Wednesday, April 25, 2018
RSS Feed
Media Analyses
Middle East Issues
Christian Issues
Names In The News
CAMERA Authors
Headlines & Photos
Errors & Corrections
Film Reviews
CAMERA Publications
Film Suggestions
Be An Activist
Adopt A Library
History of CAMERA
Contact CAMERA
Contact The Media
Privacy Policy
Media Analyses

C-SPAN March – April 2013

Send your comments about C-SPAN's platform for the defamation of Israel and Jews to CAMERA:

April 28, 2013 – 7:15 AM


Topic: Relationship between media and D.C. insiders: Your thoughts?

Caller: Rick from Canton, Ohio (click here to view).

Washington Journal host Casey, after giving the conspiracy mongering, repeat caller a lengthy opportunity (2-minutes) to tie his disjointed inflammatory observations into a pertinent point, properly cuts him off there as he's about to falsely claim that the Jews run the media, just as he did in his previous call (“Rick from Louisville, Ohio” on March 1, click here to view) virtually identical to this and his previous calls.
This anti-Jewish caller's other recent phone-ins were as “Mark from Louisville, Ohio” (click here to view) on Dec. 31, 2012 and as “Rick from Canton, Ohio” (click here to view) on May 3, 2012.
Caller: “You've got that relationship between the media and the D.C. insiders. First off all you have to identify the media. When I was growing up in Detroit, in the 1960's and 1970's, there were three TV stations and 50 independent news gathering agencies. Today there are 70 (indistinct) channels, and five news gathering agencies. There's Fox, Time-Warner, Clear Channel Radio. These are business corporations. They are run by billionaires.

So, when you talk about the media, there are five regional propaganda outlets and then you add Goldman Sachs, Nike, all these corporations. Now you have an idea of the media. Four-dollar tax. You look at General Electric and MSNBC. General Electric is involved in war profiteering, all the energy policies in the world, banking, campaign financing lobbies – that's G.E. and Microsoft and Bill Gates (indistinct).

Then you get to Clear Channel Radio, it is 90 percent of AM radio and it comes out of the state of Texas. That's where your wars are all started. That's where your oil companies are, your NAFTA, the Bushes, the Karl Roves, the Lyndon Johnsons. That comes from the state of Texas. And from TV you have Conan O'Brien and that's Time-Warner. Ninety percent of all your TV comes from the state of Georgia. That's the South. That's a different ideology. You know, we have a Constitution. We went through that with the South. And to top it all off, to top it all off, the Jewish population makes up 1.5 percent of the population and they run the …”

Host (terminating the caller): “We will leave it there, Rick.”

NOTE: The host over-indulged the conspiracy-theorist caller, but finally, appropriately, cut him off. C-SPAN should ask itself, "What about Washington Journal attracts so many of these fantasists?"

April 26, 2013 – 7:32 AM


Topic: White House says chemical weapons used in Syria.

Caller: Craig from Georgia (click here to view).

This is another of the cadre of C-SPAN's “blame-the-Jews-and-Israel-for-everything” callers who feel welcome at Washington Journal. Host characteristically tacitly accepts caller's off-topic preposterous accusation.

Caller: “Yes, sir, appreciate you letting me put a few words on this. This country has been involved in too many wars over the years. I think we're all war wary. Every time Israel – Mr. Netanyahu – the Israeli lobbies – say jump, our elected officials ask ‘how high?'”

Host: “Caller, we're focusing on Syria. Specifically, what should we do about that?”

Caller: “Stay out of it. Take care of our own troubles. We have far too many problems as it is at home. Thank you sir.”

Host: “That was Craig from Georgia.”

April 22, 2013 – 7:31 AM

Host: JOHN McCARDLE (,,,

Topic: Should Boston bomber be designated as enemy combatant?

Host: "Let's go now to James from North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina on the Independent line. Good morning James."

Caller: James Morris from Los Angeles, California (click here to view).

Consistent with Washington Journal's chronic journalistic malpractice, host fecklessly indulges caller, the notorious James Morris, who characteristically blames American and Israeli policies for the Boston bombing perpetrated by two Chechnyan-American brothers who may have been influenced by Islamic radicalism.

Frequent Washington Journal caller Morris, who invariably parrots what amounts to the Iranian propaganda line (he has been cited approvingly by Iran's Press TV, an official government mouth-piece), last phoned in Jan. 6, 2013 as "Tim" from California (click here to view). Morris' 64 calls (with very few exceptions each has been anti-Israel, anti-America, pro-Iran) to Washington Journal since December 2008 are chronicled. Morris' Iran connection is indicated by the Iranian government-funded propaganda Website, which refers to Morris as a “Los Angeles-based political analyst” in a propaganda video (posted May 23, 2011) featuring Morris (includes his photo).

MORRIS: "Thanks for taking my call. It's actually Los Angeles. I wanted to say that of course he should be tried in federal court. That's where Ramzi Yousef who attacked the World trade Center in 1993 for [American] support of Israel was tried. And this gentleman, this terrorist, can be tried as well.
The bottom line is – these neocon mouthpieces like [Senators] John McCain and Lindsey Graham – who pushed for these wars in Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan – have radicalized these people, including the Chechens who have been fighting against us in Afghanistan. And we're getting the blowback from it. You can listen to my Washington Journal C-SPAN call from a couple of years ago on the anniversary of 9/11. Michael Scheuer, the former CIA bin Laden head, warned us about our foreign policy interventions in the Arab-Muslim world, all of these neocon-motivated interventions with Iran on deck. I notice that C-SPAN has not been talking about it. I have great respect for C-SPAN, but they have not talked about the resolution that the Senate has just passed, a resolution that the Israel lobby AIPAC has written basically giving Israel carte-blanche to attack Iran with us to defend Israel."
[When Morris and C-SPAN callers like him denigrate "neocons" – neo-conservatives – the term almost invariably is a euphemism for supporters of close U.S.-Israel relations and meant to imply that they function as Israeli "fifth-columnists"]

Host: "Well James, stay on the Boston bomber issue for a second. Concern about losing some intelligence if the suspect is not allowed to be interrogated as an enemy combatant. He has to have a lawyer present when he's read his Miranda rights "

MORRIS: "Well, at the bottom line, that might be a valid point, but then again if we don't address the foreign policy problem, we will have waves of people – terrorists – attacking our cities. Look at what they were able to do in Boston – shut down a whole city. I'm soon going on ‘Russia Today Arabic' [RT television] to discuss what happened here. I mean, I've already been on ‘Russia Today' last year talking about the neocon agenda for Syria. You can just Google ‘James Morris' and ‘Russia Today.'"
[Morris exposes himself by his self-promotion: "Russia Today," and "Russia Today Arabic" are, like Iran's Press TV, government-directed propaganda operations. That the C-SPAN host fails to point this out amounts to journalistic dereliction of duty.]

