In this episode, “NewsBusted” covers: Republicans, Democrats, Jobless Americans, Texas Governor Rick Perry, Fidel Castro, President Obama Poster, Al Gore, Current TV, Sammy Sosa, Lamar Odom, and Khloe Kardashian.

So apparently Sarah Palin sold over three hundred thousand copies of her book in one day – and as you can guess – they were all purchased by racists.

At least, that’s what the sociology professors over at MSNBC Community College believe. Check out Hardball guest Norah O’Donnell, impersonating a talking puffin…

“This is a largely white — almost no minorities in this crowd. And they`re here because they love Sarah Palin. I think it`s an emotional connection, Chris because they feel, too, that they`ve been beat up on, whether it`s the economy or they feel like outcasts. They like the outsider, if you will, in Sarah Palin. And that`s why people have been willing to wait, 1,500 of them, since 7:00 AM this morning to just get a glimpse of Sarah Palin.”

So let me get this straight: people appreciate Palin because they’ve been picked on by a big bully. It makes me wonder if Norah ever psycho-analyzed Obama supporters this closely… or called them “largely black.”

But hey, I guess that’s better than calling them a tribe or something. Chris?

“I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing, in other words, white vs. other people. I think she is very smart about this. Here she is on the issue of — of what happened down at Fort Hood, obviously, an ethnic issue, as many people see it..”

So, imagine for a moment, if during an Obama rally, Matthews described it as “tribal.” How fast would he be fired, and then ending up on Oprah issuing a tearful apology?

Boogla moogla, I might say.

Which is Greg-lingo, for “pretty fast.”

But here’s the real issue: I used to think this race-baiting tactic was a political ploy. But now I believe they mean it. They do think that if you’re against the policies of Obama, you must be racist. And that’s because in their profession, they don’t know anyone who’s against the policies of Obama! Surrounded by like-minded lackeys, they’re convinced that everyone beyond the tinted windows of their black cars must be card-carrying members of the Aryan Book Club.

The real truth: Whether it’s Norah O’Donnell or Chris Matthews – they’re just too scared to question a black man over policy.

And that’s authentic bigotry.

But what can you expect from a bunch of white people?

And if you disagree with me, then you’re probably a racist.

Tonight, another great lineup!

Andrew W.K.

Steven Crowder

Kimberly Guilfoyle

my mom!

Still, every now and then some elitist hack with a degree from the right college and the proper connections gets a job at a failing weekly magazine and decides to take a shot at you and your profession, feeling they are qualified to judge this art form because they know how to laugh and talk. This is rarely if ever done with other art forms. Seriously folks, when is the last time you saw an article about actors who can’t act, dancers who can’t dance, painters who can’t paint or pointless “performance artists.” Yet, about every six months some “critic” declares a number of famous comics “not funny.”   

Ms. Sarah Ball of the soon defunct Newsweek is the latest to declare some great comics “not funny.” In her article she lists 12 acts and gives snarky put downs of their talents. I found it interesting that Ms. Ball’s list is mostly west coast, politically conservative/moderate comics. Apparently if you are from New York and ultra-liberal Ms. Ball finds you hilarious!

Topping her list is every elitist favorite comedy punching bag Larry the Cable Guy. Larry’s sin seems to be he is a little too lowbrow for Ms. Ball, whom I am sure worships at the altar of urinator Larry David, and christophobe Sarah Silverman. There are a couple of folks working at the top of the intellectual chart. When talking about Dane Cook (I admit, not my favorite) she heaps praise on Louis C.K. (a guy I happen to also enjoy) who also tends towards the scatological for his humor.

Here is another thing that annoys me worst than Barney Frank, several times Ms. Ball demeans comics for being less than original and yet in her writing she uses a number of “stock” lines, clichés and banal comments. She also works for a magazine which recently selected a cover picture of Sarah Palin that was borrowed from a shoot for another magazine and used without contextual reference.

Ms. Ball also apparently hasn’t seen some of the comics she lists in some time. For Emo Phillips she uses an outdated photo, (again Newsweek using a photo out of context!) and critiques the vocal and delivery style he was using in the 90’s. Artists grow and change Ms. Ball; you might want to catch Bob Goldthwaite sometime this century too!  Her total critique of Jeff Dunham is that he is a ventriloquist, a comedy form she declared “went out of vogue in the Eisenhower era.” So did unbiased journalism and accurate reporting, Ms. Ball, but I’ll save that for another blog. Ventriloquism is experiencing a great revival outside elitist circles with Ronn Lucas and Terry Fator being two of the top draws in Las Vegas. While Jay Johnson, Jeff Dunham and Dan Horn wow audiences across the country. It might do Ms. Ball good to get out of Manhattan once in awhile and see what us rubes are doing out here in Flyoverland.

