Today, I had the chance to hang out at FOX News’ studio for “The Strategy Room.” Below, please find a few minute highlight from the show. It’s always an awesome time going down there to discuss politics and social issues:
On September 2, 2010, In General, By Billy Hallowell
On August 31, 2010, In Political Pieces, By Billy Hallowell
Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin has an important public service announcement for Republicans: Do the right thing and drop any and all calls against the Ground Zero mosque. His convictions appear so strong on the issue that he literally correlates GOP “misuse” of the situation with jihadist victory. If you missed the insanity, you can find it here. While Halperin is not necessarily a liberal (controversy ensues on his views/this issue), his piece illustrates a common tactic of the left – reversing rational thought and framing it in such a way that the opposition is purposefully backed into an inescapable corner. Let’s get a grip. Opposing the mosque has absolutely nothing to do with letting homicidal terrorist fools “win” and everything to do with exploring the moral compass through which the Cordoba Initiative has arrived at its decision to build near Ground Zero.
The now infamous mosque project has become a sore for Democrats in a hotly contested election year. Perhaps this is one reason why Halperin pleads so mightily for Republicans to leave the issue alone. Unfortunately for the left, the GOP has little control over public perception on this issue. Americans disagree with the mosque’s placement near Ground Zero, regardless of what conservatives say (or don’t say, for that matter). Even Harry Reid is hip to this reality. Halperin seems to believe that Republicans are driving public perception; this is incorrect on all counts. The American people are outraged and they want answers, explanations and assurance that nothing is awry.
Aside from the aforementioned tenants, there are a number of irritating elements in Halperin’s article. Of course, no words at all are devoted to questioning why the Cordoba Initiative has chosen to build a massive monument to Islam just blocks away from where the World Trade Center once stood. Halperin’s article is limited to telling Republicans why they should silence themselves on the issue. Before I continue, allow me to clarify something. I’m all for religious freedom; I’m not attacking Islam, but I am questioning the intention, knowing the sensitivities involved, of planning to build a mosque at that location. Naturally, Halperin is more concerned with providing advice to Republicans than he is in actually getting to the bottom of the issue at hand — why the Cordoba Initiative is obsessed with placing an Islamic beacon at the center of America’s greatest travesty.
And another note — I recognize that most Muslims are peaceful. That’s not the point here. In the end, the Cordoba Initiative has every legal right to build, but the moral implications of doing so at, near or around Ground Zero are evident. Whether leftists agree, the vast majority of the public sees the move as insensitive; it is widely opposed by nearly every measure. Should plans for the mosque forge on, there will be a great deal of resentment, which will, in turn, damage reconciliation efforts. If those individuals who wish to build truly care about bridging divides between Muslim and non-Muslim Americans as they’ve stated, they’ll choose another location. Wouldn’t this spread the goodwill that Halperin seems to believe can only come if conservatives remain silent?
Aside from the asinine notion that conservatives should simply back away from questioning the mosque’s moral implications, Halperin inserted a number of slaps, digs and generalizations. For instance, he claims that the GOP has avoided dealing with social issues, while focusing wholeheartedly on Obama’s spending habits. In his letter to Republicans he writes,
Up until now, you have restricted yourself as much as possible to an economic message, eschewing social issues and foreign policy as you try to establish contrasts for the electorate between your brand and the Obama-Pelosi-Reid record.
Unfortunately for this political analyst/journalist, who has obviously paid little attention to conservative proposals, the GOP offered a detailed alternative to ObamaCare, which the administration and members of the leftist media brigade simultaneously ignored. But, the bombshell (allow me to channel Nancy Grace) comes at the end of the piece, as Halperin writes,
It isn’t clear how the battle over the proposed center should or will end. But two things are profoundly clear: Republicans have a strong chance to win the midterm elections without picking a fight over President Obama’s measured words. And a national political fight conducted on the terms we have seen in the past few days will lead to a chain reaction at home and abroad that will have one winner — the very extreme and violent jihadists we all can claim as our true enemy.