Host: "Alright James. Now to Gabriel in Laurel, Maryland, on our Democrat line."

April 19, 2013 – 9:33 AM


Guest: Colonel RANDALL LARSEN, USAF (Ret.), Director of The Institute for Homeland Security and a national security advisor to the Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Topic: Boston Marathon bombing investigation.

Caller: John from Herndon, Virginia (click here to view).

C-SPAN enables caller's unprecedentedly lengthy monologue explaining away Muslim violence by comparing it with Christian and Jewish violence. But there is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns underway across the globe, either in numbers of perpetrators engaged or in the magnitude of death and destruction wrought.

Consistent with Washington Journal's chronic journalistic malpractice, guest tries to reinforce caller's tenuous apologia for Muslim terrorist violence with glowing recommendation of controversial documentary film that tries to portray Israel's antiterrorism policies as counterproductive and cruel.

Caller (two-minute monologue): “I am a Muslim myself … Muslims are no different than any other society. We have some idiotic people that will do some things. The Christians have them, the Jews have them… I will listen to your answer on the air and I thank you very much.”

Host: “John, before you go, since you shared your personal perspective with us this morning as a Muslim, how do you deal with the concept of 'see something, say something?' Do you ever worry that will get into racial profiling or ethnic profiling? We had a caller call in earlier and she said she saw something that she did not think was right and she notified both the store as well as the FBI. What are your thoughts on that?”

Caller (two-minute monologue): “I think that crime doesn't have a boundary… Anything that goes wrong, you have to report it. Again, do we have some people who have different ideas about the Muslims – that they always try to attack because something happened? Yes, but I do not pick and choose. .. But if I see something wrong, I will report it…”

Host: “Okay, thanks for sharing your thoughts, John.”

Guest: “Thank you John. One other thing I'd like to mention. Trying to discern – because we have heard a lot of that today – Muslims do all of these attacks. And I get those numbers as well. And yet when you consider the number of Muslims in the world, that is a very small percentage of people, those are the ones who are trying to attack us. This [Washington Journal] is probably the best educational show on TV. There is something out that is also very important for education … There is an incredible movie, that's hard to see right now, called the “Gatekeepers.” I think only one small theater here in Washington, D.C. played it. It's by the six former heads of Shin Bet which is sort of like the FBI. They cover every year of Shin Bet leadership from 1980 through 2011. These people really know and understand terrorism. If you really want to understand political terrorism and what causes it, go see that movie. If it were anybody other than the former leaders of the Israeli security organization, people would say it was an antisemitic film. But it is not. It's a very honest look at that…We need to look at the causes of it and what we need to do. It gets back to treating people like people and not by what group they tend to be in.”

April 16, 2013 – 7:04 AM


Topic: Boston bombing appears to be act of terror.

Caller: Darrell from St. Louis, Missouri (click here to view).

This notorious Washington Journal repeat caller characteristically blames America for the Boston Marathon bombing (April 15) and characteristically a C-SPAN host fails to help viewers' understanding of issues by tacitly accepting caller's fringe views.
"Darrell" (sometimes he identifies himself as Bill or Bob) has a history of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish hate mongering, enabled by C-SPAN's Washington Journal. It goes back to at least fall of 2009 and includes: Jan. 13, 2013 (8:40 AM) Darrell from Defiance, Missouri (click here to listen); Jan. 8, 2013 (7:04 AM) Darrell from Missouri (click here to listen); Nov. 21, 2012 (7:34 AM) as Darrell from Defiance, Missouri (click here to listen); April 15, 2012 (7:36 AM) as Darrell from St. Charles, Missouri (click here to listen); Feb. 5, 2012 (7:19 AM) as Bill from Defiance, Missouri (click here to listen); Oct. 21, 2011 (7:16 AM) as Bill from St. Louis (click here to listen); Oct. 12, 2011 (7:19 AM) as Bill, Sept. 21, 2011 (7:06 AM) as Bill, May 19, 2011 (7:15 AM) as Darrell, May 2, 2011 (9:18 AM) as Bill, March 18, 2011 (7:30 AM) as Bob, Feb. 26, 2011 (7:16 AM) as Bill, Feb. 1, 2011 (7:21 AM) as Darrell; and so on to Sept. 30, 2009 (8:21 AM) as Darrell from St. Louis (click here to listen).

Caller: "My thoughts are that this is horrendous. It takes me back to Iraq. Since we have been in Iraq bombs have been going off every day. People have been killed, women and children. Not a peep out of the American people. This goes off and all a sudden it's ‘woe is me'. I mean, at some point we've got to understand that what we' re doing overseas to people in Afghanistan and Iraq and all over the world, is going to sooner or later come back to us in America. I think it is horrendous. I don't condone it. But I think it goes back to our insane foreign policy. Not a peep, like I said, out of the American people with all of the people being slaughtered in Iraq. At least these bombs don' t have depleted uranium in them. Thank you,"

Host: "Alright. Darrell in St. Louis with that. Front page of the New York Times this morning ..."

NOTE: "At least these bombs don't have depleted uranium in them." C-SPAN's host lets the false equivalence in the mention of depleted uranium, used by the United States in armor-piercing shells, pass without clarification. Such "hands off" responses have made Washington Journal a magnet for the chronically anti-American, anti-Israeli. See the next caller, for example.

April 16, 2013 – 7:51 AM


Topic: Boston bombing appears to be act of terror.

Caller: Joseph from Kentucky (click here to view).

