Friday, January 27, 2006

Al Franken.....FREYED

What do disgraced author James Frey and left wing icon Al Franken have in common? Both have written best selling books, making millions of dollars in the process, that have proven to be dishonest and full of distortions

James Frey, disgraced author of A Million Little Pieces, was forced to come clean about the truthfulness of his memoirs as a former drug and alcohol abuser, and whose book sold nearly 2 million copies following the endorsement of day time talk show queen Oprah Winfrey.

Thanks to the work of thesmokinggun.com, many of Frey's bogus claims, such as his having gone through root canal without novacane, or his allegedly having been in jail for month's after assaulting a police officer, when in fact it was only for a few hours, have forced Frey and his publishers at Doubleday to come clean. Even more pressing are new calls for stricter enforcement of truth and accuracy by editors and publishers in the future.

This past summer, liberal talk show host and best selling author, Al Franken, was highly critical of Penguin Publishing, the firm that owns Dutton, Franken's publishers, for allowing another one of their subsidiaries, Sentinel, to publish, The Truth About Hillary, a book many claim was full of inaccuracies.

One big difference between the two is that had Oprah not endorsed Frey's book, chances are few if any people would have ever heard of him. Al Franken's book on the
other hand was hyped by the media as the "true expose against the lying right."

Why is James Frey being forced into humiliating himself before the country as a fraud while Al Franken continues to earn millions of dollars and remains unscathed?

On page 38 of Lies... Franken presents a graph crafted by the Pew Charitable Trusts as part of a study of political media coverage, which purports to show that media coverage of the 2000 Presidential campaign between the liberal Al Gore and conservative George Bush, Al Gore received a much higher percentage of negative coverage than George Bush. This graph, according to Franken proves that there is no liberal media bias. If there were, Gore would have received a much higher positive percentage of news coverage. But the truth is Franken distorted and manipulated the Pew's study. The graph he presented in his book was not of the presidential campaign, but of the last two month's before the election with the emphasis on the debates and each candidates performance in them.

On page 110 Franken cites a report from the Washington Post to prove that Bill Clinton was a committed and effective leader against terrorism. But the truth is, this report assembled by Barton Gellman was actually a long and detailed scathing indictment against Bill Clinton and his entire cabinet.

If authors and publishers are going to be held to new and stricter standards, which I believe they should, then we ought to begin with Al Franken, who has made his fortune smearing conservatives as liars while claiming to personally maintain impossibly high standards himself.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Joe Scarborough Drops the Ball

I rarely criticize conservatives in public, especially those whom I like, but on tonight's Scarborough Country, my buddy, Joe, my favorite non-Fox cable host, dropped the ball.

He interviewed Al Franken to discuss the recent and continuous attacks against our troops from the left, most recently from an LA Times columnist who actually had the guts and honesty to come right out and say he doesn't support our troops.

Scarborough heaped compliment after compliment after praise on Franken for doing his part, visa vi his USO Tours, to support our troops overseas.

Joe went on to say that after all his research he couldn't find any examples of Franken ever disparaging our troops.

I'm not sure just how hard Joe researched so I'm going to help everybody out.

These examples come from my book, Pants on Fire: How Al Franken Lies, Smears, and Deceives

Page 184 from a parody song titled, Sorry, Here is one verse:

Sorry ‘bout the prisoners
Sorry they got raped
Sorry they got tortured
Sorry it got taped…
Believe me when I say their apology is sincere
I’m awfully sorry for that broomstick up their rear…


page 109
another skit with Franken interviewing an Air America correspondent from Gitmo, reading the confession of a Taliban prisoner whose confessions are coerced via torture, including burning and having his head submerged in water

page 42
Franken spent 2 days, April 28-29 2005, remembering the anniversary of Abu Ghraib but no time remembering the anniversaries of the fall of Saddam's Statue in Baghdad or the capture of Hussein.

