Joe McGinniss on Hardball.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This is a MUCH superior interview to the one Joe did on CNN, and though I usually am not a huge fan of Mathews, he is very respectful and even gives Joe the chance to answer a question without interrupting.

Professor Scharlott finally has the opportunity to publish his carefully researched article over at the Business Insider.

Courtesy of the Business Insider:

Three years ago, a sitting state governor and candidate for the vice-presidency of the United States, Sarah Palin, told a story about how she had given birth to her fifth child, Trig. 

Some details of this story quickly struck many observers as strange. As more information came to light, some observers came to suspect that, for unclear reasons, Palin had fabricated her pregnancy and lied about it--initially to her Alaska constituents and later to the country. 

Palin reacted angrily to this theory, and it was quickly dismissed as "nonsense" by much of the mainstream media and ignored during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Since then, attempts to settle the question once and for all have been met with silence or anger by those affiliated with Palin. 

Although Palin's supporters have successfully framed lingering questions about the Trig pregnancy as politically motivated attacks, the fact is that legitimate questions remain. And the one person who could instantly and forever put an end to the questions, Sarah Palin herself, has refused to address them. 

This article looks at some of the questions that remain about Palin's story. In my opinion, given that Sarah Palin was a vice-presidential candidate at the time she told this story--and is still often mentioned as a Presidential candidate--the world deserves a final, definitive answer to this question.

(To read the rest of this article please click the link at the top.)

Professor Scharlott left out a few portions that he considered might be too much for the average reader to absorb, including the different babies presented as Trig, but if you want to read the article in its entirety (Including a preponderance of foot notes) you can visit Scribd by clicking here.

Joe McGinniss really brought the babygate story out into the national spotlight so now is the perfect time to start writing about it and talking about it, to introduce the idea of the hoax to as many people as possible.

Personally THIS is what I have been working for, lo these many years, and I am beyond thrilled to see the story addressed by so many people, at so many different venues.

Wow, is September great or what?

Brad Scharlott gives Sarah Palin the chance to put the Babygate question to rest for good. Did she take it?

This was from the conversation that Brad and Laura had on her blog yesterday:

LN: People probably wonder why bloggers don’t go to Palin directly and pose their questions. And perhaps snorting, “Oh right, like she’d answer me” isn’t a good enough answer. Instead, I asked Rebecca Mansour many times on Twitter to respond to my blog posts. And I invited her, many times, to do an interview with me. It was only fair. And she was predictably mute.You, on the other hand, went directly to Sarah. Tell us about that, Brad. 

BS: I’ve revised my original Babygate paper as a magazine article. A couple of weeks ago I sent that to Sarah Palin’s Wasilla address, and she received it on August 15, according to the USPS tracking service. In a cover letter I asked her to respond to the article, and I also asked six specific questions that stem from it, such as whether she was truly pregnant in 2008 and whether she wore a fake pregnancy belly when Andrea Gusty interviewed her. I told her I planned to publish the article within a month, and I promised her I would include her response with it. Of course, she has not responded. So what can we concluded from that? 

LN: One, she’s too big for us. And I can honestly understand that (although word has it that she is afraid of me.) There are a lot of demands on her time. Why? I have no idea. But there are. Two, why add fuel to the fire? To respond to you and/or me, or any blogger, lends credence to what we are saying. She’s hoping we’ll go away. Three, like I said in an earlier comment. We use subjects and verbs. And we use them in agreement. I think Anon on Gryphen's blog is right: that scares her. 

BS: Well, if she did NOT perpetrate a hoax, there would be an extremely important reason to respond to my letter and article. In that cover letter, I wrote:“As you may recall from your journalism studies in college, you are considered a ‘public figure/official’ for First Amendment purposes, in light of NY Times v. Sullivan. By providing you this opportunity to respond to my paper, I trust I am demonstrating beyond any doubt that my article bears no ‘actual malice’ towards you.”Since I was forewarning her that I plan to publish the article, by NOT responding she essentially forfeits any conceivable opportunity to sue for defamation. That is not the same as admitting she is guilty, of course, but could you imagine an innocent high-level politician ignoring an article that made such sensational allegations of wrongdoing? After all, I’m not just any crackpot. Palin knows my paper in April made news around the world.

You know one of the reasons that has been offered up as to WHY Palin does not simply produce the birth certificate and do away with all of this speculation, is because IT WORKS FOR HER!

The argument is that because people keep bringing up this issue that it makes THEM seem like lunatics, and by refusing to shut them down Palin appears above it all and is essentially taking the high road. (In fact Palin often brings up the "conspiracy" about Trig's birth in her speeches. It ALWAYS gets a laugh and a smattering of applause from the audience.)