Caller: "Yes, I am just curious why they think that it is a Saudi that is behind this. Since we've been sending them so much money, why do these people from the Middle East keep trying to do us harm? We are sending countries like Israel, and all these other places, money left and right when we need it here at home. I say keep our money at home and let those people fend for themselves."
[This caller's reaction to the Boston Marathon bombing includes a demand that America should "keep our money at home" away from the Saudis and "countries like Israel." Typically, a C-SPAN host tacitly accepts a caller's off-kilter comments, failing, among other things, to note that total American foreign aid is a small percentage of the federal budget and a tiny proportion of the gross domestic product, and that U.S. financial aid to Israel constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent), and that there are valuable benefits to America of the cooperative arrangements with Israel, and that Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs.]
Host: "In other news, here is the Baltimore Sun this morning."
NOTE: The Boston Marathon bombing was perpetrated by two non-Arab Muslims originally from Russia but the Washington Journal host has no comment or challenge to a call focusing without reason on Israel. The host also fails to point out the obvious -- American involvement in the Middle East, with Muslim regimes, is a key reason "these people from the Middle East keep trying to do us harm," "these people" being Muslim supremacists like the late Osama bin Laden, himself a Saudi. C-SPAN viewers are accustomed to anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli bigotry in many Washington Journal calls, and because such calls typically go unrefuted, as in this case, the network keeps attracting them.

April 10, 2013 – 7:18 AM


Topic: Senate sets gun vote (bill intended to curb gun violence) for Thursday, April 11.

Caller: Sammy from Perry, Georgia (click here to view).

Rather than rebuking and immediately terminating the antisemitic caller (“all the Jews (who) want to take the guns away”), as responsibility dictates, host indulges and merely mildly challenges.

Caller: “I hope the Republicans – this filibuster – I hope they stick to it and don't back down. I don't think what they are wanting to do is going to do anything which is going to stop gun violence in the schools. But the Democrats just want to keep on pushing, and it won't work. And they'll come back the next time it happens and ‘well, we have to do something else.' And I wonder why Bloomberg and Feinstein and Schumer – they all have something in common, they are all Jewish. I wonder why all the Jews want to take the guns away …”  

Host (interrupting): “Sammy, that seems like a gross overgeneralization. Why would you make that statement?”

Caller: “Well, every time it comes up, they are the ones always pushing it. In the New York Times and all these liberal media get in behind them, and that's all you hear every time.”

Host: “Alright, we heard your thoughts. Billy in Chicago, Democratic caller.”

April 10, 2013 – 7:30 AM


Topic: Senate sets gun vote (bill intended to curb gun violence) for Thursday, April 11.

Caller: Eric from Pensacola, Florida (click here to view).

Caller rejects antisemitic views of 7:18 AM caller and impugns host's objectivity as a moderator.

Caller: “First off, I want to agree with you. I'd like to reject that criticism the guy was saying earlier about people being Jewish is the reason why. That's ridiculous. That gives everybody a bad name. But I would like to make a couple of quick corrections and then ask you a question. The gentleman called earlier talking about a well-regulated militia…

But anyway, I'd like to ask you a question about your Second Amendment views. I tend to notice that for the people who called so far who seem to have an anti-Second Amendment bias, you tend to ask them longer questions…

But here are a couple of things – what about the guns in place now? If the law passes and everybody has these weapons and may decide they do not want to turn them in, are they suddenly criminals overnight? What about guns smuggling? ‘Fast and furious.' If you want to look at the government mishandling the stuff, you want to talk about the people being killed on the streets and babies. Background checks – how does the government plan to match each gun owner with a national registry? There has to be some sort of listing here. Where is that going to be used? Why do we see only victims on these congressional and presidential junkets? What about the people whose lives are saved? I don't see anything about that.

I think you can judge a person's honesty in discussing stuff by whether or not they show both sides of it and are honest about it. So, I'd like to get your view.”

Host: “Alright. As you know, as the host of this show, we are to facilitate the conversation and get your viewpoints. The whole point of the morning call-in show is to go outside of Washington and have voices from across the country call in and let Washington know partly what you are thinking out there on these issues. So, my job is just to facilitate the conversation. I might ask people some questions in order to draw them out a little bit and get a better idea of where they are coming from.”

March 27, 2013 – 9:03 AM


Guest: STEVE HEYDEMANN of U.S. Institute of Peace.

Topic: CIA's role in Syria.

Caller: Maria from Woodbury, New Jersey (click here to view).

This caller is another of Washington Journal's numerous bizarre conspiracy mongers.

Caller: “I wanted to make a couple of comments and I have a question. I think we have to look at the fact that the CIA is nothing more than a front for gangsters. If you look at their actions and not what they purport to do, it is always the same M.O., it's always the same fabrication (indistinct) former colonial power and we have to get back to listening to Washington and Jefferson who said no, ‘foreign intervention, no close friends, no stated enemies.' All the intervention has gotten us is bankruptcy and being hated around the world. We need to bring everybody home and protect our own borders. My question is this, when is anybody going to have the guts to actually go after the foreign agents in our government, including the Mossad and the people from (indistinct)? Thank you.”

Guest: “I' m not sure I have anything to say about that. I think it's a world view in which there is no recognition whatsoever of the extent to which America is part of the international system in which globalization and other forces have given us a very direct stake in things that happen far from our borders. The idea that we should simply retreat behind our own borders and avoid foreign entanglements, I find quite puzzling if there is any real concern for American security underlying it. As far as the other claim is concerned, I certainly respect the caller's rights to hold those views, but I find them to be quite bizarre, frankly.”

NOTE: The guest, Steven Heydemann of the U.S. Institute of Peace, a federally-funded, semi-independent foreign policy think tank, appropriately notes the caller's unrealistic isolationism in today's intertwined international economic, technological, security and ideological affairs. Likewise the bizarre nature of her claim that "foreign agents, including the Mossad [Israeli intelligence]" have penetrated the U.S. government but no one has "the guts to actually go after" them. What the guest may not realize is that Washington Journal attracts an inordinate number of such callers, who often place Israel and its supporters at the center of imagined conspiracies to manipulate American policy. This continues because C-SPAN rarely screens or cuts them off, no matter how bizarre and/or antisemitic their allegations.

March 24, 2013 – 7:57 AM


Guest: SAID ARIKAT, Washington bureau chief of the al-Quds Palestinian daily newspaper.

Guest: NATHAN GUTTMAN, Washington bureau chief for the Jewish Daily Forward newspaper of New York City.

Topic: Future U.S. efforts for Arab-Israeli peace in the Middle East (click here to view).

Caller: Jeff from Boca Raton, Florida (click here to view).

Caller's statement of relevant historical context is met by guest Arikat's apologetic-polemic for the terrorist Hamas organization and silence from host Scully and guest Guttman.

