Drunk Driving

Jeffrey Toobin, a writer for The New Yorker, denied that any constitutional protections for his profession even existed. “It won’t take me long to alienate everyone in the room,” he declared. “For better or worse, it has been clear there is no journalistic privilege under the First Amendment.”

Yeah, that whole Freedom of the Press thing is non-existent, they are just puppets for the Master to pull and have no brains of their own and no rights. 🙂

Robert Litt, the administration’s top lawyer for the national intelligence community, agreed with that statement. At the same conference, he likened reporting on national security leaks to drunk driving, arguing that we ban the practice despite the fact that there isn’t always a victim.

Yeah, banning it , making it against the law, putting people in jail, fining them has really stop them and of course, there are never any “victims”.

What an Orwellian clod.

“Not every drunk driver causes a fatal accident,” he explained, “but we ban drunk driving because it increases the risk of accidents. In the same way, we classify information because of the risk of harm, even if no harm actually can be shown in the end from any particular disclosure.”

Well, there sure was no harm in Benghazi! Or The NSA spying on you… None at all.

Don’t be a “victim”, unless you’re a liberal under attack for their own crap.

Then you’re just a racist. 🙂

Michelle Malkin: At the end of 2013, Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz had some nasty words for yours truly. Irked that I used my Twitter feed to criticize her Obamacare propaganda efforts, Wasserman Schultz snarked back at me:

“Thanks for spreading the word! You’ll be eating them next year. #GetCovered.”

Classy as always. And completely wrong-headed as usual. Less than three months into 2014, how’s dutiful Debbie and her Dear Leader’s pet government takeover program doing? The most recent retreat measures — call it the Obamacare Endangered 2014 Midterm Democrats’ Rescue Plan — include:

–Allowing insurers for two extra years to continue selling plans that otherwise would have been banned by Obamacare. Last fall, Americans across the country and from all parts of the political spectrum raised an uproar in the wake of millions of Obamacare-induced cancellation notices on their individual market health plans. President Obama trotted out a “keep your plan” Band-Aid effective through this year. Now, the “transitional period” will extend through October 2016 and cover policyholders until the following September, after Obama is safely out of office.

–Extending the open enrollment period for 2015 from November 2014 to February 2015, a month longer than originally scheduled. (It will no doubt be extended again as the midterm elections get closer.)

–Relaxing eligibility requirements for insurers to qualify for financial help under a three-year program intended to cushion insurers’ costs of complying with Obamacare mandates.

–Exempting labor unions, universities and other self-insured employers from paying a fee that creates the above-noted fund.

In addition, the White House last month allowed medium-sized employers an extra year to comply with the Obamacare mandate to offer insurance to all full-time workers and reduced the percentage of workers that large companies are required to cover. These latest regulatory walk-backs by administrative fiat all come on the heels of dozens of administrative delays and rollbacks.

While Democrats complain about Republican Obamacare repeal efforts, we may be nearing a special inflection point at which the White House will have reneged on more Obamacare regulations than it’s actually enforcing!

And all by Executive Fiat, mind you.

Nope, nothing to see here… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Taken out to The Woodhouse

Brad Woodhouse, Communications Director for the Democratic Party, took to Twitter to respond to the media’s criticism of Holder’s off-the-record request:

POTUS asked AG to review how leak investigations are done but some in the media refuse to meet with him. Kind of forfeits your right gripe.

Got that? So if you refuse to do what the Attorney General wants, you forfeit your right to complain about the Attorney General trampling your First Amendment rights and spying on you.

Asked to elaborate, Woodhouse wrote this, in part, to the Erik Wemple Blog:

My point was there has been a lot of discussion about how these investigations are conducted and now the man reviewing that topic wants input from all the stakeholders. It just seems to me if you are concerned about a problem and are invited to provide input on solving it you may want to avail yourself of that opportunity.

Counterarguments:

1) The media’s right to gripe is a First Amendment thing. It will never be forfeited under any circumstances, regardless of who decides to attend or dis a meeting with Eric Holder. Woodhouse appears to have backtracked a bit on this point.

Of course people have a right to gripe, my feed demonstrates that. Main point was I don’t see how refusing to attend helps solve anything.

2) Journalists don’t “solve” stuff. Woodhouse appears to be writing from the well-intentioned perspective that there’s a problem here, and Washington’s key people should get together and figure things out. That’s fine; they may do just that.

But the setup is dicey for reporters and editors. Think about the particulars: The Justice Department is holding these sessions as part of a “review of existing Justice Department guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters.” Which is to say that the off-the-record meeting in question isn’t like any other off-the-record meeting: It addresses a policy issue that has a direct impact on journalists. By walking into such a session, prominent Washington editors risk slipping into the role of lobbyists, pleading their case with federal officials in a private meeting. That happens all the time in these parts. Usually, though, the journalists are the ones on the outside looking in. Right where they belong, in other words.

3) Washington is already too unaccountable. Journalists won’t forfeit their right to gripe in general. If Holder gets away with this off-the-record thing, however, news organizations may forfeit their right to gripe about background and off-the-record briefings, which happen way too often around here.

4) Enough secrecy. There’s an important line in the Justice Department’s letter to the Associated Press regarding its secret subpoena for the wire service’s phone records. “Given the ongoing nature of this criminal investigation involving highly classified material, I am limited in the information that I can provide to you,” wrote Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole. Indeed, there are many legitimate secrets that the government needs to shroud from the public; one of them, however, is not policy discussion among a group of journalists and public servants. (WP)

Even a Huffpo Columist: Believe me, if the DOJ has sincere, heartfelt intentions of being “constructive,” it would cheerfully be constructive in full view of the public, because why would it want to keep the wraps on that? Instead, we have a situation where the DOJ official who is insisting that the off-the-record “format will best facilitate the candid, free-flowing discussions we hope to have in order to bring about meaningful engagement” will only say that “on the condition” that he or she “not be named.”

If the person promising “meaningful engagement” won’t put his or her name to that contention, it’s as good a sign as any that the engagement won’t be meaningful.

So screw that. Do not attend this off-the-record session.

I’m sure liberals like Holder aren’t petty and vindictive… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Pinnochio

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Carney tried to explain why he and the president still insist on conditionally condemning the IRS’ actions, depending on “if” something inappropriate occurred.  Reporters from the AP and CNN both pushed back, noting that the IRS has already acknowledged wrongdoing and apologized.  Alas, it seems admissions of guilt still aren’t sufficiently dispositive for our fact-finder in chief

On Libya, a detailed examination of the record shows that the White House has had no consistent message on what happened on September 11. In fact, they changed their message from day to day — and it’s clear that the administration’s actions in the days and weeks after the Benghazi tragedy was all political maneuvering.

