some Missouri sheriffs, prosecutors and law-enforcement officials have formed "Obama Truth Squads" charged with going after anyone who makes false or misleading claims about their candidate. Intended or not, the report gave the distinct impression that these elected officials -- including prosecutors from St. Louis, Dunklin, Lafayette, Cass, Clay, Ripley, Audrain and Jackson counties -- were going to "hold accountable" Obama critics who "violate ethics laws," but do nothing about McCain's opponents who do the same. Speaking as members of the Obama Truth Squad, the two top prosecutors said "they plan to respond immediately to any ads or statements that might violate Missouri ethics laws."
THIS IS NOT THE first time the Obama camp has used similar tactics to try to silence the opposition. The campaign has twice called for the Justice Department to prosecute the American Issues Project for allegedly violating the Federal Election Campaign Act after it ran attack ads linking Obama to the 1970s domestic terrorist William Ayers. AIP's lawyers, for their part, say their group is a "qualified non-profit corporation" and thus within its legal rights. It is perhaps no coincidence that AIP's Martin is based in St. Louis.
It's not just Republicans that have to fear for the First Amendment in the era of Obama. As the Politico reports:
It's worth noting that this isn't the first time [Obama general counsel Bob] Bauer has called for criminal investigations and prosecutions into the donors to independent groups critical of Obama, including one supporting John Edwards and another supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton. His words did have the effect of scaring their donors and consultants, but haven't yet appeared to result in any prosecution.
Meanwhile Missouri, which has voted for every presidential winner since 1960, remains too close to call. The question remains whether the Truth Squad's tactic of enlisting the mainstream media to publicize its goals worked to silence Obama critics, or whether it reinforced the idea that a Obama presidency would be a disaster for free speech.
I figure we'll need a separate thread to discuss all the efforts of Glorious Leader Obama to prosecute and silence his critics in the coming years...at least until this site gets shut down.
Uschi talkative User trust the fuck head 15000+ posts Wed Oct 08 2008 01:03 AM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Free Speech in the Era of Obama
Heh... on myspace a year ago I saw an obama community thing and joined for the hell of it one day. At the time I had my animated Hitler avatar. The NEXT day the thing was completely shut down by request of Obama's Campaign because they wanted to only have an official one.
Conservative-friendly media better get ready. Should Barack Obama win the presidency and the Democrats control Congress, as now seems likely, they will launch a full-scale war to drive critics — especially on political talk radio — right out of legitimate public debate.
A Democrat-controlled Washington will use sweeping new rules to shush conservative political speech. For starters, expect a real push to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
Obama, like congressional Democrats, also wants to regulate the Internet, the only other medium in which the right does well, via its influential bloggers.
Not coincidentally, hampering the alternative media with new regulations would leave the liberal mainstream press, which still enjoys full First Amendment protections, comparatively empowered.
G-Man, every time you post, because of the graemlin in your sig, my mind reads it as you laughing at whatever you posted. No matter how NOT entertainingly humerus it may be.
Conservative-friendly media better get ready. Should Barack Obama win the presidency and the Democrats control Congress, as now seems likely, they will launch a full-scale war to drive critics — especially on political talk radio — right out of legitimate public debate.
A Democrat-controlled Washington will use sweeping new rules to shush conservative political speech. For starters, expect a real push to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
Obama, like congressional Democrats, also wants to regulate the Internet, the only other medium in which the right does well, via its influential bloggers.
Not coincidentally, hampering the alternative media with new regulations would leave the liberal mainstream press, which still enjoys full First Amendment protections, comparatively empowered.
Who the fuck sourced this? It's long been a matter of conventional wisdom that the right sucks horribly with using the Internet to drive their message and generate funds for their candidates. The left on the other hand has been wildly successful at driving the message ahead of the mainstream media and even making them focus their attention on things they highlight or scoop them on.
Plus you need only look at Obamas fund raising VS McCain's or even MoveOn.Org's efforts at whatever issue they focus on to see how the Democrats have a HUGE advantage as far as generating cash online goes.
The only person from the right that can even compare is Matt Drudge.
Now AM radio, unarguably has been a HUGE success for the right wing. To the detriment of this country and it's political dialouge and yes, IMO to the Republican Party itself.
G-Man, every time you post, because of the graemlin in your sig, my mind reads it as you laughing at whatever you posted. No matter how NOT entertainingly humerus it may be.
<p>Why are people at Obama rallies doing a Hitler Salute?<br /> <br /><img src="http://texasdarlin.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/obama-sign-of-progress.jpg?w=300" /><br />Obama's sign of Progress<br /> <br />
<br /><img src="http://texasdarlin.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/hitlersalute.jpg?w=300" /><br />“Hitler’s hands as he speaks of the unity of the National Socialist and socialist ideas.”<br clear="all" /></p>
BONITA SPRINGS — Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott’s now infamous appearance at Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s public rally has caught the attention of federal officials. Scott is under federal investigation for wearing his uniform during the campaign stump, a spokesman for the Office of Special Counsel said on Tuesday.
Anthony Guglielmi, spokesman for the OSC, said, “We are launching a formal investigation into Sheriff Scott today on the basis of possible violation of Hatch Act.”
The Hatch Act of 1939 regulates how certain government employees use their official authority in their private lives. Guglielmi said the Sheriff’s Office would fall under the law’s provision if it receives federal funding, a near certainty.
Scott potentially used his “official authority” to influence the outcome of an election, Guglielmi said. He could also face penalties for wearing his uniform or even driving his cruiser to the event.
Scott on Tuesday said he hadn’t received official notice of the investigation, but if true, he expects to be exonerated.
This is harassment from Obama pure and simple.
I have a fair amount of experience reviewing Hatch Act cases. The Hatch Act in this circumstance exempts elected officials and only applies to appointed officers. The reason is obvious: if people who's offices received federal funding were prohibited from trying to influence elections no one could run for their own office or endorse other candidates, including the President and Congress.
Sheriffs are elected. Therefore, the investigation will go nowhere.
The only possible reason for this investigation is to threaten and intimidate people who criticize "the One."
Some Futurists hold that sometime prior to the expected return of Jesus, there will be a period of "great tribulation"[40] during which the Antichrist (Barack Hussein Obama), indwelt and controlled by Satan, will attempt to win supporters with false peace, supernatural signs. He will silence all that defy him by refusing to "receive his mark" on their right hands or forehead. This "mark" will be required to legally partake in the end-time economic system.[41] Some Futurists believe that the Antichrist will be assassinated half way through the Tribulation, being revived and indwelt by Satan. The Antichrist will continue on for three and a half years following this "deadly wound".[42]
Some Futurists hold that sometime prior to the expected return of Jesus, there will be a period of "great tribulation"[40] during which the Antichrist (Barack Hussein Obama), indwelt and controlled by Satan, will attempt to win supporters with false peace, supernatural signs. He will silence all that defy him by refusing to "receive his mark" on their right hands or forehead. This "mark" will be required to legally partake in the end-time economic system.[41] Some Futurists believe that the Antichrist will be assassinated half way through the Tribulation, being revived and indwelt by Satan. The Antichrist will continue on for three and a half years following this "deadly wound".[42]
Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.
Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that once prided themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.
Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Mr. Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.
In recent months, conservatives have sounded increasingly retro with their attempts to paint Obama as a socialist or communist. In some ways, this accusation is typical far-right boilerplate. Obama certainly isn't the first Democrat running for president to be accused of communist sympathies. And as usual, the accusations are rarely linked to policy specifics. But the difference with Obama is that, in the eyes of the right, it's not just his political affiliation that implicates him as a socialist. It's his ethnic background.
The hysterical accusations of socialism from conservatives echo similar accusations leveled at black leaders in the past, as though the quest for racial parity were simply a left-wing plot...
This is another good example of the coming chill on free speech under Glorious Leader Obama. Now, you can't even criticize his economic policies without being called a "racist."
we need to use major authoritarian measures against wingnuts and theocrats to save this country. That in particular includes deprogramming institutions and a Gitmo like camp to deal with the worst wingnuts. These people should be removed from general society and need to be shut up.
I have believed this for years, but the behavior of the wingnuts at the McCain and Palin rallies further underscores the need to take harsh action against these people. Lincoln and FDR had to bend the Constitution at times, and I hope Obama has the guts to do so too to deal with these third rate creatures.
honestly, as much as people like to say the republicans and the democrat party are two sides of the same coin, there really is a clash of worldviews going on, and to some extent it's represented in the race going on right now. but while the current race might determine how taxpayers' money gets spent, the conflict between two diametrically opposing worldviews is rarely resolved in an election, and if anything the outcome of the presidential race will merely fuel the fires. historically, this sort of tug-of-war has come to blows more times than not, and it wouldn't surprise me if that happens here before this is all over with. ultimately, it's up to everyone to differentiate what for them constitutes a negotiable political stance and what constitutes a personal conviction worth fighting for. few conflicts are without casualties or for that matter without collateral damage, and if things keep going the way they are we'll all be faced with some hard choices eventually.
Pariah nerdy Moderator Triteness kicks us in the nads. 15000+ posts Wed Oct 15 2008 01:40 AM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Free Speech in the Era of Obama
A Kansas City lawyer and supporter of Barack Obama for president has filed suit in federal court, alleging that the Republican ticket has incited violence against the Democratic nominee.
In her suit against Sen. John McCain, Gov. Sarah Palin and campaign manager Rick Davis, Mary Kay Green said she has been injured by their campaign tactics and suffers “terror of the heart, anxiety and grave fear” for Obama’s life
Simply a sign of things to come under the Obama regime.
It's not just free speech that's being tossed. Now, a professor from Harvard Business School proposed today — seriously — that Bush and Cheney should resign immediately after the election so Obama/Biden can take the throne:
Assume that Barack Obama wins the election, as polls show is increasingly likely. The following day, Vice President Cheney should be prevailed upon to resign. Using his powers to designate a successor under the 25th Amendment, President Bush should then appoint, and Congress should confirm, Obama as vice president (just as Richard Nixon appointed Gerald Ford vice president in 1973 when Spiro Agnew resigned). Bush himself should then resign, elevating Obama to the presidency - as Ford became president when Nixon resigned. Obama should then appoint Joe Biden as vice president.