Caller: “I would like to just posit, if I may, we are talking about Netanyahu and Israeli [alleged] intransigence with regard to the peace treaty with the West Bank. I am at a loss because Hamas still has on its charter the destruction of Israel. We know that Abbas has indicated that he is wanting to retire. I have this feeling so far as when the Israelis left the security zone of Lebanon, they got Hezbollah and rockets. When they left Gaza, there was not a single Israeli left in Gaza, they got rockets and kidnappings from Hamas. And now of course the idea that there can be or should be peace on the West Bank with Abbas. I am concerned they will be getting rockets from the West Bank, sooner or later. I mean, Hamas will most likely take over. If you look at the Wikipedia leak with regard to Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates – in those secret communications, they would be happy if Israel and the United States took Iran out …”

Host (interrupting): “Well, let me stop you there because the president spoke specifically about Hamas, a perfect segue based on your point. Here's more from the president from this past week. We will get your reaction.”

[Video clip of President Obama condemning Hamas organization].

Host: “Our guests this morning, Nathan Guttman and Said Arikat. Your reaction?”

ARIKAT: “Well, people seem to forget that basically since Hamas was elected, and it won, really, the elections fair and square according to the monitors and international standards and so on. But immediately it was basically isolated (indistinct). That is not a situation which is conducive to good governance and begot the hostility between Israel and Hamas. The fact that Ariel Sharon, the former prime minister of Israel, chose to withdraw unilaterally without coordinating this with the Palestinian Authority and basically sort of intended to diminish their power and we ended up with what is going on today. I understand that Hamas is isolated. Hamas is more militant than the (indistinct) West Bank. But certainly the occupation cannot go on. Where we have occupation today is in the West Bank. You have to deal with it on that basis. This situation must end. The only way it can end is with a brokered deal with the Palestinian Authority led by Abbas on the West Bank.”

NOTE: Guest Arikat distorts the historical record regarding Hamas. Among other things, it is pledged to the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. It ousted Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement, which still heads the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, from the Gaza Strip in a five-day battle in 2007. Hamas opposes a deal by the Palestinian Authority with Israel and has overseen the firing of thousands of mortar shells and rocket into the Jewish state. Israel remains the legal, obligatory military occupational authority in the West Bank as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War, pending the outcome of negotiations according to U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and the Israeli-Palestinian Oslo accords of the 1990s.

Arikat's "brokered deal with the Palestinian Authority" depends on the PA negotiating with Israel in good faith. So far, PA officials refuse to endorse the concept of "two states for two peoples" in which they recognize Israel as the Jewish state. Yet neither the host, who interrupted the pro-Israel caller, or the second guest, Guttman, contradicted Arikat's PA spin. For more on Hamas, click here.

Hamas' targeting of Jewish civilians is part and parcel of its mission – as set out in its governing Covenant or Charter – to "fight the Jews and kill them" and to replace Israel with an Islamic state. According to the Charter, any type of peace negotiation and diplomatic end to the conflict "stand in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement."

As to the myth of "occupation": In 1993, Israel entered the Oslo process with Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization. The process was intended to lead to final-status talks on the West Bank and Gaza Strip by 1998, but Palestinian terrorism sabotaged it. In 2000, Israel and the United States proposed to the PLO a West Bank and Gaza state, with eastern Jerusalem as its capital, in exchange for peace with the Jewish state. Bold, even risky. But this, too, Arafat rejected and soon after launched the "al-Aqsa intifada," in which more than 1,000 Israelis and 4,000 Palestinians died. The offer was repeated and again rebuffed in early 2001. With Mr. Ben-Ami's "land swaps" included, it was made by Israel and rejected by the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 2008.

2006 saw the triumph of the terrorist organization Hamas in Palestinian elections and Hamas's violent takeover of the Gaza Strip the next year. This was followed by recurrent rocket and mortar attacks from the Gaza Strip and on incessant anti-Israel incitement by the Fatah-led PA in the West Bank. Meanwhile, in vain, the Israeli government continues to invite Palestinian leaders to resume unconditional negotiations.

In the West Bank, Israel is the legal military occupational authority, pending a negotiated settlement. That's because it gained the territories in 1967 in a war of self-defense. Further, it has not forcibly transferred Arabs out or Jews in, and the land itself is not an occupied part of a sovereign country but an unallocated, disputed remnant of the the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate, Article 6, which calls for "close Jewish settlement" on the land west of the Jordan River. Article 6 is incorporated by Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, sometimes referred to as "the Palestine article." The United States endorsed the mandate, including Article 6, in the 1924 Anglo-American Convention.

The West Bank is not sovereign territory of any country, but rather land disputed by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Part of Jerusalem (which has never been the capital of any nation except Israel) and the West Bank were illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967, when Israel took control as a result of successful self-defense in the 1967 Six-Day War. As Eugene Rostow, a co-author of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), the keystone of all subsequent successful Arab-Israeli negotiations pointed out, 242 does not require complete Israeli withdrawal. Rather, the status of the territory, to which Jews as well as Arabs have legitimate claims, is to be resolved in negotiations as called for in the resolution and by U.N. Security Council Resolution 338 (1973). Meanwhile, Jewish villages and towns built in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria, the ancient homeland of the Jewish people) since 1967 are no more illegal than areas built since then in previously existing Arab villages and towns.

March 24, 2013 – 8:18 AM


Guest: SAID ARIKAT, Washington bureau chief of the al-Quds Palestinian daily newspaper.

Guest: NATHAN GUTTMAN, Washington bureau chief for the Jewish Daily Forward newspaper of New York City.

Topic: Future U.S. efforts for Arab-Israeli peace in the Middle East.

Caller: Frank from Albany, California (click here to view).

Caller's false claim that that Palestinians are “subjects of Israel” is unchallenged.

Caller: “I had a quick question and I would like a clarification of it. It appears to me, sadly, that the two-state solution is dead and a lot of people think that. My question is, legally, is it understood that all of the Palestinians in the West Bank and in Gaza, are they subjects of Israel? I mean, if that's the case and that's the status of the situation right now, do we have a situation where Palestinians, subjects of Israel, just do not get rights? Is that right?”

GUTTMAN: “Legally, the Palestinians are an occupied population in the West Bank and Gaza. The minority of the Palestinians, especially in east Jerusalem, annexed to Israel, do have Israeli I.D. cards. They do not have full rights so, basically, I think that the legal term is that they are an ‘occupied population'. They do not have equal rights as the Israelis.”