Now this theory was all but rammed down my throat by a good friend who wanted desperately for me to drop the subject. (I won't out them here, but I am sure most of you can figure it out.) But of course I never did, because I never bought into that theory. Nor did I believe that keeping the investigation into babygate alive was actually helping her.

Oh sure it gave her a laugh line or two for a speech, but does anybody really believe it helped to sustain her popularity?

But for the sake of argument, let's just assume that it did. Let's assume that much of Sarah Palin's ability to garner sympathy and appear relevant stemmed from the fact that her supporters felt she was persecuted by these "crazy" liberals who had the gall to suggest that she would fake the birth of her own child.

However the Sarah Palin of today is significantly less popular than the Sarah Palin of two years ago. We are currently witnessed the crumbling of her political aspirations, the desertion of many of her past supporters, and the dimming of her relevancy to the media.

Yet the investigation, and number or people discussing babygate, is now larger than ever.

Even an author as well known as Joe McGinnis has publicly addressed it, and there is a book coming out whose sole purpose is to introduce the topic to an even wider audience.  So even if the argument could have been made two years ago that the subject of babygate was helping Sarah Palin in some way, that argument certainly could NOT be made today.

But you know what might help Sarah Palin at this point?  Producing proof that Trig is her biological son.

Imagine how much attention it would garner if Palin were to suddenly come out and show the world that the crazies were wrong all along, and that she was just playing them for a bunch of fools. Think of how she could play up how her family was victimized by these horrible people who went after her precious children so aggressively all to prove something that her evidence now demonstrated to be false.

Hell her smiling face would be all OVER the news, her potential political career would be revitalized, and the donations would come pouring in.

Not only that but imagine her joy at embarrassing Joe McGinniss, Professor Scharlott, Laura Novak, and Andrew Sullivan. Not to mention squashing the reputation of a certain pain-in-the-ass Alaskan blogger.

Yep, if ever there were a time to finally shut all of us up for good, this would be it.

So what do you say Sarah? Are you ready to finally put us all in our place?

In the least surprising news of the day, Dick Cheney is still a liar.

I have the hardest time imaginable believing ANYBODY from the Bush administration.

But if I had to choose somebody, it would be Colin Powell hands down.

If the video does not play for you, try clicking here.)

President Obama explains the relevance of the Constitution to children. Perhaps the Teabaggers should pay attention as well. They might learn something.

I would like to see ANY of these so-called Tea Party Republicans answer these questions with the same clarity and confidence with which President Obama is answering them. I have little doubt they would fail miserably.You can see more of these wonderful interviews by clicking here.

Thin skinned Sarah Palin reveals her vicious side to reporters.

"Hey Tawd, you better remember who wears the pants in this family. Got it buster?"

Now as you read this REMEMBER it comes from uber-right wing blog, the American Spectator:

What happened was that Alex Pappas of The Daily Caller, one of the rising stars among political scribes and a meticulously careful and wonderfully polite, fair-minded young man (an aside: I've known him since he was in junior high school), wrote a perfectly fine story about Palin's current stances vis-a-vis the presidential race. In it, one of the things she said was that if Mitt Romney is the nominee, well, of course she would endorse him over Barack Obama.

Fox Nation picked up the story and, in its own headline (not Pappas', not the Daily Caller's, but its own headline completely apart from anything Pappas ever wrote) played up the "Romney endorse" angle in a way that apparently did not make it clear that the endorsement might be in the general election, rather than the primary campaign. (The headline is no longer available at Fox Nation, so I can't say exactly what the wording was.)

Anyway, the Palin team pounced. Specifically inviting over reporter Kasie Hunt from Politico so she could hear the exchange, Palin called Pappas' cell phone and began berating him in a very scolding manner for writing a headline suggesting she supports Romney.

Courtesy of Politico:

"So you’re saying that I said that I support Mitt Romney?" she said to the reporter. "And what’s your headline? You need to be clear, otherwise people really lose faith in the state of journalists today and that is, I said ‘ABO’—anybody but Obama. And I would support the candidate who surfaces to take on Barack Obama. But no, your headline leads readers to believe that I’m supporting Mitt Romney at this time in this process, and no that’s not accurate." Pappas didn't even know what she was talking about. When he tried to say that neither he nor his editors had written such a headline, she said she didn't have time for this, that she needed to go back to the "real people" at the State Fair, and hung up on him.

Later, when it became clear that Fox Nation, not Pappas or The Daily Caller, had written the semi-offending headline, a Palin press aide called Pappas back not to apologize but to say that they now realized it was Fox and that the headline had been taken down.