Benghazi was a terrorist attack.  The September 11th murders of 4 Americans in Libya wasn’t about some You Tube video and the Obama administration did apparently leave those people out there to die.  They did apparently conceal the truth and they did think we’d be stupid enough to believe them.

And anybody who thought things would be different is, quite frankly, an idiot.

Especially right before the Re-coronation of the King of All Media and your sovereign Lord of all Things, Barack Hussein Obama!

Nothing could be allowed to get in the way. Nothing.

The Agenda is The Agenda.

The Message is The Message.

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

After all, we are talking about the King of the Orwellian Parse.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?

 

The Facts

Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

    Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”

    Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.

The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.

Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”

OBAMA: “Right.”

KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”

OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”

OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)

Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:

QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie — or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”

OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.

In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”

She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.

Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carney said on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”

The Pinocchio Test

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time–and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Four Pinocchios (WP)

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

The Audacity of The Ministry of Truth

I’m sad to report today a death of a good friend to all of us…..Journalism, the once esteemed 4th estate of our nation and the protector of our freedoms and a watchdog of our rights has passed away after a long struggle with a crippling and debilitating disease of acute dishonesty aggravated by advanced laziness and the loss of brain function.— Gov. Huckabee 2009

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate (or just ignore it like Libya). This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

And calling out the Ministry of Truth for what it is needs to be done more often.

Now onto Pat Cadell, the guy who I have great respect for. He’s Democrat. Yes, a Democrat. He is one of a nearly extinct species, a sane Democrat. A Democrat who is still a Democrat, but isn’t consumed with petty, childish, narcissistic  extremism.

Editor’s note: The following text is from a speech delivered by Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor Patrick Caddell on September 21. It was delivered at Accuracy in Media’s Conference: Obamanation: A Day of Truth. The title of the speech was “The Audacity of Corruption.

I think we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy or not.  You know, when I first started in politics – and for a long time before that – everyone on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, despised the press commonly, because they were SOBs to everybody.  Which is exactly what they should be.  They were unrelenting.  Whatever the biases were, they were essentially equal-opportunity people. 

That changed in 1980. 

There are a lot of reasons for it. It changed—an important point in the Dukakis-Bush election, when the press literally was trying to get Dukakis elected by ignoring what was happening in Massachusetts, with a candidate who was running on the platform of “He will do for America what he did for Massachusetts”—while they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

Also the change from evening news emphasis to morning news by the networks is another factor that’s been pointed out to me.

Most recently, what I call the nepotism that exists, where people get jobs—they’re married to people who are in the administration, or in politics, whatever. 

But the overwhelming bias has become very real and very dangerous. We have a First Amendment for one reason. We have a First Amendment not because the Founding Fathers liked the press—they hated the press—but they believed, as [Thomas] Jefferson said, that in order to have a free country, in order to be a free people, we needed a free press.  That was the job—so there was an implicit bargain in the First Amendment, the press being the only institution, at that time, which was in our process of which there was no checks and balances. 

We designed a constitutional system with many checks and balances.  The one that had no checks and balances was the press, and that was done under an implicit understanding that, somehow, the press would protect the people from the government and the power by telling—somehow allowing—people to have the truth.  That is being abrogated as we speak, and has been for some time.  It is now creating the danger that I spoke to.

This morning, just this morning, Gallup released their latest poll on the trust, how much trust [the American people have in the press] —when it comes to reporting the news accurately, fairly, and fully, and [the level of their distrust] it’s the highest in history.  For the first time, 60% of the people said they had “Not very much” or “None at all.”  Of course there was a partisan break: There were 40% who believed it did, Democrats, 58% believed that it was fair and accurate, Republicans were 26%, independents were 31%. 

So there is this contempt for the media – or this belief—and there are many other polls that show it as well. 

I want to just use a few examples, because I think we crossed the line the last few weeks that is terrifying.

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece which was called “The Audacity of Cronyism” in Breitbart, and my talk today is “The Audacity of Corruption.”  What I pointed out was, that it was appalling that Valerie Jarrett had a Secret Service detail.  A staff member in the White House who is a senior aide and has a full Secret Service detail, even while on vacation, and nobody in the press had asked why.  That has become more poignant, as I said, last week, when we discovered that we had an American ambassador, on the anniversary of 9/11, who was without adequate security—while she still has a Secret Service detail assigned to her full-time, at a massive cost, and no one in the media has gone to ask why.

The same thing: I raised the question of David Plouffe.  David Plouffe, who is the White House’s Senior Adviser—and was Obama’s campaign manager last time, he and [David] Axelrod sort of switched out, Axelrod going back to Chicago for the campaign—and just after it was announced that he was coming, an Iranian front group in Nigeria gave him $100,000 to give two speeches in Nigeria. 

Now, let me tell you: There’s nobody that hands—no stranger gives you $100,000 and doesn’t expect something in return, unless you live in a world that I don’t.  And no one has raised this in the mainstream media. 

He was on with George Stephanopoulos, on ABC, a couple of weeks ago, and they were going through all these questions.  No one asked him whatsoever about that.  He was not inquired.  George Stephanopoulos, a former advisor to Bill Clinton—who every morning, while Rahm Emmanuel was Chief of Staff, had his call with Rahm Emmanuel and James Carville, and the three of them have been doing it for years—and he is held out as a journalist. He has two platforms.  I mean, he’s a political hack masquerading as a journalist. But when you don’t ask the questions you need to ask of someone like David Plouffe, who’s going in the White House—when we’re talking about Iran.

I just finished surveys, some of you may have seen, with John McLaughlin this week, with Secure America Now, and found out just how strongly Americans are concerned with Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, what’s happening in the Middle East, and cuts in defense spending. 

This is not the place for that, but it strikes me as the American people identify, in the polling we’ve done over the last year, Iran as the single greatest danger to the United States.  And here’s a man who’s being paid by an already named front group for that—for a terrorist regime, and is not asked about it, or queried about it!

The third thing I would say is that—then there’s of course [National Security Advisor] Tom Donilon, who I know very well from years back, who I caused a little bit of a stir over a few months ago when I said he was the “leaker-in-chief.” 

