All You Need To Know About Our New Friend – Mr. Doctor McPherson, Ph.D., Author and Political Raconteur…

…is in his latest post. It starts this way:

One could spend all day trying to debunk just the conspiracy theories promoted on Fox News, and typically it’s not worth the trouble. Most people aren’t crazy enough to buy into the theories (and are too apathetic to pursue them, anyway). But one of the latest goofy theories on Fox News and elsewhere is apparently being promoted by an organization more powerful with legislators than Fox News — the National Rifle Association.

For evidence of the “conspiracies”, he links to one of his own posts that has links to another blog with maybe three readers and then immediately generalizes that blog to represent the entire right side of the political sphere. The damning Fox News evidence? A link to Media Matters for America. Maybe the good Ph.D. just didn’t have “all day” to debunk.

“Simply put,” Frisch wrote, “the progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don’t have John McCain to kick around any more. Filling the lack of leadership on the right, Fox News has emerged as the central enemy and antagonist of the Obama administration, our Congressional majorities and the progressive movement as a whole.”

“We must take Fox News head-on in a well funded, presidential-style campaign to discredit and embarrass the network, making it illegitimate in the eyes of news consumers.”

So sayeth Karl Frisch of MMFA.

Sounds like a legitimate, objective information outlet to me – how about you? No  agenda present in that statement, is there?

Perhaps our new Ph.D. friend should follow some of his own advice:

Today offers more evidence of why media literacy is so important in this country–and, sadly, why many people who rely on one-sided blogs for information are so politically ignorant.

Translation: if you aren’t a “progressive”, you simply must be stupid.

Yes, James, and the ignorance starts with getting information from a site like Media Matters, an entity who was created for one purpose and one purpose only – to destroy Fox News and in doing so, silence any opposing view of “progressivism”.

By the way, just how is all that misleading “reporting”, parsing and selective editing working out? Not too well, is it?

Fox News hosts mark the 10th straight year that the channel has been number one in cable news ratings. Last year, Fox News averaged 1.86 million viewers in prime time, more than doubling MSNBC’s 775,000 average and CNN’s 689,000 average.

How about the evil scaremongers at the NRA? Well, Doc, hate to break it to you but that notorious right wing news outlet, CBS, has just uncovered documents that indicate that the Obama administration was doing exactly what the NRA claimed:

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation “Fast and Furious” to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as “(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue.” And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: “Bill–well done yesterday… (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.”

This revelation angers gun rights advocates. Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 “disappointing and ironic.” Keane says it’s “deeply troubling” if sales made by gun dealers “voluntarily cooperating with ATF’s flawed ‘Operation Fast & Furious’ were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles.”

It is probably not a big surprise that Mr. Doctor McPherson, Ph.D., Author and Political Raconteur thinks that Darrell Issa’s investigation is just silly:

The claim comes from the current controversy over the truly stupid “Fast and Furious” program, which this week prompted House Republicans to recommend holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress (which means something different here than the “contempt of Congress” that most of us have). For its part, the Obama administration is maintaining that it has executive privilege to withhold some documents that House Republicans want. And frankly, I don’t care much about that — George W. Bush and Bill Clinton each successfully asserted executive privilege repeatedly (this is Obama’s first time), and this politically motivated attempt likely will go nowhere, and likely will hurt Republicans more than it hurts Obama.

Seems that slain border patrol Agent Brian Terry’s family doesn’t think so:

“Eric Holder has been before Congress so many times. And [from] the first couple times you can tell there’s something being hid, and there’s something not being said. After a while you feel like throwing the TV through the front window because you get tired of hearing the constant lies,” said Josephine Terry.

Brian Terry’s December 2010 death – linked to firearms traced to the ATF’s Fast and Furious program – was the incident that brought the operation into public scrutiny.

And neither does the family of Jaime Zapata, the second agent slain by one of Holder’s guns:

The family of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent killed in Mexico has filed a $25 million wrongful death claim against the U.S. government.