"No," Pappas said, far more bemused than angry or upset, "he didn't come close to apologizing." 

Now see THIS is the Sarah Palin that Alaskans have come to know and loathe. The "attack first and get the facts later" Palin that once chased me out into a parking lot. The same woman who tried to destroy the career of an ex-brother-in-law, as well as her Public Safety Commissioner when he refused to help with that endeavor. The same woman who once penned a poorly crafted screed to the ADN after confusing a reference to Lisa Murkowski's father to one aimed at her own dad. (By the way if you have never read that letter, do yourself a favor and look it over.  It is one of the few authentic examples of Palin's writing that you will find on the internet.)

You see the reason I have never really been terribly concerned that Palin was ever going to win the White House, or even win the GOP nomination, is that no matter how hard people work to groom the pitbull to look like an inside house poodle, sooner or later it will rip your throat out.

And eventually even the MOST supportive conservative cable news networks and right wing blogs were going to have no choice but to call her out on that kind of behavior.  As evidenced by the last line from the American Spectator article:
 
If Palin wants to get rid of the image of being a difficult diva with a rude streak, she needs to stop acting like a difficult diva with a rude streak.

In other words folks, the next time you are looking for Sarah Palin in a crowd, just look for the giant fork sticking out of her.

Laura Novak and Professor Scharlott discuss the difficulties of getting the "babygate" story into the mainstream media.

Courtesy of Laura Novak's blog:

LN: Anyway, I know that in this time since we’ve worked together, you’ve re-written your paper and pushed it out into the world a few more times. Tell us where you are with all of that. 

BS: I’ve rewritten it in magazine format. The original format was as an academic research paper, but it was in truth always more of a journalistic expose than a theoretical paper. The theory part, about the spiral of silence, was only the last five pages; the first 20 pages was an expose of Babygate. So in rewriting it, I have made its form true to its overriding original purpose: to expose the shortcomings of the press in covering Babygate, which necessitated exposing Babygate itself. 

LN: They go hand in hand don’t they? And I can say having read all the versions that you make an excellent case for both. Your writing is tight and sophisticated. And it’s also evolved as you’ve worked through the story. Explain what your goal was with that. 

BS: The rewrite is shorter, bolder, and much more forceful than the earlier paper. In the original paper, I avoided any mention of Gryphen’s “Tale of Two Trigs” theory. In the rewrite, I include that stuff. And I think the multiple Trigs idea has probably spooked some magazines from accepting the article. That does not surprise me. In April, I would not even mention in radio interviews the possibility of different babies being shown as Trig at different times. I did not have a strong sense then that that part of the story was almost certainly true and crucial to understanding what happened. But now I do feel that way. 

LN: And yet, the editors you’ve submitted to are still not biting. What kinds of things are they saying? 

BS: Here is part of a nice rejection note I got from a British publication: “Thank you for your interesting read. I am sorry but I am not sure that it is something we would take on as I would need to start from scratch to satisfy myself of all sources etc. and I am not 100% sure that even this would get to the bottom. What is needed is a whistleblower. Her daughter's doctor – or something.”The online editor of a different publication, one in the U.S., indicated he definitely would use my article, in fact would feature it, based on seeing my original paper. After I sent the revision, he decided he’d better check with his publisher, who said no. 

LN: How did you react when you heard back from both these editors? 

BS: Their reactions did not surprise me. If you haven’t really familiarized yourself with the facts surrounding the hoax, it does sound a bit surreal. 

LN: In your paper you are very critical of the press for being timid and easily manipulated by Palin. Now you sound sympathetic to those who will not accept your revised article for publication. Aren’t you being inconsistent? 

BS: Well, I need to draw a distinction. It was the press corps covering Palin in 2008 that deserves the most criticism. There were red flags back then that a hoax had probably happened. When the McCain campaign responded to the fake-birth rumors by throwing Bristol under the bus and claiming she was five months pregnant – and thus could not be Trig’s mother – the journalists’ bullshit sirens should have been blaring. (As it turns out, since more than one baby has almost certainly been displayed as Trig at different times, there’s no telling what relation Bristol has to the current “normal ears” Trig with Down syndrome.) As for current editors who are encountering much of this Babygate stuff for the first time, I can understand how they might find my revised paper on the very edge of believability, despite all the evidence I present. 

LN: So isn’t this a Catch-22: Many editors find the Babygate saga unbelievable because no one in the mainstream press has written about it, but no one in the mainstream press will write about it for fear that people will find it unbelievable? 

BS: Yep. That sums it up nicely.

There is much more and I do encourage you to to click the link at the top and read the rest at Laura's blog.

