Helvig's Helvitorials

Breaking News - Fox News overrun by Drama Queens

Breaking News – Fox News overrun by Drama Queens

Is it just me or are we all getting pretty tired of FNC’s abuse of “Breaking News” and “News Alerts”? It amazes me that you can’t watch one day’s worth of programming on America’s “fair and balanced” network without being assaulted by these false overtures. The producers at the FNC must think we are the dumbest viewers in the history of television news.

The recent fires in Southern California provided almost every anchor on Fox with the opportunity to over-dramatize the events of the day. I’ve never seen so many “Breaking News” reports on one story in my life. And it wasn’t as if they were actually reporting on something that hadn’t been covered all day long or even a significant change to what had already been reported. Everything was just “breaking”.

In order for news to be breaking, it is supposed to interrupt the regularly scheduled programming. That is why breaking news used to always be preceded with phrases like, “We interrupt your regularly scheduled program to bring you this special report”. Likewise, breaking news was always followed by the announcement, “We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.”

Hannity & Colmes are pretty much tied with Greta for being the worst when it comes to “News Alerts”. They flash that notice on the screen and start telling us all about some trivial story Shepard Smith “broke” six to seven hours earlier that same day. What is so alerting about a story that has been covered by every other anchor on your network?

When it comes to being overly dramatic, you can’t help but love Shepard Smith and Geraldo Rivera. However, the top Drama Queen of them all has to be John Gibson.

How is it possible to open your show with “Breaking News”? How do you head into a commercial break by saying, “When we come back, we’ll have Breaking News on today’s top story”? How do you have breaking news in the beginning, middle and end of a news program? How is anything “Brittney” breaking? Do they not understand the simple concept of “Breaking”?

As if all this weren’t bad enough, the FNC has become the king of speculation TV. When your interview includes questions like, “What do you think she meant by…” or “What is going through his mind right now…” you are no longer reporting, you are speculating. What could a retired Jersey trooper possibly know about a carjacker in California? If he’s not a psychic, he’s just another spectator and his input is nothing but conjecture.

Now, I don’t get CNN and I wouldn’t watch MSNBC if you paid me. For all I know, they may be just as bad as my beloved Fox. However, if someone doesn’t step up and do something about the over-dramatization of network news, I am going to have to turn off my TV and rely solely on the Internet for my daily news.

What is it going to take to bring some integrity to the cable news networks? Maybe we should get Bill O’Reilly to lead a boycott against all network news until they get their act together, quit speculating and stop abusing the once sacred “Breaking News”.

A poem for Rosie O'Donnell

Unpublished - A poem for Rosie O'Donnell

Rosie O'Donnell and Joy Behar too; Spewing dissent to the fans of The View

Theories and conspiracies all day long; Compared to the facts, they're usually wrong

One seems crazy, the other just nuts; Blaming all on Bush, 'cause they hate his guts

"Impeach him!" they shout, "Arrest Cheney too"; Drawing support from the fans of The View

"This war is illegal, too many are dead!"; Their eyes glare crazy, their faces burn red

Meanwhile, sitting patiently, there on the right; Our sweet young Elisabeth, oh what a sight

With child and glowing, a mother to be; Her eyes wide open, truth does she see

Day in and day out, she takes it all in; As left hooks and jabs land on her chin

Until one day she could take it no more; Our sweet young Elisabeth let out a roar

Back off Rosie, it's time for some facts; We've had enough of your left-wing attacks

Our President is okay and Cheney is too; They know way more, than you or the shrew

Our troops are not terrorists, they're good guys and gals; You need to quit listening to your loony pals

Get your facts straight or keep your hole shut; Think with your head instead of your butt

Depart from The View and get a real life; Get off the stage, go home to your wife

Have some more Koolaide or a Baby Ruth; Please leave the news to those who know truth

O'Reilly: Winner in SC GOP Debate

Unpublished - O'Reilly: Winner in SC GOP Debate by Alan Helvig

    If nothing else, last night's so-called GOP Presidential Candidate Debate showed the country why there are first tier candidates and second tier candidates in the race for the White House. Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani clearly came out on top, while Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson left everyone wondering why they were even there.

