First time visitor? Learn more.

Watchdogs of the Middle East media battlefield

by Speranza ( 45 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Gaza, Hate Speech, IDF, Israel, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Media, Palestinians at February 11th, 2013 - 11:00 am

I admire these peoples ability to wage through the sewers of al-Guardian, the BBC, and other anti-Israel/anti-Semitic media outlets so that we don’t have to.  It is sort of like the Diary of Daedalus crew that has to go to a certain  former pro-Israel blog.

hat tip – Israellycool

by Tibor Krausz

Adam Levick requires for his job is a laptop – and a touch of masochism. He employs both to peruse The Guardian, one of Britain’s so-called progressive dailies, and its popular online spinoff, Comment is Free, or CiF. Levick is managing editor of CiF Watch, which monitors bias against Israel in the two publications. He doesn’t have to look too hard.

The Guardian is well known for its hostility towards Israel, and, despite perfunctory protestations of balance, wears its anti-Zionism bias proudly on its sleeve. The newspaper has eulogized Palestinian terrorists, and CiF has posted flattering comments about unabashed Jew-haters like Israeli-born saxophonist/ conspiracy theorist Gilad Atzmon and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.

“In The Guardian and especially on CiF, Israel is the subject of rebuke and moral opprobrium quite out of proportion to any other country,” Levick, a Philadelphia native, who now lives in Jerusalem, tells The Jerusalem Report. “Their criticisms of Israel contain classic anti-Semitic tropes about the danger of ‘Jewish power,’ the old charge of dual loyalties, and sometimes even the insidious suggestion that Jews are inherently racist.”

Exhibit A on that last score: Israel’s decision in September 2011 to release more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, many of them convicted murders, in exchange for kidnapped Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit “is simply an indication,” opined The Guardian columnist Deborah Orr, “of how inured the world has become to the obscene idea that Israeli lives are more important than Palestinian lives.”

Her reasoning: The disproportionate number of Palestinians released in return for a single Israeli soldier “tacitly acknowledges what so many Zionists believe – that the lives of the chosen are of hugely greater consequence than those of their unfortunate neighbors.”

A fact the journalist – described by her employer as “one of Britain’s leading social and political commentators” – conveniently overlooked is that Hamas, not Israel, had insisted on the terms of the prisoner swap.

“Orr resorted to the anti-Semitic ‘chosen people’ canard,” Levick says. “It was atrocious.”

Faced by an outcry, the journalist issued an apology. Writing in the passive voice of artful evasion favored by bureaucrats and politicians the world over, she noted, “My words were badly chosen and poorly used.” She then went on to lament the “problematic” circumstances of Israel’s creation in 1948, before implicitly chiding Israelis for not being more open to criticism.

The editors of CiF and The Guardian did not respond to The Report’s repeated requests for comment. In a recent column, however, readers’ editor Chis Elliott acknowledged the use of anti-Semitic terminology in certain Guardian articles. [.......]

Journalists, the editor added, “have to be aware that some examples involve coded references. They need to ask themselves, for example, if the word Zionist is being used as a synonym for Jew.”

Bias against the Jewish state, say pro-Israel media watchdogs, comes in several forms – from purposeful slants to selective omissions, from subtle verbal cues to outright hostility.

Purposeful Slant: In its online country profiles during the run-up to the London Olympics, the BBC failed to list any city as Israel’s capital, yet declared “East Jerusalem” to be the capital of Palestine. “The BBC’s culture of political over-correctness often hampers impartial reporting on Israel,” says Hadar Sela, a British-born Israeli who runs the BBC Watch blog, adding, [........] Selective omission: Foreign reporters routinely cite Israel’s “occupation” of Gaza, even though Israel unilaterally withdrew from the territory in 2005, uprooting all its settlements in the process. “Often the BBC omits relevant context that would help to accurately present Israel’s case,” says Simon Plosker, the Jerusalem-based managing editor of the influential media watchdog, Honest Reporting. “That matters because the British media has a global influence far beyond its size,” adds the British Jew, who moved to Israel in 2005.