I mean this ridiculous running around—“How did these secrets get out?”—when it is clear he has no credentials for foreign policy; who has been in the White House; who was a political operative for Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, and others; who was known to have, in my opinion, to be just the most amoral person I know in politics; and who is using and orchestrating national security.  In Mr. [David] Sanger’s book [Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power], as a reviewer at [The New York Times] said, “The hero of this book, and the clear source of it, is Tom Donilon”—but let me just make a point.  Neither does—and I would say this to the Congressman—“You know, all the Republicans have to do”—you know, I talk often about the “Corrupt Party” and the “Stupid Party,” but the Stupid Party couldn’t be stupider when it comes to things like this.  They could have called Tom Donilon and other people down to the Congress, put them under oath, and asked them if they had leaked. 

Instead you have Eric Holder, who runs the most political Justice Department since John Mitchell—only in John Mitchell’s administration did we have Justice Departments that were so politicized and so corrupted by politics—and he appoints someone who gave two people to do a study on the leaks, sometime in the next century will come out, and one of them is a, was a contributor to Barack Obama when he was a state Senator.  That’s a really unbiased source!  And the press, of course, won’t look into this. 

 It will not ask the question. But the Republicans could have called them down.  Yes, the president could have extended Executive Privilege, but let him say “I will not answer that question, sir” on the question of “Did you leak these secrets that Dianne Feinstein, the Chairman, the Democratic Chairman, of the Senate Intelligence Committee said were endangering national security and American lives?”  As she said when she read Sanger’s book, “My God, every page I turn I learn something that I don’t know!”  I mean, these are serious matters but in Washington they’re playful, and the press does not pursue any of them.

Peter Schweizer has done a study talking about corruption.  Sixty percent or 80%—it’s closer to 80%  I think, now—of the money given under the stimulus to green energy projects—the president and this administration’s great project—has gone to people who are either bundlers or major contributors to Barack Obama. 

But nobody says a word. 

Of course Republicans don’t raise it because in Washington, they simply want to do it when they get back in power.  And, of course, the press doesn’t because they basically have taken themselves out of doing their job.

When we see what happened this week in Libya—and when I said I was more frightened than I’ve ever been, this is true, because I think it’s one thing that, as they did in 2008, when the mainstream press, the mainstream media and all the press, jumped on the Obama bandwagon and made it a moral commitment on their part to help him get elected in a way that has never happened, whatever the biases in the past. 

To give you an example of the difference, I’ll just shortly tell you this: In 1980, when [Jimmy] Carter was running for reelection, the press—even though 80% of them, after the election, reporters said they voted for Carter over [Ronald] Reagan, or 70% percent of them, a very high percentage—they believed, so much, that the Carter campaign and the Carter White House had abused the Rose Garden against [Ted] Kennedy that they made a commitment, as they discussed, that they would not serve as the attack dogs on Reagan for the Carter White House because they thought it was unfair and they weren’t to be manipulated. 

I totally disagree with their analysis, but that was when you actually had a press corps.  Whatever their own personal feelings, they made judgments that were, “We’re not going to be manipulated.” 

This press corps serves at the pleasure of this White House and president, led by people like Ezra Klein and JournoList, where they plot the stories together.  The problem here is that no one will name names.

But I want to talk about this Libyan thing, because we crossed some lines here. It’s not about politics. First of all we’ve had nine day of lies over what happened because they can’t dare say it’s a terrorist attack, and the press won’t push this. Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya.

Twenty American embassies, yesterday, were under attack.  None of that is on the national news.  None of it is being pressed in the papers. 

If a president of either party—I don’t care whether it was Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or George Bush or Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush—had a terrorist incident, and got on an airplane after saying something, and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified!  It would have been—it should have been the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush’s “flying over Katrina” moment.  But nothing was said at all, and nothing will be said.

And the American people collectively sighed and went back to watching “Dancing with Stars” or some nonsense.  Bread & Circuses.

It is one thing to bias the news, or have a biased view.  It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know, and I choose right now, openly, and this is—if I had more time I’d do all the names for it—but The New York Times, The Washington Post, or the most important papers that influence the networks, ABC, NBC, and, to a lesser extent—because CBS has actually been on this story, partly because the President of Libya appeared on [Bob Schieffer’s “Face the Nation”] and said, on Sunday, while [U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.] Susan Rice was out—the U.N. Ambassador has no portfolio on this matter—lying, said of the Secretary—you know why, notice the Secretary of State wasn’t out there doing this—was on national television, lying and promoting the White House line while the Libyan President, the very same moment, is saying “This is a premeditated attack.” 

Nobody has asked that question.  This morning—take a look at The New York Times this morning, it’s a minor reference.  Oh, now we’ve decided that it was a terrorist incident.  But this is—that would have changed, that should change the politics.

This is not without accomplices, because the incompetence of the [Mitt] Romney campaign, which I said a week ago is the—my God!—the worst campaign in my lifetime, and the Republican establishment in general’s inability to fight, has allowed these things to happen in part because they don’t do it.  But I want to go through two other quick points.

As I have said, The Republicans are desperate to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If they can’t beat Obama with an economy like this they are truly incompetent.

[Mohamed] Morsi and Egypt: The President of Egypt, we find out now, that his whole agenda has been getting the “Blind Sheikh” [Omar Abdel-Rahman], who’s responsible for the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, out of jail.  Prison.  I’ve been told specifically, by a member of the intelligence community that the White House and State Department are negotiating that now. 

They have now come out and denied it, but [Morsi] comes out, that they ordered—he’s the head of the Muslim Brotherhood!  The American people know what they think of the Muslim Brotherhood: They are against them eleven to one, all right? And he’s the president of the Muslim Brotherhood, giving $2 billion to United States. 

He tells them—we had advance warning because they had said they were gonna do this, attack our embassy.  The president—after the incident, after 48 hours, Mr. Morsi does nothing and says nothing—picks up the phone, calls him, and demands that they call it off. 

On Friday—last Friday, a week ago today—there was supposed to be a big demonstration.  We thought that would be the big day—no, it disappeared, because Morsi called it off.  But no press person has investigated this, just as no press person will go and ask the most obvious questions, when there are really good stories here, good media stories, and good news stories.  They are in the tank and this is a frightening thing.

Another example has been the polling, which everyone wants to talk to me about.  Look: There is no doubt that Romney is blowing an election he could not lose, and has done everything he can to lose it.