As most of you who have been visiting here at IM know all too well, this problem with being taken seriously by the MSM  is one of the most frustrating parts of this campaign to reveal, what may in fact be, one of the most amazing political hoaxes of all time.

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the efforts of Brad and Laura to find a way to present the evidence in the most palatable way possible so that newspapers and periodicals will find it impossible to resist.

 I would also like all of you to know that they are not alone in their struggle to get the truth about this perplexing mystery out to the public.  Fred and his researchers have also been working their fingers to the bone trying to craft a book that will be difficult, if not impossible, for the MSM to ignore.

And toward that end they have started to carefully comb through Palin's recent email dump and discovered some very interesting inconsistencies. As many of you know, contrary to what Palin supporters and journalists at large seemed to think, there were things to discover in those emails.

I personally was able to find some very interesting emails myself which demonstrated Sarah's lack of compassion, proved she orchestrated fake letters to the editor, and convinced at least one holdout that she most likely faked her last pregnancy.

Fred and his researchers have dug even deeper, and hope to bring out some information that will impress even jaded "babygate" experts like us.

And if that was not enough to wake you up this morning, I also have a potential lead that may finally answer one of the biggest questions surrounding the "babygate" saga.

Stay tuned.

Michele Bachmann goes all "deer in the headlights" while being grilled by David Gregory. This is why Teabaggers avoid the mainstream press.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Check out those bug eyes.  She has NO idea what to say to this line of questioning.

"I am running for the Presidency of the United States. I am not running to be anyone's judge."

"But you have judged them."

"I..I..I don't judge them. I don't judge them. I am running for Presidency of the United States

WTF? Gregory reads off her own statements and she acts as if she has never heard them before.

And besides these clearly homophobic statements, she and her husband have charged the Federal government, through Medicaid, to provide psychologically damaging "reparative" therapies in an attempt to alter the sexual proclivities of homosexual men. If she and her husband Marcus had not judged this lifestyle as deviant than why would they provide a service to try and change it?

When Bachmann is asked if, as President (I'm sorry "Presidency"), she would appoint an openly gay person to her cabinet or to the courts, she lists three criteria: "Where do they stand on the Constitution, are you competent, and do you share my views?"

It should be crystal clear to anybody that, based on Bachmann's stated opinion about homosexuality, that the last one ("Do you share my views?"), ABSOLUTELY precludes any chance of a gay man or woman being provided any opportunities during a Bachmann Presidency.

I know she and her people probably think she effectively danced around that question, but I have little doubt that most Americans, especially gay Americans, had little trouble recognizing how the rights of homosexuals would be treated if Michele Bachmann had her way. 

By the way, I am not a David Gregory fan as a rule, but I thought he did a pretty good job here.

Sarah Palin's week just got a whole lot worse as Shailey Tripp reveals what she knew, and when she knew it.

From Shailey's blog:

The next few days I will be writing about How The Lies of Sarah Palin turn into TRUTH as it pertains to me. 

I know for a fact (and yes with proof), that Sarah Palin knew that at the very least a prostitute who claimed to have sex with Todd, her husband, was going to go public with the information. I know for a fact, Sarah Palin, was told about all the emails that showed there was a relationship between her husband, Todd, and this person. Furthermore, I know Sarah Palin was told that there were even emails showing that Todd could be involved in running or involved in a ................prositution ring. 

This was 1 week before Christmas 2010- Fri. Dec 17, 2010.

To read the rest, and yes you DO want to read the rest, just click the link and head on over to Shailey's blog.


You know there are two names that attract the most aggressive and negative remarks from the trolls when they appear on this blog.  And those names are Mercede Johnston and Shailey Tripp.

I am constantly cautioned by these helpful little imps not to believe anything that they say, and told (using a plethora of exclamation points) that they are LIARS!!!!!!! HATEFUL, HATEFUL, LIARS!!!!!!

Here's the funny thing.  I have never caught them lying to me.

I have had dozens, and I mean dozens, of people attempt to deceive, manipulate, or outright lie to me. But never them.

In fact Sadie's version of events (Often either preceded by, or backed up by, Sherry's version of events.) has never changed.

People have attacked her character, screamed obscenities at her in the grocery store, stolen her mail, and vandalized both her car and her house, and still she has refused to allow herself to be intimidated into keeping her mouth shut. The only time she stayed quiet was when she was hoping that by doing so she would get to see Tripp.  But after numerous promises made, and then broken, Sadie realized that the Palins were simply using the last hold they had over her family to control them.

Now that control is no more.

As for Shailey, well Shailey is the only source I have ever known that passed five, count them five, polygraph tests with flying colors.