Such complaints against the BBC have been voiced for years. In 2004, senior BBC news editor Malcolm Balen was even tasked with investigating the BBC’s reporting from the Middle East over persistent allegations of anti-Israeli bias. His report’s findings are rumored to be damning of the corporation, and the BBC has fought against their release.

Subtle verbal cues: Members of Fatah or Hamas known for their past involvement in terrorism and openly genocidal anti-Semitic views are often labeled “moderate” as long as they pay lip service to “the peace process.”

Meanwhile, Israelis who insist on reciprocal concessions from Palestinians in the land-for-peace scheme may end up being labeled “right-wing.”

“The common media labels include ‘Netanyahu is hawkish,’ ‘Abbas is a moderate,’ ‘Settlers are all religious fanatics,’ ‘Palestinians just want to harvest their olives in peace,’” a prolific American Jewish blogger who goes by the pseudonym Elder of Ziyon tells The Report.

Outright hostility: In a discussion ahead of the US presidential elections last year on Ireland’s TV3 channel, presenter Vincent Browne opined, “Israel is the cancer in foreign affairs. It polarizes the Islamic community of the world against the rest of the world.” That statement, Honest Reporting’s Plosker points out, has put the Irish broadcaster on a par with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has labeled the Jewish state a “cancerous tumor.” Browne later apologized for his “infelicitous use of the word [cancer],” before citing, like The Guardian’s Orr, the “injustice [of Israel’s creation] at the center of the conflict.”

To most Israelis, the second intifada broke out as follows: Then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered historic concessions to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat during the Camp David 2 negotiations of July 2000 to end the conflict. After some dithering, Arafat rejected them, returned home and launched a bloody uprising against Israel.

The international media, however, as is their wont, had a different spin on cause and effect: After the failed negotiations, disgruntled Palestinians started rioting, whereupon Israel began responding with brutal force.

The dichotomy between reality and media coverage proved the tipping point for Shraga Simmons, an American-born Israeli journalist.

He set up an email alert team whose members would notify one another of instances of biased news coverage and fire off letters to editors, demanding corrections.

[..........]

Today, Honest Reporting has some 150,000 subscribers worldwide. Headquartered in Jerusalem, the media watchdog operates offices in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.

The start of the second intifada, with the ensuing lopsided media coverage, was also a turning point for Levick, a political science graduate of Temple University in Philadelphia. “It caused me to drop my Oslo delusions that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was largely about territory,” he recalls. “I realized that Israel was in a war of survival.”

He began writing letters to editors in defense of Israel, and went on to work for the Anti-Defamation League, where he scoured progressive journals and blogs for anti-Semitic content.  [........]

Last December, without warning or explanation, CiF’s administrators deleted Levick’s account and erased all his posts in the talkback section of the site, in which, he says, he strove to set the record straight about Israel. “They banned me, a Zionist Jew, from their talkback section, even as radical Islamists like Raed Salah [a leader of Israel’s Islamic Movement] and Hamas leaders are afforded above-the-line platforms [for full-length essays] despite promoting extreme anti-Semitism,” he fumes, branding the ban “petty and vindictive.”

Undeterred, Levick maintains his mission on his blog. His aim, he says, is to demand not only balance but also an accurate reflection of the facts. “The disinformation propagated daily about Israel in [some] foreign media outlets is astonishing,” Levick says.

[.........]
Easier said than done: A hatchet job on Page 1 carries far more weight than a subsequent brief correction at the bottom of Page 13 – if any editorial mea culpa is forthcoming at all. And once a malicious claim about Israel is afforded legitimacy by mainstream media coverage, it will often gain a life of its own – even once proven false – by being repeated endlessly on social media by “anti- Zionists.”

The fact that cause-and-effect relations are routinely ignored or obscured in media reports, thus masking the reasons for Israel’s actions, is cause for concern. The IDF’s response to a deadly terror attack or a series of provocations often ends up being presented as just another case of Israeli aggression, seemingly out of the blue, against long-suffering Palestinians.

It’s invariably described as “disproportional.”

“We [often] see biased headlines where chronology is inverted and Israeli countermeasures against terror are the focus rather than the Palestinian terror that prompted them in the first place,” Plosker notes.