Page 112
March 17, 2005 Franken does a skit mocking as (un)newsworthy a Wall Street Journal headline that “50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq were enjoying freedom.” In the skit, Franken interviews a fictional BBC correspondent reading the Wall Street Journal headline with machine gun fire, bombs, and minefields blowing up in the background.

Franken has embraced and supported the film Fahrenheit 9/11 which portrayed our troops as heavy metal rock n roll killers.

In the summer of 2005 Franken dismissed conservative talk show host Melanie Morgan's upcoming trip to Iraq to report "the truth from our troops" as sheer propaganda

Franken has done stories about military recruiters preying on drug addicts, high school dropouts and other vulnerable youngsters as if it was common practice.

Al Franken is no friend of the military. He is a cunning opportunist who knows how to play the media. It is sad, that now, even some conservatives have fallen for his ploys.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Guilt by Association

The Democrats and their accomplices in the media are trying to portray President Bush as being corrupt based on some old photographs of President Bush and criminal lobbyist, Jack Abramoff.

Well, uh oh, below is a link to a photo op of Hillary Clinton and drug dealer Jorge Cabrera,

http://prorev.com/acabrera.jpg

Are we going to see headlines of Hillary Clinton and ties to convicted drug dealers and money launderers?

Saturday, January 21, 2006

What are Air America hosts afraid of?

As I have written and spoken about in my radio interviews promoting my book, I cited examples of hate speech and anti-America bashing over at Air America. In fact I have a chapter in my book titled, 'Air-unAmerica'. I cited a quote from night time talker Mike Molloy in which he said, "I hate this country...America is the #1 terrorist nation in the world."

Well, here's a recent column I picked up about Molloy and his intellect.

Talk radio host doesn't want to talk

CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) invited the opposition to come to its meeting next month and talk. Who better to talk to than talkers? So Air America’s Mike Malloy received a polite invitation. After all, last year Al Franken came and broadcast from CPAC’s radio row.

Malloy’s classy response? The Washington Post sanitizes it:

“Um . . . you’re kidding, right? Why would I have any desire whatsoever to attend or participate in a convocation of neo-Nazis????? I had two uncles fight against you [expletive] in WW2. And, now, surprise! surprise! here you all are on US soil. Kindly get the [expletive] off my email. Thanks.”

Yet again confirmation that the left has no confidence in its ability to reason, debate, and win by the strength of its ideas. Instead use the other n-word (isn’t “Nazi” at least as offensive as the other n-word?) and refuse to talk.

When a talk radio host refuses to talk, you know his show hasn’t got much longer to live.

Saturday, January 14, 2006

I Make a Mistake

Believe it or not, I made a mistake. In a recent post, I reported that Mr. Al Franken had claimed that his new PAC had raised and dispensed monies to various candidates. After checking with several watchdog groups who monitor fundraising activities, I found that Midwest Values PAC, G-d Only knows what that is all about, had neither raised nor dispensed ANY money whatsoever.

After making a few calls, I discovered that the watchdogs I researched monitor at the federal level, whose laws and rules about filing deadlines are different from those who are active at the local level.

In other words according to the local watchdogs, MVP had indeed raised and dispensed contributions, while at the federal level MVP was not obligated to file their activities, which is why zero was reported.

I apologize for the misreporting and am happy to make the corrections.

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Al Franken's new PAC

In a recent interview with the Pioneer Press, Al Franken said:

"...I've actually formed a PAC toward doing that called Midwest Values PAC, or MPV. And we're raising money and we've dispersed some already to some Democratic candidates."

But according to CampaignMoney.com, that reports on PAC activity, they've neither received nor dispersed any monies.

Midwest Values PAC (MVP) "527" Contribution Details
Contributor Address Empoyer/Occupation $ Contribution Amount Date
No Contributions Found

Midwest Values PAC (MVP) "527" Expenditure Details
Vendor Address $ Expense Amount Purpose
No Expenditures Found

Al Franken on Ariel Sharon

Just an observation, but as I monitored parts of Franken's radio show, new and improved, from Minnesota, I didn't hear anything from Al about Sharon's condition or Al's thoughts about the future of the peace process.