I have talked to many bloggers, journalists, and authors who have spoken to her, and they all said that she was very credible.  The only thing that keeps her story from getting the kind of coverage it deserves is lack of physical proof, which we are still struggling to have released from APD. I have seen some of the evidence, and so far it all backs up Shailey's story, and refutes much of what official APD spokesman Lt. David Parker said publicly.

Once she is able to get her hands on that evidence I think her story will blow up again in a major way.

Especially if all of the people claiming that Palin is DEFINITELY launching her bid for the GOP nomination on September 3rd, are accurate. If, or when, that happens this whole thing  is going to get much, much more interesting.

Coming soon, an update on the progress of the "babygate" book.

Sarah Palin on March 26, 2008. Eighteen days before "birth" of Trig Palin.

I currently have in my possession an e-mail from the author of the upcoming "babygate" book.

I will post it fairly early tomorrow morning because, and some of you may not be aware of this, IM receives more visitors on the weekdays than on the weekends.  In order for the most people to have the opportunity to read what Fred has written I decided it would be best to post it on a day that saw more traffic so that I would not have people asking me over and over again about an update.

I think that most of you will be very pleased with the information, though for some of the more impatient ones it might be a little frustrating.

Just like with Joe and Geoffrey's books, there are ALWAYS new revelations which threaten to change the tenor of the book or delay its release.  I learned long ago that patience is my best friend.

Speaking of patience, I should also let you know that there are many MORE revelations coming out about the Grizzled Mama, and her "Alaska mafia." Including one that I heard just the other day that I am hoping like crazy I can manage to prove, because even among the most jaded Palin watchers this one will be huge.

One thing I can share is that some, who are claiming to be in the know, are convinced that Palin actually WILL announce her candidacy during her speech in Iowa on September 3rd.

I remain somewhat skeptical, but as I have said before I would not put ANYTHING past this lunatic.

I know a couple of authors who would be thrilled if Palin DID launch a short lived, ultimately doomed campaign in early September.  And I do have to admit that it would certainly bring more players into the "Sources for Gryphen" family.

I guess that would not be all bad now would it?

Update: I was just now watching Meet the Press, and sitting there with my plate of eggs watching David Gregory ask David Plouffe just WHICH bills the government will pay for certain if the debt ceiling does NOT get raised by Tuesday suddenly just pissed me the hell off!

So I would like to vent a little.

When the Tea Party was in its infancy and nobody was paying it much attention, the Koch brothers arranged for Sarah Palin to make appearances on their behalf and essentially, along with the spastic Glenn Beck, become the face of the Teabaggers. Because of her unrivaled name recognition she brought tons of undeserved attention to what was clearly a very unsophisticated astro-turf group of angry racists, who, over time, were polished with corporate money enough so that they were able to choose and back candidates who are currently holding our country hostage.

While that was taking place there were those who were working overtime to convince me to drop the babygate story because it was never going to "make any difference."

"Just focus on the wild ride story, Gryph.  That will be enough to stop her if enough people hear about it.  The babygate story just makes you, and ALL of us, seem like crazy conspiracy theorists."

Of course I refused, and as my reward I found myself isolated.  I learned over time that journalists were steered away from me, for fear I would bring up"that crazy conspiracy story."

At one point I was so close I could taste it, to REALLY blowing this whole thing up. But I was sabotaged by those I considered my friends. In my personal opinion if I had received more support, and if others had worked side by side with me, Sarah Palin would NEVER have been able to provide the spark that the Koch brothers used to start the Teabagger bonfire.

So I would just like to take a moment to say FUCK YOU!

Fuck you for playing it safe.  Fuck you for worrying about appearances more than truth.  And fuck you for being a coward.

And while I am on this rant I would also like to say fuck you to those who wanted the babygate story all for themselves.  Fuck you for driving people off of the net who were selflessly working to bring this story to the American people.  Fuck you for chasing away sources who were timidly coming forward, until they realized that people might soon learn their true identities. And fuck you for damaging the reputation of good people because YOUR ego demanded that you get credit for EVERYTHING.

Okay I am done now.  Sorry if some of you found that offensive or a little out of character, but damn I have been holding that inside for years.

The babygate story is NOT just about a mother protecting her daughter, or her family.  It is MUCH deeper and uglier than that. And once it is really out there in the public consciousness, it should serve as the stepping stone to revealing all kinds of political manipulations and Faustian deals that might finally awaken a slumbering populace and get them to focus on taking back their country from the corporations and political fat cats who have held the reins of power for much, much too long.

And with that Gryphen steps off of his soapbox.  Thank you for listening.

Are you prepared for spiritual warfare in the United States? Well perhaps you are not, but many others are more than ready.