With Congress's confirmation of Biden, the new administration would be in place, on the job, and ready to tackle the economic crisis - in November, not January. (The electoral college's official ratification of the election results in December would merely rubber-stamp the transition.)
The Constitution — it's so passéfor the elite Obama crowd.
Pariah nerdy Moderator Triteness kicks us in the nads. 15000+ posts Thu Oct 16 2008 12:21 AM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Free Speech in the Era of Obama
Now, the Obamatarians are targeting Joe the plumber, falsely claiming that he lacked the necessary plumbing licenses:
This is the way our opponents operate now. Destroy anyone who stands in your way. Humiliate them. Make sure that anyone else who ever wants to skeptically question Barack Obama knows that every last bit of their dirty laundry will be aired for all the world to see. Bristol Palin, Trig Palin, — hey, it's all fair game. They've got to make an example of them. Show them that this sort of dangerous speech won't be allowed in the New America.
I don't know how it is in Ohio, but pretty much elsewhere you don't need a license to be a plumber. You need a license to be a contractor, which would be someone who owns a plumbing business; but since Joe hasn't bought the business yet, he shouldn't need one.
"Back door" would be Promod's favorite kind of tax.
I love how easy it is to get under your skin these days, G. All I have to do is point out your methods of lying and denial, and you twist like crazy. For example, when you bring me up out of the blue in a thread I'm not participating in, in desperate hopes of working up some "bit" for you and basams to back-and-forth on...all the while creating predictably childish insults towards me...I know without a doubt that I have not only broken you (a loooong time ago, old man), but that I have "won". Thanks for that!
I love how easy it is to get under your skin these days, G. All I have to do is point out your methods of lying and denial, and you twist like crazy. For example, when you bring me up out of the blue in a thread I'm not participating in, in desperate hopes of working up some "bit" for you and basams to back-and-forth on...all the while creating predictably childish insults towards me...I know without a doubt that I have not only broken you (a loooong time ago, old man), but that I have "won". Thanks for that!
The funny thing is: I could post that quote without attribution, ask the board to guess who wrote it and, I'd bet, 9/10ths of the posters here would guess whomod.
The circle is now complete. The son becomes the father and the father becomes the son.
I love how easy it is to get under your skin these days, G. All I have to do is point out your methods of lying and denial, and you twist like crazy. For example, when you bring me up out of the blue in a thread I'm not participating in, in desperate hopes of working up some "bit" for you and basams to back-and-forth on...all the while creating predictably childish insults towards me...I know without a doubt that I have not only broken you (a loooong time ago, old man), but that I have "won". Thanks for that!
Oh and nice attempt at deflection, G. Once you realized the accuracy of my post, you immediately went into "Lump-with-Whomod" mode. It's like fucking clockwork, man...
Lucius Prometheus Vorenus love Moderator Thirteenth!! 15000+ posts 10/16/08 07:00 PM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Free Speech in the Era of Obama
Lucius Prometheus Vorenus love Moderator Thirteenth!! 15000+ posts 10/16/08 07:00 PM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Free Speech in the Era of Obama
The National Journal reports that Toledo, Ohio, officials plan to notify "Joe the Plumber" Worzelbacher that he's out of work, following his televised criticism of Democrat Presidential candidate Barack Obama's tax plan:
A staff person with the Toledo Division of Building Inspection told On Call this afternoon that her division will contact Wurzelbacher to notify him that he can't work without a license.
"We're trying to track him down," she said.
In the meantime, the Democrat-friendly local plumbers' union is fuming.
"He has no license whatsoever with the city of Toledo," said Tom Joseph, the business manager for Local Union 50 of the Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics, which has endorsed Obama. "He has no license in the state of Ohio. He has no contractor's license in the state of Ohio. He is not a plumber. He works for a plumber."
Pariah nerdy Moderator Triteness kicks us in the nads. 15000+ posts Fri Oct 17 2008 01:46 AM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Free Speech in the Era of Obama
Pariah nerdy Moderator Triteness kicks us in the nads. 15000+ posts Fri Oct 17 2008 02:17 AM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Free Speech in the Era of Obama
Dude. Junior High School students are NOT relevant. Even if they completely make themselves into asses. Jr.High is when EVERY kid is a moron. Give those retards a break, eh?
NEW YORK – "Joe the Plumber" is lashing out at the media for analyzing his personal life since he suddenly became a focal point of the presidential race last week.
Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber from Holland, Ohio, told Mike Huckabee on his Fox News talk show Saturday that he is upset by the attention and has been unable to work with reporters crowded on his front lawn.
"The media's worried about whether I've paid my taxes, they're worried about any number of silly things that have nothing to do with America," Wurzelbacher told the former Republican presidential hopeful on his show, "Huckabee."
Wurzelbacher said he felt terrible after reading some of the criticism of himself posted online.
"I felt about that small," he said. "I mean I really did."
Republican presidential candidate John McCain has been portraying Wurzelbacher as emblematic of people with concerns about Obama's tax plans.
Wurzelbacher became famous after he met Obama and said the Democrat's tax proposal could keep him from buying the two-man plumbing company where he works. However, reports of Wurzelbacher's annual earnings suggest he would receive a tax cut rather than an increase under Obama's plan.
"You know, I am a plumber," Wurzelbacher said. "Just a plumber."
Wurzelbacher said he agreed to appear on the show after he received phone calls from friends serving in the military who voiced their support.
"You know, when you can't ask a question of your leaders anymore, that gets scary," he said.
Welcome to the “thugocracy”: the Obama camp wants to Department of Justice to investigate not voter registration fraud, but people talking about voting fraud–including the GOP ticket. If you don’t believe it, read the bizarre letter sent by the Obama campaign’s lawyer. This one follows on the heels of another letter asking the DOJ to “investigate” the 527 independent group which ran one of the first Bill Ayers ads.
The McCain camp is naturally not pleased and put out a statement which reads in part:
Today’s outrageous letter to Attorney General Mukasey and Special Prosecutor Dannehy at the Justice Department asking for a special prosecutor to investigate Senator McCain and Governor Palin’s public statements about ACORN’s record of fraudulent voter registrations (including in this week’s Presidential debate) is absurd. It is a typical time-worn Washington attempt to criminalize political differences. For someone who promises ‘change,’ it is certainly only more of the same.
“The letter’s request that the Department of Justice investigate ‘recent partisan Republican activities throughout the country’ is almost a parody of the Obama campaign’s attempt to intimidate their political opponents. In case Sen. Obama’s lawyer did not notice, we are in the midst of a political campaign, not a coronation, and the alleged criminal activity he calls ‘recent partisan Republican activities’ are what the rest of us call campaign speeches and debates. All of this is unfortunately reminiscent of the Obama campaign’s recent creation of a ‘truth squad’ of Missouri prosecutors and sheriffs to ‘target’ people who criticize Sen. Obama.
And if you are wondering where civil liberties groups and the mainstream media are, you have to understand: the First Amendment ranks considerably lower than getting The One elected. On his way out the door, Attorney General Mukasey might perform one last bit of public service and give a series of lectures on the centrality of free speech, the sanctity of free and fair elections, and the utter inappropriateness of using the power of the state to silence your opponents.
And, as we start to bear an uncanny resemblance to a banana republic — complete with a cult of The Leader, roaming thugs in support of the same, and fraud-tainted voting – you’ll know that we really are experiencing “change.” Whether this is a passing spasm of election exuberance or a frightful look at the future remains to be seen.
Joe’s question about taxes threw a wrench into Barack Obama’s campaign pitch. So, oh what a background check Joe got. Within days, reports were all over the news that Joe owes back taxes, he doesn’t have an Ohio plumber’s license, his real name is Samuel, and he is — shock and horror — a registered Republican. Within days, Obama and Biden were holding up Joe to [1] public ridicule, and by implication mocking any American working stiff who might have the audacity [2] to want to earn more than $250,000 per year.
Obama may be full of talk about delivering the American dream, but he apparently has enormous disdain for Americans who actually sweat to earn it for themselves. He wants to take Joe’s money and spread it around in the name of helping others get ahead — but if anyone gets ahead more than Obama deems fitting, watch out.
It seems that Joe’s sins are less than [3] the litany would make them. He may not have a plumber’s license, but he works for someone who does. He owes back taxes, but less than $1,200. And at least to date, it is not a crime in America to use a nickname or be a registered Republican.
But to [4] squabble over Joe’s record is to miss the real point. Obama is the one running for public office, aspiring to the country’s highest position of power and public trust. Joe is not. He’s a private citizen, who had every right to ask a very good question. He wanted to know why he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream?”
What he got from the well-heeled Senators Obama and Biden was mockery and contempt.
Most disturbing is this: If that’s how Joe the Plumber gets dealt with while Obama is still stumping for votes, then what happens to Joe, or anyone else who dares question Obama’s plans, should Obama win the White House?
Should we expect that that the answer will be targeted investigations, a public display of whatever can be dug up in the way of private laundry, and sneers from the Oval Office?
In the interest of having an informed electorate, it would be far more valuable were the media teams working less frantically to dig up dirt on Joe, and a lot harder on filling in the gaps in the record of candidate Obama. Why won’t Obama release his Columbia transcripts? What exactly was he doing during those gaps in the bio?
How are we supposed to square the lavish praise of Obama’s intellectual powers and refined sensitivities with his professed failure during years of intimate acquaintance to notice the hate-speech of Rev. Wright? What is the real story with the ties to Bill Ayers, to Tony Rezko? What does that say about his judgment in choosing friends and advisers and associates?
Would Obama appoint similar pals to high office in Washington? Would he bring similarly blinkered perceptions to the job of making policy? Would his critics receive the kind of savaging just dished out to Joe? If there’s any chance that the answer is yes, then the drubbing of Joe the Plumber is a warning to us all.
SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.
this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."
The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It's a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.
Then there's all the lawyers you'd have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged - like entertainment or sports coverage?
Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome.
He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters' public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater "local accountability" on them - requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. The reform would entail setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal. The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. It's a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge.