Jaime Zapata was killed last year in a roadside attack. His family says officials with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) knew that the men who bought the guns used in Zapata’s murder were buying weapons bound for Mexico, but did nothing to stop them.

Andy McCarthy at NRO’s The Corner, has more reasons that this isn’t just political fishing excursion, aside from the facts that two deaths of federal officers are a direct result of an Obama administration policy (not a Bush policy):

To the contrary, Fast & Furious involved uncontrolled deliveries — of thousands of weapons. It was an utterly heedless program in which the feds allowed these guns to be sold to straw purchasers — often leaning on reluctant gun dealers to make the sales. The straw purchasers were not followed by close physical surveillance; they were freely permitted to bulk transfer the guns to, among others, Mexican drug gangs and other violent criminals — with no agents on hand to swoop in, make arrests, and grab the firearms. The inevitable result of this was that the guns have been used (and will continue to be used) in many crimes, including the murder of Brian Terry, a U.S. border patrol agent.
In sum, the Fast & Furious idea of “trace” is that, after violent crimes occur in Mexico, we can trace any guns the Mexican police are lucky enough to seize back to the sales to U.S. straw purchasers … who should never have been allowed to transfer them (or even buy them) in the first place. That is not law enforcement; that is abetting a criminal rampage.

As Sen. Cornyn pointed out, there is another major distinction between Wide Receiver and Fast & Furious. The former was actually a coordinated effort between American and Mexican authorities. Law enforcement agents in both countries kept each other apprised about suspected transactions and tried to work together to apprehend law-breakers. To the contrary, Fast & Furious was a unilateral, half-baked scheme cooked up by an agency of the Obama Justice Department — an agency that was coordinating with the Justice Department on the operation and that turned to Main Justice in order to get wiretapping authority.

By the time Cornyn was done drawing this stark contrast between Wide Receiver and Fast & Furious, Holder was reduced to conceding, “I’m not trying to equate the two.” That is big of him given that the two cannot be equated. But the attorney general seemed fine with the effort to equate them — to make them one and the same — when it was Schumer asking the questions. Expect the effort to continue. “Bush did it” may be a tired defense, and in this instance a preposterous one, but it’s the one the Democratic base loves to hear.

Dr. James McPherson, PH.D. is just another tiring and tendentious “progressive” living in a world where Fox News and conservatives are the only problems…in other words, just another see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, run of the mill Obama sycophant.

I’m about a post or two away from being  called a racist.

40 thoughts on “All You Need To Know About Our New Friend – Mr. Doctor McPherson, Ph.D., Author and Political Raconteur…

    • Fast and Furious matters. Executive privilege has been used before but that doesn’t mean that it is proper here. Obama was, in fact, using it to support gun control. Kells’ new bud James is a run of the mill academic lib.

      There you go.

      • Forty-four words! That’s great. Yes, F&F matters. EP has been used before illegally (Nixon) and it has every appearance of being improper, if not illegal, in this case. Obama was using it for gun control? Don’t get that part. Help me out here. McPhearson is a run of the mill academic lib? I thought he claimed to be a conservative.

        • “I thought he claimed to be a conservative.”

          Nope, I’m a liberal/progressive on more issues than I’m a conservative. But as with most things, the labels tend to oversimplify.

          I’m a Christian professor at a Christian university and more “conservative” on gun control (a result of my Idaho hunting roots, no doubt) than my Southern Baptist military brat buddy. I’m largely pacifist and oppose the death penalty, but I recognize that some people deserve to die and I own several guns. I don’t like profanity, but don’t think drugs, prostitution or porn should be illegal. I fear big business as much as I fear big government, which is partly why I support “socialist” health care. I think government should generally err on the side of protecting the weakest among us, so, like Thomas Paine, I favor welfare programs and high inheritance taxes. If you care to know where I stand on any other issue, feel free to ask.