Similarly, whereas journalists exercise a healthy skepticism towards all Israeli sources, they rarely extend the same “courtesy” to Palestinian ones.  [........]
“One studio guest on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio show recently suggested that Israel had been responsible for attacking its own embassies [during a recent spate of terror attacks from India to Thailand] in a pretext for a planned attack on Iran,” Plosker says.

“That disgusting canard was allowed to stand by the interviewer. Equally appalling was one Canadian television host’s assertion on Quebec TV that Israel simply didn’t deserve to exist. Which other country has its own existence called into question in the media?” Often it’s not only what foreign media report, but also what they don’t. Calumnies of Jewish perfidy and Zionist brutality are commonplace in the Arab and Palestinian media, but almost none of it shows up in foreign media analyses about the “root causes” of the conflict. All “cycles of violence” and any lack of peace are down to Israel’s “brutal” and “illegal” occupation of Palestinian territories, and that’s that.

In the same vein, whereas Israel is a modern, democratic, multicultural country in which citizens enjoy a vibrant cultural life and boisterous free press, many foreign journalists prefer to ignore all this and frame almost any story, even about mundane matters of daily life, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In news report after news report, Israelis and Palestinians are portrayed as mere extras in a great morality play of the oppressors and the oppressed.

[.........]

Then there’s Time magazine’s notorious cover story on September 7, 2010: “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace.” Featuring a picture of Israelis smoking hookahs on a beach, the report, by correspondent Karl Vick, describes Israelis as callous, happy-go-lucky souls, who prefer to engage in “making money” rather than peace. The Anti-Defamation League condemned the article for its “insidious subtext,” and Honest Reporting named Vick “Dishonest Reporter of the Year” in its roundup of most noteworthy journalistic hit-and- run jobs.

A few months later, Time followed up with a piece arguing that “Israel’s promotion of its progressive gay-rights record [is] a way to cover up ongoing human-rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza.” The theme was taken up by The New York Times, which published an op-ed by Sarah Schulman, an American gay rights advocate and anti-Israel activist, who argued that the Jewish state uses “such pinkwashing” to “conceal the continuing violations of Palestinians’ human rights.”

Pro-Israel bias? What pro-Israel bias? Well, according to pro-Palestinian media watchers, it’s flagrant pro-Zionist bias that permeates the media. Last October, Middle East Monitor (MEMO), a news agency that promotes a pro-Palestinian agenda, staged a book launch at the University of London for “The Battle for Public Opinion in Europe,” which argues that mainstream European media outlets “routinely espouse Israeli government propaganda [in the service] of the Israel lobby in Europe.”

The launch’s panel featured The Guardian columnist Seamus Milne and Tim Llewellyn, the BBC’s former Middle East correspondent.

Llewellyn insisted that “a tremendously well-organized, careful, assiduous and extremely well-financed propaganda campaign” is under way in Britain “through the higher levels of pro-Israel Zionists who are scattered at strategic points throughout the British establishment.”

He lamented the pressure on the BBC to exercise “self-censorship” about Zionist “atrocities” by “an alien people in the region [Middle East].” The Guardian’s Milne seconded Llewellyn. “There are well-funded and well-organized organizations that campaign in support of Israel,” he said. “If you’re editing in these areas, you will find pressure and campaigning constantly by those groups.”

Presumably, they were referring to the likes of Honest Reporting and CiF Watch.

The charge of an orchestrated pro-Zionist PR juggernaut to cow Western news organizations into submission through letter writing campaigns and other tactics is nothing new.

Vocal critics of Israel dismiss all noise about perceived anti-Israel bias in the media as just another bogus claim of hasbara (literally “explanation,” but often used as a synonym for “Zionist propaganda”).

Pro-Israel media watchers do call on their readers to fire off letters of complaint to “offending” news organizations. Honest Reporting openly engages in such pressure techniques. “Often, the sheer weight of the numbers of people sending complaints or just the exposure of an instance of bias can force a change,” Plosker acknowledges. “This can be anything from a simple correction or retraction all the way to, for instance, the firing of CNN’s senior Middle East editor Octavia Nasr [in July 2010] after she tweeted her admiration for Hezbollah founder Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah upon his death.”