My point exactly. 🙂

But the bias, the polling, it’s very complicated.  Some of it is error, some of it is miscalculation, but some of it is deliberate, in my opinion—to pump up the numbers using the 2008 base to give a sense of momentum to the Obama campaign. 

Over sampling Democrats to get the results THEY want not the actual results they would get. But that’s not biased… 🙂

When I have polls that have the preference of Democrats over Republicans higher than it was in 2008, which was a peak Democratic year, I know I am dealing with a poll that shouldn’t be reported.  And yet they are being done, and they are being done with that knowledge and with that basis for some people, and the answer, as I said, some of it is incompetence, some of it is they just don’t know, really know, how to handle it, and some of it is on purpose, and it’s purposeful.

But all of it is just to serve a basic point, just as JournoList was—Mr. Klein’s JournoList—but as I said there is no pushback. 

We have a political campaign where, to put the best metaphor I can on it, where the referees on the field are sacking the quarterback of one team, tripping up their runners, throwing their bodies in front of blockers, and nobody says anything. The Republicans don’t. 

AMEN!!

The reason you will lose this battle is for one reason.  Despite organizations like Accuracy In Media and others who are pointing this out, and the fact that 60% of the American people are in on the secret here—I mean, they’re no idiots—Republicans and those candidates who are not the candidates of the press refuse to call them out. 

If I were the Romney campaign I would’ve been doing this for months!  I’d have been looking at individual reporters!  I would be telling the American people, “They’re not trying to stop me; they’re trying to stop you!  And they are here to do this!”  And I would have made the press themselves an issue because, until you do, what happens is, they are given the basic concession of authenticity and accuracy, or that they are credible, by not doing that.

Now too many reporters, too many political people in the Republican Party in this town, want to maintain their relationships with the press.  This is how Sarah Palin got handed over to Katie Couric and to ABC before she was ready—because Steve Schmidt and others want to preserve their view, their relationships with the press. 

Better to preserve the incest than to do your job. Anyone notice they hate you anyways and they know it?? You’re afraid of THEM over US.

They are all one happy, dysfunctional family and they don’t want to point that Uncle Obama is an embarrassment much like the family members of drunks, drug addicts, and abusers.

Now one wants to address the dysfunction. So addicts and abusers get away with it and the press is on it and they hide it as best they can. And those being abused say very little to nothing about it.

You know, people have their own agendas, and often it’s not winning. But this not-pushing-back is a problem, and they don’t do it.  And, you know what this is a different era: The old argument of “You don’t attack someone in the press”—or “You don’t get in a pissing match with someone who buys ink by the barrel”—doesn’t apply anymore.  There are too many outlets, too many ways to do it, and the country doesn’t have the confidence in the press that they once had.

But all I want to conclude to this is that we face a fundamental danger here. The fundamental danger is this: I talked about the defense of the First Amendment. The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power.  When they desert those ramparts and decide that they will now become active participants, that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know,  they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people. 

And it is a threat to the very future of this country if we allow this stuff to go on. We have crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about. (FOX)

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

The Seinfeld Revolution

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

The “revolution” about nothing.

The pot at the end of the socialist rainbow was Fool’s Gold.

Reality just isn’t “fair”. Like fer sure…

On the “unofficial, defacto online resource for the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protests,” there is a proposed list of 13 demands, including immediate debt forgiveness for all, free college education, elimination of free trade, a $20 an hour minimum wage, guaranteed “living wage” regardless of income, open borders, $1 trillion government spending on infrastructure, $1 trillion government spending on ecological restoration, a racial and gender equal rights amendment and easier unionization voting procedures.

“These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy,” “LloydJHart,” the drafter of the online demands, asserts. “LyoydJHart” lists his hometown as Vineyard Haven, a Massachusetts town on the island of Martha’s Vineyard — a favorite summer vacation spot for the president.

The demands listed by “LyodJHart” are more specific than the general dictate of these protests. As one Internet forum poster, “GandhiKingMindsetResist,” put it, “The one demand in New York is: ‘Shut Down Wall St.’ Why are we shutting down Wall St.? ‘Because Wall St. is hurting Americans, hurting citizens of the world and ruining our environment.”

Business Insider has reported on what an n+1 magazine writer discovered during his foray into the protests: That outside of the aforementioned demands, the protesters also want full employment, negative income tax (in which the government actually pays people below a certain income bracket), repeal of the Citizen’s United campaign funding Supreme Court ruling, universal health care centers, a Tobin tax (short-term tax on currency conversions), reinstatement of Glass-Steagall banking regulation, paid sick leave and pay-as-you-go military intervention.

The “Occupy Wall Street” protests and former White House “green jobs czar” Van Jones (an admitted communist) are the beginning of an “American Fall,” according to Rep. John Larson, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

In Tuesday evening remarks before a group of visiting activists and journalists from Egypt and Tunisia, Larson said the United States has drawn inspiration from revolutions in those countries and, as a result, is experiencing its own “Arab Spring, if you will.”

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller following his speech, Larson said left-wing activists with “the right morals” are pushing America’s democracy to “evolve.”
The protesters’ political demands have been far too widely varied to represent much agreement, but the group’s website claims: “The one thing we all have in common is that we are the 99 percent that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1 percent.”
“They’re standing up and saying the things they feel deep inside that are working unjustly and unfairly against them,” concluded Larson, “and everybody ought to take heed, that it’s not only an ‘Arab Spring,’ but there is an ‘American Fall’ as well.”

The little socialist were raised by Liberal educators to believe everything should be “fair” and when reality (and Liberal keynesian economics) hit them in the face they were mad and like children who don’t get the toy they want right now! they lash out and cry and whine that life just in’t fair and it should be!
I have said for quite a while now that this notion of “fair” is the inception point for the liberal mindset. If it isn’t “fair” in their minds then it’s evil and must be destroyed or control completely and utterly.
So you have the liberal need to control everyone and everything, so as to make it “fair”.
But these skulls full of liberal mush just hit the brick wall of reality and they want the wall to break because it’s just not “fair”.
Screw working hard to succeed, let those who have succeed pay THEM!! That’s “fair”

The gold at the end of the socialist rainbow turns out to be Fool’s Gold and they aren’t intellectually capable of understanding this and so they get frustrated and like a baby they cry and whine about it.

Oh,and then there’s a diversity problem.
The tea party is condemned by the left as just “angry white people” but it appears by photographic evidence so are the “occupiers”. 🙂

Though a few representatives of minority groups have appeared among the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters in New York City, photos and videos of the left-wing mini-throngs indicate they suffer from a serious lack of diversity. And the protesters themselves told The Daily Caller on Tuesday that they are conscious of the issue, if not the inconsistency it demonstrates.