ARIKAT: “Absolutely. I think that the occupation that has gone on for far too long has really denied Palestinians the most basic of rights. The Israelis can go in at any time in any area of the PA and arrest people, as we have seen even last night. This happens on a daily basis. There are something like 700 [Sic.] checkpoints. There are these walls that snake through the West Bank and divide it into small cantons and so on. They go up sometimes as high as 26 feet high separating communities and keeping people from going from one place to the other. So, definitely the occupation is not only destructive but (indistinct) that is why it must end.
On the two-state solution, there is a great deal of feeling on both sides that we have not achieved enough on that score to keep it alive and viable and the United States keeps promising (indistinct). The problem is the alternatives to the two-state solution. You will have a situation where it is a one-state solution where you have one segment of the population enjoying democratic freedoms and so on, and another segment of the population not enjoying any of these things. In this situation, you will only have a very unequal (indistinct) situation. That is not sustainable. That is a recipe for continued conflict.”
NOTE: Guest Arikat again egregiously distorts the facts, including regarding “something like 700 checkpoints” in the West Bank. According to the United Nations “Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian territory” (OCHA) report (page 32), the number of Israeli checkpoints at the end of June 2012 was 86 which is certainly not the “something like 700 checkpoints” claimed by Arikat.
The caller advances a false claim – that Palestinian Arabs are subjects of Israel and denied their civil rights – and both guests echo and extend it, without challenge from the host. In fact, Israel has withdrawn completely from the Gaza Strip, which is ruled by Hamas. Hamas imposes increasingly strict Islamic rule on Gazans. In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority oversees most civil affairs of the Arab population, including operating the police and courts. Israel had withdrawn most of its security forces from those parts of the West Bank inhabitated by more than 90 percent of the Arab population until the terror war of the second intifada, 2000–2005 forced it to return. Israel's West Bank security barrier – not a wall in most places – and checkpoints have helped greatly to reduce anti-Israeli terrorism. They are the consequence of the second intifada and numerous subsequent terrorism attempts.
If Palestinian leadership wanted to end the occupation in favor of a two-state solution, with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern Jerusalem under its control, it would have accepted the 2000 and 2001 Israeli-U.S. offers or the 2008 Israeli proposal. Failure of Washington Journal host to point out these basic points – a chronic problem of C-SPAN segments on Israel – allows the caller, reinforced by the guests, to promote an anti-Israel distortion.

March 24, 2013 – 8:25 AM


Guest: SAID ARIKAT, Washington bureau chief of the al-Quds Palestinian daily newspaper.

Guest: NATHAN GUTTMAN, Washington bureau chief for the Jewish Daily Forward newspaper of New York City.
Topic: Future U.S. efforts for Arab-Israeli peace in the Middle East.

Caller: Frank from Tulsa, Oklahoma (click here to view).

Caller: “Just for brevity's sake, I'd just like to speak straight to the whole situation from the Judeo-Christian Bible. The prophecies are that half of Jerusalem will go into captivity -- it's in the book of Zechariah. Isaiah tells us that Damascus, Syria is yet to be destroyed and will not be habitable again. There are several prophecies that tell and warn the rest of the world not to try to divide up the land of Israel because God will divide those nations that get involved in that.”

GUTTMAN: “I'll sum it up here. We see that a lot in the United States in recent years. In support of the Israeli settler movement and the Israeli right-wing, many of them come from the Christian evangelical community of the United States. They support the vision of a greater Israel as part of a Biblical prophecy. That is a significant source of support for the Israeli settler movement.”
NOTE: Guest Guttman sat silently when the host interrupted the caller Jeff, from Boca Raton, Florida, who had made the point that Hamas was a genocidal, anti-Israel terrorist organization. He was likewise mute as fellow guest Arikat attempted to whitewash Hamas. He offered secondary support for an anti-Israel caller's innuendo that Palestinian Arabs were subject people to whom Israel denied the exercise of their civil rights. But when an otherwise unidentified Frank from Tulsa correctly paraphrases several biblical passages asserting the prophetic vision of a land of Israel unified under Jewish rule, Guttman is quick to critique this as reflective of "the Christian evangelical community of the United States" in "support of the vision of a greater Israel" and "the Israeli right-wing." If Guttman and Arikat were meant to "balance" Washington Journal's Israeli-Palestinian guest selection, one end of C-SPAN's teeter-totter was still on the ground.

March 24, 2013 – 8:26 AM


Guest: SAID ARIKAT, Washington bureau chief of the al-Quds Palestinian daily newspaper.

Guest: NATHAN GUTTMAN, Washington bureau chief for the Jewish Daily Forward newspaper of New York City.
Topic: Future U.S. efforts for Arab-Israeli peace in the Middle East (click here to view).
Caller: Chris from Valley Forge, Pennsylvania (click here to view).
Caller's inflammatory anti-Israel quote is unchallenged. The quote attributed here to David Ben-Gurion is based, as CAMERA has determined, on an egregiously false translation. Likewise, caller's obsessive animosity for the Bible and Israel goes unanswered.

Caller: “I have so much to say about this but I guess I can't get everything in. First of all, let me refute that last caller. This is a problem. This religious mythology thing is driving it. It has nothing to do with the people of this country actually caring about Israel. They just have this mythology that they want to fulfill which is outrageous. Regarding Iran, somebody tell me when was Israel elected to be the ruler of the Middle East? It's just outrageous.

Let me just read two very brief quotes regarding Israel. These are my favorites quotes from the (indistinct), ‘It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain a certain number of facts. The first of these, that there is no Zionism and no colonization and no Jewish state without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their land.' This is from David Ben-Gurion, ‘If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. We have taken their country. It's true that God promised it to us but our God is not theirs. We had Nazism and antisemitism, but was that their fault? We have come and stolen their country. Why would they accept that?'”

Host: “We will stop on that point and just add one other voice to all of it from our Twitter page: ‘Israel can handle their own problems. The U.S. needs to stop funding Israel's enemies.'”

ARIKAT: “Well, one thing for sure is that the United States will not cut off funding for Israel in the foreseeable future – economic or military. I am not a biblical scholar. I don't know much about the Bible. That's why I would like to leave it to the international organizations. Under international law, there are rules on how to deal with these issues. People acknowledge that there are certain aspects of these issues — that there is an occupation and that occupation must end. The Palestinians have been negotiating for a very long time. They have gone over every detail with a fine tooth comb. So, It is not really what needs to be done, but having the will to do it and having the United States, as the sponsor of this process, have the will to say, ‘You must do this now.'”

