Wow, ACORN nailed again. That’s gonna leave a mark . . . provided that a network other than Fox reports on it. Seems that the ACORN folks lied about throwing James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles out of their Philadelphia office. The audio is edited in spots due to legal concerns, but the full thing should be forthcoming soon. Yet just watch Congress re-approve funding for ACORN.
Interesting analysis by Verum Serum: Obama’s enemy isn’t just Fox, it is the “Army of Davids.”
But hold on a minute…Dig a bit deeper and you quickly realize that the White House’s problem isn’t with FOX at all because FOX isn’t the source of any of these stories.
Van Jones didn’t come from FOX, it came from Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit. ACORN didn’t come from FOX but from two intrepid activists via Breitbart’s Big Government. Similarly, the NEA story didn’t come from FOX, it came from one individual, Patrick Courrielche, writing at Big Hollywood who had the nerve to tape the conference call and report on it. And, not to toot our own horn, but they weren’t too happy with the “wise Latina” story that originated right here at VS.
The biased MSM is still getting it wrong on Willie Horton, as Ann Coulter explains:
The Bush campaign commercial about Dukakis’ furlough program never showed a picture of Horton. In fact, the actors playing “criminals” passing through a revolving door in the ad were all white.
Voters considered it relevant that a candidate for president was so beholden to the ACLU that he backed an idiotic furlough program that released first-degree murderers.
Every informed student of the 1988 campaign knows that the Bush ad didn’t show Horton’s picture. And yet in Keith’s discussion of Bush’s allegedly vile, racist use of Willie Horton, he used a phony version of the ad, doctored to include a photo of Horton.
fyi — I may re-run some favorite posts for a while each Friday. There are quite a few new readers from my Facebook account and I thought they might be of interest.
A commenter on a Facebook page thought it ironic that I could hold the same view that a racist might, yet for different reasons. I suppose it is ironic, but quite logical when you give it further thought. My response to him:
Please don’t confuse beliefs with motives. If a racist believed that racial quotes helped blacks then he would oppose them.
But if he believed that racial quotas hurt blacks (by perpetuating the myth that they can’t compete and calling into question the very real successes of countless people) then he would favor them.
And vice verse: Non-racists could support racial quotas if they thought the quotas really helped and could oppose quotas if they thought they really hurt blacks.
The moral: Look to the reasons behind the beliefs. If you have good reason to question the motives of the person in question, that is different. For example, those pushing the health care agenda have been caught in so many transparent falsehoods that I don’t believe anything they say now.