A 40-photo Washington Post slideshow showing hundreds of angry protesters in New York and other cities includes no more than 15 clearly identifiable minority protesters, and just six African-Americans. The rest of the protesters shown are white, and most are male.
In 26 photos from San Francisco and Chicago gatherings posted on OccupyTogether.org, only one person from a minority group is clearly visible, and it’s unclear whether he is a protester or a bystander.

Minority groups are similarly underrepresented in photos and videos posted on OccupyWallSt.org, the self-described “unofficial de facto online resource for the ongoing protests happening on Wall Street.”

Even the “unofficial” organizers of the protest events admit this is — or at least appears to be — problematic.

“That’s an interesting question, and it comes up often,” OccupyWallSt.org’s Patrick Bruner said in an email to TheDC. “Unfortunately, we have a very high turnover rate, and nobody as of yet has come up with official diversity related statistics for us. From observation, I can tell you that we’re not all white, and that we also have a huge LGBT [Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender] population.”

“We’re working on reaching out to minority groups as well,” Bruner adds. “Thanks for the food for thought, I’m sorry I don’t have more exact information for you right now.”

I love liberal guilt. I hope they tear themselves apart trying to be “fair” to minorities while condeming the Tea Party as a bunch of angry racist white people.
The irony, hypocrisy and ludicrous double standards will be completely lost on the cognitively dissodent Left.
“When Occupy Wall Street activists call themselves the ‘99 percent,’ it turns out they mean 99 percent non-diverse (by their own politically correct measurements),” Meichelle Malkin said in an email.
And now the Government Unions and Democratic party Apparatchiks are “orginizing” these lost sheeple.

“It’s as pale out there at Camp Alinsky as MSNBC’s prime-time lineup or the New York Times editorial board.  Not counting the cameos by Jesse Jackson and Cornel West, that is.”

“The liberal media will only engage in racial bean-counting of protest crowds when it serves their political ends: Namely, painting the Right as homogenous and non-inclusive,” Malkin said. “We heard endless derision about the tea party’s lack of skin-color diversity from Hollywood and the national press. But not a peep about the Abercrombie & Fitch-meets-Apple central casting mob swamping lower Manhattan.”

Gainor added that mainstream media representatives “only see what they want to see.” He said reporters scoured tea party rallies for evidence of racism, while failing to notice how “white” the left-wing crowds are.

Exactly.

Leftist Rally
“What do we want?”
“We want an end to capitalism”
“When do we want it?”
“Now!”
“What do we want instead?”
“We don’t know, but we want it now!”
And can you can you give me a job, free health care, car, food, entertainment and pension for life…

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need–Karl Marx
🙂

Ann Coulter: They say they want Obama re-elected, but claim to hate “Wall Street.” You know, the same Wall Street that gave its largest campaign donation in history to Obama, who, in turn, bailed out the banks and made Goldman Sachs the fourth branch of government. (and many Obama appointees come from Goldman Sachs)

This would be like opposing fattening, processed foods, but cheering Michael Moore — which the protesters also did this week.

But to me, the most striking difference between the tea partiers and the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd — besides the smell of patchouli — is how liberal protesters must claim their every gathering is historic and heroic.

They chant: “The world is watching!” “This is how democracy looks!” “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for!”

At the risk of acknowledging that I am, in fact, “watching,” this is most definitely not how democracy looks.

Sally Kohn, a self-identified “community organizer,” praised the Wall Street loiterers on CNN’s website, comparing the protest to the Boston Tea Party, which she claimed, “helped spark the American Revolution,” adding, “and yes, that protest ultimately turned very violent.”

First of all, the Boston Tea Party was nothing like tattooed, body–pierced, sunken-chested 19-year-olds getting in fights with the police for fun. Paul Revere’s nighttime raid was intended exclusively to protest a new British tea tax. (The Wall Street protesters would be more likely to fight for a new tax than against one.)

Revere made sure to replace a broken lock on one of the ships and severely punished a participant who stole some of the tea for his private use. Samuel Adams defended the raid by saying that all other methods of recourse — say, voting — were unavailable.

Our revolution — the only revolution that led to greater freedom since at least 1688 — was not the act of a mob.

As specific and limited as it was, however, even the Boston Tea Party was too mob-like to spark anything other than retaliatory British measures. Indeed, it set back the cause of American independence by dispiriting both American and British supporters, such as Edmund Burke.

George Washington disapproved of the destruction of the tea. Benjamin Franklin demanded that the India Tea Co. be reimbursed for it. Considered an embarrassment by many of our founding fathers, the Boston Tea Party was not celebrated for another 50 years.

It would be three long years after the Boston Tea Party when our founding fathers engaged in their truly revolutionary act: The signing of the Declaration of Independence.

In that document, our Christian forebears set forth in blindingly clear terms their complaints with British rule, their earlier attempts at resolution, and an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for independence from the crown.

The rebel armies defending that declaration were not a disorganized mob, chanting slogans for the press and defacing public property.

Even the Minutemen, whose first scuffle with the British began the war, were a real army with ranks, subordination, coordination, drills and supplies. There is not a single mention in the historical record of Minutemen playing hacky-sack, burning candles assembled in “peace and love,” or sitting in drum circles.

A British lieutenant-general who fought the Minutemen observed, “Whoever looks upon them as an irregular mob will find himself very much mistaken.”

By contrast, the directionless losers protesting “Wall Street” — Obama’s largest donor group — pose for the cameras while uttering random liberal cliches lacking any reason or coherence.

But since everything liberals do must be heroic, the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd insists on comparing themselves to this nation’s heroes.

One told Fox News’ Bill Schulz: “I was born to be here, right now, the founding fathers have been passing down the torch to this generation to make our country great again.”

The Canadian environmental group behind Occupy Wall Street, Adbusters, has compared the Wall Street “revolutionaries” to America’s founding fathers. (Incidentally, those who opposed the American Revolution fled after the war to … Canada.)

The — again — Canadians exulted, “You sense they’re drafting a new Declaration of Independence.”

I suppose you only “sense” it because they’re doing nothing of the sort. They say they want Mao as the president — as one told Schulz — and the abolition of “capitalism.”

The modern tea partiers never went around narcissistically comparing themselves to Gen. George Washington. And yet they are the ones who have engaged in the kind of political activity Washington fought for.

