In The Trib Today

This could have been a by now familiar "See how much Scaife Foundation money has gone to this think tank that the Scaife-owned Trib cites" sort of blog but it really isn't.

Let me get the business stuff out of the way. In today's Tribune-Review Craig Smith interviews Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

According to Mediamatters, the DHFC has been the recipient of $7.175 million of Scaife money between 1989 and 2009.  As always, no mention of all that Scaife support for the resource Scaife's paper cites.

That should be enough for a blog post.  But wait there's more!

Take a look at WHAT the interview's about:

Robert Spencer is director of Jihad Watch at the Los Angeles-based David Horowitz Freedom Center and author of 10 books, including The New York Times best-seller, "The Truth About Muhammad," and "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)."

We spoke by phone Tuesday after National Transitional Council leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil said post-Gadhafi Libya would be run under Islamic Shariah law.

Q: What is Shariah law and why should the United States be concerned that it will play a major role in the new Libya?

A: Shariah law is the very comprehensive law that covers pretty much every aspect of life. Muslims consider (it) to be the law of God that is unalterable, perfect and unchangeable.

It discriminates against women. It discriminates against non-Muslims. It denies the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience. It's not going to create a free society by any stretch of the imagination. And the United States is now in the position of having aided in the creation of yet another repressive regime that denies human rights.

Hmm.  An unalterable religious law dictating every aspect of life - that's bad.  Very very bad.

I find this curious considering I found this at the David Horowitz Freedom Center website:

There is only one solution to the world’s problems, only one prescription for producing a near-heaven on earth.

It is 3,000 years old.

And it is known as the Ten Commandments.

The piece is actually by Dennis Prager and can also be found complete at TownHall.com.

The message from the David Horowitz Freedom Center is clear, that civilization depends on faith to exist.  But which faith?  The answer is just as clear: OUR faith, good.  THEIR faith, bad.

And how do we know?  We just do.  And if you don't agree, you don't love freedom.

Craig Smith Report

It's amazing how, once you take the time to look for it, Richard Mellon Scaife's money just seems to show up at all the corners of the is with the vast right wing conspiracy.

Take, as yet another example, Craig Smith's interview this week. He usually finds a Scaife money recipient to interview for Scaife's "news" paper and this week is no exception.

Cliff Kincaid is president of America's Survival Inc., a U.N. watchdog group, and editor of Accuracy in Media's "AIM Report."

An investigative journalist who specializes in analyzing communist and terrorist movements, Kincaid went through a national journalism program headed by conservative author and journalist M. Stanton Evans. He was on the staff of Human Events newspaper and was an editorial writer and newsletter editor for former National Security Council staffer Oliver North at his Freedom Alliance educational foundation.

Ok, so we got America's Survival, Accuracy in Media and the Freedom Alliance. All beneficiaries of Scaife money:

• $885K from 1999 to 2009 for America's Survival
• $4.36 million from 1987 to 2005 for Accuracy in Media
• $125K from 1993 to 1998 for the Freedom Alliance

So when Kincaid shows up on the pages of Richard Mellon Scaife's newspaper, he's representing about $5.37 million dollars of Scaife foundation money. Again no mention of that at all in Scaife's paper.

Regardless of the content of the interview (they could be talking yarn skeins for all I care) the fact that all that money changed hands with no mention of it being made on the page, is cause enough for criticism and ridicule.

Keith Olbermann got suspended for much much less. But then again MSNBC is a news organization and Richard Mellon Scaife's op-ed page - not so much. Obviously.

On The Trib Watch

First off, the circle jerk.

In an editorial today about "ObamaCare" Richard Mellon Scaife's brain trust writes:

In fact, ObamaCare tax credits that offset health insurance costs for firms with 25 or fewer workers making an average of $25,000 annually are counterproductive for employment and wage growth -- a major economic shortcoming, particularly when far too many Americans are jobless.

One author of a new National Center for Policy Analysis study on the credits even told The Hill newspaper that they create a "perverse incentive not to have businesses grow by not encouraging them to hire new workers."

Missing, of course, from the editorial is any mention of the millions of dollars given to the National Center for Policy Analysis by foundations controlled by Trib owner, Richard Mellon Scaife.

The Mediamatters.org reports that over the last two and a half decades or so, a little more than $2.25 million has been funneled from the Carthage and Sarah Scaife foundations.

Scaife funds the think tank and then his paper reports on that think tank's "findings" without mentioning his support. Tell me again that there's no "vast right wing conspiracy."

On another point, Craig Smith interviews Oliver North. And here is how North is described:

A combat-decorated Marine, author and syndicated columnist, North says his most important accomplishment is being "the husband of one, the father of four and the grandfather of 11."

Assigned to the National Security Council staff in the Reagan administration, North helped plan the rescue of 804 medical students on Grenada and played a major role in the capture of the hijackers of the cruise ship Achille Lauro.

Miss anything? Maybe something like this from Lawrence Walsh's IranContra Report:

On April 6, 1989, North took the stand in his own defense. For six days, North admitted to having assisted the contras during the Boland prohibition on U.S. aid, to having shredded and removed from the White House official documents, to having converted traveler's checks for his personal use, to having participated in the creation of false chronologies of the U.S. arms sales, to having lied to Congress and to having accepted a home security-system from Secord and then fabricating letters regarding payment for the system. But, North testified, ``I don't believe I ever did anything that was criminal.''

Yea, I can see why they'd want to try to erase that part.