          • My mistake. I saw this on your blog, “By the author of The Conservative Resurgence and the Press:” and apparently didn’t read far enough.

            • No sweat — I’ve done the same, often enough. And when you read lots of blogs, news, etc., it’s easy to overlook things.

  1. I just read through James’ older article and comments through your link. Although I don’t agree with his ideology, I find him to be thoughtful, which is pleasing to me. Then again, it’s very pleasing when you boys get riled up…….and turn green. Unfortunately, I turn red and horns expode from my head……

  2. Utah, if I say “kudos” to a good post, will the peanut gallery accuse me being a “yes man?” As if I have ever been a yes man in my life…. still makes me chuckle this morning.

    Good Post. Now if B could write this well….. (Sarcasm).

    Kells, OPEN MIND, is the key to being thoughtful. When one writes from a POINT of VIEW, instead of being OPEN to all the facts, good or bad, is that really THOUGHTFUL? GOSH… On one of Utah’s or B’s posts, I don’t remember which one, I started commenting, and then after “discussion” admitted openly, that I could be MISTAKEN. Go read that thread, and see how a person can have an open mind, and change their mind when provided new facts. My post here shows me considering openly.

    • Yes, yes, I enjoyed the article and the comments. But do you not believe a person should be able to voice an opinion? It may very well be contrary to yours, but the manner in which it is presented is what the ear hears when reading. (Unfortunately, I probaby sound like a shrieking Harpy…….) 😦

      • Opposing opinions are welcome. Personally attacking someone else for holding their opinions is another matter entirely. For some reason the “statists” feel they must demean the other side for their views….
        Oh by the way Kells, none of us are angry. We are just removing the veil from the other side here… I know B and I were never angry or upset yesterday….

        • And rest assured, I also haven’t been angered by anything directed at me. I wouldn’t have gone into journalism, academia, or blogging if I were thin-skinned. Because of the nastiness (not here, so far, though I’ve had death threats and comlaints to my bosses from elsewhere), my wife occasionally wishes I didn’t always use my real name and photo. 🙂

  3. This guy is a hypocrite. How dare he come here and complain about “chicken hawks” when he is the journalistic equivalent. COWARD!

    I replied to that post last night – before ANY other comments were posted or showing.

    I asked his how it is that he furthers this ridicule of his opposition based on ‘conspiracy theories’ when that method is taught in our colleges today?

    I asked him how it is he thinks it is valid to dismiss someone as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ when that was EXACTLY what Saul Alinksy said to do to discredit people who were hitting home against you. I even linked him to Rules for Radicals and reminded him that THIS is what Obama really taught in college – Alinsky.

    I asked him how he can so easily dismiss the OBVIOUS media bias where ‘journalists’ call Alinsky their hero: the same journalists from the 60’s who hung with other Alinsky students that are now IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

    I then reminded him that Alinsky goes back to Edward Bernays and JOURNALISTIC HERO, Walter Lippmann. In the event you do not understand, Lippmann and others used what Bernays developed – called propaganda today – and taught ‘journalists’ how to use it to manufacture and manipulate public opinion.

    And guess what: he has not approved my comment. HYPOCRITE!

    • Perhaps someday you’ll figure out how these bloggy thingies work, Blackie. Just as with the first time I comment on most sites, I have my settings set so that I have to approve a first-time commenter. That’s a typical means of preventing a lot of spam. As soon as I got to a computer after your comment, it was approved (at 7:50 p.m., Pacific Time) — but the comments that appeared before yours were from people who had written previously. Whatever you submit now should go through automatically, just as those other comments did.