Did you catch that, America? Holding a president accountable for his own words will literally hand victory over to our enemies. When leftists and their enthusiasts in the media are prepared to allow students to recite the pledge without designating the words “under God” unconstitutional, idiotic or bordering on the illegal, I’ll take their advice on matters of religious freedom. Until then, I’ll stick with the notion that the Cordoba mosque is perfectly legal, but overtly insensitive and morally damaging to reconciliation efforts. Moving the mosque would be a sign of goodwill and would do wonders for Muslim/non-Muslim relations in our post-9/11 world.
With that in mind, don’t give up. Make your voices heard, but do so respectfully and without making Islam the target. Focusing on the Constitutional and legal rights of the Cordoba Initiative, while illustrating the moral conundrums the project will create is a viable and common sense way to treat this issue. Don’t let Halperin or anyone else for that matter tell you otherwise.
(Originally published at HuffingtonPost.com)
On August 31, 2010, In General, By Billy Hallowell
This may be the first (and only) time I give Perez Hilton some credit. Today, he posted a brief note about John Cusack’s disturbing Twitter “rampage” (as Perez describes it). As you may recall, Cusack got into a scuffle with some conservatives the other night on Twitter. He Tweeted the following:
“I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES ORDICK ARMEYAND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS.”
How’s that for a dose of sanity? A number of well-respected conservative pundits responded to Cusack and, of course, he belittled them. Then, in a bizarre move, he blocked everyone who tried to engage him in conversation. I was among those blocked after I sent requests for a fair interview with Cusack (one in which I pledged to allow him ample respect to describe his opinions).
Interesting how leftist celebs rail on and on about freedom of speech. Then, when they’re challenged, they act out to silence anyone who disagrees with them. Hypocritical isn’t it? I will say this: Perez didn’t bury the story; he published it and posted the word “Cuckoo?” over Cusack’s picture (a truly ample description if you ask me).
Special props go out to Perez. Cusack – get a grip! Getting too political is a sure-fire way to lose fans and supporters. FOX News has more…
On August 29, 2010, In Political Pieces, By Billy Hallowell
This morning, my new article about the Pledge of Allegiance in America was published on HumanEvents.com. Please take some time to read the piece, then share your thoughts (you may do so on this post or here). Here’s the intro to the piece:
The debate over the Pledge of Allegiance has intensified over the past decade, with atheists and their leftist enthusiasts insisting that the proclamation be banned from the public square. While these individuals claim that they have no problem with the Pledge’s general patriotic tenants, the words “under God” are the objects of their intense scrutiny.
Click here to read the rest.
On June 27, 2010, In Daily Newsality, Faith In America, By Billy Hallowell
In life there are certain situations in which we may feel powerless, hopeless and trapped. These dead-end situations leave us unsure of where to go, what to do or what the next proper step to take is. Sometimes, it seems as though nothing can change the circumstances we find ourselves in. I’ve faced this many times in my own life with friends, family and my faith. This morning, I was reading Acts 12 and Peter’s dead-end scenario truly stuck out and resonated with me. If you have’t read it, here’s the main gist (verses 1-4):
It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.
Considering that James had already been murdered, the situation looked pretty grim for Peter. But, just when Peter’s life was placed on the chopping block, God sent an angel to the rescue. The angel appeared in the cell, smacked Peter to wake him up, told him to grab his stuff, released his chains and guided him past the guards and away from the jail.
Talk about being saved by the bell. In Peter’s hour of need, God came through. While we won’t always be rescued by angels, the knowledge that God is in control and that He knows the best path for our lives should never escape us. We may be faced with tough situations in which we must ensure some pain (not everyone has such a heroic and angelic rescue), but if we maintain our faith and knowledge that the Lord is at the helm, those dead-end dilemmas won’t overtake our lives. The Lord really can — and often will — rescue us in our hour of need.
Verse nine reads, “Peter followed him out of the prison, but he had no idea that what the angel was doing was really happening; he thought he was seeing a vision.” We may not recognize that the Lord is at work in the midst of personal chaos (hindsight is always much more accurate than our perceptions while dealing with life’s dramas), but we should remain faithful and follow God’s calls, as Peter did in Acts. What an awesome lesson to retain and practice. Anything truly is possible with and through Christ.