But Levick, whose modest Jerusalem apartment doubles as his office, rejects the idea that he’s part of some “well-funded and well-organized campaign” of coercion against The Guardian. “We support vigorous and open debate about Israel and Jewish-related issues, including issues of controversy [so long as they fall within the bounds of honest and fair criticism],” he counters. “Just like The Guardian, we engage in the marketplace of ideas. Our only weapons are our words, facts and logic.”

The foreign media can criticize Israel and should, agrees Michelle Whiteman, a lawyer who runs Honest Reporting’s operations in Quebec, Canada. It’s the nature of a criticism that holds a clue as to whether journalists do so in good faith. “It’s not anti-Semitic to criticize Israel’s actions,” she stresses. “But a singular preoccupation with those actions and a selective condemnation of them point in that direction. Take checkpoints and security barriers.

Many countries have them, yet Israel’s are often exclusively singled out as a symbol of repression, rather than as a measure of security.”

“Israel is held to far higher standards than other countries in the Middle East,” a foreign correspondent with long experience in the region concedes. “There’s a certain expectation by editors to have stories [adhere to] the David and Goliath narrative,” he explains. “But I don’t think it’s because of anti-Israel bias.

They just don’t want to look insensitive [to the Palestinians].”

But Barry Rubin doesn’t believe media bias is a matter of sensitivity. “Those of us who have seen behind the scenes know how bad it is,” Prof. Rubin, a prolific author and Middle East expert, tells The Report. “Most editors have no trouble with complete bias. We have a number of issues at play here – sympathy for the underdog, progressives’ hostility to the West, misdirection by the Palestinians.

“When you have that, you have conscious, deliberate bias,” Rubin, an American-born Israeli, adds. “A lot of journalists have an ideological bias and their editors fail to uphold journalistic standards. And that isn’t just true of Israel; it’s true of a large number of subjects. In fact, the [biased] media treatment of Israel is becoming closer to typical.”

Context, balance and even common sense often take a backseat to agenda journalism, notes Rubin, who argues that “the media has become a tool in a political struggle.” The worst offenders, he says, are wire services like Reuters, the Associated Press and Agence France-Presse, which rely on local stringers and freelance photographers, many of whom seem to make no bones about playing fast and loose with facts and misrepresenting events.

Several wire photographers have over the years been shown to pass off carefully staged and choreographed Palestinian propaganda events – so-called Pallywood productions – as spontaneous happenings. And images do matter. For people who are largely unfamiliar with the history and current realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the issue of right and wrong gets filtered through select media images.

In some cases, thinly veiled advocacy journalism hides behind a make-work pretense of objectivity, as the justness of the Palestinian cause is seen to override common journalistic standards of impartiality, balance and even accuracy. In other cases, simple wishful thinking is at work.

“[Many] journalists’ desire for peace often outweighs the evidence in front of them,” argues blogger Elder of Ziyon, an IT professional who often dissects news articles and op-eds about Israel on his site. “Hamas’s leaders call for the destruction of Israel in Arabic literally every day,” he says. “Yet a recent piece in The New York Times argued that they have accepted the two-state solution.

The reporter didn’t have any quote that proved it, only quotes that he felt implied it.

Journalists’ wishful thinking leads them to believe that both sides in the conflict have the same ethics and goals. That assumption is rarely true.”

[.......]

“Occasionally, anti-Semitism does rear its ugly head, but the reality is far more complex.

The Palestinian narrative has become dominant in Western discourse, particularly in academic and liberal circles. Today’s journalists graduated from campuses where the norm is a postmodern narrative that denies Israel’s rightful historical place in the Middle East.”

That’s how the usual red herrings have taken unshakable hold, especially in op-eds: Israeli “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “neo-colonialism.” Ironically, however, it’s Israeli society’s openness, not its “racist” insularity, that can work against it, Plosker stresses. “Israel is a free society and journalists are at liberty to pursue stories without hindrance from the state,” he says. “This is much less so in the Palestinian territories, where journalists are more wary of reporting negative stories about the Palestinians for fear of losing access or, in the worst cases, because of intimidation and threats of violence.”