Courtesy of Aljazeera:

Prior to 9/11, the Taliban government in Afghanistan did not register very much on American radar screens, with one notable exception: when it blew up two colossal images of the Buddha in Bamiyan province in early 2001. But destruction of treasured artifacts isn't just limited to the Taliban.

There's a right-wing politico-religious presence centred in the US, but with a global reach, engaging in similar practises, destroying religious and cultural artifacts as a key aspect of its ideology of "strategic level spiritual warfare" (SLSW).

Until recently a fringe evangelical movement, warned against as deviant, "spiritual warfare" is rapidly positioning itself within America's mainstream political right. It's well past time for political journalists to start covering what this movement is up to.

As an example, leaders have bragged online about the destruction of Native American religious artifacts, which their twisted ideology somehow sees as a liberating act, promoting "reconciliation" between estranged groups of people. Critics, however, see it as reflecting an eliminationist mindset, while traditional conservative evangelicals have denounced the ideology as un-biblical. Some even claim it is actually a form of pagan practice dressed up in Christian clothes, according such artifacts a spiritual power that the Bible itself denies. 

The ultimate goal is to replace secular democracy, both in America and around the world, with a Christian theocracy, an ideology known as "dominionism". The supposed purpose is to "purify" the world for Christ's return - again, strikingly similar to what the Taliban believe, but also significantly at odds with more common, long-standing Christian beliefs about the "end times", as well as the nature and purpose of prayer, and the roles of human and divine power. 

This is a VERY informative article which touches on many of the same frightening themes that fans of Leah Burton, and God's Own Party,  are probably already aware. The piece explores the New Apostolic Reformation, the Seven Mountains Mandate, the influence of Sarah Palin, and also lays out the three levels of Spiritual Warfare.

Ground level spiritual warfare is casting out demons from individuals. Occult level spiritual warfare is a confrontation with demons operating through witchcraft and esoteric philosophies (examples are Freemasonry and Tibetan Buddhism). Strategic Level Spiritual Warfare is the highest level, dealing with confrontation of territorial principalities that control entire communities, ethnic groups, religions, and nations.

Like I said the article is quite informative, however it is also a chilling read that might cause you one or two sleepless night.  So take care.  

Michele Bachmann gets a note from her doctor saying she can TOO run for President!

There has been a lot of talk recently about Michele Bachmann's debilitating migraines, and the fact that such a medical condition, which is significantly exacerbated due to stress, might make her unfit for a job as President of the United States.

Gee, ya think?

Oddly enough this has inspired a number of journalists and political pundits to leap to her defense inferring that reporting on her migraines is sexist.

Which is interesting, since Michele Bachmann herself has blamed the migraines on her high heel shoes. Which, I am sure you will all agree, is in NO way sexist.

Anyhow in order to put the issue to rest Shelly got a note from her doctor, which essentially says she is excused from gym class but CAN run for student body president.

So there you go.  Michele Bachmann's blinding headaches are NO reason she should not be considered a viable GOP candidate for the most important political office in the land. No really, her doctor said so.

Now can we get back to focusing on the more important things, like the fact that she is batshit crazy and that she has virtually NO understanding of American history please?

We knew it was coming! Fox News has "Brain Room" where the phone records of Americans are being hacked.

Courtesy of Business Insider:

A former producer with Fox News claimed in a lengthy essay gaining new traction this week that the conservative television station has a "Brain Room" in its New York headquarters, which enables employees to view private telephone records with ease.

Though published years ago, the allegations have returned to relevance in the wake of the phone hacking scandals that have rocked News Corporation to its very core, threatening to topple one of the world's largest and most powerful media conglomerates.

According to former Fox News executive Dan Cooper, whose gripes with his former employer run quite deep, Fox News chief Roger Ailes allegedly had him design the so-called "Brain Room" to facilitate counter-intelligence efforts and other "black ops."

In a lengthy 2008 diatribe said to have doubled as a book pitch, Cooper claimed his own phone records had been hacked by Fox News employees, who he says used them to pinpoint him as a source used by David Brock, who founded liberal watchdog group Media Matters.

"Ailes knew I had given Brock the interview," he wrote. "Certainly Brock didn't tell him. Of course. Fox News had gotten Brock's telephone records from the phone company, and my phone number was on the list. Deep in the bowels of 1211 Avenue of the Americas, News Corporation's New York headquarters, was what Roger called the Brain Room. Most people thought it was simply the research department of Fox News. But unlike virtually everybody else, because I had to design and build the Brain Room, I knew it also housed a counterintelligence and black ops office. So accessing phone records was easy pie."

See?  I told you it would lead back to Fox News!