Obama also wants to relicense stations every two years (not eight, as is the case now), so these monitors would be a constant worry for stations. Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.
It's worth noting, as Jesse Walker does in the latest Reason magazine, that Trinity Church, the controversial church Obama attended for many years, is heavily involved in the media-reform movement, having sought to restore the Fairness Doctrine, prevent media consolidation and deny licenses to stations that refuse to carry enough children's
I forget, is Reason magazine still owned by the Moony cult or did some other fringe group buy it in the last couple of years?
No.
According to their website: "Reason and Reason Online are editorially independent publications of the Reason Foundation, a national, non-profit research and educational organization."
There is no evidence that it was ever owned by the "Moonies" or any other "fringe group."
In fact, the magazine is quite hard on Republicans too.
However, MEM, I have to give you credit for carrying out Lord Obama's edict to smear and spread false rumors about his critics. Given you earlier attacks on the Holy Adjudicator, I think it's a good thing that you've fallen in line.
There is a different between falling short and willfully sinning, or using Christ's name to further your racist views. Claiming to be a Christian doesn't make one so.
It means you think everyone is bad. You think everyone is equal so you look down upon the good ones. You think success and honesty are bad. You're nothing more than a sad little gay who wants to drag everyone else down with him.
It means you think everyone is bad. You think everyone is equal so you look down upon the good ones. You think success and honesty are bad. You're nothing more than a sad little gay who wants to drag everyone else down with him.
Rex when you say outragous things everyday how much bite do you really think these rants of yours really have?
I know they get to you. That's why you keep responding.
Hey I try talking with you once in a while but usually pass because it's pretty much you trying to "get" me. Nothing good on TV right now so I gave it a shot.
There are also whiter versions of Trinity that I also don't care for either.
it's called liberation theology. basically it's marxism with enough of a veneer of meticulously-culled and probably party-approved Christian theology to fool the average churchgoer. apart from jesse jackson, al sharpton, and jeremiah wright (and presumably barack hussein obama since he went to his church for twenty years), perhaps the most famous adherent of liberation theology was the rev. jim jones.
In an online chat at the Washington Times today the most famous plumber since Art Carney, Toledo's own Samuel Joseph "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher, expressed some mighty skepticism about Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
“When I was face to face with him, my honest first impression was that I expected something more,” wrote Wurzelbacher, in response to a question from “Thomasville, AL.” “I had heard so much about ‘his presence’ in the media that I was surprised to find that he seemed very average. My gut feeling as he answered my questions? I was scared for America.”
“Do you believe Obama will actually stick to his current promise of only raising taxes on incomes above $250k, or will it go lower?” asked “La Jolla, CA.”
“That's the big question isn't it,” replied Joe. “What worries me is that he is deciding that $250k is rich right now, but what's to stop him from changing his mind? As we all know, politicians change their minds at the drop of a poll. Personally, I think it will have to go lower. How else will he pay for all he wants big government to do?”
Oddly, Wurzelbacher says of Sen. John McCain’s "Joe The Plumber" tour, “I did not receive an invitation and learned about it on the news only this morning. No one from either campaign has asked me to join them. I'm out to stick up for the regular folks.”
When one correspondent suggested that Wurzelbacher would fare better under Obama’s tax plan than under McCain’s, Wurzelbacher responded, “Whether or not his tax plan, as he states it today, would help me, it still comes down to principles. I don't want someone else's hard earned money. How can you be sure they're not going to change their minds and decide you make too much money and want to take more of it to "spread" to someone else. Unfortunately, as much as Obama says he wants to help out small businesses, this small business opportunity is now dead.”
Well I hope all the liberals are friggin happy now.
Joe the plumber said a bunch of stuff that didn't check out with the talking heads I swear by, I'm gonna act all dismissive regarding his statements so they don't report me to the DNC.
Where are all the free speech absolutists when you need them? Over the past month, left-wing partisans and Democratic lawyers have waged a brass-knuckled intimidation campaign against GOP donors, TV and radio stations, and even an investigative journalist because they have all dared to question the radical cult of Barack Obama. A chill wind blows, but where the valiant protectors of political dissent are, nobody knows.
On August 11, I called the American Civil Liberties Union national headquarters in New York for comment about the Chicago gangland tactics of one of these groups -- a nonprofit called “Accountable America” that is spearheaded by a former operative of the Obama-endorsing MoveOn outfit.
“Accountable America” is trolling campaign finance databases and targeting conservative donors with “warning” letters in a thuggish attempt to depress Republican fundraising. (You’ll be interested to know that the official registered agent of Accountable America is Laurence Gold, a high-powered attorney for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) who has testified before the Senate complaining about the use of campaign finance laws to stifle the speech of union workers -- a pet cause of the ACLU.)
The ACLU press office failed to respond to my initial call. On August 13, I followed up through e-mail:
“I called on Monday requesting a statement from the ACLU about Accountable America’s intimidation campaign against GOP donors. What is the ACLU’s position with regard to such efforts? Waiting for your statement...”
ACLU press officer Pamela Bradshaw e-mailed back:
“Michelle, My apologies that I cannot be of more assistance, but we don’t have anyone available. Thanks, Pam.”
My reply: “Pam -- Does this mean you don’t have anyone available today, this week, or for the foreseeable future?”
On August 20, after a week of silence, I forwarded the message again to the ACLU press office. No response.
So, I won’t bother asking the ACLU’s opinion of the latest wave of speech-squelching moves by the Obama campaign:
On Monday, Obama demanded that the Justice Department stop TV stations from airing a documented, accurate independent ad spotlighting Obama’s longtime working relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Obama summoned his followers to bombard stations, many of them owned by conservative-leaning Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails to squelch the commercial.
On Tuesday, the Obama campaign sent another letter to the Justice Department demanding investigation and prosecution of American Issues Project, the group that produced the Ayers ad, as well as Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, who funded it.
And on Wednesday, Obama exhorted his followers to sabotage the WGN radio show of veteran Chicago host and University of Chicago Professor Milt Rosenberg. Why? Because he invited National Review writer Stanley Kurtz to discuss his investigative findings about Obama’s ties to Ayers and the underwhelming results of their collaboration on a left-wing educational project sponsored by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The “Obama Action Wire” supplied Rosenberg’s call-in line and talking points like this:
“Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse. ... It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves.”
Behind the glowing, peaceful facade lies Barack “The Silencer” Obama and his silent enablers on the left. While mainstream journalists schmoozed with liberal celebrities in Denver, practiced yoga with left-wing bloggers and received massages at the Google convention tent near touchy-feely Barackopolis, Team Obama was on an ugly, aggressive warpath sanctioned by Mr. Civility. While compassionate Obama prepared to stand before thousands of worshipers at Invesco Field, purporting to give voice to the voiceless, his Chicago-schooled campaign machine was working overtime to muzzle conservative critics. “We want it to stop,” ordered one pro-Obama caller to WGN.
Welcome to the future: the politics of Hope and Change enforced by the missionaries of Search and Destroy.
Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine
Do you really think that, if Pelosi and Reid pass it Congress and given the amount of support it has among his more radical base, Obama would ever, ever, veto it?
Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
I've said it before and I'll say it again... as soon as Obama signs it, if not sooner, MEM will start backpeddling on his earlier critique of the Fairness Doctrine and either (a) find an excuse to support it; (b) find some Republican that also supports it to excuse his party's overwhelming support of same; or (c) both.
Barack Obama's campaign is firing back against criticism over a seven-year-old radio interview in which Obama discussed wealth redistribution, specifically blaming FOX News for drawing attention to the issue.
In the interview, conducted by Chicago Public Radio in 2001 while Obama was an Illinois state senator and a law professor at the University of Chicago, Obama discusses the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on redistributing wealth in its civil rights decisions. The unearthed conversations gave fresh ammunition to critics who say the Democratic presidential candidate has a socialist agenda.
But Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Monday accused FOX News of pushing a "fake news controversy" to further an agenda. Though FOX News played the audio tape for its viewers and did not just recap Republican criticism, Burton suggested FOX News was conspiring with the McCain campaign and the Drudge Report, which posted the material on its Web site.
"This is a fake news controversy drummed up by the all too common alliance of FOX News, the Drudge Report and John McCain, who apparently decided to close out his campaign with the same false, desperate attacks that have failed for months," Burton said in a written statement Monday. "In this seven-year-old interview, Senator Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all."
In a heated interview later on FOX News, Burton accused the channel of giving McCain advertising "for free every single day," and trying to "continually trump up these fake controversies and have folks on to talk about things that don't have anything to do with the issues that are important to the American people."
"This was indeed an issue that has been driven by the FOX News Channel," Burton said. "And so this notion that somehow FOX News has been fair on these points, it just does not hold up to the reality of sort of the coverage that it's been getting. And I think ... it is rarely so crystal clear when FOX News in and of itself is driving its own specific agenda helping John McCain frankly more than John McCain sometimes helps himself."
However, the 2001 interview evoked recent questioning by Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher, the Ohio man who asked Obama about his proposal to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000. Obama told Wurzelbacher he wants to hike taxes on the wealthy so that the government can spread the wealth.
In the radio interview, Obama delved into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when "dispossessed peoples" appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.
Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a "redistributive change" in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical," Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.
"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.
"And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.
"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," Obama said.
Burton said Monday the comments on the tape have "nothing to do with Obama's economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut."
"Here are the facts. In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama's point -- and what he called a tragedy -- was that legal victories in the civil rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country," Burton said.
"And so Obama's point was simply that if we want to improve economic conditions for people in this country, we should do so by bringing people together at the community level and getting everyone involved in our democratic process," Burton continued.
John McCain's campaign said the tape proves that Obama is too liberal for the White House.
"Now we know that the slogans 'change you can believe in' and 'change we need' are code words for Barack Obama's ultimate goal: 'redistributive change,'" said McCain-Palin senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.
"Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn't been more 'radical' and described as a 'tragedy' the court's refusal to take up 'the issues of redistribution of wealth.' No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench," Holtz-Eakin continued.