There are a lot of comics who I don’t find funny but I realize that my taste in comedy is skewered by my values, faith, politics and a number of other factors. I would never declare Bill Maher “not funny.” Though I find his drug addled ramblings repulsive at times, I realize that a number of equally intelligent folks find him hysterical. I might say I find his humor “baffling” or call him an “alleged” comedian but to declare him “not funny” isn’t fair to Bill or his fans.

People like different things, that’s why they put numbers on horses at the track. I would expect an open and fair minded progressive person like Ms. Ball to be a little more…what’s that word? Tolerant!

ABC News spends 2050 words explaining how irresponsible movie theater chains give their customers what they want  slowly kill their customers with fatty, sugary high-caloric snacks: 

Everyone expects to splurge a bit at the movies, but while your wallet may be able to handle an $8 tub of popcorn, your waistline may not — at least according to a new report released today by the consumers group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

Even popcorn did not escape the scrutiny of the report, which mentioned that even a small bag of the cinema favorite tips the scales at 700 calories and three days worth of saturated fat.

It’s not the first time that CSPI has given movie popcorn two thumbs down; the new report is actually a sequel to one in 1994 that gave similar negative reviews. And like the first version, the most recent edition of CSPI’s Nutrition Action Health Letter suggests moviegoers forego that trip to the concession stand altogether.

The report looked at the popcorn, soda and candy sold at the country’s top three movie theater chains: Regal Entertainment Group, AMC Theaters, and Cinemark. The researchers tallied the calories, saturated fat, sugar, and sodium in each theater’s various sizes and combos. Based on their findings, the authors warn the public that their movie-time indulgences may be a lot more indulgent than they bargained for. …

Cinemark notes that these are the “snacks [patrons] desire” and is meant to be “an escape from their everyday lives.”

But nutritionists note that this may be a dangerous escape. Keith-Thomas Ayoob, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, noted that chowing down on cinema’s monstrous portion sizes of this greasy treat and washing it down with a sugary drink can turn even an occasional trip to the movies into a “calorie nightmare,” Ayoob said.

Read between the lines: “…may be a lot more indulgent than they bargained for.” Catnip for trial lawyers. 

Phrases you’re unlikely to hear from ABC News:

• Your remorse after having an abortion might be more than you bargained for…
• The expense of ObamaCare might be more than you bargained for…
• Charlie Gibson’s ignorance about the ACORN story might be more than you bargained for…

Any minute now, Harry Reid will add a provision to the health-care bill making movie snacks illegal, add up the cost savings and declare it budget neutral.

In this episode, “NewsBusted” covers: Obama’s Bow to Japanese Emperor, Joe Biden’s Motorcade, Chris Matthews, Professor Punches Woman’s Face, Lou Dobbs, CNN, NASA, President Bush, Gold, Flavor Flav, and Mel Gibson.

Next week NBC is entering their “Green Week” of programming, infusing environmental messages across many of their prime-time shows. But the campaign does not only include entertainment programs – the eco-messaging will also be spread through NBC News’ Nightly News, Meet the Press, and the Today Show.

My question for the NBC News organization is this – will you be discussing the biggest global warming story of the year?

Early this year a study from Oregon State University, entitled Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals, contained the single biggest decision that anyone could make to dramatically lower their carbon footprint. And that decision? Have fewer kids.

The results of the report are actually mind boggling for anyone somewhat informed on environmental policy. The study investigates how the reproductive choices of an individual affects their “carbon legacy”, or said differently, the CO2 emissions attributable to a person’s offspring. What they found was that a US citizen’s decision of having a child adds 5.7 times the expected CO2 emissions for that citizen. Yes, 5.7 times!! This is due to the domino effect of your kids having kids, which have kids, and so on. 

An even more astounding aspect of the report was a comparison of the addition of two children to, say, the standard practices that lower your carbon footprint. For example, if a woman adopted all of the six eco-friendly behaviors highlighted in the report, she would reduce her carbon footprint by 486 tons of CO2 over her lifetime. But if she were to have two children, this would eventually add nearly 40 times that amount of CO2 to the earth’s atmosphere.