Host: “Nathan Guttman, what is the next step in all of this? What are you looking for?”

GUTTMAN: “Well, the next step would be trying to get some small measures on the ground to rebuild confidence between the two both sides. That's basically what Secretary [of State] Kerry has been trying to do… We are talking about small steps that could build trust. After this visit, the Israelis understand better that the United States has their back on security issues and that the U.S is not giving up on the peace process. With this in mind, the Israelis have to start moving slowly forward … We are talking about small movements on the ground that can hopefully lead somewhere down the road to an agreement.”

NOTE: Typically for C-SPAN's Washington Journal, a caller's false, inflammatory anti-Israel quote goes unchallenged. The quote attributed here to Israel's founding prime minister, David Ben-Gurion is based on an egregious mis-translation or falsification of a letter in which he actually wrote: "We do not want to and we do not have to expel the Arabs and take their place. . . " But the historical record  does include a number of misrepresentations and outright lies aimed at undermining the rights of Jews to settle legally in their ancestral land.

Perhaps one shouldn't be surprised that guest Arikat, a staffer for an official Palestinian Authority publication, would fail to provide a correction. But why didn't guest Guttman, presented, one assumes, as either a neutral commentor or a representative of mainstream Israeli views, fail to challenge or simply question the veracity of the quotes and views of this mendacious anti-Israel caller? Characteristically for C-SPAN, a caller's ridicule of the Bible, perhaps the most prominent basis for Western civilization and – certainly by the time of the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible, a collection of texts shown by archaeology and other external sources to be dealing with historical events and personages, goes unanswered.

This segment, unfortunately, reflects C-SPAN's tilt when it comes to Washington Journal programming regarding Israel. Israel is the only country defamed on a regular basis by a cadre of determined callers who are rarely challenged by hosts or guests. Journal's toleration evidently encourages further vilification. Cable television viewers should e-mail, call or write cable service providers and urge them to call for an end to such indulgence of anti-Jewish, anti-Israel prejudice by Washington Journal. Keep in mind that a portion of your cable fees supports C-SPAN.

March 21, 2013 – 7:23 AM

Host: PETER SLEN (,,

Topic: U.S. policy towards Syria.

Caller: Russell from Washington, D.C. (click here to view).
C-SPAN's journalistic malpractice
Another example of C-SPAN's predilection for journalistic malpractice is host Slen's non-response to this caller's clearly inaccurate claim that per capita U.S. aid to Israel is higher than per capita aid to American citizens. In fact, federal domestic per capita spending aimed at benefiting Americans is many times greater than per capita aid to all other nations combined. Another instance of allowing anti-Israel inflammatory sentiment to take root among Washington Journal viewers.
Host: “What do you think about the U.S. policy toward Syria?”

Caller: “I think the U.S. Policy toward Syria – we have been involved and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for quite a while. If you go back over two years ago, a headline in the Washington Post stated $23 million spent to destabilize the Syrian government. That was before one shot was fired by any side. So, as a result, we are responsible somewhat as to what is going on in Syria right now, even though we are not intervening directly, but as far as I' m concerned, we should stay out of it. We should keep our army out and troops out of it. Secondly, I would like to make another comment, if I may. I would like to know – and I am not anti-Israel – but I think we spend more money per capita on the citizens of Israel than we do on American citizens. When we think about the money we give to Egypt to be friendly with Syria [Sic.] with Jordan and the other nations surrounding, I believe our per capita spending for Israel citizens is greater than that of the United States. Thank you.”

Host: “That was Russell in Washington.”

March 20, 2013 – 8:29 AM


Guest: Rep. BARBARA LEE (Democrat-California).

Topic: Tenth anniversary of Iraq war.

Caller: Grady from Akron, Ohio (click here to view).

“Grady” is another of Washington Journal's numerous conspiracy monger callers (nearly always indulged by C-SPAN) who usually blame the world's ills on Jews. Hence his unsurprising if self incriminating reference to a notorious forgery from nineteenth century Russia which drew on popular antisemitic notions and, despite being exposed as fraudulent, has been a touchstone for antisemites for more than a century.
Caller: “My question is I read a book called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and everything that's happening in the world is in this book and I want to know how come nobody can ever bring the book up. Henry Ford was the last person.”

Host: “Grady is there – oh! we lost him.”

Host: “What is next, do you think, when it comes to the war in Iraq? I mean, we're marking the tenth anniversary and for President Obama, the end of combat operations in 2011. What's next?”

Guest: “I hope that what's next is that the United States is able to disengage even more in terms of U.S. tax dollars and presence…”

NOTE: Rather than cut the caller off at his citation of The Protocols, the Washington Journal host actually attempted to engage him in additional conversation. C-SPAN hosts don't encourage, for example, anti-black, anti-female or anti-Catholic conspiracy theorists. Only Jew-haters. Why?

March 20, 2013 – 9:52 AM


Guest: JAMES WEBB, former U.S. senator (D-VA).

Topic: Congressional War Powers.

Caller: Doug from Boston, Massachusetts (click here to view).

British-accented “Doug from Boston” is obsessed with bashing Israel and Jews in each of his numerous calls during which C-SPAN hosts allow his tendentious monologues. C-SPAN has provided phoner Doug a platform on at least these 13 previous occasions: Feb. 3, 2013 (8:21 AM) click here to view; Oct 19, 2012 (8:15 AM) click here to view; May 4, 2012 (9:14 AM) (click here to view); March 4, 2012 (9:18 AM) (click here to view); Jan. 8, 2012 (9:06 AM), Nov. 25, 2011 (9:06 AM), April 24, 2011 (9:32 AM), Feb. 19, 2011 (8:45 AM), Dec. 27, 2010 (7:50 AM), Nov. 24, 2010 (9:10 AM), April 11, 2010 (8:51 AM), Jan.1, 2010 (9:13 AM), Dec 20, 2009 (9:09 AM).

Caller: “I find it (indistinct) that you find the deaths of Lebanese people humorous. But anyway, there are two reasons why the United States invaded Iraq, and two reasons only. One was because they wanted to privatize Iraqi resources and the other one was to extend the hegemony of Israeli influence in that part of the world. We see the same dynamic evolving in Iran. Perhaps you could tell us what your thoughts are on the influence of AIPAC and other Israeli (indistinct).”