      I also responded to your comment after I cleared you. Here’s my response, to save you the effort of making another trip over there (which you could have done this morning, saving yourself the effort of writing your silly comment above):

      “considering that labeling political opponents as conspiracy theorists is actually taught in colleges today”

      Gee, how did I miss that class in my way–too-many years of college? And despite 20 years of teaching, I’ve also apparently neglected that lesson–yet another failure in my liberal indoctrination of students. 🙂

    • hmmmm – – Sorry, I’ve got to somewhat check myself on that last post. It was a case of “what came to mind went to post” so to speak. If McPhearson wants to have control of posts on his blog, that is his God-given right as an individual and blog [owner] and I shouldn’t question it, however, I do believe it inhibits a two-way exchange of opinions and ideas. It also lends the appearance of being reluctant to admit the other side is right or has a valid point. At least at TRNL we all have the opportunity to make fools of ourselves.

      • And after that first approval, intended to block spam, you can feel free to do the same at my site.

    • “Approval of comments = censorship.”

      As with most of the blogs to which I respond, only first-time comments have to be approved. That’s to reduce spam — which at the time I started my blog was often pornographic. I teach at a Christian college, and many students and former students read my blog. But I don’t think I’ve ever blocked or censored a non-spam post. Sometimes (esp. in the summer when I go camping, and may not turn on a computer for several days) it does take longer than other times to notice the first-time comments.

  4. and the ignorance starts with getting information from a site like Media Matters, an entity who was created for one purpose and one purpose only – to destroy Fox News and in doing so, silence any opposing view of “progressivism”.

    So, now that you have vented, tell us when has Media Matters been wrong? Attacking the messenger has become quite commonplace here of late. Aren’t you acting a lot like buggerthat these days? Answer, yes, you are.

  5. “The damning Fox News evidence? A link to Media Matters for America.”

    I’m not a fan of MMA, either — but since you took the time to visit the link, surely you saw that it went to a list of Fox News goofiness that could be checked elsewhere. I saw no need to recomposed the whole list. But feel free to go through and debunk the evidence, as opposed to shifting the emphasis to the source (a favorite trick of conservatives and progressives alike, I know).

    “Translation: if you aren’t a “progressive”, you simply must be stupid.”

    Sorry, but that’s a bad “translation.” A better one would be, “If you rely on media from only one side of the political spectrum, you are likely to be stupid.” That’s why I provide a long list of links to both liberal and conservative sites on my own blog.

    “Fox News hosts mark the 10th straight year that the channel has been number one in cable news ratings. Last year, Fox News averaged 1.86 million viewers in prime time, more than doubling MSNBC’s 775,000 average and CNN’s 689,000 average.”

    Yes, thank God that relatively few people watch cable news. More people watch any of the “big three” evening newscasts than watch anything on cable news. And far more people watch such classic fare as “Ice Road Truckers” and numerous other “reality shows” than watch Fox News.

    “Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation “Fast and Furious” to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.”

    Which is something entirely different than saying that “Fast and Furious” was started for that reason. And the article says nothing about Holder or Obama knowing anything about it–just some ATF folks who may or may not have even supported “Fast and Furious.” What was that you were saying about selective editing?

    “just another see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, run of the mill Obama sycophant”

    Now you’re making it clear that you haven’t read much that I’ve written. I’ve been a regular critic of Obama and probably won’t vote for him this year. And in case it wasn’t clear, notice that I referred to Fast and Furious as “truly stupid.”

    But then, chances are that you know that. After all, you included most of my post here but chose to leave out one of my key reasons that Issa’s go-nowhere campaign is problematic: “It will still go nowhere, but will keep the issue alive for an extended period of time when Congress might instead be focusing on more important issues. And as a result, Obama gets to keep running against a partisan do-nothing Congress.” That’s why I wrote (in the part you included) that the investigation will hurt Republicans more than it does Obama (while providing a link to a New York Daily News (a conservative publication) column saying the same thing.

    If I were a true Obama sycophant, I’d be cheering for this investigation to continue until its inevitable unsatisfactory end. But frankly I’d be happier if those in Congress would focus on getting things done regarding jobs, student loans, health care, etc.