On May 27, 2010, In Political Pieces, By Billy Hallowell
The key to winning any election is mass appeal. In simple terms: If a candidate can convince the majority of the electorate that he or she is the most favorable option, the path to the Capitol is paved in gold. Read more on HumanEvents.com…
On February 5, 2010, In Political Pieces, By Billy Hallowell
Last week, Air America announced its official closure and intention to file Chapter 7. For those who had been following news surrounding the weeping willow of talk radio, this was no surprise. While making a thin-kid splash with pseudo-celebrities back in 2004, the liberal network had a rocky history, replete with scandal, two bankruptcies and acquisitions.
Last week, Big Journalism’s James Hudnall reminded readers that Air America’s problems are not new. According to Hudnall, “After a scandal involving misappropriated funds from black school children it promptly filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy two years later. Franken, Rhodes and Garofalo abandoned ship.” (Come to think of it, perhaps that last part wasn’t so bad after all).
While Air America’s demise is surely a sad day for the precious few who enjoyed leftist radio programming, there’s no need for liberal lamentations. The left still dominates Hollywood, the university system and mainstream media, where adherents can find ongoing solace and a sympathetic informational stream – a triangular dominance of sorts.
What is most interesting about Air America’s silence is the clamor coming from angry liberals, particularly those at the painstakingly partisan Media Matters for America. As can be expected, Media Matters’ Jamison Foser issued a statement that attacks conservative critics entitled, “The Right might want to hold off on gloating over Air America’s demise.”
After reading the title, I was sure I would understand exactly why, from Foser’s perspective, conservatives should withhold celebratory commentary; I was sadly mistaken. In the brief posting, Foser attempts to offer two reasons why conservatives shouldn’t make the case that there is no viable market for “liberal news” – and fails miserably. According to Foser,
You can either claim that ABC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC/NBC/NPR/NYT/WAPO/ETC are “liberal media,” or that there is no market for liberal media — but not both. Please pick one. Thanks!
The Washington Times has been losing money for two decades. In the early days of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch paid cable companies $11 per subscriber to carry FNC (and Rudy Giuliani pressured Time Warner to carry the outlet in New York City.) Point being: conservative media outlets have succeeded not only because of market forces, as conservatives would have you believe, but because right-wing billionaires like Murdoch and Rev. Moon have been willing to subsidize them.
The simplicity present in this analysis is astounding. First and foremost, research backs up the notion that outlets like CBS News and the New York Times are biased, but even if there were no scholarship to corroborate this notion, Foser’s argument makes little sense. Most conservatives aren’t claiming that liberal media outlets can’t succeed (though the left has had a tough time pushing unabashedly liberal outlets to the top); they’re making the case that liberal radio, absent public monies, cannot stand on its own. Those are two very different ideals. Air America never picked up the steam needed to forge its way to victorious ratings. Last week, the L.A. Times said it best:
The New York-based Air America kicked off in March 2004, aiming to be the antithesis of Rush Limbaugh’s and Sean Hannity’s shows. In comparison to the staunch, multimillion followings of those commentators, Air America didn’t quite hit the mark or even come close. An insufficient number of people tuned in.
Additionally, Foser’s statement that The Washington Times has lost money for decades is a silly corroborative comment. Tell me Mr. Foser, how many newspapers are posting record profits these days? Also, it’s curious that Foser would rail against Murdoch’s support for FOX News, a network the media mogul, himself, founded. I suppose use of his own monies to invest in FOX’s future was morally reprehensible in comparison to the $875,000 that was transferred to Air America from the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Clubs – a publicly-funded, non-profit organization that served children and seniors – back in 2004. After all, why filter the money to children in need when you can use it for political gain?
This loan arrangement was allegedly orchestrated by Evan Montvel-Cohen, Air America’s first chairman, while he was still the director of development for the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Clubs. Apparently, Foser sees a larger moral problem with using one’s own monies (otherwise known as entrepreneurship) for the betterment of one’s business activities than he does with alleged financial shenanigans. Interestingly, Cohen was subsequently arrested on unrelated charges. The New York Post has more:
Evan Montvel-Cohen was picked up by border-patrol officers at Guam International Airport on an outstanding warrant from Hawaii. He had been indicted there last month for money laundering and the theft of more than $60,000 from a Honolulu landscaping firm, prosecutors said.