The decision of having fewer children decreases the carbon legacy of an individual by a staggering amount and is by far the single biggest decision an individual can make to affect the environment. This finding cannot be overstated. So it begs the question, why hasn’t the report affected global warming legislation?

As Al Gore has stated, “Our world faces a true planetary emergency.” If his apocalyptic vision is true, why has not one piece of legislation adopted an incentive for individuals to have fewer children?

I can think of only one possible answer…there is no emergency.

Around the time my beautiful daughter was born just a few years ago I noticed the increase in “stuff” attributed to her that went into our garbage on a daily basis. This rather obvious phenomenon sparked a question in my head that I shared with an eco-activist working on a “green” project of mine. “Why doesn’t the green movement encourage people to have less children as a solution to this global emergency,” I asked. “Well, we don’t talk about that because it isn’t politically correct,” he responded.

It was this answer, by someone spreading the message of apocalypse, that started my gradual transformation away from the alarmist position of global warming.

Having “fewer children” is not a policy that I am advocating here. I use it merely as a litmus test to the alarmist’s urgency. If China is any example, the “one-child” mandate has horrific social consequences. However, if we truly face the biggest crises we’ve ever encountered, the global warming proponents would surely have the political will to pass controversial legislation. Political correctness should not even remotely be the first concern for this group. In fact, it would hardly be considered controversial if the consequences were actually between life and extinction.

As recently as this past Monday, Senator John Kerry penned a Huffington Post article that read (emphasis added):

Now it’s time for a new generation of Americans to get in motion – because the very survival of our planet depends on them. Now is the time for young people who learned to flex their political muscle last November to shift into high-gear and get Washington to take on our historic legislation to combat global climate change.

For those that feel that our world will literally cease to exist, the findings in this report should have been viewed as the silver bullet to stop or, at the very least, dramatically slow the effects of global warming. But it wasn’t.

Why? Because companies like GE, the parent company of NBC News, doesn’t make a dime from a “solution” such as the one presented in the report. And Big Government can’t tax such a solution either. But both benefit from the “historic” cap-and-trade legislation pushed by Senator Kerry and the like. And if there is no emergency, why not take the money route.

Now of course there are sincere people that have a real concern for our environment and man-made pollution. I know many of them and include myself in that mainstream group. They create low toxicity products, encourage recycling and reuse, and are producing higher fuel efficient vehicles each year. We really do need to pay attention to our natural resources and protect against harmful effects on the environment. But after several years of working in the green movement, I’ve come to a rather cynical, yet I believe accurate, conclusion about global warming alarmism.

And that conclusion – global warming alarmism is a weapon, used by those wielding it, for personal gain.

Few would be surprised that MSNBC has aligned itself with this administration’s climate change legislation. But for non-opinion news organizations, studies like the “carbon legacy” report should provide ample fodder for questioning alarmist environmental policy. It shows just how far the hand of Big Green has reached into our lives when both NBC News and the heralded Meet The Press willfully agree to promote global warming legislation rather than turn a critical eye to alarmism.

In this episode, “NewsBusted” covers: Obama’s Historic Election, President Obama’s Weight Loss, Department of Homeland Security, Illegal Immigrants, Rachel Maddow, HBO’s Obama Documentary, Dog Carbon Footprints, Jon Gosselin, and Rude Americans.

–

In this episode, “NewsBusted” covers: Democratic Health Care Bill, Health Care Protests, 10.2% Unemployment, NBC News, Maine Rejects Same-Sex Marriage, Al Gore, Newsweek Magazine, Twitter, and MSNBC.

“By the People” is a praise initiative that doesn’t offer much beyond what politicos and Obama enthusiasts already know: Obama was a regular Joe who, through a series of (unfortunate for the American people) events, captured the presidency.

While Hollywood’s insane obsession with anything and anyone left of center is never a surprise, one should ardently question why HBO, after purchasing the film for seven figures, has chosen to ignore other intriguing political stories.  Why not balance the film with another special or documentary that explores the McCain-Palin campaign?  One could argue, as I’m sure HBO would, that the focus of the film is on to the winning candidate.  Fine.  Argue away, but anyone with a pulse knows we’d be hard pressed to see a similar accolade to a Republican victor.  Furthermore, Sarah Palin’s initial book sales prove that she’s a brand worth exploring.  So, why not go for it?

And then there’s the timing of the film’s release.  The network chose to air the documentary at a time when majorities oppose various elements of the president’s agenda and smack dab in the middle of some highly-contested state and local races.  Add the film’s timing to some of the more bizarre, behind-the-scenes connections and you can begin to triangulate relationships and allegiances.