More On Craig Smith And The Trib's Conflict 'o Interest

It's not every week that's for sure but Pittsburgh Tribune-Review staff writer, Craig Smith, can often times be found on the pages of the Trib's editorial page interviewing conservatives tied to institutions supported by the Trib's owner, Richard Mellon Scaife.

There is never a mention of the money trail in any of these interviews.

This week he revisits the Heritage Foundation (beneficiaries of about $24 million of Scaife Foundation money over the years) and it's Ronald Reagan Chair in Public Policy, former Attorney General Edwin Meese.

They're talking about Elena Kagan - but we'll get to that misinformation later. I wanna look at how entwined Meese is with Scaife money. I've already mentioned The Heritage Foundation.

According to the media transparency project over at mediamatters.com, Ed Meese was director of the Capital Research Center from 1998 to 2007.

Guess what?

• The Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation gave a little over $2 million to the Capital Research Center while Ed Meese was its director.
• The Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Carthage Foundation gave $225,000 to the Capital Research Center while Ed Meese was its director.

That's about $2.25 million by my count so far.

Again, according to mediamatters, Ed Meese was the Vice-Chairman or Treasurer (depending on the year) of the Landmark Legal Foundation from 1997 to 2007.

Guess what?

• The Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Carthage Foundation gave $3.75 million to the Landmark Legal Foundation during those years.
• The Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $3.525 million to the Landmark Legal Foundation during those years.

That's a little more than $7.25 million by my count.

Then there's the $240,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation while Meese was director of the Mercatus Foundation ($80,000 each in 2006, 2007 and 2008).

So not counting the Heritage Foundation, there's more than $10 million in Scaife controlled money that's gone to institutions with heavy ties to former Attorney General Ed Meese.

And yet not a peep from Craig Smith about any of it in this interview.

Who says there's no vast right-wing conspiracy?

But let's look at that interview. There's a brief apophasistic moment in this Q&A:

Q: Questions have been raised about her sexual orientation. Do you think that will be an issue? Or should it be an issue?

A: I doubt it, I doubt it. I don't see why it should be.

So they get to raise the scary "L-word" by denying that it should be an issue. Sneaky, huh?

But then there's this:

Q: You've found some of the things she's written troubling. What bothers you?

A: Well, there are things that she has written about the court. She hasn't written much, to tell you the truth.

But ... she's had some statements about the First Amendment. I think she's written an article on the ability to censor speech that is what she calls ... hateful speech or improper speech.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the rightwing smear. Look at the framing of the charge: Meese "thinks" she's written an article on "the ability to censor speech." Who's ability? Does it actually say what he says it says? The point is, you can rest assured they want you to think it's another liberal guv'ment bureaucrat censoring conservative speech. That she's looking for ways to censor conservative speech.

Here's the article she wrote, by the way. All 106 pages of it. I wonder if Meese has even read it. I only say that because on page 17 she writes:

Consider the following snapshot of impermissible motives for speech restrictions. First, the government may not restrict expressive activities because it disagrees with or disapproves of the ideas espoused by the speaker; it may not act on the basis of a view of what is a true (or false) belief or a right (or wrong) opinion. Or, to say this in a slightly different way, the government cannot count as a harm, which it has a legitimate interest in preventing, that ideas it considers faulty or abhorrent enter the public dialogue and challenge the official understanding of acceptability or correctness. Second, though relatedly, the government may not restrict speech because the ideas espoused threaten officials' own self-interest-more particularly, their tenure in office. The government, to use the same construction as above, cannot count as a harm, which it has a legitimate interest in preventing, that speech may promote the removal of incumbent officeholders through the political process. Third, and as a corollary to these proscriptions, the government may not privilege either ideas it favors or ideas advancing its self-interest-for example, by exempting certain ideas from a general prohibition. Justice Scalia summarized these tenets in R.A.V.: "The government may not regulate [speech] based on hostility-or favoritism-towards the underlying message expressed."' [emphases added]

She quotes Scalia?? Does Ed Meese know that? Does Craig Smith? Does Richard Mellon Scaife?

Craig Smith, Again.

Sigh. This is getting to be a pattern.

On February 20, Tribune-Review writer Craig Smith interviewed Dick Armey of Freedomworks, recipient of more than a million dollars of Scaife foundation money.

On April 10, Tribune-Review writer Craig Smith interviewed Michelle Bernard of the Independent Women's Forum, recipient of more than a million dollars of Scaife foundation money.

On April 17, Tribune-Review writer Craig Smith interviewed James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation, recipient of millions and millions of dollars ($23 million in fact) of Scaife foundation money.

Today, he interviews Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies another recipient of millions of dollars of Scaife money.

I mean really, does Craig get a residual for every interview he does with a representative of some Scaife-funded think-tank? At least it's not in alphabetical order, that would be obvious.

We touched on the CIS in mid-April but it's probably a good idea to take another look. Here's some raw data from that blog post:

How much money has Scaife funneled to CIS? I am glad you asked.

• In 2008, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $150,000 to the CIS.
• In 2007, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $150,000 to the CIS.
• In 2006, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $150,000 to the CIS.

Mediamatters reports an additional $1.5 million or so of Scaife foundation money sent to the CIS over the years.

Pretty safe to assume that whenever Mr Smith interviews people for Scaife's paper, he doesn't look much farther than foundations/think tanks who've benefited from Scaife foundation money.

The circle jerk continues.