Media bias doesn’t just skew views about Israel; it can have severe real-life consequences, Sela insists. “The media is a major battlefield,” she says. “Negative reports coming out during the 2006 Lebanon War, for example, affected the parameters that the IDF could operate under” in trying to root out Hezbollah strongholds targeting Israel with rockets and missiles.

And so, for pro-Israeli media watchers, the media war carries on. “Our existence keeps the media on notice and ensures a level of accountability that would not otherwise exist,” Plosker says. “Many battles, if left unfought, would lead to a far worse situation for Israel’s image in the media. We can’t let that happen.”

Read the rest  – Watchdogs on the media battlefield

Tags: , ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

45 Responses to “Watchdogs of the Middle East media battlefield”
( jump to bottom )

  1. eaglesoars
    1 | February 11, 2013 7:17 am

    I just woke up. To a parallel universe.

    Pope Ben has resigned?

    He’s been a bulwark in this fight.

    Maybe I’ll go back to bed


  2. 2 | February 11, 2013 7:23 am

    Yup. ADMINS: I have a Headlines Thread. If you wish to move it into regular discussion, by all means!


  3. 3 | February 11, 2013 7:25 am

    eaglesoars wrote:

    I just woke up. To a parallel universe.

    Pope Ben has resigned?

    He’s been a bulwark in this fight.

    Maybe I’ll go back to bed

    Yeah, the first Papal resignation in 600 years. I guess it would be too much to hope that Timothy Cardinal Dolan could become the first American Pope….yeah, methinks too much.


  4. Speranza
    4 | February 11, 2013 7:31 am

    @ MacDuff:
    I am not happy to read that!


  5. rain of lead
    5 | February 11, 2013 8:17 am

    I have said this before…

    “I don’t want to live in interesting times!!!”


  6. rain of lead
    6 | February 11, 2013 8:23 am

    something to make you go hmmmm

    How Roberts Was Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare

    http://tinyurl.com/cooqt53

    In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children. Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were “from a Latin American country”, but over time it has become apparent that the adopted children were not Latin American, but were Irish.

    However Irish law 1) prohibits the adoption of Children to non-residents, and 2) also does not permit private adoptions, but rather has all adoptions go through a public agency.

    This would explain the children’s origin from a “Latin American country”, so as to circumvent Irish law.

    The circumstances of these two adoptions explain not only why this would be overlooked by an overall sympathetic media, but also why a sitting Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would not want this information to become public fodder well into his tenure. Its release and public discussion would discredit Roberts as an impartial judge of the law, and undoubtedly lead to his impeachment.

    This also explains why Roberts would have a means to be blackmailed, and why that leverage would still exist even after the institution of ObamaCare.

    … And it has led to flipping the swing-vote on ObamaCare, which fundamentally changed the relationship between citizen and government, making us de facto property of the state, with our relative worth in care and maintenance able to be determined by the government. Essentially it was a coup without firing a shot, much less needing even an Amendment to the Constitution.

    And it is consistent with Obama’s Chicago-style politics, that has previously involved opening other sealed records in order to win election.

    don’t know if this is in the least bit true or not but it sure does seem plausable


  7. rain of lead
    7 | February 11, 2013 8:26 am

    and more crap to make you go hmmmm

    Bombshell Benghazi Expose Details Obama’s Illegal Secret War…

    http://theulstermanreport.com/2013/02/10/bombshell-benghazi-expose-details-obamas-illegal-secret-war/


  8. rain of lead
    8 | February 11, 2013 8:28 am

    @ rain of lead:

    and more here
    http://weaselzippers.us/

    Meanwhile, DSS agents called for help from the nearest Americans, at a CIA compound defended by much more experienced security men. Team leader Ty Woods, who had spent 20 years in the Navy SEALs, in minutes put together a plan in which he and five others would load up their weapons in a pair of armored Toyota Land Cruisers. Woods had a heated discussion about his rescue mission with his CIA boss, who opposed the idea, though the authors say it’s unclear whether Woods simply ignored orders or persuaded his superior to change his mind.

    The plan was to park outside the consulate, climb over the walls and ambush the attackers with a machine gun, rifles and grenades called “golden eggs.” At first, it worked beautifully. Many of the jihadists were killed and others were confused and scrambling for cover. The authors estimate more than 100 attackers were killed in total.