National Review reporter Byron York, a FOX News contributor, said the U.S. government already has a progressive tax system that gives money earned by one group to another group, but it's a matter of degree. He added that Obama's outlook on that system hasn't changed.
"It seems clear from listening to this that the Obama of 2001 and probably the Obama of today feels that the government doesn't do that enough, and I think that's probably the big point in this tape," York said.
"You've got to take him at his word," York added. "It seems to me that the tape shows that this is simply a goal he has had for a long time."
In a speech in Cleveland on Monday, McCain said the Obama interview is just another indication that the Democrat wants to increase sharply the amount of government spending.
"Today, he claims he will only tax the rich. But we've seen in the past that he's willing to support taxes that hit people squarely in the middle class, and with a trillion dollars in new spending, the most likely outcome is that everyone who pays taxes will be paying for his spending," McCain said.
When Obama is in power News stations will not be allowed to play archived interviews.
I haven't found the actual story yet, so this may be inaccurate, but this morning my father mentioned to me that the Obamatarians are no investigating the husband of reporter in FL who asked Biden tough questions in the interview.
My dad's a lifelong republican and he said he may switch to the Democrat Party. He's old enough to remember what Nazis were like and he doesn't want to spend his retirement in a reducation camp, he says.
Journalists from three major newspapers that endorsed John McCain -- the Washington Times, the New York Post and the Dallas Morning News -- have been booted from Barack Obama's campaign plane for the final leg of the presidential race....the three newspapers' reporters were told to find alternative transportation by Sunday so that the plane could accommodate "network bigwigs" and reporters from two black magazines, Essence and Jet.
Woe to that nation whose literature is cut short by the intrusion of force. This is not merely interference with freedom of the press but the sealing up of a nation's heart, the excision of its memory.
Sen. Menendez was just on Fox on Cavuto's show. Cavuto took Menendez to the woodshed regarding Obama's economic plan and the fairness doctrine and it got pretty heated.
Menendez finally turned to Cavuto and said, "I hope you are not one of the ones forced off the air" (when we pass the Fairness Doctrine).
The election hasn't happened yet and the Democrats are already issuing threats.
Good time to remind people that I've endorsed Obama.
I was watching that. Cavuto actually lives in NJ so he has to suffer under idiot Menendez just like me. Menendez is an incredibly ignorant person and only got the job initially because he was appointed and then because NJ usually votes Dem. I can't remember the last time we had a GOP senator.
Sen. Menendez was just on Fox on Cavuto's show. Cavuto took Menendez to the woodshed regarding Obama's economic plan and the fairness doctrine and it got pretty heated.
I loved how Mendez got all flustered when Cavuto had to explain to him the difference between the high end tax and the capital gains tax.
Democrats are criticizing a 38-year-old man who parked a trailer load of manure across the street from Whitehall's Democratic campaign office to protest presidential hopeful Barack Obama.
Terry Reed, who owns a construction and excavation company in Whitehall, parked the trailer near the office on Saturday. He also posted a sign in the manure mocking Obama's "change we can believe in" slogan as "a load of crap."
"I think Obama's plan is just one big old poop sandwich and we're all going to have to take a bite," he said.
Suzanne Molyneaux, the Obama campaign's election team leader in Whitehall, said traffic came to a near standstill as people stopped to take pictures of the trailer.
"People in Whitehall were upset, they were outraged," she said. "I don't think Whitehall should be represented as this podunk, ignorant community. There are lots of good people here."
Reed said he doesn't plan to move the trailer until after Election Day.
"My only regret is that I didn't do something sooner," he said.
pure genius!
I wish I would have thought of something like that!
Better get your freedom of expression in while you can!
heh. I am getting ready to buy a .38 (mossberg's not exactly something you can lug around everywhere) and apply for a concealed-carry license (hoping to have it taken care of while I'm still allowed!), and I'm half tempted to name the new piece 'the fairness doctrine'.
A proposal pending before the Federal Communications Commission ...would provide Internet service to all Americans - with a catch. Content would be censored, free of "any images or text that otherwise would be harmful to teens and adolescents" under 18 years old.
No one wants young children viewing pornography. But to enforce the FCC standard, someone would have to decide where the "harmful" line should be drawn. What about medical illustrations, or a Globe story about female genital mutilation in Africa? To be safe for all ages, censors would have to exclude vast amounts of useful, lawful content. And since only 57 percent of Americans have broadband connections today, the censored service would for many people be the only service.
The Washington Post reports that the Obama camp has put out a memo to its policy group members, forbidding interviews with the press:
This is a reminder that our communications department has directed all of you, as policy committee members, to decline all requests from reporters and all speaking invitations regarding the transition, the Administration's priorities and related issues. If you are contacted by a reporter to discuss these matters, please refer the reporter to Priya Singh. . . . If you receive an invitation to speak on these issues at a conference or meeting, please decline the request. At this point in time, there is no one to whom to refer the request and do not offer to do so on behalf of the organization extending you the invitation. We realize these requirements may appear Draconian but so soon after the election, with the transition effort just being organized, it is important that no one who was involved with the campaign and the policy committees be speculating in public on these sensitive matters.
On election night, Philadelphia police arrested a man who dared to wear a McCain-Palin '08 T-shirt at an Obama celebration rally. What's scarier is that the Obama crowd reportedly chanted with joy as cops arrested the man for exercising his freedom of political expression. According to the liberal worldview, arresting someone for disagreeing with you is not censorship, but implying someone is not patriotic is.
Valerie Jarrett, Co-chair of the Obama transition team, said on NBC's Meet the Press, "There is one president at a time. President Bush is still the president. ... However, given...the daunting challenges that we face, it's important that President-elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one."
According to the Chicago Tribune, a 14-year-old girl in a McCain shirt was told she should either be burned alive or crucified, including by one of her teachers, in liberal Oak Park IL.
It was part of an experiment to test the tolerance of her teachers and classmates; the next day she wore an Obama T-shirt and experienced rather different results.
Will you please take the time to read this, and if you think it worthwhile, pass it along to your email list, and ask them to read it? Even if they voted, with all good intentions, for Mr. Obama?
I am a student of history. Professionally. I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.
Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten - fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.
We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?
We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has “loaned” two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the 700B we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of “we the people,” who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.
We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?
We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?
We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?
Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is medicare and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about)–the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.
And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more imporant.)
Mr. Obama’s winning platform can be boiled down to one word: change.
Why?
I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.
This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.
And that is only the beginning.
And I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his “brown shirts” would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world.
He did it with a compliant media–did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and . . . change. And the people surely got what they voted for.
(Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.)
Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though.
Don’t forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years–a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency–it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.
As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.
Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe–and why I believe it.
President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is asking potential appointees detailed questions about gun ownership, and firearms advocates aren’t happy about it.
The National Rifle Association has denounced the move, which has already led one Republican senator to consider legislation aimed at ensuring a president can’t use an applicant’s gun ownership status to deny employment.
It’s just one question on a lengthy personnel form — No. 59 on a 63-question list — but the furor over the query is a vivid reminder of the intensity of support for Second Amendment rights and signals the scrutiny Obama is likely to receive from the ever-vigilant gun lobby.
Obama’s transition team declined to go into detail on why they included the question, suggesting only that it was done to ensure potential appointees were in line with gun laws.
“The intent of the gun question is to determine legal permitting,” said one transition aide.
But even some Democrats and transition experts are baffled by the inclusion of the question.
Tucked in at the end of the questionnaire and listed under “Miscellaneous,” it reads: “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”
Paul Light, professor of public service at New York University, said there was no such question for potential appointees when President George W. Bush took office in 2000.
“It kind of sticks out there like a sore thumb,” Light said.
He expressed uncertainty over why it was included but surmised it was out of an abundance of caution, a desire to avoid the spectacle of a Cabinet-level or other high-ranking appointee who is discovered to have an unregistered handgun at home.
“It’s the kind of thing that, if dug out, could be an embarrassment to the president-elect,” Light said.
Clay Johnson, deputy director of management at the Office of Management and Budget and the head of Bush’s 2000 transition, also didn’t quite understand the purpose of the question.
“It could be their way to say to prospects that they will have to answer all these questions sooner or later, so be prepared,” Johnson observed.
Matt Bennett, a veteran campaign operative who did a stint at Americans for Gun Safety and who now works for the moderate Democratic think tank Third Way, was equally befuddled.
“It strikes me as overly lawyerly,” he said, noting that only a small percentage of guns owned by adults are ever used improperly.
Only half-joking, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) alluded to the shooting accident involving Vice President Dick Cheney, suggesting the query could be a better-safe-than-sorry measure.
“Given the behavior of the vice president under the last administration, you may want to know these things,” Ryan said.
On a more serious note, Ryan suggested that the new president was being “very, very thorough” in his approach.
An Obama ally and pro-gun Democrat from a blue-collar region of Ohio, Ryan dismissed the notion that the inclusion of such a question would do any political harm to the incoming president.
But other gun rights supporters want Obama to know the question has raised their antennae.
“It’s very odd and very concerning to put out a question like that,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), adding that it may also be “unprecedented.”
The freshman senator, who is up for reelection in 2010, had his campaign organization send an e-mail to supporters this week, pledging to enact legislation to bar federal hiring discrimination on the basis of gun ownership.
“Barack Obama promised change, and this is proof positive that we are going to see some of the most liberal change in our nation’s history,” wrote DeMint’s campaign in the e-mail.
DeMint conceded it was unrealistic to try to get a bill on the matter through during the lame duck session this week.
Still, it’s the sort of symbolic issue that may provide a political opening for Republican members of Congress from conservative-leaning states to contrast themselves with the new Democratic administration.
“I want him to know that we’re looking for areas we can work with him but also looking for areas of concern that we want to let him know we’re going to fight on,” DeMint said.
The NRA, the gun-rights group that spent millions to defeat Obama, only to see him easily carry sportsmen-heavy states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania, is signaling that it intends to keep up the fight.
“Barack Obama and his administration are showing their true colors and true philosophy with regard to the Second Amendment,” said Chris Cox, the NRA’s top political official. “It shows what we’ve been saying all along — this guy doesn’t view the Second Amendment as a fundamental constitutional right.”
