world of liberal media bias.

Another difference is that Rep. Davis knew precisely what the event was all about. In fact, he was proud of being honored by communists. But that’s not a story, even though communism is still very much alive, having already killed about 100 million people. The North Korean regime, the subject of so much attention in recent days, is run by communists. So is Cuba.

Once again, for the umpteenth time, we are given a demonstration of the liberal media’s double standard. Associating with alleged extremists is only a problem for Republicans, not Democrats.

Republicans have to learn that being perceived as pro-white is wrong; being pro-black and/or pro-Red is fine. That’s why Republican Senator Rand Paul (KY) gets praise for meeting with racial agitator Al Sharpton to talk about “criminal justice reform.”

But speaking 12 years ago to a group, started by David Duke, who wasn’t even at the event in question, is now a major scandal for the Republican Party, as defined by CNN.

Davis, of course, is given even more leeway because he is President Obama’s buddy. Davis and Obama were members of the Chicago New Party, a group designed to move the Democratic Party to the left. They appeared together to talk about their shared values.

Jeremy Segal, a disciple of the late Andrew Breitbart, produced a video of Rep. Davis being honored by the communists. No video of Rep. Scalise’s 12-year-old speech has yet surfaced. But it’s bad enough, from CNN’s perspective, that he apparently did speak to the group and that information about the appearance was dug up by a liberal blogger. This makes it a huge scandal.

The stench of the double-standard is made worse by the fact that CNN employs cop-killer apologist Marc Lamont Hill as a paid contributor. Hill sings the praises of convicted terrorist Joanne Chesimard, who was involved in the “execution style” murder of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster. She fled to Cuba to escape justice. Hill’s Twitter page had once been plastered with police mug shot photos of the convicted terrorist. In one post, Hill praised the terrorist, saying she was “one of the great heroes in the black freedom struggle.”

The Scalise “scandal” is based on the allegation that he spoke to a group run by David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader who was not even at the event and had “moved to Russia,” according to various reports. As we have noted, Duke now has connections to a Vladimir Putin adviser and apparently sees the Russian regime as the savior of white people worldwide.

Scalise ran the group of House conservatives known as the Republican Study Committee. Speaking of extremists, we noted in 2013 that Scalise failed to take a stand against the expansion of terror TV channel Al Jazeera in the U.S. He told us through a spokesperson that he “believes Al Jazeera has a First Amendment right to expand its broadcasts in the United States and that a congressional investigation of Al Gore’s deal with the channel is not warranted.” We had asked for his position on the deal when Gore was selling his stake in Current TV to Al Jazeera.

We noted, “By offering the First Amendment excuse in favor of the deal, Scalise is ignoring the evidence that Al Jazeera is not a legitimate news operation but rather a conduit for propaganda from terrorist groups, with whom it has intimate and ongoing relations.” We explained that, in the United States, it is against the law to provide material support to terrorists, with “material support” defined as including expert advice or assistance and communications equipment.

The deal went ahead because Rep. Scalise and other top Republicans, including Rep. Michael McCaul (TX), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, refused to investigate or hold hearings on the deal. We later found out that Al Jazeera and Qatar had hired Capitol Hill lobbyists to push the deal through.

Regarding the aforementioned Marc Lamont Hill, Fox News fired him as a paid contributor on the channel, after we brought his extremist views to the attention of News Corporation executive chairman Rupert Murdoch. CNN didn’t bat an eye in picking him up as a commentator and contributor.

We noted that, on December 6, 2006, when reports indicated that Cuban dictator Fidel Castro was sick, Hill declared on his blog that he was afraid the information might be true. “My fears about Fidel’s health are not only personal but political,” he wrote.

Some of the more extreme material has been scrubbed from his site, but he still features a letter from Chesimard from an undisclosed location in communist Cuba. Chesimard declared, “I am 60 years old and I am proud to be one of those people who stood up against the ruthless, evil, imperialist policies of the U.S. government.” Hill commented, “Let us give thanks for her life and her sacrifice.”

This is apparently acceptable to CNN, which now pretends to honor the sacrifices of our police officers.

On her birthday, Hill tweeted, “Happy Birthday to Assata Shakur on her 67th Birthday. Wishing you 100 more years of love, struggle, and freedom.”

CNN has no problem paying an apologist for a cop-killer living under the protection of the communist regime in Cuba. But it will be on top of Scalise’s 12-year-old speaking engagement to a pro-white group as long as it thinks it can milk some ratings from the controversy.

But forget about CNN covering Danny Davis’s communist connection. If they raised that, they might have to take a look at Obama’s relationship with Rep. Davis—and another Davis, the one named Frank Marshall Davis, his communist mentor. And that is definitely a taboo subject.

How can these CNN anchors and commentators keep a straight face? Should we really take them seriously? Is acting like MSNBC one of their New Year’s resolutions?