Of course, all of that failed to make its way into Foser’s drivel. Apparently, Americans are to believe that left-wing billionaires like George Soros do not exist and therefore cannot fund massive liberal think tanks and other related bastions of leftist garble. According to DiscovertheNetworks.org:
…Soros and his Open Society Institute pour millions of dollars into the coffers of MoveOn, the Center for American Progress, and Democracy Alliance. In turn, these organizations funnel some of that money to Media Matters.
The notion that FOX News has become popular merely because billionaires are behind it is insane at best. And just to be sure you caught the hypocrisy — did I mention that Media Matters is also alleged to have major investorsbacking its work as well? Kettle or pot, Mr. Foser?
In recent times, Americans have come to trust FOX to break stories mainstream media simply refuse to touch; this carries over to special events, particularly those with partisanship at their core. This is exactly why the Huffington Post reported on Massachusetts’ special election coverage constituting the network’s “…biggest night since Election Night 2008, averaging a staggering 6.161 million total viewers in primetime. For comparison, that’s almost double CNN (1.503 million total viewers), MSNBC (1.138 million total viewers), and HLN (668,000 total viewers) combined.” People trusted FOX News to give adequate and fair information about Scott Brown more than they did the other networks.
The FOX News business model has worked. Unfortunately, liberal talk radio has proven unsustainable – even in the New York City market. Air America’s failure should serve as a lesson to the left, not another vapid opportunity to defend tattered pride. If anything, FOX’s model has helped the left raise MSNBC’s insanely low ratings, as the network has added more leftist ideologues to its roster. It will certainly be interesting to see where the left goes from here.
On October 5, 2009, In Political Pieces, By Billy Hallowell
Janeane Garofalo is insane. The sad part? Some Americans actually believe her insidiously heinous, garbage-laden verbal diarrhea. Americans who oppose ObamaCare aren’t racist; they’re simply worried about the nation’s fiscal stability. Click, above, to watch Garofalo unleash her inner nut.
On September 3, 2009, In Political Pieces, By Billy Hallowell
Perhaps nothing is more entertaining or educational than listening to an editor or journalist answer questions related to ideological perspective. From Dan Rather to Barbara Walters, the denial of agenda-driven coverage is rampant. While the playing field is beginning to level in the realms of news and politics, entertainment outlets virtually ignore conservative viewpoints.
Last week, Gerald Marzorati, editor of The New York Times Magazine (a lifestyle magazine insert published by none other than the infamously left-leaning New York Times Co.) publicly answered a wide array of questions about the economy’s affect on the magazine, “the future of long-form journalism,” the magazine’s music coverage and ideological perspective, among other related subjects.
While the Q&A was nothing spectacular, a question about ideological perspective stands out from the rest. A reader identified as “Ron Mwangaguhunga” wrote:
“The New York Times Magazine, I’ve been told by a former editor, considers itself “centrist” — playing stories straight down the center. Any comment?”
Before I go any further, let it be stated that there is nothing centrist about The New York Times, so to expect that one of its Sunday supplements would be produced in journalism’s traditional middle-of-the-road sentiment is practically nonsensical. But, I digress.
While I do need to give props to Marzorati for publicly addressing the question, rather than tucking it away and ignoring its tenants, it’s important to pay attention to his response:
“Interesting. What you’re asking is: Does the Magazine have an ideology? At the risk of giving some of my colleagues hives, I think it does.”
Upon first reading this, I was jubilant! Finally, someone at The New York Times Co. admits that there is some form of inherent bias present in its reporting. But, my joy was quickly impeded by the Times’ own irrationality as I read on. Marzorati continued,
“Call it Urban Modern. That is, I think it reflects not a left-or-right POLITICAL ideology but a geographical one, the mentality of the place it is created: 21st Century Manhattan.”
Wait, what? Can anyone identify what “Urban Modern” means? I’m pretty sure most rational Americans would associate this ideological umbrella term with “liberalism.” Furthermore, if there wasn’t some sort of socio-political attachment inherently present in the term itself, why would Marzorati risk giving his colleagues “hives”? Ask anyone living in 21st Century Manhattan (or anyone with a base idea of what it’s like to be a conservative living in the greater-New York area) and they’ll tell you that the social and political spheres (i.e. “the basic mentality”) are dominated by liberalism.