Host: “Thank you Doug.”

Guest: “Well, first of all, I don't know how you'd be interpreting anything that I have said as finding the deaths of anyone humorous on a battlefield. I think the observation that the Marine made in 1983 summarizes the challenges that we have in that part of the world, and it was, quite frankly, in terms of Marine Corps gallows humor, a pretty good summation of what the problems are when you put somebody in that environment. With respect to the invasion of Iraq, there are a lot of different strategic schools of thought in terms of that part of the world and whether and how the United States should be involved in it.

There are certainly those who believe that it would benefit security in Israel. There are others who believe it would not. There are others who look at oil, there are others who look at the differences between the predominantly Shia countries and the Sunni countries, and the way that the boundaries in that part of the world were rather artificially drawn around 1920 or so. I remember a great quote. Winston Churchill used to brag that he created the country of Iraq in one afternoon in 1929 while sitting around on a map…”

NOTE: Given caller "Doug's" oft-aired antipathy for Israel and its American supporters and smug dismissiveness of U.S. foreign policy interests in the Middle East, how is it that Washington Journal screeners and hosts continue to find airing his predictable and two-dimensional views worthwhile?

March 18, 2013 – 7:43 AM


Topic: Republican Party to release report today dealing with the party's failures in the 2012 elections and included recommendations.
For several years, a large majority of the numerous C-SPAN Washington Journal callers mentioning Israel have conveyed an anti-Israel, anti-Jewish message. These callers, generally indulged by C-SPAN, are completely out of step with a large majority of the American people according to opinion polling over the years.
Click here to view this segment.

Host McCardle routinely reads a news item from a daily newspaper, this one from the Washington Post. The selection deals with the results of opinion polling of Americans concerning the Arab-Israel dispute. Other than McCardle's use of the pejorative, incorrect term “occupied Palestinian territories” misleadingly used routinely by C-SPAN's Washington Journal and others, he accurately describes the polling which reflects an overwhelmingly pro-Israel attitude sharply at odds with that of Journal callers mentioning Israel. C-SPAN hosts materially contribute to the problem by rarely, if ever, challenging the mendacious message of the steady stream of obsessive callers treating virtually any discussion topic as an opportunity to lash out at Jews and Israel.

McCARDLE: “One other issue or one other piece of news going on this week is President Obama's trip to Israel. Front-page story in the Washington Post about that. Public wants U.S. out of the Middle East dispute, according to a new poll, a new Washington Post/ABC news poll that goes along with the president's visit to Israel. The poll finds that by a wide margin, Americans sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinian Authority when it comes to thorny Middle East politics. With President Obama headed to Israel and the occupied [Sic.] Palestinian territories, barely more than a quarter of all Americans want the administration to take a leading role in peace negotiations there. That, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll. They ask, are your sympathies more with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, or neither, 55 percent said Israel, 9 percent said the Palestinian Authority, and just 35 percent said both, neither or no opinion.”

At 8:32 AM, host McCardle mentioned the above opinion polling again: “An ABC poll released today finds most Americans regardless of political views believe the United States should cease its intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian talks. It shows 55 percent of Americans sympathize with Israel, compared to only 9 percent who side with the Palestinian Authorities. The rest were undecided. The ABC poll was released just days before President Obama' s first visit to Israel and the West Bank as president.”

March 17, 2013 – 7:43 AM


Topic: Hunger in America: Government's role?

Caller: Tom from Annapolis, Maryland (click here to view).

This prejudiced, repeat caller initially renews his ethnic/cultural bond with host Scully (demonstrated in his Feb. 10 call) smoothing the way for his unchallenged denigration of Jewish Americans and Israel (a common occurrence on Washington Journal) and African Americans. Today's call uses a similar theme to that of Feb. 10, 2013 (7:35 AM) documented on CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch. It can be viewed here. Previous calls from this person include: “Thomas” July 26, 2011 (7:37 AM) click here to view; “Tom” March 29 2011 (7:31 AM) click here to view; “Jack” March 19, 2011 (7:29 AM) click here to view; “Jack” Feb. 21, 2011 (9:46 AM) click here to view; “Tom” Feb. 2, 2010 (8:52 AM) click here to view.

Caller: “Happy Saint Patrick's Day. You are looking very dapper in your green tie. It looks great. As far as hunger in the United States, I think a lot of it is in the black communities and they are responsible for their own terrible situation there. They have children there when they are fifteen, sixteen years old. The fathers of these children, the black men, do not support them. They leave the woman to go in poverty while they are raising these children. They drop out of high school, these blacks do. They don't prepare themselves for any kind of good occupation to make some kind of decent money. As far as this guy Rabbi Isaaks who called [Sic.] in, it's terrible and we should feed them, well maybe he should go out and say we should stop sending money to Israel and use that money to feed the people in this country. If the blacks want a role model for getting out of poverty and overcome discrimination they should look to the Irish. The Irish overcame some of the worst discrimination and vicious attacks on them and they embraced education, including building some of the greatest universities in this country like Notre Dame, Georgetown and Boston College. But the blacks, all they do is get more and more violent and I don't know what the hell can ever be done for them. We have done everything for them and they won't show any gratitude at all.”

Concerning caller's reference to “this guy Rabbi Issaks”: At 7:36 AM, Scully had read from a recent article in the Oregonian newspaper by guest columnist Rabbi Daniel J. Isaak (of Congregation Neveh Shalom in Southwest Portland, Oregon) “who has this different point of view on hunger in America – ‘our nation, indisputably the wealthiest and most powerful in the world has ever known, lacks the will to feed its own citizens. Malnutrition in America must shock us when every other American child will perceive food assistance at some time in his or her formative years. One out of two of our children.' You can check this out at the Oregonian dot com.”

SCULLY: “Tom from Annapolis, thanks for the call.”

March 11, 2013 – 7:21 AM


Topic: U.S.-Afghan relationship; tone going forward?

Caller: Carl from Cumberland, Maryland (click here to view).
As soon as the off-topic caller made clear that his non-understanding of the history of American foreign relations could be summed up in one word, "oil," the crank call should have been terminated. If done, C-SPAN's audience would have been spared the inflammatory absurdity accepted by feckless host Casey, "Israel ... was set up as a puppet state of the United States to help control the people of that area."