In my book, Pants on Fire: How Al Franken Lies, Smears, and Deceives, I do cite Franken's anger at Yasser Arafat for "giving us [Ariel] Sharon."

I'm also a bit surprised because Franken has been interviewed by a number of Jewish publications recently, following the release of his new book. I would have expected something from this "proud Jew" and "friend of Israel."

Oh well, I'm sure Al has other world events he can talk about on his radio show.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

David Letterman Shows His True Colors

No not that he's a liberal, but that he is a major league "rectum opening."

I rarely watch his show but stayed up late last night because I knew that Bill O'Reilly would be on the show.

From the moment O'Reilly was introduced, Letterman acted like a jerk.

First, he belittled O'Reilly for taking on the "anti-Merry Christmas" crowd.

Then he came down hard on Bill for having the audacity to criticize Cindy Sheehan.

He closed by telling O'Reilly that "I believe that 60% of what you say is crap." Bill asked him if he watches the show. Letterman replied that he doesn't watch but reads stuff about him.

Well what does that mean? It means that Letterman is in cahoots with 2 major smear merchants, Al Franken and David Brock.

In all my years of watching late night TV, I have never ever seen any guest treated as rudely or obnoxiously as O'Reilly was treated.

Bill kept his cool and didn't allow Letterman to bait him.

Shame on david Letterman!

Monday, January 02, 2006

'The Truth' About Clinton's "secret meetings" with Col. Kadhaffi

In his book about Lying Liars, Franken told us that Bill Clinton was serious about combating terrorism. His evidence was a report written by Barton Gellman for the Washington Post. However, as research showed, Gellman's report not only did not vindicate Bill Clinton against Republican charges that he was ineffective against terrorism , but that Clinton and his entire cabinet were guilty of gross negligence, incompetence, and ignoring the terror threats from abroad.

In his new book, ironically titled The Truth, Franken would have his readers, mostly liberals anxious to read anything that paints President Bush negatively and Bill Clinton positively, that it was Bill Clinton's policies – carrot and stick- with Libya, that convinced the Libyan dictator to give up his weapons of mass destruction, and not President Bush's “get tough on terrorism” approach which was being employed against Iraq.

On page 57, Franken quotes Rudy Giuliani from his address at the 2004 Republican convention: They heard from us in Libya and without firing a shot Gadhafi abandoned weapons of mass destruction.

Franken then footnotes this quote with the following:

This, by the way, is a complete misrepresentation..... As Flynt Leverett, who served on Bush's National Security Council, explained in a January 23, 2004, New York Times op-ed, Libya gave up its WMD not because of the war in Iraq, but because of negotiations that began in secret during the Clinton administration. In fact, Leverett pointed out that Libya's story was an argument against Bush's foreign policy approach, because Libya was offered a carrot (lifting of sanctions and normal diplomatic relations) and not just a stick. As Leverett wrote, “Until the administration learns the real lessons of the Libyan precedent, policy toward other rogue regimes is likely to remain stuck in the mud of ideology.”
Qadhafi was playing his cards brilliantly by agreeing to disarm just days after Saddam was captured- all of a sudden, he went from evil rogue dictator to poster boy for the war in Iraq. If, after reading this footnote, you're still skeptical, Google “Flynt Leverett” and “why Libya Gave Up on the Bomb.” Then write me a nice note of apology......


So, per Franken's suggestion, I googled the column and found that Franken once again took license in selecting certain portions of Leverett's column including Leverett's own background and his association with the Bush administration which Franken had us all believing that he was a part of the Bush team:

As Flynt Leverett, who served on Bush's National Security Council,...