My fervent hope is that the FBI get themselves a search warrant and GAIN ACCESS TO THAT ROOM!

Ladies and gentlemen I would bet my house that if they could get in there THAT would be the end of Fox News, Roger Ailes, and Rupert Murdoch.  There is no doubt in my mind.

You know the part that really pisses me off?  That I already KNEW about this story, and even wrote about it, but it completely slipped my mind until I read this article.

Some investigative reporter I turned out to be.

Clearly Rupert Murdoch is in a panic and desperately trying to control the damage before it spreads too far to contain. But will it be enough?

From Yahoo News:

Rupert Murdoch apologized to victims of criminal phone hacking by one of his tabloids and accepted the resignations of News Corp's top two newspaper executives, Rebekah Brooks and Les Hinton.

Moving to gain control of a scandal washing over his global business, the U.S.-based magnate made a personal apology to the parents of a murdered schoolgirl in what appeared to be an admission that the News of the World, then edited by Brooks and overseen by Hinton, had in 2002 hacked into the voicemails of their missing daughter.

It was that damning allegation, in a rival newspaper 10 days ago, which reignited a 5-year-old scandal that has forced Murdoch to close the News of the World, Britain's best-selling Sunday paper, and drop a $12 billion plan to buy full control of highly profitable pay-TV operator BSkyB.

The crisis has broken the grip that Murdoch, 80, had over British politics for three decades as leaders from Margaret Thatcher, through Labor's Tony Blair to current Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron sought his support.

It has also forced him to make concessions to public calls that the executives who were in charge at the time of the scandal be held accountable.

Somebody left a comment on another thread that I should not get my hopes up about this scandal damaging Fox News, or destroying their credibility along with the other News Corp entities.

Yeah maybe not, but this has been a pretty satisfying summer so far, so I think I will follow my President's advice and embrace the audacity of hope.

How about you guys?

Rachel Maddow interviews Bill Moyers on his views concerning the Rupert Murdoch scandal and the state of journalism in America.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This is an interview of one of the giants of American journalism in this country conducted by one of the very best reporters we have working today.

In other words it is MUST see!

Keith Olbermann reveals the tactics that Rupert Murdoch uses to keep his employees in line.

 My favorite part comes toward the end.

 "And when the tide recedes there will be nothing left. Not of News Corp, not of Fox News, not of Rupert Murdoch."

See? Even Keith Olbermann believes that it is possible THIS will be the end of Murdoch.

Maybe this is like in a "Peter Pan" play.

If all of us believe and clap hard enough, instead of bringing Tinkerbell back to life, we can wish for the demise of Fox News. And it will happen.

Worth a shot.

(H/T to Politicususa.)

The News Corp scandal might just turn out to be Keith Olbermann's all time favorite story.

Here is a partial transcript by Raw Story:

Current TV’s Keith Olbermann summarized the latest developments in the scandal before turning to Murdoch biographer Michael Wolff for commentary. Wolff began by saying that the elder Murdoch should really be out apologizing to everyone who has been harmed by his company’s actions, but “that’s not Rupert Murdoch.”

“This is a company that’s all about — it’s about power,” Wolff explained. “You hurt me, you diss me, we smack you down.” He added, “These people will do anything.”

“Is James Murdoch really at legal risk?” Olbermann asked.

“I think it’s an exaggeration, somewhat,” Wolff replied, but he quickly noted, “Anything could happen now. … The unimaginable is now occurring.”

“This is the snowball effect,” Wolff said, explaining that when it comes to Rupert Murdoch, “these politicians … in the UK have had to put up with this guy for a long time. He’s never been pleasant about it. He’s always extracted blood. So finally there’s an opportunity. ‘We can get rid of this guy.’”
Wolff concluded by saying that we can expect “new revelations every day” as “more shoes drop.”

You can almost see Olbermann salivating over the potential demise of Rupert Murdoch's empire.  I find it very hard to blame him.

(H/T to Politicususa.)

Carl Bernstein refers to phone hacking scandal as "Murdoch"s Watergate." Well, he should know.

Courtesy of Newsweek:

The hacking scandal currently shaking Rupert Murdoch’s empire will surprise only those who have willfully blinded themselves to that empire’s pernicious influence on journalism in the English-speaking world. Too many of us have winked in amusement at the salaciousness without considering the larger corruption of journalism and politics promulgated by Murdoch Culture on both sides of the Atlantic.