    Woods took the opportunity to evacuate the DSS agents at the compound, putting them in a Land Cruiser and directing them back to the local CIA building.

    Woods told them to turn right outside the consulate: “Do not go left into bad guy land,” he said. Confused, they turned left anyway and took on heavy gunfire, though the vehicle’s armor held up and they eventually made it to the CIA hideout.

    At the consulate, Woods entered the blazing building in which Smith and Stevens had hidden when the terrorists’ assault began. Woods found Smith, who was unconscious and would shortly die.


  9. rain of lead
    9 | February 11, 2013 8:31 am

    Pope Benedict XVI Resigns – Left Reacts With Typical Hate

    Of course, it took about 5 minutes for the left to react with their typical hate.
    Frankie Boyle: “Don’t worry, in a few months you’ll be laughing about this. With Hitler in Hell.”

    in other words water is still wet


  10. Guggi
    10 | February 11, 2013 8:47 am

    @ rain of lead:

    This was known since 2005


  11. Speranza
    11 | February 11, 2013 11:28 am

    The British media is awful concerning Israel.


  12. Speranza
    12 | February 11, 2013 11:29 am

    The American media is not much better.


  13. Speranza
    13 | February 11, 2013 11:48 am

    Caroline Glick feels that Israel should not even waste its time with trying to correct British attitudes as the anti Israel sentiments there have little to do with any Israeli behavior but ingrained antisemitism, anti- Americanism, and a cultural self loathing.


  14. 14 | February 11, 2013 11:58 am

    rain of lead wrote:

    Its release and public discussion would discredit Roberts as an impartial judge of the law, and undoubtedly lead to his impeachment.

    I call bullshit. No way this would lead to Roberts being Impeached. Impeachment is a dead letter, really, for people that high up in the government. Clinton proved that.


  15. taxfreekiller
    15 | February 11, 2013 12:10 pm

    OT

    Do not watch the grimey grammy awards sluts on prade TV show off show.

    But see they dressed down once more. Makes me think of “Cake’s”

    “Rock N’ Roll Lifestyle”

    http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/14935/

    Saw then here in Texas at the “Cadilack Lounge” in Houston.

    They added this for Texas put on people,

    “How do you afford your “Rock N’ Roll Life Style” and the payments on your shiney new Black GMC dualey Pick’n'up’truck…..


  16. taxfreekiller
    16 | February 11, 2013 12:18 pm

    Would not suprise me if BO has a lazer to use to guide a missle or missles from Iran to important target/targets in Israel.

    After all he uses forward a lot.

    Forward Observer?


  17. Speranza
    17 | February 11, 2013 12:27 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    rain of lead wrote:
    Its release and public discussion would discredit Roberts as an impartial judge of the law, and undoubtedly lead to his impeachment.
    I call bullshit. No way this would lead to Roberts being Impeached. Impeachment is a dead letter, really, for people that high up in the government. Clinton proved that.

    Hey Roberts came through for Obama -- still Obama would love to get rid of him.


  18. 18 | February 11, 2013 12:35 pm

    @ Speranza:

    I’m sure he would, but Obama can’t impeach anyone. That is up to the House of Representatives, which is in Republican hands. No, I don’ tbuy hat Roberts was blackmailed, at least directly. I think Obama put pressure on him not to seem partisan, and despite the fact that the other four liberal Justices are nothing but partisan hacks, Roberts fell for it.


  19. 19 | February 11, 2013 12:44 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    I think Roberts is not an economic Conservatives. He may be a Socially Conservatives but that doesn’t mean he’s an Economic Conservatives. Bush, Santorum and Huckabee are prime examples. He’s probably a Compassionate Conservative like Bush and felt Obamacare helps the poor.

    I think this is what’s at work here.


  20. 20 | February 11, 2013 12:51 pm

    @ Rodan:

    It could be. I honestly hope you are correct. That would be a much better answer than that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is easily intimidated by the Black Jesus®.