    • Professor McPherson, If you are here looking for a fair and reasonable discussion of the issues, fuggedabouttit! Utah and Black3actual are done with dialog, and are just cranking out typical right-wing garbage these days,

      Look at their essays on topics other than current issues, and you can see where their strengths lie. Black’s constitutional essays are intriguing, Utah’s posts about management are illuminating, and both are truly soulful cats.

      • Greg – if you want to be done with this site, just say the word. You have rights to post whatever you want, whenever you want but to presume that disagreeing with you is promulgating “garbage” says far more about you than me.

        I appreciate your compliment but I categorically reject your assertion that what is being posted is “right wing garbage” – I cordially invite you to illuminate me as to exactly what you are defining as garbage and why and I will gladly debate that with you.

      • “Utah and Black3actual are done with dialog”

        Thanks. I noticed that they were quick to jump on me and call me names because I went 12 hours without checking email and so didn’t clear their first comments on my own site quickly enough for them — yet in the day since then they haven’t bothered to respond to my corrections of their misconceptions. Not that I was expecting an apology. 🙂

  6. Dr. James,

    I agree that Fast and Furious is a distraction, but it is a fact that both Obama and Holder have emphatically stated that they want more stringent gun control. President Obama had promised Sarah Brady that he was working on gun control “under the radar” and she should be patient.

    And Eric Holder wants schools to promote gun control much like they promote anti-tobacco and anti-drug messages.

    And just because I know how much you admire Fox News, here’s another link to a video about F&F

    • Regardless of what politicians may say, I’m more interested in what they do (and what they can do)–which will be nothing on this issue. And it seems that Holder was talking about it “being cool” among kids to carry guns. As a gun owner and former gun safety instructor, I agree.

      Most people shouldn’t own guns for anything other than hunting. Unless you know that you’re willing to kill someone and you know your gun well, you would probably be better off with a dog than a gun at home (and a shotgun is better than a handgun), and better off with pepper spray than a gun outside of the house.

      • Interesting how Holder went from (what I would agree was) a rather innocuous speech on guns not “being cool” for teens to running a gun operation like F&F with absolutely no controls in place.

      • James,

        Maybe you don’t understand the socialist mindset…or maybe you do and are just playing devil’s advocate. You do understand that in order for Democratic socialism to work, which is what Obama and his sycophants want, guns must be taken away from citizens at large and that only law enforcement and military should be armed. I assume since you’re an academic and former journalist, you have studied History and realize that in every tyrannic state, the first step was to disarm the citizenry.

        Must be why the Founders put in that pesky Second Amendment.

        • I will give James the benefit of the doubt and presume he knows exactly what he argues.

          Armed men are CITIZENS, unarmed men are nothing more than SUBJECTS. Subject to the tyrannies if the more powerful.

        • I find it amusing how often that people who accuse me of being a socialist (which, in truth, all Americans are to some degree) then accuse me of not understanding the socialist mind. I may want a state in which everyone wears purple bikinis. The likelihood of that happening is slim–and would occur only if I managed to persuade everyone that it was a good idea.

          • I reread what I wrote several times and nowhere did I see where I accused you of being a socialist. I did however say you might be playing devil’s advocate.

            And you’re right about the incremental creep of socialism into the mainstream of American life. You can thank the progressives of the early twentieth century for that. And that is specifically what we’re fighting against.

            And purple bikinis would only work for certain skin tones so your proposal couldn’t possibly work. 😉

            • “nowhere did I see where I accused you of being a socialist”

              You’re absolutely right; I was making a bad connection between unrelated posts–my apologies, and thanks for pointing it out so quickly and pleasantly. And sometimes I do play devil’s advocate, though more often in my classroom than when writing.

              Purple bikinis would also be problematic for those of us who are somewhat colorblind and so can’t distinguish between blue and purple. One of the first things my wife made me promise early in our married life was not to buy her any more clothing. Come to think of it, that may have as much to do with my fashion sense as with my ability to discern between colors.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.