    Even though the event was predominantly a sound bite contest, there were still winners and losers. The FNC Poll results would have you believe that the biggest winner was Ron Paul, as he raked in 25% of the text votes after last night's show. In this case, looks are definitely deceiving. The majority of his votes were obviously not from the GOP's conservative base. He undoubtedly struck a cord with the liberal viewers and Bush haters who appreciated his anti-war position. Rep. Paul has had his 15 minutes of fame and will now fade off into the land of VH1's one hit wonders.

    The biggest loser had to be John McCain. His star seems to shine much brighter when he is on his own than it does when he is in the ring with contenders. Although he delivered a couple of good jabs here and there, he still looked like Rocky after Apollo Creed got done with him in their first fight. McCain appears to be following a version of the Howard Dean path to self destruction. It should not be long before he is replaced in the top tier by Fred Thompson.

    The true winner last night was Bill O'Reilly. He must have been proud as both Chris Wallace and Wendell Goler made it clear that the debate stage was a "No Spin Zone". When the question asked was not answered, they went back to the candidate and gave him a second chance to respond. This proved fatal for the likes of Tommy Thompson, who floundered when asked what programs he would cut from the federal budget. 

    While it is certain that some will take advantage of the poll results, it is clear that this scale was not calibrated. For starters, most seniors, who make up the majority of primary voters, don't send text messages. To be fair, this probably hurt McCain the most, as he received less than 5% of the votes. Next, Dems were allowed to text in their votes, essentially taking weight away from the candidates they fear the most and giving it to the candidate they fear the least. The smart candidates will simply walk away from this poll and stay focused on the challenges they face in key states.

    After last night, it would seem the second tier candidates are going to stay in the second tier. In fact, Tancredo, Gilmore, Brownback and Tommy T are probably already finished. Although last night's sound bite contest was fun to watch, I can't wait for the toilet to flush and for all of the second tier candidates to go down. Then and only then will we be able to enjoy a real debate. Unfortunately, I think we'll have to wait until after the Iowa Straw Poll to hear that swishing sound.

A Prayer for Rosie O'Donnell

Unpublished - A Prayer for Rosie O'Donnell

Rosie O'Donnell and the fans on The View

Having joined the likes of the ACLU

Persecuting Christians on national TV

Attacking the likes of you and me

Comparing the Christians to terrorists abroad

A slap in the face of the one true God

Lucky for them, He's a God of love

Offering forgiveness from heaven above

Salvation available to those who would ask

Redemption through Christ, no humanly task

A prayer for Rosie and the fans on The View

May they come to love Christ and be born anew

And blessed are the persecuted, faithful through strife

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life

Left Wing Hypocrisy

Left Wing Hypocrisy - Unpublished

As ABC prepares to air their mini-series regarding the events leading to the events on 9/11, the left is up in arms over the docudrama's implications that former President Clinton's inaction greatly contributed to the attacks of 9/11. I will save that debate for later. What bothers me most about this whole thing is the whiny rhetoric coming from the left, as they launch attack after attack on ABC, calling for truth and honest representations in the mini-series.

'The Path to 9/11', as it is called, has a number of top democrats crying foul and slinging allegations of political bias against ABC.  Among others, Senators Harry Reid (NV) and Charles Schumer (NY) sent a letter to ABC, accusing them of "right-wing political propaganda". They basically accused ABC of being irresponsible and have called for the cancellation of the mini-series.

If truth and honesty are so important to the libs, why is it that they only cry out when they believe one of their own is being falsely accused of wrong-doing? Where was their outrage when Michael Moore put out his misguided and misleading 'documentary' on President Bush? Where were Reid and Schumer when Senator Kennedy was flinging his false, unproven and unsubstantiated allegations against the President? Can you name one top democrat who denounced CBS, Mary Mapes and Dan Rather for falsifying evidence to substantiate their allegations regarding Bush's Air National Guard service? I didn't think so.