The Tea Party name is meant in fun, inspired by an amusing rant from CNBC’s Rick Santelli in February 2009, when he called for another Tea Party in response to Obama’s plan to bail-out irresponsible mortgagers.

The tea partiers didn’t arrogantly claim to be drafting a new Declaration of Independence. They’re perfectly happy with the original.

Tea partiers didn’t block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public. They read the Constitution, made serious policy arguments, and petitioned the government against Obama’s unconstitutional big government policies, especially the stimulus bill and Obamacare.

Then they picked up their own trash and quietly went home. Apparently, a lot of them had to be at work in the morning.

In the two years following the movement’s inception, the Tea Party played a major role in turning Teddy Kennedy’s seat over to a Republican, making the sainted Chris Christie governor of New Jersey, and winning a gargantuan, historic Republican landslide in the 2010 elections. They are probably going to succeed in throwing out a president in next year’s election.

That’s what democracy looks like.

DEPENDENCY

Going along with that, and that 47% of all american paid no income taxes at all.

Nearly half, 48.5%, of the population lived in a household that received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2010, according to Census data. Those numbers have risen since the middle of the recession when 44.4% lived households receiving benefits in the third quarter of 2008.

The share of people relying on government benefits has reached a historic high, in large part from the deep recession and meager recovery, but also because of the expansion of government programs over the years.

Some 34.2% of Americans lived in a household that received benefits such as food stamps, subsidized housing, cash welfare or Medicaid (the federal-state health care program for the poor).

Another 14.5% lived in homes where someone was on Medicare (the health care program for the elderly). Nearly 16% lived in households receiving Social Security.

So the number of people dependent on government (aka someone else) increases and the number of tax payers (the people paying for this mess) decreases. Meaning the ones left holding the bag are paying even more.

But don’t worry, it the “rich” people’s fault. And corporations are evil. Capitalism must be destroyed for people to be free.

From Whom the Bell Tolls…

OBAMACARE

Bantering with the audience at a fundraiser in St. Louis yesterday, President Barack Obama bragged about a new regulation, proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services, that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has denounced as an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty.”

“Darn right!” an audience member at the fundraiser shouted as Obama described the regulation.

Darn tooting!Obama said back.

The proposed regulation, designed to implement part of Obamacare, will require all private health plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives–including those that cause abortions—without charging any fees or co-pay. These regulations were drawn to implement a provision in Obama’s health-care law that calls for all health-care plans to cover “preventive services.”

Combined with Obamacare’s mandate that all individuals must buy health insurance, the “preventive services” regulation would require all American Catholics to buy health care plans that pay for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortions–all of which violate Catholic moral teaching.

A “religious exemption” in the regulation is so narrowly drawn that it does not include any lay Catholics, or any Catholic hospitals, charitable organizations, or colleges or universities. Thus, many major Catholic institutions in the United States would be forced to choose between dropping health insurance coverage for their employees and students or violating the moral teachings of their own church.

In comments on the regulation submitted to HHS last month, the Catholic bishops called for the regulation to be “rescinded in its entirety” and described the proposal as “government coercion of religious people.”

“Indeed, such nationwide government coercion of religious people and groups to sell, broker, or purchase ‘services’ to which they have a moral or religious objection represents an unprecedented attack on religious liberty,” the bishops said.

At a Democratic National Committee fundraiser at the Renaissance Hotel in St. Louis last night, Obama touted the “preventive services” regulation to an appreciative audience.

“And, yes, we passed health care reform because no one in America should go bankrupt because somebody in their family gets sick,” said Obama, according to the official White House transcript of his remarks.

“Insurance companies can’t drop your coverage for no good reason,” said Obama. “They won’t be able to deny your coverage because of preexisting conditions.  Think about what that means for families all across America.  Think about what it means for women.” 

At that point, an audience member shouted: “Birth control.”

“Absolutely. You’re stealing my line,” said Obama.

“Breast cancer, cervical cancer, are no longer preexisting conditions,” Obama continued. “No longer can insurance companies discriminate against women just because you guys are the ones who have to give birth.”

At this point, a member of a laughing audience shouted out: “Darn right!”

“Darn tooting,” Obama answered back—to laughter. “They have to cover things like mammograms and contraception as preventive care, no more out-of-pocket costs.”

Last week, the Catholic bishops distributed an insert for placement in church bulletins all across the country. It called on Catholics to contact HHS to object to the regulation. On their website the bishops are now asking Catholic to write Congress to urge members to support legislation that would overturn the regulation. (CNS)

Your only religion should be to Government. And the President is the Pope. And the Church of Ever More Spending and Control can’t possibly be wrong now can it, Citizen…. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler


Extreme!

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

The President in Pennsylvania, the state, instead of Pennsylvania Ave being a leader:  “If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”

There’s that liberal “compassion” and “sensitivity”. 🙂

So if you are struggling with inflation in gas prices, food prices and utility costs the best thing you can for yourself is to get a new car that will cost you even more money!!

So what if you can’t afford it!

But you’ll get better mileage. 🙂

Sounds like an Obama plan. When you are struggling economically, spend even more!! 😦

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/04/07/krauthammer_obamas_energy_plan_is_drill_in_brazil_and_windmills.html

Before Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget released yesterday, the Liberal Establishment was telling us that what was needed was an adult conversation on the budget and entitlements. Now that they have got their adult conversation, they can’t handle it.

Evidenced by one of our favourite radical leftists and now head of the DNC (while still a Congressman):

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) comments on Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget proposal for FY 2012.

“Representing a large number of seniors in south Florida, I can tell you that this budget would be devastating for seniors and older Americans. This Republican path to poverty passes like a tornado through America’s nursing homes, where millions of America’s seniors receive long-term and end of life care,” Rep. Wasserman Schultz said.

And good “rich” Billionaire (because he’s a socialist): I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control otherwise they might get me into trouble. ‘I have always harboured an exaggerated view of my self-importance,’ he wrote. ‘To put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes, or, even better, like Einstein (“Alchemy of Finance”).-George Soros

“‘I’ve come to the conclusion,’ Soros told Fortune, ‘that one can do a lot more about the issues I care about by changing the government than by pushing the issues.’  In short, he has become the world’s angriest billionaire.”  (Mark Gimein, “George Soros Is Mad As Hell,” Fortune, 10/27/03).