Cox said the group had put the word out to their members on the question.
Imagine if he had asked if prospective employees if they have ever peacefully assembled somewhere, or a member of their family? Or if they or a family member had exercised their right to vote? Have they or a family member excercized their right to worship? Ect. When will the elitist realize that owning a gun is a right?
That's what Barack Obama said today when John McCormick of the Chicago Tribune tried to ask about Rahm Emanuel's contacts with the Blagojevich team.
Obama said, "It would be inappropriate for me to comment…and I don't want to get into the details at this point." So a short time later, McCormick came up with a more acceptable question: "Do you or [Secretary of Education-designate Arne Duncan] have a better jump shot?" The whole thing had a "Saturday Night Live" feel to it.
The interaction with McCormick stood out from previous meetings with the press. And speaking about the exchange on MSNBC shortly after, NBC Washington bureau chief Mark Whitaker said that reporters have not been aggressive enough during Obama's post-election pressers.
"Our job is to hold him to account," Whitaker said, adding that he thinks "we're going to have to get tougher."
This is from Drudge, so take it with a grain of salt, but according to this report, NBC has banned Ann Coulter from the network for criticizing the Supreme and Glorious Leader:
one network insider claims it was the book's theme -- a brutal examination of liberal bias in the new era -- that got executives to dis-invite the controversialist.
"We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama, right now," a TODAY insider reveals. "It's such a downer. It's just not the time, and it's not what our audience wants, either."
For the book, Coulter reportedly received the most-lucrative advance ever paid to a conservative author.
The TODAY show eagerly invited the author months ago, for her first network interview on GUILTY.
Update: On Coulter's Web site she writes: "DRUDGE GETS RESULTS: TODAY SHOW CHANGES MIND — WED: 7AM HOUR -- THE TODAY SHOW 10AM HOUR -- THE TODAY SHOW 4TH HOUR."
With President-elect Barack Obama set to take the oath of office to begin his first term, one New York Congressman wants to make it possible for him to one day serve a third. Representative Jose Serrano (D) has introduced a bill in the House to abolish the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which limits presidents to two consecutive terms or ten years in office.
The theory behind the 22nd Amendment is that modern day presidents exercise too much power and authority to be allowed access to it for very long.
Those of us who fear a revival, directly or indirectly, of the Fairness Doctrine need to be aware of the following exchanges that occurred during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s January 15th confirmation hearing for Attorney General-Designate Eric Holder...Holder’s evasive responses represent the first hint that the new Administration may re-open what has been “settled doctrine” within the Department of Justice and in the courts for over two decades; namely, that the old Fairness Doctrine is an unconstitutional restraint on free speech. Not to mention that the original argument used to justify these restrictions—that the scarcity of media outlets required the government to intervene in order to guarantee a "diversity" of political opinion—has long since been overwhelmed by the proliferation of cable channels, web sites, blogs, and so on.
Obama warned Republicans to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats, during a White House discussion on his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.
"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."
That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.
While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House's Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.
"I won," he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."
The response was to the objection by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to the president's proposal to increase benefits for low-income workers who don't owe federal income taxes.
I think the Limbaugh comment was probably just a little "red meat" for his liberal base. Attacking Rush is the kind of thing that makes rabid left partisans swoon. And I'm willing to accept his spokesperson's assertion that it was meant as a call for "bipartisanship."
However, I think that the "bipartisanship" he wants is simply "do things my way," as evidenced by his comments to the Congressman who objected to Obama's tax rebate proposal.
In addition, when you add in his continuing annoyance when asked questions from the White House Press Corps (a press corps that was SAVAGE to Bush and his spokespeople for eight years straight) you start to see a thin-skinned and, apparently, a rather childish persona
This could turn out to be a very dangerous combination. Especially when you add it to the crazed quasi-fascist movement and thugs in his thrall.
Obama welcomes a bipartisan debate, but only if Republicans reject their own policies in favor of his spending priorities, only if that debate doesn't delay passage of the bill that he wants, and as long as cable news shows don't scrutinize what is actually in the legislation he's proposing.
he's also condescending, as his response to the reasonable question of calling a government spending bill a "stimulus package" was derision and a joke!
Obama welcomes a bipartisan debate, but only if Republicans reject their own policies in favor of his spending priorities, only if that debate doesn't delay passage of the bill that he wants, and as long as cable news shows don't scrutinize what is actually in the legislation he's proposing.
All presidents have pushed to have what they wanted passed. How is this related to free speech?
Tax cuts were expanded and some spending has been taken out for the miniority party. Elections have consequences and this stimulas bill is going to favor what the majority party wants more so than the other.
I guess you haven't yet gotten to the chapter of "Beginner's English" where they explain what the words "as long as cable news shows don't scrutinize [him]" mean
I guess you haven't yet gotten to the chapter of "Beginner's English" where they explain what the words "as long as cable news shows don't scrutinize [him]" mean
The American Speck spins it that way but there was no threat made to cable channels or legislation proposed. He was pushing to get his stuff through congress and I understand you having a problem with that bit of free speech
when the Politico's Jonathan Martin asked the president about his nominee for deputy secretary of defense, William Lynn, Obama refused to answer, saying he was not there to take questions.
"I came down here to visit. I didn't come down here -- this is what happens. I can't end up visiting you guys and shaking hands if I am going to grilled every time I come down here," the president said.
Pressed further by the Politico reporter about his Pentagon nominee, Obama turned more serious, putting his hand on the reporter's shoulder and staring him in the eye.
"All right, come on," he said, with obvious irritation in his voice. "We will be having a press conference, at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself to you guys -- that's all I was trying to do,"
The nominee in question, William Lynn, is a former lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon, a pick Obama made in contradiction to his much-heralded anti-lobbying rules.
Obama was willing to field lighter questions, though.
Yes, he's discovered the gym in the White House residence. No, he hasn't played basketball yet on the outdoor White House court because it's been too cold.
We musn't irritate the glorious leader with serious questions. Only questions about sports and his workout regimen.
Isn't that the same kind of thing that the reporters in Russia have to write about Putin?
"I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves," Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told liberal radio host Bill Press last week. She said she expects hearings soon on reviving the policy, which was introduced in 1949 and abolished in 1987.
Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, is and has been an executive at several liberal radio talk groups.
But Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe said radio programming should be based on what brings in listeners and advertisers.
Inhofe and other critics believe those pushing to bring back the Fairness Doctrine -- nicknamed the Hush Rush Doctrine -- want to diminish the influence of Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts. Supporters insist that's not the case.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told Press Wednesday that the Fairness Doctrine is needed not to remove any conservative voices, but to ensure that there are a few liberal shows on the air.
During the presidential campaign, a spokesman said Barack Obama did not favor reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. But his White House spokesman has since left the door open.
"I pledge to you to study up on the 'Fairness Doctrine' so that, one day, I might give you a more fulsome answer," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.
Inhofe says Democrats and liberal advocacy groups aren't going to let the matter drop.
"They are committed to make this happen," he said. "We got to be ready."
Inhofe introduced a bill this year to prevent reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, but he said he has not gotten a single Democrat to co-sponsor it.
US Senate backs ban on media 'Fairness Doctrine' Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:16pm GMT Email | Print | Share| Single Page[-] Text [+] By Kim Dixon
WASHINGTON, Feb 26 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate passed an amendment on Thursday that would bar regulators from requiring broadcasters to give equal time to all points of view, a ban strongly supported by some Republican lawmakers.
The legislative amendment, sponsored by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from reimposing the so-called Fairness Doctrine to all broadcasters. It was repealed more than 20 years ago.
Aides to President Barack Obama have said he has no intention of trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but that has not stopped some Republicans from raising the issue.
Free Press, a media advocacy group that opposes bringing back the rule, said the issue was a distraction.
"An uncharitable interpretation is that they (Republicans) need an issue that unites their base and is an easy talking point for conservative radio," said Ben Scott, policy director at Free Press. ...
Senate Backs Amendment to Prevent 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival The South Carolina senator attached his amendment, called the Broadcaster Freedom Act, to a bill to give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House.
FOXNews.com
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Senate approved an amendment Thursday that would outlaw the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," an off-the-books policy that once required broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.
Republican Sen. Jim DeMint's amendment passed by a wide margin of 87-to-11. The South Carolina senator had attached his proposal, called the Broadcaster Freedom Act, to a bill to give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House.
It's unclear whether the amendment will survive as Congress debates the voting rights bill. But the measure served to effectively put the Senate on record as opposing a revival of the Fairness Doctrine.
However, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin also won approval for an alternate amendment that would order the Federal Communications Commission to encourage radio ownership "diversity."
A DeMint aide said Durbin's measure will "impose the Fairness Doctrine through the back door by trying to break up radio ownership."
The aide called the Durbin proposal "an attempt to break up companies like Clear Channel and hurt their syndications and therefore putting many local radio stations out of business that depend on those syndicated shows for revenue."
The measure passed by a vote of 57-to-41.
The media control doctrine is a policy created decades ago but abolished in the late 1980s that required broadcasters to provide opposing views on controversial issues of public importance.
Though President Obama remains opposed to any effort to renew it and the Federal Communications Commission claims it is not in any talks to revive the policy, a few Democrats have voiced strong support for the media control policy in recent weeks. Republicans like DeMint in turn pushed legislation to forestall any move to bring back the doctrine.
"We need to make it a law that the FCC or this Congress cannot implement any aspect of the Fairness Doctrine," DeMint said.
FOX News' Trish Turner and Brian Wilson contributed to this report.
Media Ban Lifted For Bodies' Return Families Will Decide Privacy Level
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced yesterday that he is lifting a 1991 government ban on news coverage of the return of the remains of fallen service members to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware and will let families decide whether to allow photographs and videos.
The ban, upheld by both Republican and Democratic administrations, has generated lawsuits as well as conflicting emotions on the part of military families.
"After receiving input from a number of sources, including all of the military services and the organizations representing military families, I have decided that the decision regarding media coverage of the dignified transfer process at Dover should be made by those most directly affected: on an individual basis by the families of the fallen," Gates told reporters at a Pentagon briefing. "We ought not presume to make that decision in their place."