  21. 21 | February 11, 2013 1:02 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Alito is economically Conservatives and Fiscally Conservatives. I do not think Bush was concerned about economic/fiscal Conservatism when he appointed his judges. He wanted to make sure the Left did not push anymore social stuff through the courts. Alito turned out to be both fiscal and economic, while Roberts was only socially.

    I don’t think Roberts was intimidated by Obama. I really think he thought Obamacare was a good thing. Let’s be honest, I easily could have seen Bush doing Obamacare in the name of compassion.


  22. 22 | February 11, 2013 1:09 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    rain of lead wrote:
    Its release and public discussion would discredit Roberts as an impartial judge of the law, and undoubtedly lead to his impeachment.
    I call bullshit. No way this would lead to Roberts being Impeached. Impeachment is a dead letter, really, for people that high up in the government. Clinton proved that.

    Agreed -- lawn fertilizer. First thing I did was check to see if it was from World Nut Daily…


  23. heysoos
    23 | February 11, 2013 1:11 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    Alito is economically Conservatives and Fiscally Conservatives. I do not think Bush was concerned about economic/fiscal Conservatism when he appointed his judges. He wanted to make sure the Left did not push anymore social stuff through the courts. Alito turned out to be both fiscal and economic, while Roberts was only socially.
    I don’t think Roberts was intimidated by Obama. I really think he thought Obamacare was a good thing. Let’s be honest, I easily could have seen Bush doing Obamacare in the name of compassion.

    Ocare is gonna be a disaster for CA…the wheels are falling off this bizarre, doomed to fail law

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/obamacare_shell_game_now_apparent.html


  24. 24 | February 11, 2013 1:13 pm

    @ heysoos:

    Its a disaster, but no one will care. Obama is their god and they love him.


  25. BatGuano
    25 | February 11, 2013 1:24 pm

    @ heysoos:
    Medical school is expensive ,Malpractice insurance is expensive, Doctors are in short supply and no coercive government program can remedy this even if scotus says it is constitutional because it is a “tax”.


  26. RIX
    26 | February 11, 2013 1:32 pm

    @ BatGuano:
    Medical schools arec not attracting the number of applicants
    that they need.
    Doctors are leaving their prctices.
    The doctor shortage is an issue now & ObamaCare is making
    it worse..


  27. BatGuano
    27 | February 11, 2013 1:38 pm

    @ RIX:
    Indeed Obamacare is making it worse. If I were a bright young man trying to decide on a career I would discard an MD in favor of an MBA or BSEE


  28. RIX
    28 | February 11, 2013 1:45 pm

    BatGuano wrote:

    @ RIX:
    Indeed Obamacare is making it worse. If I were a bright young man trying to decide on a career I would discard an MD in favor of an MBA or BSEE

    That is apparently what is happening.
    We will be forced ton fill the void with doctors from
    the Third World & many will have dubious credentials.
    The issue in medical delivery has been cost not quality.
    Obama is destroying the system


  29. coldwarrior
    29 | February 11, 2013 1:46 pm

    @ RIX:

    gotta break the backs of those pesky american doctors. they dared defy HIM!


  30. coldwarrior
    30 | February 11, 2013 1:47 pm

    RIX wrote:

    We will be forced ton fill the void with doctors from
    the Third World & many will have dubious credentials.

    the indians are good. the others form the subcontinent are not.

    the void will also be filled by NPs. i should have that credential in 5 years or so.


  31. Speranza
    31 | February 11, 2013 1:51 pm

    BatGuano wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    Medical school is expensive ,Malpractice insurance is expensive, Doctors are in short supply and no coercive government program can remedy this even if scotus says it is constitutional because it is a “tax”.

    Thank you John Roberts.


  32. RIX
    32 | February 11, 2013 1:52 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ RIX:

    gotta break the backs of those pesky american doctors. they dared defy HIM!

    And he’s doing it.


  33. coldwarrior
    33 | February 11, 2013 1:54 pm

    RIX wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    @ RIX:
    gotta break the backs of those pesky american doctors. they dared defy HIM!

    And he’s doing it.

    the third worlders will gladly work for less pay.

    sey hello to achmed, your new cardiologist. he studied at the medical college and madrases at lahore, pakistan.