The facts of the case are astonishing in their scope. Thousands of private phone messages hacked, presumably by people affiliated with the Murdoch-owned News of the World newspaper, with the violated parties ranging from Prince William and actor Hugh Grant to murder victims and families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The arrest of Andy Coulson, former press chief to Prime Minister David Cameron, for his role in the scandal during his tenure as the paper’s editor. The arrest (for the second time) of Clive Goodman, the paper’s former royals editor. The shocking July 7 announcement that the paper would cease publication three days later, putting hundreds of employees out of work. Murdoch’s bid to acquire full control of cable-news company BSkyB placed in jeopardy. Allegations of bribery, wiretapping, and other forms of lawbreaking—not to mention the charge that emails were deleted by the millions in order to thwart Scotland Yard’s investigation.

This article is a "must read" for anybody who is closely following this scandal.  Bernstein carefully outlines Murdoch's empire and does not hold back in revealing its overall negative impact on journalism around the world, and particularly in America, and how this indefensible breach of the public trust might serve to undermine a free press in Enlgand, and may have ripple effects that spread much, much further.

Once you have read through that wonderful piece I urge you to visit Philly.com to learn that the things Murdoch has done here in the United States may in fact be much worse than what he did in Britain.  For example:

Iraq and the war on terrorism: America's misguided "pre-emptive war" in the oil-rich Persian Gulf would not have been possible unless the 9/11 attacks and a response to terrorism became conflated with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which for all its horrors had nothing to do with the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The Fox News Channel, and its parade of GOP-talking-point infused hosts and military "experts," helped to make sure that wrongful conflation took place, as later evidence proved.

A 2003 poll by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks found that regular Fox News viewers were significantly more likely than other news consumers to believe one of three significant falsehoods about the Iraq war -- that Iraq was somehow connected to 9/11, that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, or that global opinion was in favor of the war. These jingoistic myths -- most heavily adopted by Fox viewers -- fueled years of continued fighting in a war in which thousands of Americans and Iraqi civilians died needlessly.

After reading that I imagine that you are just about as pissed off as I am at the entire fucking Rupert Murdoch empire! So allow me to offer you the chance to cleanse your palate by watching ex-NOW editor Paul McMullen getting his ass handed to him again by yet another British actor, Steve Coogan.



That McMullen douchebag is a special brand of sleazy isn't he? Just watching him on camera makes my skin crawl.

The hero who first reported on the News Corp phone hacking scandal was actor Hugh Grant?

You have to watch this exchange between Grant and ex-NOW reporter Paul McMullen to believe it. Grant essentially destroys this guy's credibility with ease.

Well now I am a little less embarrassed about owning "Love Actually" and having memorized several scenes from "Notting Hill." (Okay, that second one I still find embarrassing.)

The fallout from News Corp. hacking scandal. spreads to US, ad buyers becoming nervous.

Courtesy of AdWeek:

The scandal has buyers trying to reconcile the outrageousness of the charges surrounding Rupert Murdoch’s U.K. tabloid with News Corp.'s significant U.S. footprint, which includes Fox News as well as the straitlaced Wall Street Journal. Some said that while they haven’t suspended advertising in News Corp.’s U.S. properties, they're growing wary about doing business with the media giant.
“You always wonder when anybody has a scandal,” said GregClausen, chief media officer of Doner in Detroit. Clausen said that while he would still consider News Corp. properties “viable” options for clients, he added, “It puts you a little bit on edge.”

Robin Steinberg, director of publishing activation at MediaVest, which is one of the biggest print-buying shops, controlling some $1 billion in annual spending, said news of the scandal is prompting her to seek reassurances from News Corp. representatives in the U.S.

“We are addressing the situation through conversations and explanation,” she said. “The expectation is that this approach and behavior will not carry over here into the states. Certain guarantees might be necessary for clients to be comfortable allocating money to these properties.”
Others flat-out declined to comment, preferring to leave the talking to clients. “It’s a little too touchy,” said a rep for one major buying agency.

One who was prepared to give News Corp. the full benefit of the doubt was Steve Farella, founder of TargetCast tcm.

“It clearly makes an agency and any client think twice about supporting that newspaper,” Farella said of News of the World. “But in my heart, I don’t believe that any company owned by News Corp. has a policy to break the laws.”

“This doesn’t make me think twice about doing business [with News Corp.],” he continued. “We are not in News of the World, and I don’t believe that the errant practice... is being duplicated at Fox News here in America.”

Really? That is mighty naive.

My money, says that whatever Murdoch was able to get away with in England he did here in the good old United States as well.  Murdoch is an arrogant, competitive prick, and I have little doubt that much more will be coming out about this scandal, including how widespread it truly is, in the very near future.

If Fox News suffers a significant blow to their credibility here in the states, the Republicans will be left without a handy megaphone to spred their lies and misinformation. That could render them all but politically impotent.

Damn, I need more popcorn again!