In remarks which will more than likely be ignored by the establishment press, Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse in essence blamed yesterday's deadly tornado which struck Moore, Oklahoma on Republicans who have "run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings." Whitehouse was intensely upset because, in his view these red state ignoramuses who are allowing ever more intense, climate change-caused storms to occur because of their inaction expect the rest of the country to pay for disaster relief in their states as they deliberately inflict damage on blue states like his own and Oregon. As a free bonus, he threw in a detestable Cold War analogy.
The video of Whitehouse's speech as presented at the Senator's own YouTube channel and a transcript follow the jump. View the video; Whitehouse's condescending contempt for people who won't accept what history will likely record is one of the greatest attempted hoaxes ever perpetrated on mankind is a sight to behold (HT to FreeRepublic for transcript; some editing was necessary to match the actual speech; bolds are mine):
Scott Pelley deserves grudging credit for recognizing something obvious at a Friday luncheon in New York. Readers tempted to go beyond that point would be advised to visit the archive of Pelley-related posts at NewsBusters on his brand of so-called journalism, a few of which will be identified later in this post.
At said luncheon, Pelley received the 20th annual Fred Friendly First Amendment Award from the School of Communications at Quinnipiac University. In his acceptance speech (full YouTube; excerpt here; HT Weekly Standard), Pelley spoke of journalistic failures during the past few months. He wants to believe that the past few months have been extraordinarily bad to a supposedly unprecedented extent.
Perhaps hoping that readers wouldn't scroll down to peruse what followed, a Tuesday evening Detroit Free Press report by David Jesse and Lori Higgins carried at USA Today featured a video taking up my entire computer screen which consisted entirely of union protesters chanting slogans for 49 seconds.
The pair's actual report carries a misleading headline ("Mich. governor signs anti-union bills after protests") directly contradicted in their dispatch's content ("The right-to-work legislation ... makes it illegal to require financial support of a labor union as a condition of employment"). But it's their description of Tuesday's incident involving Steven Crowder and Americans for Prosperity which is the report's biggest flaw (HT Instapundit):
Actor and comedian Steve Martin is a wild and crazy guy so it is no surprise that he would make a bizarre political endorsement. In this case the endorsement was for Bob Kerrey who is running for the senate seat from Nebraska. However, Steve Martin does not once mention Bob Kerrey or anything political in the "endorsement." Instead, Martin in the guise of a home crafts expert shows us how to make a wad of paper.
Your humble correspondent found the advice on how to make a wad of paper quite useful. In fact, for years I have struggled to achieve this but always fell short of my goal. But now thanks to Steve Martin's very informative video (below the not-paper fold) I can now expertly make the wad of paper of my dreams. The only downside to the video is the hand holding signs of support for Bob Kerrey that kept blocking my view.
Note: This post has been revised to reflect the Times's 2012 coverage. The original version erroneously linked to a 2010 article. I sincerely regret the error.
At the end of the parade, in news not relayed by the Times, at least one speaker called for suppression and criminalization of free speech and another seemed to revel in violence-based rhetoric. One can hardly argue that these presentations weren't related to the parade, since invited political dignitaries were on hand, including one gentleman, Democrat New York State Senator Tony Avello, who walked out after hearing calls for punishment speech seen to commit "blasphemy" against Muslim prophet Muhammed.
The New York Times, a Journalistic Enterprise, Is Ambivalent About the Free Expression Rights of Others
New York Times technology correspondent Somini Sengupta wrote a depressing article for the Sunday Review suggesting free speech could be limited by corporations (at the behest of government) in the interest of not offending the sensibilities of violent radical Muslims -- "Free Speech in the Age of YouTube."
Sengupta also seemed to sign on to the false notion that the anti-American violence in Egypt and Libya was tied to the shoddy old anti-Muhammad clip posted on YouTube, when in fact the violence on the anniversary of 9-11 had been long planned and the clip a pretext at best. (Meanwhile, Times editorial board member Lincoln Caplan was also disturbingly ambivalent on "absolutist" free speech on the domestic front.)
Acting on the premise that the trailer for the low-budget film "Innocence of Muslims" was one of the causes of rioting and anti-American protests across the Middle East this week, the Obama Administration has asked YouTube to "review" whether the two-minute preview "violates the Website's terms of service," a phrase that usually means the government wants the "offending" item deleted.
That move led the blogger at the conservative Ace of Spades Website to charge that the federal government is "now acting as the censorship arm of Islamists."
Yesterday, I spotlighted the unmourned casualty of Obama’s foreign policy/national security disaster bus: The First Amendment.
It gets worse. Last night, the LA Times reported that the White House leaned on YouTube to censor the anti-Islam movie that provided jihadis with handy cover and pretext for their long-planned attack on our diplomatic posts and embassies abroad:
Administration officials have asked YouTube to review a controversial video that many blame for spurring a wave of anti-American violence in the Middle East.
The administration flagged the 14-minute “Innocence of Muslims” video and asked that YouTube evaluate it to determine whether it violates the site’s terms of service, officials said Thursday. The video, which has been viewed by nearly 1.7 million users, depicts Muhammad as a child molester, womanizer and murderer — and has been decried as blasphemous and Islamophobic.
YouTube blocked access to the video in Egypt and Libya, where protests in Benghazi erupted in violence that claimed the life of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other embassy workers. However, the video remains on the site. Protests have spread to Yemen, where hundreds stormed the U.S. Embassy.
Longtime readers of my blogs will not be surprised by YouTube’s dhimmitude. I encountered the AllahTube/Dhimmitube censors in 2006 during the Mohammed Cartoons conflagration, when I first posted an innocuous, little homemade clip about the Religion of Perpetual Outrage’s war on Western free speech titled “First, They Came.” Over the years, the whitewashing of Google/YouTube to protect radical Muslim sensitivities has been well-documented. After GWU law professor Jeffrey Rosen wrote an extensive piece inside the world of Google censors, my little clip was un-banned, embedding was restored, and it can be seen here:
Critics of Islam on YouTube, however, are now on notice:
The White House is watching. You could be the next scapegoat for this administration’s deadly derelictions of duty.
A Twitter follower asks: So will the White House demand that YouTube take down all incendiary videos of Obama bragging about killing Bin Laden, too?
Too bad no one in the lapdog media will ask.
Oddly enough, videos like this one from the Associated Press of Obama singing the same song on January 20 are still available at YouTube:
Yet a Romney ad containing Obama singing this same song on the same day at the exact same event has been pulled:
In fact, there's practically a deluge of "Obama sings Al Green" videos functioning just fine at YouTube.
Why is the one used by the Romney campaign being singled out for copyright reasons?