Gates said he is asking a group of advisers to come up with a plan quickly to implement the new policy.
"I was never comfortable with it," Gates said of the ban, which he reviewed a year ago. But he said splits had existed among senior Pentagon leaders over the issue. "There was a division in the building," he said. "I sided with those who thought that . . . the issue ought to be up to the families." ...
At first the center-left media is/was going to let it slide because of their love for "the One." But the more he does this to people who aren't Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, the more the press is going to get worried they're next.
When I come to work each day, whether as a commentator for TheStreet.com or a host of Mad Money With Jim Cramer, I have only one thought in mind: helping people with their money.
I fight to help viewers and readers make and preserve capital. I fight for their 401(k)s, for their 529s and their IRAs. I fight for their annuities and for their life insurance policies. I fight for their profits, trading and investing. And in this horrible market, I fight to keep their losses to a minimum by having some good dividend-yielding stocks from different sectors, some bonds, some gold and some cash.
The lines are drawn pretty clearly: If you can help people make money to be able to retire, enjoy life, pay for college, pay down debt, etc., you are a "good guy," so to speak. If you take the other side of the trade, you are, well, let's say, a less favored fellow. And if you gun for the gigantic investor class that is out there that includes 90 million people in one form or another, whether it be 401(k)s or individual stocks or pension plans, then you are on my enemies list.
Now some, including Rush Limbaugh, would say I am on another enemies list: that of the White House. Limbaugh says there are only a handful of us on it, and if I am on it for defending all of the shareholders out there, then I am in good company. Limbaugh -- whom I do not know personally, but having been in radio myself, know professionally as a genius of the medium -- says, "They're going to shut Cramer up pretty soon, too, but he'll go down with a fight."
Limbaugh's dead right. I am a fight-not-flight guy, so I was on my hackles when I heard White Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' answer to a question about my pointed criticism of the president on multiple venues, including the Today Show.
"I'm not entirely sure what he's pointing to to make some of the statements," Gibbs said about my point that President Obama's budget may be one of the great wealth destroyers of all time. "And you can go back and look at any number of statements he's made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the backup for those are, too."
Huh? Backup? Look at the incredible decline in the stock market, in all indices, since the inauguration of the president, with the drop accelerating when the budget plan came to light because of the massive fear and indecision the document sowed: Raising taxes on the eve of what could be a second Great Depression, destroying the profits in healthcare companies (one of the few areas still robust in the economy), tinkering with the mortgage deduction at a time when U.S. house price depreciation is behind much of the world's morass and certainly the devastation affecting our banks, and pushing an aggressive cap and trade program that could raise the price of energy for millions of people.
The market's the effect; much of what the president is fighting for is the cause. The market's signal can't be ignored. It's too palpable, too predictive to be ignored, despite the prattle that the market's predicted far more recessions than we have.
Gibbs went on to say, "If you turn on a certain program, it's geared to a very small audience. No offense to my good friends or friend at CNBC, but the president has to look out for the broader economy and the broader population."
How much I wish it were true right now that stocks played less of a role in peoples' lives. But stocks, along with housing, are our principal forms of wealth in this country. Only the people who have lifetime tenure, insured solid pensions and rent homes but own no stocks personally are unaffected. Sure that's a lot of people, but believe me, they aspire to have homes and portfolios. If we only want to help those who have no wealth to destroy, we are not helping the majority of Americans; we are not helping the broader population.
You can argue, of course, that Obama inherited one of the worst hands in the world. I had been a relentless critic of the Bush administration's "stewardship" of the economy, calling repeatedly for changes to avert the disaster that I saw coming, although perhaps Gibbs hasn't seen my CNBC meltdown. Seemed pretty prescient to me.
I, like everyone else, have made less authoritative and wrong statements in the past, but that rant still stands as something that I am sure everyone in the Bush administrations' Treasury and Fed listened to. My calls to sell 20% of your stocks in September at Dow 11,000 and then all of your stock if you need the money for the next five years at Dow 10,000 in October, might have eluded Gibbs, too.
But Obama has undeniably made things worse by creating an atmosphere of fear and panic rather than an atmosphere of calm and hope. He's done it by pushing a huge amount of change at a very perilous moment, by seeking to demonize the entire banking system and by raising taxes for those making more than $250,000 at the exact time when we need them to spend and build new businesses, and by revoking deductions for funds to charity that help eliminate the excess supply of homes.
We had a banking crisis coming into this regime, but now every area is in crisis. Each day is worse than the previous one for this miserable economy and while Obama's champions cite the stimulus plan, it's really just a hodgepodge of old Democratic pork and will not create nearly as many manufacturing or service jobs as we hoped. China's stimulus plan is the model; ours is the parody.
Sure there's going to be some mortgage relief, but the way to approach that problem is to eliminate the overhang, which a $15,000 tax credit for existing home sales could have dented if not consumed. I have offered a comprehensive plan of 4% refinanced mortgages for all by the government, not just those many considered deadbeats, to eliminate moral hazard. I have come up with a novel plan to cut the principal and spare the banks regulatory problems by offering them a certificate of equity, making them whole over time when the house appreciates in value, which will happen if demand is stoked and supply is shrunk.
I have offered a comprehensive bank plan to solve a systemic problem -- could all bankers really be malefactors of wealth, Mr. President, or given the endemic nature can't we just presume that it's an epidemic and finger-pointing is a worthless endeavor until things get better? Like after Pearl Harbor -- let's win the war and then investigate, and even try and convict the bad actors, instead of demonizing everyone who works at a bank right now, when we need them to right themselves without too much taxpayer help.
Which leads me to the true irony of not being political: I don't like talking politics. It is personal, but some things are a matter of public record, including my substantial six figure donations to the Democratic Party before I was no longer allowed to contribute by contractual agreement. I regard two Democratic governors as my friends, and helped back one of them in a major financial way and spoke and campaigned directly for the other.
I also made it clear in a New York magazine article that I favored Obama over McCain because I thought Obama to be a middle-of-the-road Democrat, exactly the kind I have supported all my adult life, although I will admit to being far more left-wing during my teenage years and early 20s.
To be totally out of the closet, I actually embrace every part of Obama's agenda, right down to the increase on personal taxes and the mortgage deduction. I am a fierce environmentalist who has donated multiple acres to the state of New Jersey to keep forever wild. I believe in cap and trade. I favor playing hardball with drug companies that hold up the U.S. government with me-too products.
But these are issues that we have no time for now, on the verge of a second Great Depression. This is an agenda that must be held back for better times. It is an agenda that at this moment is radical vs. what is called for. I am proud to have voted for the Obama who I thought understood the need to get us on the right path, and create jobs and wealth before taxing it and making moves that hurt job creation -- certainly ones that will outweigh the meager number of jobs he's creating.
Most important, I believe his agenda is crushing nest eggs around the nation in loud ways, like the decline in the averages, and in soft but dangerous ways, like in the annuities that can't be paid and the insurance benefits that will be challenging to deliver on.
So I will fight the fight against that agenda. I will stand up for what I believe and for what I have always believed: Every person has a right to be rich in this country and I want to help them get there. And when they get there, if times are good, we can have them give back or pay higher taxes. Until they get there, I don't want them shackled or scared or paralyzed. That's what I see now.
If that makes me an enemy of the White House, then call me a general of an army that Obama may not even know exists -- tens of millions of people who live in fear of having no money saved when they need it and who get poorer by the day.
"You can argue, of course, that Obama inherited one of the worst hands in the world. I had been a relentless critic of the Bush administration's "stewardship" of the economy, calling repeatedly for changes to avert the disaster that I saw coming, although perhaps Gibbs hasn't seen my CNBC meltdown. Seemed pretty prescient to me.
I, like everyone else, have made less authoritative and wrong statements in the past, but that rant still stands as something that I am sure everyone in the Bush administrations' Treasury and Fed listened to. My calls to sell 20% of your stocks in September at Dow 11,000 and then all of your stock if you need the money for the next five years at Dow 10,000 in October, might have eluded Gibbs, too.
But Obama has undeniably made things worse by creating an atmosphere of fear and panic rather than an atmosphere of calm and hope. He's done it by pushing a huge amount of change at a very perilous moment, by seeking to demonize the entire banking system and by raising taxes for those making more than $250,000 at the exact time when we need them to spend and build new businesses, and by revoking deductions for funds to charity that help eliminate the excess supply of homes."
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told CNSNews.com on Thursday that she supports an amendment to a Senate bill that would force the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.”
The amendment’s language is viewed by many media experts as a means to regulate conservative talk radio, particularly popular programs such as the Rush Limbaugh Show and the Mark Hannity Show, among many others.
House Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a former radio broadcaster and one of Congress’ biggest opponents of the Fairness Doctrine -- an FCC regulation removed in 1987 that forced broadcasters to grant equal airtime to opposing political viewpoints -- told CNSNews.com that the amendment is a masked attempt to restore the Fairness Doctrine.
The amendment, sponsored by Senate Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and attached to a bill (S.160) that would grant Washington, D.C., a vote in the House of Representatives, was approved by the Senate last Thursday in a party line 57-41 vote.
When asked whether she supports Durbin’s amendment, Speaker Pelosi said, “Certainly, I support Mr. Durbin in most things.”
“Diversity in media ownership is very, very, important,” said Pelosi.
Minutes after the passage of the ‘Durbin amendment’ last Thursday a separate amendment that would ban the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, which was proposed by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), was also attached to the same D.C. voting rights bill and passed by a vote of 87-11.
But Pence told CNSNews.com that Durbin’s amendment would mandate a “stealth Fairness Doctrine.”
“Its clear to me that Democrats, having failed in their frontal assault on talk radio in America through the Fairness Doctrine, are now shifting strategy to a form of regulation that is essentially the Fairness Doctrine by stealth,” Pence said. He added that he is not surprised Pelosi has endorsed Durbin’s plan.
“It should come as little surprise that Speaker Pelosi, who openly supports returning the Fairness Doctrine to the airwaves of American, would support a new version of it,”
After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.
Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.