Isn't it sad that the liberals view integrity as a one-way street; honesty is only applicable to them when their side is under attack; and the truth only matters when it serves their purpose. To them, integrity is something to be turned on and off, like a light switch, as they see fit. Isn't it sad that this is the attitude of members of our U.S. Senate and House of Representatives?

The Press and the Protestors

Unpublished - The Press and the Protestors
Every day, the press focuses on the death toll in Iraq. Not only do they point out the total number of deaths, but they draw special attention to the number of Americans killed in Iraq. The liberals in the media want everyone to hear and see the negative side of this war and they will do whatever it takes to make things seem as bad as possible. What they won't do is give you comparisons to other death toll statistics so that you can judge for yourself, just how bad things really are.

The anti-war protestors feed on these media reports and publicly denounce this war. They cry out against the injustice of war. They publicly mourn the loss of each life and pride themselves on their own version of humanity. They stage their protests and they rally against our government. Many express hatred for anyone who supports our President or the war itself. In some cases, the protestors even attack our servicemen and women, simply because they are willing to fight for this country.

The average murder rate in America for the past decade is over 17,200 homicides per year. That equates to an average of 47 murders per day in this country. I have yet to see one headline which reads "47 Murdered in America" or "47 Brutally Slain in one Day". Where are the dramatic headlines drawing attention to this human crisis? Where are the protestors on this issue? Where is the outrage in America? Where are the tears for these victims?

There were over 101,500 deaths in America listed as "unintentional fatalities" in 2004. That is an average of 278 so-called "accidental" deaths per day. The highest single category was motor vehicle accidents, with 43,788 deaths. That equates to 120 lives lost in car crashes per day. Where are the headlines for these figures? Where are the anti-death protestors on this issue? How many anti-war protestors have you seen protesting drivers on American highways for their reckless disregard for life?

The press is quick to lump the casualty figures from Iraq together into one headline for dramatic effect. However, you will never see them doing the same right here at home for the non-war casualty figures. Iraq is a country at war, fighting for their freedom and democracy. Islamic extremists and terrorists are killings dozens of Iraqis on a daily basis. Of course their death toll is going to be high. America does not have any combat operations happening on our soil, and yet we kill over 300 people per day.

If the anti-war protestors truly cared about the senseless loss of life, they would protest murder and call for stiffer punishment for killers. They would be members of safety groups right here in America, promoting driver safety and teaching people to avoid deadly situations. They would draw great attention to post "accidental" death tolls by posting them on billboards and in the media. They would work hard to drive down the excessively high "unintentional fatality" rate in America.

My son is a U.S. Marine who has already served two tours in Iraq. I am in no hurry to see him return to the Middle East. Like most Americans, I anxiously await an end to the hostilities in Iraq and in the Middle East. Like most Americans, I would prefer to avoid war whenever possible. However, unlike most Americans, I can see through the fog of the headlines and through the pickets of the protestors. I understand the true depth of the cost of war and I recognize the need to finish the job in the Middle East.

Statistically speaking, an American is more likely to get killed in Washington D.C. or New Orleans than in Iraq. Many Americans believe that war is stupid. However, more Americans die every day from stupidity, than they do from war.

It's Hollywood's Turn

Unpublished - It's Hollywood's Turn, by Alan Helvig

Congratulations America!  You are finally starting to get it.  For years we have listened to the likes of Jane Fonda, Martin Sheen and Tim Robbins without taking any serious steps to hold them accountable for their words and actions.  It has always amazed me that people like this will go out of their way to bad mouth America, and we as Americans do nothing about it.  It is time for Hollywood to be held accountable for their left wing position and their destructive actions. 

If you want to go against the grain of this nation, you had better be prepared to pay the price.  Some have taken heat for their traitorous words, like Peter Arnett and the Dixie Chicks.  But there are many more out there who have not yet felt the wrath of American Patriotism.  It is time for America to hold these people to a higher standard. 