While Marzorati’s willingness to share perspective with America is surely delightful, his inability to recognize his outlets overt ideological vice and his refusal to acknowledge disparity in the outlet’s overall coverage is less than appealing. This is reflective of the fact that those journalists, whether they cover entertainment or politics, living in the New York area don’t even recognize the political and social slant under and through which they live – and subsequently write.
If The Times Magazine wants to cover lifestyle through a liberal lens, that’s fine. But, the editor should at least understand and properly convey the magazine’s bias. It’s time for entertainment and lifestyle outlets to acknowledge their slant. Whether they choose to include the nation’s majority political perspective (conservatism) in editorial discussions is up to them. Either way, admitting that they have a problem is the first step toward recovery.
Originally published on Big Hollywood.
On August 12, 2009, In Political Pieces, By Billy Hallowell
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” – Al Gore, 2002
In July, the FBI released summaries of more than 20 interviews and casual conversations the agency carried out with former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Aside from creating a more robust picture of the conditions that led up to the Iraq War, the discussions flagrantly expose Hussein’s motives in resisting U.S. pressure to cooperate with U.N. inspectors. Furthermore, they provide an informative lens into his psyche during the months leading up to the invasion.
According to The Washington Times, “The new documents paint a picture of the Iraqi dictator in the final years of his life as arrogant, defiant and often delusional.” At points throughout the interviews, Hussein would often insist that he was still the president of Iraq. He denied ties to the al Qaeda and insisted that “…Iraq does not have orphans walking the streets.”
While the aforementioned elements are offsetting, the most startling revelation was Hussein’s own admission that he purposely misled the world to believe that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Even more alarming is the motivation he attributes to this self-proclaimed action. In the interviews, Hussein told officials that, in the months leading up to the Iraq War, he feared a nuclear-equipped Iran more than he did any reaction from the United States.
George Piro, Saddam’s FBI interviewer, wrote, “Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.” Thus, the reason for Hussein’s intended deceit – a trickery that led to intense regional and global instability – was rooted more in political posturing and survival than it was in his narcissistic desire to exponentially increase Iraq’s power in the Middle East.
Importantly, this admission raises a number of red flags. Since 2003, American liberals have railed against the U.S. government, stating that former President George W. Bush purposefully misled the American people in his affirmations that Iraq possessed WMD. According to those on the left, Republicans used weapons-based rhetoric as an excuse to initiate military operations in the region. However, the release of these transcripts devalues this notion.
Teamed with the countless pieces of evidence contradicting Bush’s alleged purposeful deceit, Hussein’s own admission provides a basis for amplified understanding that sheds light on the bluffs and malfeasances that led the U.S. to invade. It is with this information that a more rational understanding of U.S. operations can be processed.
Considering Hussein’s weapons bluff, it is not surprising that the United States was led astray. When placing Iraq’s violently aggressive history and non-compliance into context, there was surely reason to believe that the nation was, indeed, illegally cultivating and harboring WMD. In fact, politicians were candid about their belief that Hussein did possess weapons in the decade preceding the Iraq War.
Prior to the commencement of military operations in 2003, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and others, from both sides of the political aisle, publicly stated Iraq’s threat to the international community. Following Iraq’s use of chemical weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds in the 1980s and Hussein’s vocal hatred for the West, this caution on behalf of American political minds was fully justified.
However, when the war broke out, liberal politicians were suddenly less vocal about these dangers and, collectively, their tone changed dramatically in the years following its inception. Nonetheless, their prior warnings about weapons are well documented and corroborate the fears and insinuations that reinforced U.S. rationale in striking Iraq. On an episode of Larry King in 2003, President Bill Clinton said, “When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for.”
In a 2002 speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, Al Gore reiterated Hussein’s insatiable lust for weapons when he said, “Nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction.”
Hussein’s possession of WMD was universally accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike, as those individuals with access to privileged information – whether they were former presidents or members of Congress – all reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein either possessed or sought to possess dangerous materials. This, teamed with Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with the international community when questioning about said materials began, inevitably led to U.S. military action.
The historical record now shows that it was Hussein, not George W. Bush, who manufactured and allowed the fester the idea that Iraq possessed powerful weapons of mass destruction.
Booking Information
Billy Hallowell is exclusively represented by Single Source Speakers (SSS). To schedule an event with Billy, please contact SSS by e-mail or phone (407) 575-1335.