Caller: "I do not think we have any business over there and never have. All of Europe, Russia, China – the United States has been trying to take over those people over there since the 1800s for one reason and that's oil. If we take care of our own oil reserves here, we'll get along better with Mexico and some of the other South American countries. We have all the oil we ever need. We have no business there. We should get out. We should get all of our money out – out of all of those countries and that includes Israel, which was set up as a puppet state of the United States to help control the people of that area. That is all I have to say."

March 5, 2013 – 7:07 AM


Topic: Bigger role for President Obama's cabinet in 2nd term?

Caller: Jim from Michigan (click here to view).
This anti-Israel caller criticizes lobbying by "foreign influences, like from Israel." Does he mean AIPAC, a domestic U.S. lobby that supports close U.S.-Israel ties? He's not asked. Host fails to inform viewers that among the most effective of Israel's supporters – if not the most effective – is the American Christian evangelical community. But host appropriately questions caller's false claim that John Brennan, appointed by President Obama to head the Central Intelligence Agency, "has dual citizenship with Israel" and points out the absurdity of caller's claim that current presidential appointees "do not have inside connections in Washington."

Caller: "Well, I think it is great that he is appointing some people that do not have inside connections in Washington. I think the inside connections in Washington works to our detriment. And we are suffering now because we have foreign influences, like from Israel – lobbyists there. We need people in there that are not really biased by lobbyists."

Host: "Jim, you say that they are outsiders. Here is the Wall Street Journal this morning: ‘Tracing budget team's DNA,' talking about his pick, Sylvia Burwell and the President's budget team – economic team, ‘OMB nominee Sylvia Burwell is the latest veteran of Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin team to join President Obama's economic lineup.' It says that ‘Ms. Burwell, Jack Lew, and Steve Spurling joined Mr. Rubin in helping the Clinton administration erase an annual deficit and build a budget surplus.'"

Caller: "Oh yeah, they are qualified people and they definitely have some experience. So, I do not see any of the criticism levied against them to be valid. I am happy to see them in there. But I am not sure about the Brennan appointment. I guess he has not been voted in yet and I do not want to see him get in there. I think he has dual citizenship with Israel and we end up compromising ourselves with having people in office who ..."

Host (interrupting): "Where did you get that information about Brennan?"

Caller: "Well, I believe, I can't say for sure about that, I do not know for sure, but we end up being too compromised and he is too involved in the drone program, for example. We have got these drones over their bombing innocent people lots of times. They are not being honest about the casualties there. So, I am just not a supporter of Brennan, I'm afraid. But I'm a supporter of everyone else."

Host: "Alright."

NOTE: When anti-Israel callers grossly exaggerate the influence of pro-Israel lobbyists, they are generally referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC is not a political action committee. It is not a foreign agent. It is not financed through political action committees nor does it act like a political action committee. It does not make political donations. It is a domestic U.S. lobby that supports close U.S.-Israel ties. Examples of AIPAC opposition defeating a major American Middle East policy initiative are virtually non-existent. The organization's influence primarily is due to its presentation of facts to political leaders and the fact that a large majority of the American public, according to numerous polls, sides with Israel in its conflict with Arab neighbors.

Callers who sound obsessive about the "Jewish lobby" in distinction to the pro-Israel lobby reveal more about their own animosities than the way Washington works. AIPAC may be the most influential foreign policy lobby, but bigger groups with clout on broader legislation would include, for example, the American Association of Retired Persons, the Catholic Church in America, labor unions and the dairy lobby or the National Rifle Association.

An example of a lobbying heavy-weight that is rarely if ever brought up in a C-SPAN Washington Journal discussion, is the petro-dollar funded pro-Arab lobby, whose influence is felt not only on Capitol Hill, the State Department and Pentagon, through multi-billion dollar weapons purchases but also in academia, with large-scale grants to prominent universities, and in society in general through subsidies and material support to mosques, religious schools and advocacy groups. But Washington Journal hosts rarely deal with such substance when the subject is Israel and the Middle East.

March 1, 2013 – 7:15 AM


Topic: Sequestration takes place today.

Caller: Rick from Louisville, Ohio (click her to view).

“Rick” is another of the anti-Jewish fringe types who find C-SPAN's Washington Journal an attractive platform. He basically uses the same lengthy script in each of his calls. His recent previous calls were as “Mark from Louisville, Ohio” (click here to view) on Dec. 31, 2012 and as “Rick from Canton, Ohio” (click here to view) on May 3, 2012. Both the December call and today's call were halted by the host at the utterance of the false, inflammatory charge that “the Jews run the media.” The stoppages are a positive for C-SPAN.

Host: “Sequestration takes place today. What are your thoughts?

Caller: “Well, first of all, the budget cuts are $84 billion. There's no sequester or whatever you guys are calling it. It was revealed – it's a known fact that Apple is sitting on $200 billion. The Walmart family is worth $250 billion and that lady just talked about employing the returning veterans. They got caught employing people in India for 18 cents an hour.”

Host: “How does that relate to what we're talking about today [sequestration]?”

Caller: “Because, I am telling you and the people that are listening that the Walmart heirs are sitting on $250 billion. There are 100 families in this country and 100 corporations sitting on $10 trillion in this country. It is all being filtered overseas. It was just reported that the Los Angeles Dodgers and Fox News just signed a contract for $7 billion for advertisements for the Dodgers. When you have hedge fund managers making $5 billion a year, they don't pay taxes.”

Host: “So, tell me exactly what you are thinking? What does that mean for budget cuts? Should they be taxed more? What do you say?”

Caller: “Well, growing up in Detroit, corporations were taxed at 90 percent. To take this a step further, we can break this down. It's the rogue states. The state of Texas is where the last five wars have been started. That's where your oil companies are and that's where your illegal labor is. Then we get into New York State, that's where Wall Street is. In Connecticut, that's where the insurance companies are. I can break down to the last 15 years because prior to Bush getting in office, we had a balanced budget. But the state of Texas with their oil and their wars and their NAFTA and their illegal immigration – and then Wall Street with their hedge funds and their derivatives and then you've got the Jews that run the media.”

Host (terminating the call): “Okay, we will leave it there.”

NOTE: Washington Journal host, after giving caller two opportunities to tie his disjointed observations into a pertinent point, properly cuts him off at "the Jews that run the media." This is a welcome exception to C-SPAN's usual indulgence of anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli conspiracy theorists.

Bookmark and Share