First, let’s consider the film’s producer – famed actor Edward Norton.  While one should never be surprised by a Hollywood celebrity’s urge to support leftist inclinations, in this case there’s a twist.  To bring the film to fruition, Norton worked with Ari Emanuel, the brother of Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.  Last November, Gawker reported the following:

“… at one point it looked like some of film’s distribution proceeds might be headed back in the general direction of the Obama camp. As of eight months ago, Endeavor Agency’s Ari Emanuel was the agent for the film. Emanuel, of course, is the brother of Rahm Emanuel, just named Obama’s chief of staff. He was also an Obama fundraiser…”

So, Edward Norton shopped the documentary with Ari Emanuel, a man with a vested interest in Barack Obama’s campaign – and, a guy with key access to top government officials.  Unbelievable.  Perhaps most hilarious is Variety’s coverage from early 2008: “Norton said the motivation behind the film was not to glorify its subject.” Anyone out there actually believe that?  According to Rice, “When we shot the final scenes in the Oval Office, [Obama] he asked us, ‘What do you guys need?’  It was incredibly special. I got choked up.”

Is Rice sense-retardant?  She was creating a documentary that was more than favorable to the Obama camp.  Of course he was more than willing to assist!

As a professor, one of the main listening skills I work to instill in my students is the ability to determine what a speaker isn’t telling an audience.  Often times, some of the most intriguing information is embedded in omitted material.

At the beginning of the film, in footage circa 2006, Barack Obama is asked if he plans to run for the presidency.  In response, Obama says he is unsure and explains that he plans to look into how he would best serve the country.  Considering the foreknowledge that he might run, it was odd that the filmmakers chose to lead with this.  In fact, it was two years earlier, in 2004, when Obama said that he would not run in 2008, citing his inexperience.  Call it poor research on the filmmakers’ part or purposeful exclusion, but the words “Obama” and “American presidency” were uttered well before the 2006 midterm elections.

Here is Obama’s 2004 response to the question, “So, why have you ruled that out – running nationally?”:

“I am a believer in…knowing what you’re doing…when you apply for a job…”

“If I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket…I would essentially have to start now…before having served a day in the Senate. Now there might be some people who would have no problem doing that, but ah…I’m not one of them.”

We all know how good Obama is at keeping promises.

Now, let’s talk about the film’s contents.  Of particular interest and concern is the control Obama has over America’s young generation.  In the film, David Axlerod explained that one of Obama’s main motivations for running stemmed from his urge to show children that “anything is possible.”  In political terms that means, “We’ve found our voting bloc!”

When speaking about the Iowa caucus, Axlerod said, “These kids are going to win it for us…they think they’re changing the world…we need more of that.”  Robert Gibbs awkwardly intervened, saying, “The good news is, I think they are.”  The latter statement was an attempt to bridge the divide between Axlerod’s campaign analytics and the need for more audience-friendly interaction.  In the end, it’s evident that Obama and Co. were intent on exploiting young Americans, a tactic that worked wonderfully in their favor.

Race was another theme that appeared periodically throughout the film.  Interviews with citizens positioned Obama as the most unlikely of all candidates to win, with respondents stating that the nation wasn’t ready for an African-American president.  Ironically, liberals are the main culprits who railed on and on about how ill-prepared the nation was for this advancement.  As a conservative, I was more than ready, pending the individual capturing the top spot had the qualifications to perform the job.  Barack Obama did not have those needed elements.  Needless to say, the filmmakers didn’t speak with many people who thought it was, indeed, possible for a black man to win the presidency.

The entire film centered around the “emotional” impact Obama has had on America’s young generation.  As a 26-year-old young guy, I’m not feeling it.  Throughout the film, campaign workers cried fervently, chanted Obama praises and gave their all for “change they could believe in.”  While this is their right, the film itself was less than objective.  And I’m fine with that as well, but it would be an extraordinarily overdue kudos to democracy to see HBO (Honoring Barack Obama) air a similarly fair-minded film that centers on Palin’s historic run or McCain’s heroic life story.

Watching Hollywood and the Democratic elite pat each other on the back is getting old.  HBO and other media companies should consider being more fair minded and delving into the other side on a more frequent basis.  In the case of “By the People,” though, the media and entertainment cronyism will take your breath away.  No wonder Obama picks fights with the media who disagree with him.  He’s become accustomed to lapdog media and liberal Hollywood.  Let’s hope these institutions challenge him a bit more here on in.