If we were to elect a politician to office, who later betrayed our trust and turned on the very people who elected him, we would do everything in our power to remove him from office.  At the very least, we would make sure they didn't get reelected.  Yet, we have all of these celebrities publicly denouncing our country and its leadership, while we continue to watch their movies and TV shows.  It is time to let them know what is acceptable and what is not.  It is time for Americans to stand up and let these people know how we feel about them.  We need to boycott their movies, quit watching their TV shows and give them a taste of their own medicine.

With approximately 75% of the country supporting the war on terrorism, we have an opportunity to let the extreme left know just how we feel. 

We are all shocked and dismayed when we learn about people in our own government or military who turn traitor and sell secrets to our enemies, yet we support entertainers and celebrities after they turn on our government and our people.  Why should we be shocked or appalled at the firing of Peter Arnett?  Why would we continue to watch the West Wing (a TV show about the President of the United States) when Martin Sheen is actively protesting our President?  Why would we continue to buy music or go to concerts of groups like the Dixie Chicks, when they stand on foreign soil, bad mouthing our President and our nation? 

What ever happened to the days of "You'll never work in this town again"?  It amazes me that someone like Jane Fonda can do and say the things she has done, and yet still get hired for big movies and even receive awards for her performances. 

To be honest, I like the music of the Dixie Chicks.  I used to watch the West Wing quite regularly.  I have seen the Shawshank Redemption a number of times.  But, if I continue to buy to their music, watch their TV shows and go to their movies, it is as if I am saying to them "it is okay".  It is not okay!  We have to let them know how we feel.  We have to take action to let them know that what they did is not okay.  We have to let everyone know that when you go against the majority of Americans, you will be held accountable.

Here in America, we mourn the deaths of our children killed in school shootings, but we refuse to do the right things to prevent them from happening again.  We scream at our police to protect us, and when they do their job, we sue them for violating our civil rights.  Here in America, we stand in shock at the site of the collapse of the twin towers, but aren't willing to send brave men and women into harms way to bring an end to terrorism and tyranny around the world.  We elect our public officials, then spend the majority of their term in office protesting the way they do their jobs.  Here in America, we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but we are not willing to pay the price for it.

Confusing heroes and villains

Published November 15, 2004 - Confusing heroes and villains

One of the major issues from this year's election was moral values. Many Americans believe that we need to abandon our morals and get on board with the world in their thinking. Have we, as a nation, lost our sense of moral direction? Would we rather be popular and accepted by the world than be right and just in our causes? What about our domestic values? Can we tell the difference between acceptable and unacceptable anymore?

When are we as a nation going to stop idolizing our criminals and our degenerates? We have developed a habit of standing behind our criminals and going against our authorities. From Jesse James to Janet Jackson, Americans have a history of turning losers into folk heroes. Sadly, we also have a history of turning our heroes into losers.

Jesse James was a bank robber and a murderer, yet many in this country still consider him a hero. There were also Bonnie and Clyde, Al Capone, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. They were all criminals, yet many people have great affection for them. We read our books and sit at the movies feeling bad about what happens to these guys. Some of us even go to the extreme of yelling at the screen, "Don't go out there, it's a trap!" Why do we tend to root for the bad guys and against the good guys?

Despite her indecent and intentional act at last year's Super Bowl, Janet Jackson has been exalted by a number of organizations. Her brother Michael is up on child molestation charges and yet is hailed as a hero wherever he goes. Within moments of Martha Stewart's conviction, someone in the crowd yelled out, "Free Martha!" What kind of lessons are we sending to our children?

Why do we condone the actions of criminals and degenerates, while condemning our authorities? Americans have made it all but impossible for police officers to do their jobs without fear of persecution and lawsuits. Some police officers involved in a shootout in Southern California a few years ago are still suffering the consequences of doing their jobs. Although those gunmen shot a number of people and showed no intention of giving up, their family members sued just about everyone they could because the gunmen were killed by the police. Individual police officers have paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend themselves. How wrong is this?