Distortion #1

As Flynt Leverett, who served on Bush's National Security Council,...

Let's dispose of this deception first. Franken creates the impression that Leverett was part of Team Bush, one of his advisers. Yet according to the very column Franken insisted we “skeptics” google, Flynt Leverett is a visiting fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Politics at the Brookings Institution. And for those of you not familiar with either Saban Center at the Brookings, it is a very liberal think tank. In fact the Saban center is named after Chaim Saban, a mega multi-billionaire donor to Bill Clinton and the Democrat Party. But I suppose if Franken had included that in his footnote, it may not have sounded as convincing as having us believe that Leverett was a “Bush guy.”

Distortion #2:

Libya gave up its WMD not because of the war in Iraq, but because of negotiations that began in secret during the Clinton administration.

But here is what Leverett actually wrote in his column ( That Franken insisted we google... then could write him a note of apology).

“The roots of the recent progress with Libya go back not to the eve of the Iraq war, but to the Bush administration's first year in office. Leverett continues, “Indeed, to be fair, some credit should even be given to the second Clinton administration.”

Let's contrast what Franken wrote that Leverett wrote regarding Clinton's role in causing Qadhafi to have a change of heart about being a rogue leader versus what Leverett actually wrote.

First, what Franken claimed Lever wrote:
Libya gave up its WMD not because of the war in Iraq, but because of negotiations that began in secret during the Clinton administration.

Now what Leverett actually wrote:
“The roots of the recent progress with Libya go back not to the eve of the Iraq war, but to the Bush administration's first year in office. Indeed, to be fair, some credit should even be given to the second Clinton administration.”

How, or better, why does Al “I hold myself to impossibly high standards” Franken continue to play this game of defending Bill Clinton by citing credible sources then actually having the chutzpah to insist we verify his sources which give no credence to back his very strongly worded claims?
If Leverett wants to “give some credit” to Clinton, that's fine, after all they were both funded by the same person.

And the reason, according to Leverett, that Clinton might get some credit, was not because of “secret negotiations,” as Franken wrote, but because Clinton insisted that there could be not talks until Libya met its responsibilities regarding their role in the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie. Not exactly hard nosed diplomacy by team Clinton, merely telling Libya what the rest of the world expected from them.

Distortion #3:
In fact, Leverett pointed out that Libya's story was an argument against Bush's foreign policy approach, because Libya was offered a carrot (lifting of sanctions and normal diplomatic relations) and not just a stick.

Again, a deception from Franken. According to Leverett, the only thing offered to Qadhafi for turning over two of its agents who were involved in the bombing of the civilian airliner was an agreement to lift UN Sanctions. Not as Franken wrote, “.... and normal diplomatic relations.”

According to Leverett, the United States (under the Bush administration) assured Libya of the possibility of “normalized relations” only after he agreed to a full dismantling, verification, and inspection of his WMD sites. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand was playing cat and mouse with the UN inspectors for years after it had agreed, pursuant to the 1991 surrender, to allow UN agents unfettered access to all of its weapons sites. Qadhaffi agreed to the terms, Hussein did not.


Of course the rest of Leverett's column is sheer liberal poppycock, best left for another discussion or column. What is important is to once again expose America's #1 liberal radio talk show host and yet to be announced US Senate Candidate as a fraud and intentional misrepresenter of facts.

In his footnotes, Franken concluded, “ If, after reading this footnote, you're still skeptical, Google “Flynt Leverett” and “why Libya Gave Up on the Bomb.” Then write me a nice note of apology......” Al's email address is, afranken@aol.com. I invite all of you to take Franken up on his offer and send him a nice note with a copy of this rebuttal.

Note: His email address is public domain so I do not feel like I am invading his privacy. Secondly, his good friend and partner, David Brock of the left wing smear site, Media Matters, always posts email addresses and phone numbers of his targets, which I can tell you from personal experience can be very annoying when hundreds of people use it.