Sounds a bit like Obama. 🙂

A fundraising appeal from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee warns supporters that “Tea Party Republicans are threatening to shut down the government on Friday unless we surrender to their outrageous demands.”

The fundraising email, penned by DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.), went out late Wednesday and asks for small donations to the committee’s “GOP Accountability Fund,” setting a goal of raising $50,000 by Friday “so we can hold Speaker Boehner and his Tea Party fringe Republicans immediately accountable for shutting down the government.”

“The world is watching our next move,” Israel wrote. “Will we cave to the Tea Party’s disgraceful act of political extortion or will we fight back with the full force of our grassroots strength?”

Never let a Crisis go to waste!! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

“What if the president and your representative saw it coming and could have prevented it from happening?” Ryan said. “What would you think of them if they didn’t?” A hush came over the audience at the American Enterprise Institute. It was Ryan’s way of saying that the financial meltdown arrived largely without warning, while the impending fiscal crunch is like a runaway freight train. “This is the most predictable crisis in the history of our country,” he went on. “We are on our path to a debt crisis” like those we’ve seen recently in Europe, with the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product rising, under Barack Obama’s budget, past the 90 percent danger point on its way to 800 percent. (townhall.com)

So if it’s that predictable, even the Democrats would drop their partisanship and do what is best for the nation and it’s people….

Yes, that was cynical chuckle moment.

The Democrats have only 3 plays in their playbook and variations on it.

1. Class Warfare  2. Fear  3. Intimidation

That’s it.

And if you disagree with them at any level you are an “extremist” !!!!

Ryan’s budget is based on the idea that people are capable of making decisions for themselves.

EVIL!!!

1961: And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you  can do for your country.

2011: And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what you can do for the country; ask what the government can do for you.

Karl Rove: In the White House Press Room on Tuesday, President Barack Obama did what comes naturally—scold others, in this case the Congress. Mr. Obama complained that a budget agreement “could have gotten done three months ago.”

What he didn’t say was that the budget should have “gotten done” six months ago, before the current fiscal year started last Oct. 1. Our government’s failure to have a budget in place halfway through the fiscal year is the president’s responsibility. He and his party dominated Congress by wide margins when the budget was supposed to be put in place.

Also on Tuesday, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan did what the president has not. Demonstrating leadership and more than a little courage, Mr. Ryan laid out a thoughtful, ambitious blueprint for the next decade.

The Path to Prosperity would return discretionary spending to its 2008 levels and hold it flat for five years; reduce the federal government’s work force by 10%; slash corporate welfare; reform the tax code; and reduce the corporate and top personal rate to 25%. It would repeal ObamaCare, change Medicare so the government helps all seniors pay for an insurance policy they choose, and send states money for each person covered by Medicaid, plus the flexibility to spend that money as they see fit.

The Obama-Ryan budget battle foreshadows what Americans are likely to hear in the 2012 campaign: an unengaged, reactive chief executive versus a bold, reform-minded GOP.

In the short term, it’s obvious what Mr. Obama hopes to gain. Having watched his standing as “a strong and decisive leader” drop to 52% in last month’s Gallup poll from 60% last year, the president is looking to profit politically from a shutdown of the federal government.

When the government was twice shut down in 1995 and 1996, Congressional Republicans survived the controversy and kept their majorities in the 1996 election. At the same time, the shutdowns boosted Bill Clinton’s image. Only 37% viewed him as “a strong leader” in a June 1995 ABC News poll. In a January 1996 CBS News poll after the shutdowns, 53% said Mr. Clinton had “strong qualities of leadership.”

The president will instruct his party to demagogue the House Republican budget, labeling it as an assault on the poor and a windfall for the rich that will rip America’s social safety net to shreds.

Never mind that these charges are false and irresponsible. Mr. Ryan would have the government spend $40 trillion over the next 10 years, $6.2 trillion less than Mr. Obama’s budget plan of $46 trillion. This is an overall reduction in what the government plans to spend, not a cut from what it is spending today.

Under Mr. Ryan’s proposal, for example, health-care spending would still rise for both Medicaid, which serves the poor, and Medicare, which serves seniors. The $275 billion spent on Medicaid this year would grow to $305 billion in 2021 while the $563 billion spent on Medicare this year would grow to $953 billion in 2021. Nor would anyone 55 years or older be affected by any Medicare reforms.

Mr. Ryan and his colleagues want to act now to keep entitlement programs solvent. They want to keep Americans from experiencing the pain of the ­crisis that will come when the public debt has doubled by 2012 (from the level when Mr. Obama came into office) and nearly ­tripled by 2021, as it would under the president’s plan. Already mandatory spending, the part of the budget that’s automatic and not subject to approval each year by Congress, eats up all available revenue this year. Medicare goes broke in 2029, and Social Security is bankrupt in 2037.

The White House doesn’t care—it perceives a political path to victory in 2012. What makes this strategy doubly reckless and cynical is that the administration knows a debt crisis is coming and that its spending plans cannot continue.

But the Obama administration’s adults—Chief of Staff Bill Daley, Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew, and National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling—are clearly not in charge. The politicos—Senior Adviser David Plouffe (who managed Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign) and Communications Director Daniel Pfeiffer (who had the same title in the 2008 campaign) have their hands on the wheel. The White House is in full re-election mode.

The House GOP budget will not become law this year, but it will smoke the president out on spending and provide a framework for Republicans to discuss the nation’s fiscal challenges. The contrast between the GOP’s boldness and the president’s cowardice is striking. The question is whether the president and his party will pay a political price for their abdication of leadership. We’re about to find out.

But rest assured the Liberal Press will be there to ignore it entirely and will tirelessly cheerlead for the Liberal progressive cause.

I’m sad to report today a death of a good friend to all of us…..Journalism, the once esteemed 4th estate of our nation and the protector of our freedoms and a watchdog of our rights has passed away after a long struggle with a crippling and debilitating disease of acute dishonesty aggravated by advanced laziness and the loss of brain function. (Gov. Huckabee 2009)

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

 

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 

The Winning Strategy Part 1: The Media

November 2010.

The most important election in American History.

And the Democrats know it.

So, get ready for anything goes.

Because after all, the end justifies the means.

There will be all out Nuclear Race War.

Class Warfare.

Bush Derangement Syndrome will be epidemic.

You’ll up to the sky in kitchen sinks.

Nothing will actually be off limits.

Everyone of you who even hints at disagreeing with them is a Racist or an Uncle Tom.