  34. RIX
    34 | February 11, 2013 1:55 pm

    the indians are good. the others form the subcontinent are not.

    the void will also be filled by NPs. i should have that credential in 5 years or so.@ coldwarrior:

    You are in a good position.


  35. RIX
    35 | February 11, 2013 1:56 pm

    the third worlders will gladly work for less pay.

    sey hello to achmed, your new cardiologist. he studied at the medical college and madrases at lahore, pakistan.
    @ coldwarrior:

    It will go just that way.


  36. 36 | February 11, 2013 1:59 pm

    @ Speranza:

    See my #19 and #21.


  37. heysoos
    37 | February 11, 2013 1:59 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    RIX wrote:
    We will be forced ton fill the void with doctors from
    the Third World & many will have dubious credentials.
    the indians are good. the others form the subcontinent are not.
    the void will also be filled by NPs. i should have that credential in 5 years or so.

    my ex just got hers, 52yrs old…she’s thrilled after so many years…she’s headed to Costa Rica


  38. heysoos
    38 | February 11, 2013 2:04 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    RIX wrote:
    coldwarrior wrote:
    @ RIX:
    gotta break the backs of those pesky american doctors. they dared defy HIM!
    And he’s doing it.

    the third worlders will gladly work for less pay.
    sey hello to achmed, your new cardiologist. he studied at the medical college and madrases at lahore, pakistan.

    we used the PACS system to send out pics and scans to India to be read…the radiologists over there were excellent and always timely


  39. BatGuano
    39 | February 11, 2013 2:07 pm

    @ Speranza:
    Social or conservative justice of the supreme court, all I want is a justice who upholds the constitution. Roberts has failed.


  40. 40 | February 11, 2013 2:07 pm

    BatGuano wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Social or conservative justice of the supreme court, all I want is a justice who upholds the constitution. Roberts has failed.

    Agreed!


  41. eaglesoars
    41 | February 11, 2013 2:14 pm

    BatGuano wrote:

    in favor of an MBA or BSEE

    I wouldn’t waste my time on an MBA. If I had to counsel a young man right now -- I’d recommend plumber, electrician, etc, some solid vocational trade. He could pursue a college degree later, if he liked, a few credits at a time, w/o incurring all that debt.


  42. BatGuano
    42 | February 11, 2013 2:20 pm

    @ eaglesoars:
    Good idea.


  43. Da_Beerfreak
    43 | February 11, 2013 2:40 pm

    rain of lead wrote:

    something to make you go hmmmm

    How Roberts Was Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare

    http://tinyurl.com/cooqt53

    In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children. Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were “from a Latin American country”, but over time it has become apparent that the adopted children were not Latin American, but were Irish.

    However Irish law 1) prohibits the adoption of Children to non-residents, and 2) also does not permit private adoptions, but rather has all adoptions go through a public agency.

    This would explain the children’s origin from a “Latin American country”, so as to circumvent Irish law.

    The circumstances of these two adoptions explain not only why this would be overlooked by an overall sympathetic media, but also why a sitting Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would not want this information to become public fodder well into his tenure. Its release and public discussion would discredit Roberts as an impartial judge of the law, and undoubtedly lead to his impeachment.

    This also explains why Roberts would have a means to be blackmailed, and why that leverage would still exist even after the institution of ObamaCare.

    … And it has led to flipping the swing-vote on ObamaCare, which fundamentally changed the relationship between citizen and government, making us de facto property of the state, with our relative worth in care and maintenance able to be determined by the government. Essentially it was a coup without firing a shot, much less needing even an Amendment to the Constitution.

    And it is consistent with Obama’s Chicago-style politics, that has previously involved opening other sealed records in order to win election.

    don’t know if this is in the least bit true or not but it sure does seem plausable

    If it is true, then we do not have a legitimate Government in Washington D.C..


  44. Speranza
    44 | February 11, 2013 2:52 pm

    The 11:00AM time slot is where threads go to die.


  45. Speranza
    45 | February 11, 2013 2:55 pm

    BatGuano wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Social or conservative justice of the supreme court, all I want is a justice who upholds the constitution. Roberts has failed.

    What a quaint idea.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David