Pilots cannot openly speak about the changing policies for fear of retaliation from the Transportation Security Administration. Pilots who act in any way that causes a “loss of confidence” in the armed pilot program risk criminal prosecution as well as their removal from the program
Barack Obama was elected commander in chief promising to run the most transparent presidential administration in American history.
This achievement and the overall promise of his historic administration caused the National Newspaper Publishers Assn. to name him "Newsmaker of the Year."
The president is to receive the award from the federation of black community newspapers in a White House ceremony this afternoon.
The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press.
From the president's official schedule:
"Later in the afternoon, the President and the First Lady will attend a reception with the National Newspaper Publisher Association in the State Dining Room, where they will be presented the Newsmaker of the Year award. This event is closed press."
Maybe they'll let the newspaper people pass the award through the fence.
Clear Danger to Free Speech: Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart has gone before the Supreme Court arguing that McCain-Feingold gives the government the right to ban books and films.
No. Actually, I find it a little scary. I think Obama is appointing them because they generally aren't subject to congressional confirmation they way a cabinet position would be. Basically, he's creating a, for lack of better term, shadow government not subject to normal checks and balances.
No. Actually, I find it a little scary. I think Obama is appointing them because they generally aren't subject to congressional confirmation they way a cabinet position would be. Basically, he's creating a, for lack of better term, shadow government not subject to normal checks and balances.
I agree that it is scary. I just find the use of the term Czar to be funny considering their affinity for Marxist-Leninist politics.
Also, shouldn't all of this be in the Obama's broken promises thread. As far as I remember, he said he was going to put the power of the executive branch back in check, not make it grow with the appointment of a Czar that only answers to him every week.
A U.N. spokeswoman on Wednesday denied a report that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and three U.N. officials met last month to discuss critical news coverage by FOX News, the Wall Street Journal and Inner City Press.
The report by Inner City Press' Matthew Lee said that Under Secretary-General Angela Kane met on May 8 with Under Secretary for Communications and Public Information Kiyo Akasaka, Under Secretary for Legal Affairs Patricia O'Brien, U.N. Director of Communications Michael Meyer and U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas to devise a strategy to "counter negative coverage" by the three media outlets.
Lee, in his report, cited minutes from the meeting prepared by Kane. He claimed the minutes initially were shown to him and then read to him by an unidentified source.
"We propose writing to professional journalistic bodies which regulate the journalists concerned as well as letters to the editors with copies to their companies' legal counsel," the minutes stated, according to Lee.
But Montas, the spokeswoman, told FOXNews.com on Wednesday that "there were no minutes" to the meeting and that Lee actually quoted from a memo to Ban regarding concerns raised by the U.N. Medical Service in connection to previous reporting by Lee on allegations of unlicensed doctors and nurses at the international agency.
"It was not to counter negative coverage of any sort," Montas told FOXNews.com.
Montas said the meeting was held to address ethical and privacy concerns raised by U.N. Medical Services officials in response to Lee's posting of a sign-out sheet from the department. Lee removed the photo from his site on May 16 following requests by the U.N.
Montas said "no steps" were taken regarding potential legal action or "cease and desist" letters, as Lee reported.
"There were no decisions made," Montas said. "There was an exchange of ideas about what could be done about that complaint."
Montas also denied Inner City Press's report that the minutes indicate U.N. officials "should consider complaining to Google News," which hosts the small news outlet.
Google spokesman Gabriel Stricker told FOXNews.com that the Internet giant had not recently been contacted by U.N. officials.
Google News reinstated Inner City Press in February 2008 after dropping it when someone complained to Google that it was a one-man operation, violating the Google News rule that news organizations listed have two or more employees, Stricker said last year.
Lee told FOXNews.com at the time that he believed someone within the U.N. pressured Google to de-list him. The U.N. denied those charges.
"Clearly retaliation is the word," Lee said of his latest controversy with the U.N. "Something's wrong with this U.N. administration's understanding of what it means to have a free press covering them."
Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 6000+ posts 06/04/09 08:20 PM Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: U.N. Denies Targeting News Outlets Over Coverage
Rep. Lamar Smith: ‘The greatest threat to America is a liberal media bias.’ Yesterday, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) launched the Media Fairness Caucus, made up of about a dozen House Republicans, aiming “to fight liberal media bias.” The group will “point out unfair stories, meet with members of the media, and write op-eds and letters to the editor to highlight media bias,” Newsmax reported. Appearing on Fox News today, Smith declared that “liberal media bias” is a bigger threat to the United States than the recession or terrorism — and Fox’s Bill Hemmer seemed to agree:
SMITH: Let me just say — this is going to sound radical, I don’t mean for it to be radical — but to me, the greatest threat to America is not necessarily a recession or even another terrorist attack. The greatest threat to America is a liberal media bias. …
Rep. Lamar Smith: ‘The greatest threat to America is a liberal media bias.’ Yesterday, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) launched the Media Fairness Caucus, made up of about a dozen House Republicans, aiming “to fight liberal media bias.” The group will “point out unfair stories, meet with members of the media, and write op-eds and letters to the editor to highlight media bias,” Newsmax reported. Appearing on Fox News today, Smith declared that “liberal media bias” is a bigger threat to the United States than the recession or terrorism — and Fox’s Bill Hemmer seemed to agree:
SMITH: Let me just say — this is going to sound radical, I don’t mean for it to be radical — but to me, the greatest threat to America is not necessarily a recession or even another terrorist attack. The greatest threat to America is a liberal media bias. …
A bigger threat than terrorism?
Arguably, yes.
There's a reason why "Free Speech" is in the First Amendment. It was considered one of, if not the, most important rights to be preserved if we were to remain a free society.
It has long (ie, even before the founding of the US itself, to some extent) been recognized that, in order to preserve liberty, there should be a free and open exchange of ideas and information. Part of that free and open exchange is that as many viewpoints as possible should be presented.
Another part is that there should be a free and independent press that questions and challenges the excesses of the government.
If media bias means that there isn't a true open exchange (because the center-left press effectively "censors" opposing viewpoints) and/or that the government is unquestioned (because the center-left press is unwilling to fairly report on the excesses of the Obama administration) then we have lost the basic building block of a free society.
We can recover from terrorism. We can't recover so easily from a stripping of our most important civil right.
Rep. Lamar Smith: ‘The greatest threat to America is a liberal media bias.’ Yesterday, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) launched the Media Fairness Caucus, made up of about a dozen House Republicans, aiming “to fight liberal media bias.” The group will “point out unfair stories, meet with members of the media, and write op-eds and letters to the editor to highlight media bias,” Newsmax reported. Appearing on Fox News today, Smith declared that “liberal media bias” is a bigger threat to the United States than the recession or terrorism — and Fox’s Bill Hemmer seemed to agree:
SMITH: Let me just say — this is going to sound radical, I don’t mean for it to be radical — but to me, the greatest threat to America is not necessarily a recession or even another terrorist attack. The greatest threat to America is a liberal media bias. …
A bigger threat than terrorism?
Arguably, yes.
There's a reason why "Free Speech" is in the First Amendment. It was considered one of, if not the, most important rights to be preserved if we were to remain a free society.
It has long (ie, even before the founding of the US itself, to some extent) been recognized that, in order to preserve liberty, there should be a free and open exchange of ideas and information. Part of that free and open exchange is that as many viewpoints as possible should be presented.
Another part is that there should be a free and independent press that questions and challenges the excesses of the government.
If media bias means that there isn't a true open exchange (because the center-left press effectively "censors" opposing viewpoints) and/or that the government is unquestioned (because the center-left press is unwilling to fairly report on the excesses of the Obama administration) then we have lost the basic building block of a free society.
We can recover from terrorism. We can't recover so easily from a stripping of our most important civil right.
A written exam administered by the Pentagon labels "protests" as a form of “low-level terrorism” — enraging civil liberties advocates and activist groups who say it shows blatant disregard of the First Amendment.
The written exam, given as part of Department of Defense employees’ routine training, includes a multiple-choice question that asks:
“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”
— Attacking the Pentagon
— IEDs
— Hate crimes against racial groups
— Protests
The correct answer, according to the exam, is "Protests."
“Its part of a pattern of equating dissent and protest with terrorism," said Ann Brick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which obtained a copy of the question after a Defense Department employee who was taking the test printed the screen on his or her computer terminal.
"It undermines the core constitutional values the Department of Defense is supposed to be defending,” Brick said, referring to the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.
She said the ACLU has asked the Defense Department to remove the question and send out a correction to all employees who took the exam.
“There were other employees who were unhappy with it and disturbed by it,” Brick said.
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk said the Defense Department is looking into the matter and expects to provide more information later Wednesday.
“We need to determine if it’s something we’re currently doing,” Melnyk said. “A lot of the information in this exam is intended for people stationed abroad. We counsel those people to avoid demonstrations.”
Anti-war protesters, who say they have been targets of federal surveillance for years, were livid when they were told about the exam question.
“That’s illegal,” said George Martin, national co-chairman of United for Peace and Justice. “Protest in terms of legal dissent has to be recognized, especially by the authorities.
"It’s not terrorism or a lack of patriotism. We care enough to be active in our government.”
Bill Wilson, president of the Americans for Limited Government, which supported the Tea Party demonstrations earlier this year, agreed.
"Groups like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, paramilitary orgainzations that are striking at out at something they oppose or hate, that's terrorism," Wilson said.
"To equate that in any degree with citizens being able to express themselves seems to me to be headed down a road where all dissent is suspect and questionable."
Ben Friedman, a research fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, said the U.S. government has a long history of infringing upon citizens’ civil liberties in the name of domestic security.
“It’s the kind of thing that happens when you have large security bureaucracies, which is why they need to be kept in check,” Friedman said. “These things tend to occur in times of panic, like after Sept. 11.”
The ACLU, in a letter of complaint it sent to the Defense Department, catalogued a list of what it said were recent civil liberties violations by federal authorities, including the monitoring of anti-war protests and the FBI’s surveillance of potential protesters at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York.
Martin said getting information on the extent of the FBI and National Security Agency’s surveillance programs is nearly impossible.