You know who you are. 🙂

And The Mainstream Media will be right there in their propaganda roll as the Ministry of Truth.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

Think how underplayed the greatest lie of the Obama administration is being ignored, That of the Health Care Mandate as a Tax then you get the idea.

Then it came out this week that many in the News Media (not just “commentators”) actively and with political forethought deliberately ignored, suppressed or actively worked against the Reverend Jeremiah Wright story when it broke and actively worked to get Obama elected in general by hook or by crook.

Absolutely no “objectivity” or “journalism” need apply.

Did you notice how fast it disappeared?  And anyone who brought it  after that was…<<drum roll>>…A RACIST! 🙂

And if you disagreed with Obama, you were de facto a Racist?

Then after he was elected the Tea Party sprung up, and guess what, they were Racists too!!

It was no accident. I was a calculated plan by the very journalists themselves.

Someone found a forum where “journalists” hung out and said what they really think.

But don’t expect to here it on the Mainstream Media, the very people who were saying it. 🙂

Daily Caller: It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.

According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Specifically, “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us,” Ackerman wrote on the Journolist listserv in April 2008. “Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”

ABC being the “tough questions” asked of the President about Rev. Wright in April 2008, just after it broke.

How dare they! That must be stopped!

The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”

(In an interview Monday, Tomasky defended his position, calling the ABC debate an example of shoddy journalism.)

Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.

“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.

Tomasky approved. “YES. A thousand times yes,” he exclaimed.

The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson’s] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”

Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be “Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,” Bernstein wrote.

In the midst of this collaborative enterprise, Holly Yeager, now of the Columbia Journalism Review, dropped into the conversation to say “be sure to read” a column in that day’s Washington Post that attacked the debate.

Columnist Joe Conason weighed in with suggestions. So did Slate contributor David Greenberg, and David Roberts of the website Grist. Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, helped too.

Journolist members signed the statement and released it April 18, calling the debate “a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world.”

The letter caused a brief splash and won the attention of the New York Times. But only a week later, Obama – and the journalists who were helping him – were on the defensive once again.

Jeremiah Wright was back in the news after making a series of media appearances. At the National Press Club, Wright claimed Obama had only repudiated his beliefs for “political reasons.” Wright also reiterated his charge that the U.S. federal government had created AIDS as a means of committing genocide against African Americans.

It was another crisis, and members of Journolist again rose to help Obama.

Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list.

The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”

Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just
how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”

“Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” Hayes wrote.

Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.

(Reached by phone Monday, Hayes argued his words then fell on deaf ears. “I can say ‘hey I don’t think you guys should cover this,’ but no one listened to me.”)

Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said.

“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”

Ackerman went on:

I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

Ackerman did allow there were some Republicans who weren’t racists. “We’ll know who doesn’t deserve this treatment — Ross Douthat, for instance — but the others need to get it.” He also said he had begun to implement his plan. “I previewed it a bit on my blog last week after Commentary wildly distorted a comment Joe Cirincione made to make him appear like (what else) an antisemite. So I said: why is it that so many on the right have such a problem with the first viable prospective African-American president?”

Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.

“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”

(In an interview Monday, Schmitt declined to say whether he thought Ackerman’s plan was wrong. “That is not a question I’m going to answer,” he said.)

Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”

But it was Ackerman who had the last word. “Kevin, I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”

Karl Rove played down the notion that members of the mainstream press agreed with Ackerman but he said he found it curious that such talk was tolerated within the group. It was important, he added, not to judge the motives of members who chose not to respond.

“I thought it was a revealing insight in the attitude of one minor player in the D.C. world of journalism,” Rove said of Ackerman’s comments. “It’s an even more important insight into a broader group of more prominent journalists that they seem to be willing to tolerate the suggestion that they should all tell a deliberate lie or that they should take somebody’s head and shove it through a plate glass window. I would hope that somebody would say, ‘Mr. Ackerman, do you really believe we ought to fabricate a lie about people just because we don’t agree with them?’”

Barnes added that even if there was an effort on the left to smear opponents as racists, the plan wouldn’t work.

“The charge has been made so often without any evidence that it has lost its sting,” he said. “It has become the last refuge of liberal scoundrels.”

Interview on FOX: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/publisher-neil-patel-chats-with-megyn-kelly-about-journolist/

And Now Part II: The Enemies List

If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.

But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, that isn’t what you’d do at all.

In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.

In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”

Spitz’s hatred for Limbaugh seems intemperate, even imbalanced. On Journolist, where conservatives are regarded not as opponents but as enemies, it barely raised an eyebrow.

In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for President Obama’s health care bill. For most people, the protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.

On Journolist, the question was whether the protestors were garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.

“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”

Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed. “They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state,” Yeselson wrote. “This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency. Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts).”

“I’m not saying these guys are capital F-fascists,” added blogger Lindsay Beyerstein, “but they don’t want limited government. Their desired end looks more like a corporate state than a rugged individualist paradise. The rank and file wants a state that will reach into the intimate of citizens when it comes to sex, reproductive freedom, censorship, and rampant incarceration in the name of law and order.”

On Journolist, there was rarely such thing as an honorable political disagreement between the left and right, though there were many disagreements on the left. In the view of many who’ve posted to the list-serv, conservatives aren’t simply wrong, they are evil. And while journalists are trained never to presume motive, Journolist members tend to assume that the other side is acting out of the darkest and most dishonorable motives.

When the writer Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article about immigration for National Review, for example, blogger Ed Kilgore didn’t even bother to grapple with Hanson’s arguments. Instead Kilgore dismissed Hanson’s piece out of hand as “the kind of Old White Guy cultural reaction that is at the heart of the Tea Party Movement. It’s very close in spirit to the classic 1970s racist tome, The Camp of the Saints, where White Guys struggle to make up their minds whether to go out and murder brown people or just give up.”

The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”

But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”

John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air…

“If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

A comment on the website after the stories summed it up beautifully:

This expose simply confirms what many of us have known all along. Liberals in the MSM are rigid idealogues who write for each other. They passionately believe they are on the side the angels while conservatives are just plain evil. In their world the ends justify the means and advocacy journalism is their contribution to advancing the cause. They are no better than the “journalists” who wrote for TASS or PRAVDA and their mindset is as rigid and narrow as what you would find in areas where the Taliban has complete control.

Excerpts: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/a-few-excerpts-from-journolist-journalists/

Tomorrow, the question will be how do you fix voters…CHEAT like You have CHEATED before! 🙂
One Hint: The Electoral College is Evil and must be stopped! 🙂