During the events of 9/11 we began to truly recognize our police officers and firefighters as true heroes. We lifted them up and praised them for their efforts and their sacrifice. Yet, as the emotion of that day wears off, we are slipping back into our old ways of thinking. There is a lot of talk about how the authorities are taking away our civil liberties. We don't want to be searched at the airports. We don't want the police to take preemptive measures against would-be assassins and potential terrorists. We don't want to do anything that might mean sacrificing any of our civil liberties for the sake of a more secure nation. We have turned the police officers and security forces into the bad guys again.

One of these days, we Americans will suffer the consequences of our choices. We will pay a huge price for being so selfish and so diluted in our thinking. We will stand around bewildered and wondering, "What did we do to deserve this? Where did we go wrong?" America needs to realize these inevitabilities and take corrective action immediately. We need to improve our way of thinking and put things into proper perspective. We need to adjust our attitude and our behaviors before they adjust us.

The media and national security

Published June 20, 2005 - The media and national security

Abuses of our 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press have led to increased hatred of the United States across the globe. The belief of many that “everyone has the right to know everything” is causing great harm to this country and is directly contributing to the threat against Americans everywhere.

The public’s right to know and the media’s right to free press should not take priority over national security. In our government and in our military, all information is identified for classification. The determination for classifying information is based on the type of damage it could cause to the U.S. or its allies. Classification designations include “Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential”. Information not meeting one of these categories is typically considered “Unclassified”. For the purpose of this article, I will focus on the top two levels of classified information.

Information may be classified “Top Secret'' if its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to our national security. This classification is typically used with the utmost restraint. Examples of “exceptionally grave damage” include armed hostilities against the U.S. or its allies; disruption of foreign relations vitally affecting the national security; the compromise of vital national defense plans or complex crypto-logic and communications intelligence systems; the revelation of sensitive intelligence operations; and the disclosure of scientific or technological developments vital to national security.

Information may be classified “Secret'' if its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to our national security. This classification is to be used sparingly. Examples of “serious damage'' include disruption of foreign relations significantly affecting the national security; significant impairment of a program or policy directly related to the national security; revelation of significant military plans or intelligence operations; and compromise of significant scientific or technological developments relating to national security.

Although these classifications do not extend into the private sector, the press should consider the result of their actions prior to releasing “newsworthy” information. Having the right to publish a story does not make it right to publish a story. There can be no question as to the extent of the damage caused by the release of the Abu-Grhaib prisoner abuse photos.

The person(s) who leaked them to CBS and the producers of CBS who were responsible for the release of those photos are all traitors to the U.S. as far as I am concerned. The damage caused by those photos has in fact been exceptionally grave. CBS could have and should have entered into a confidentiality agreement with the U.S. government to investigate the abuse at Abu Grhaib. They could have secured exclusive rights to publish stories on the investigation and the courts martial of the guilty without ever broadcasting one photo. Instead, they chose to bring shame upon this country and harm upon our citizens.

Newsweek’s recent publication of Quran abuse in Guantanamo Bay is another example of how some in the media are bent on causing damage to the U.S. Newsweek could have taken a more sensible approach to dealing with the information they received. Instead, they exercised their right to be insensitive to the national security of this country. Their selfish greed led to riots and uprisings against the U.S. across the Arab world, resulting in the deaths of many and increased violence against Americans abroad.

Whatever happened to the good old days, when the television networks played the National Anthem at the beginning and the end of their broadcast days? There used to be a great sense of patriotism in the American media. When did it become so popular for our own media to attack, tear down and even destroy the reputation of this country?

Protecting national security should be the responsibility of every American. Individuals and organizations who come across sensitive information should consider the consequences before they choose a course of action. The media needs to get over its anti-Americanism and get back to responsible journalism. They need to get back to reporting the news and away from trying to make the news.