“I have been arrested within 100 yards of George W. Bush and spoken out against the policies of our government in more than 100 countries," he said. "But they said they have no record on me. I don’t believe that.”
During Bush's presidency, the Defense Department was criticized for infringing on citizens’ civil rights through surveillance programs designed to protect the nation against terrorist attacks. Brick said she has seen no indication that there will be a change in policy under President Obama.
“We need to see what they do,” she said. “In a number of areas the Obama administration has not backed off and kept the Bush administration line.”
Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.
"Although obscure," reported the Wall Street Journal, "the post wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Obama aides have said the job will be crucial as the new administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases."
Sunstein was appointed, no doubt, off the success of "Nudge," his previous book, which suggests that government ought to gently force people to be better human beings.
Roll Call reports on a fracas between Democrats and Republicans in the House over the right of Representatives to communicate with their constituents. Republicans want to send this chart, created by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) to represent the flowchart of health services under ObamaCare, in order to show how much more complicated such care will become. Democrats filed a complaint with the franking committee and blocked it (via Drudge Report):
Democrats are preventing Republican House Members from sending their constituents a mailing that is critical of the majority’s health care reform plan, blocking the mailing by alleging that it is inaccurate.
House Republicans are crying foul and claiming that the Democrats are using their majority to prevent GOP Members from communicating with their constituents. …
“Hiding the truth about wildly unpopular policies is a Democrat specialty,” said one GOP aide. “I’d like to see the flow chart on how Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi plans on implementing the open and transparent government she keeps promising everyone.”
“We have initiated discussions with the minority to try and resolve current differences and are operating in good faith to achieve that goal,” said Kyle Anderson, a spokesman for House Administration Chairman Robert Brady (D-Pa.). The committee has oversight of the commission.
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), ranking member of the committee and a member of the franking commission, said through a spokeswoman that he is also aware of the situation and is working with the members of the franking commission to resolve the differences, but he added that he believed Democrats on the commission were overreaching.
You can see the chart for yourself here, and click the image to get the full-size PDF:
Even if the Democrats have solid ground for complaining about the graphic, the best remedy for bad speech is more speech, not censorship. Let the Democrats argue the rebuttal in their own mailings. Frankly (pun intended), their criticisms are picayune, amounting in essence to a complaint that Brady didn’t draw enough lines — which just makes Brady’s point even more clear.
An open and transparent Congress and leadership which understood those concepts would not have been frightened of a flow chart.
The bumper stickers and posters sold at "Free Market Warrior" at Concord Mills are meant to be "biting," the kiosk's owner Loren Spivack said.
At least one passerby found them racist and bigoted, and took time to tell the mall in a letter and a letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer.
Whatever your opinion, the fact is this: At the end of July, Free Market Warrior will not be allowed at Concord Mills Mall. The kiosk chain's owner shared e-mail correspondence with NewsChannel 36 that explains that the mall management has decided that the items sold are not "neutral" enough. The lease will be allowed to expire July 31, 2009 without an option to renew.
Spivack, who first leased the space this spring, says the decision came as a shock to him. He says mall management seemed pleased with the kiosk just a few weeks ago.
"Nobody in that mall is selling anything from a conservative perspective. Plenty of people are selling things with a liberal perspective, with a pro-Obama perspective," he said. "Given that we are in America and not North Korea, we probably should have some stuff on the other side."
Spivack says he is careful not to sell things that personally attack a politician and wants a fair exchange of ideas. "The material that I sell is about politics and ideas," he told Newschannel 36. "It's all legitimate criticism."
Concord Mills, owned by Simon Property Group, would not comment for this story, cited a policy against talking about tenant and landlord situations.
Spivack says the company first contacted him about his lease after a letter to the editor appeared in the Charlotte Observer. The author, recent UNC-Charlotte graduate Jennifer Ibanez, wrote:
"Free Market Warrior, a kiosk located adjacent to Bass Pro Shops, specializes in memorabilia embellished with pro-confederacy statements as well as those opposing both the government and President Obama. In addition, these products support ideas such as racisms, sexism, and even slavery. While freedom of speech is a Constitutional right it's difficult not to believe that something just isn't quite right here.
"I find it appalling that Concord Mills, North Carolina’s #1 visitor attraction, would condone such a message to be portrayed by their vendors and can't imagine how the outside visitors' perceptions of North Carolinians have been skewed by such an establishment.
"It’s hard to stay open-minded when such uncivilized and outdated ideas are endorsed on a daily basis. It's 2009; please, let's at least try to put this type of bigotry to an end."
Ibanez told NewsChannel 36 she was so offended, she wrote the mall as well. She says a friend of hers also wrote in. Both threatened not to return to Concord Mills.
The owner of the mall group, Mel Simon, has been a generous contributor to Democratic causes and politicians, including Barack Obama. Spivack thinks the decision about his lease is political.
"If they have decided to make their malls conservative/libertarian free zones, where those opinions can't be expressed, I do think it's their right to do that, but it's our rights to publicize the fact that they are doing that," he said.
If the issue is about causing offense, he told us, the mall should police other stores. Spivack sent NewsChannel 36 pictures of several T-shirts and banners from novelty stores at the mall that were so crude we've chosen not to share them.
"What I think the mall should have done if they thought that we were expressing one set of ideas and not another, is that they should have gotten another store to come in and sell their ideas," he said. "I would've been all in favor of that. I would have helped them move in."
NewsChannel 36 has been swamped with e-mails and comments on this story. A spokesperson for the mall did not return a call Thursday about the e-mails, which were hand-carried to the office by reporter Rad Berky. A receptionist unlocked a door and took the e-mails but we don't know if anyone read them.
I think the Dem plan is working well. The lady that wrote the letter to the editor used all the keywords, "racist" "hate speech". It's a great tactic to shout down any opposition to the One.
Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to ‘uncover’ the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions...
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
Given what happened to Joe the Plumber I'm sure that the White House won't attempt to track down and publicly humiliate anyone who disagrees with their position on socialized medicine.
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post reports that when networks began fussing over broadcasting yet another Obama snoozefest, [White House Chief of staff Rahm] Emanuel called not the programming chiefs, but the heads of parent companies in an effort to pressure networks to greenlight his boss’s show. According to Kurtz, Emanuel buzzed Les Moonves, chief executive of CBS, Jeffrey Immelt, chief executive of General Electric, which owns NBC, and Bob Iger, chief executive of Disney, which owns ABC.
So the Obama White House has to use personal cache in order to push the networks to program its propaganda. More than that, the White House has to use the covert threat of a cutoff in White House access for networks that refuse to play ball. The alphabet networks all know that the Obama White House has largely frozen Fox’s access to administration officials. They know that Obama grants his friends access while cutting off his enemies.
This endangers the independence of the press in a catastrophic way. The media has been excoriated -- and rightly so -- for its easy treatment of Obama and his cronies. But with Obama openly pressuring the networks to accede to its requests or face a reportorial cutoff, we are witnessing the hijacking of the First Amendment in toto. Obama administration officials are used to blackmailing private entities (GM, Chrysler, Bank of America), but they cross an even more dangerous line when they endanger the free press by linking press access with network time slots.
This is a horrific precedent. It is not difficult to foresee a time when an administration grants all exclusive access to one network while cutting everyone else off. Will the tough questions be asked then? Or will we simply see an ultra-sanitized version of events, pre-scrubbed by Rahm Emanuel and his ilk?
These are scary times. When in the history of the US has the government asked citizens to report other citizens for political speech?
I'm interested in finding out about the people organizing the disinformation campaigns going on and if there's something comparable to what happened in 2000 during the election, where Republicans staged angry mobs.
These are scary times. When in the history of the US has the government asked citizens to report other citizens for political speech?
I'm interested in finding out about the people organizing the disinformation campaigns going on and if there's something comparable to what happened in 2000 during the election, where Republicans staged angry mobs.
The "republicans/insurance companies/talk radio/today's boogeymen are staging this" is the current official DNC talking point so I'm not surpised that Zick is parroting it here.
Unfortunately, it misses a key point, namely, that even if it WERE staged, there's a First Amendment right to do so. In fact, even if it WERE staged (a point I do not concede), the right to stage and organize protests is quite possibly the MOST basic of rights given under the U.S. Constitution. It's called "Freedom of Assembly."
Therefore, when Zick says it's okay for Obama to be doing this he's basically admitting that he thinks harassing people for exercising their First Amendment rights is okay...as long as the harassed are protesting a Democrat.
The cockroaches are always afraid of the light. Nothing is being done that hinders anyone's First Amendment right.
The White House encouraging people to "out" anyone who disagrees with it is pretty much the definition of what constitutional law scholars call "a chilling effect," especially when it's a White House whose supporters went after Joe the Plumber and various reporters for questioning it.
Chris Zick argumentative User Fair Play! 6000+ posts 08/05/09 09:09 PM Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: Chris Zick Supports Censorshp
The cockroaches are always afraid of the light. Nothing is being done that hinders anyone's First Amendment right.
The White House encouraging people to "out" anyone who disagrees with it is pretty much the definition of what constitutional law scholars call "a chilling effect," especially when it's a White House whose supporters went after Joe the Plumber and various reporters for questioning it.
Is it illegal? No. Considering that their interest is in the fishy stuff I could see how that bothers the cockroaches.
Seriously MEM you need to look at this objectively. Just because someone disagrees with you they shouldn't be reported and put on an enemies list by the government.
Remember how, before Obama got elected, Zick swore up and down that rumors of Obama trying to censor people (mostly through the Fairness Doctrine) were ridiculous and that he (Zick) was against that sort of thing?
Now that Obama's in office, Zick's doing a 180. He's suddenly decided that some political speech (namely that which disagrees with his own views) is "fishy" or "hate speech" and should be investigated.
That's truly the definition of "a cowardly cockroach."
On the bright side at least now we know he thinks outing one's political opponents on the internet is an admirable thing.
... Again, you prove my point that you support censorship as long as the censor is a Democrat.
Unless we're talking about illegal behavior, the government has no right to even be discussing whether or not its critics opinions are "fishy."
The government does have a right. There is no law preventing them from asking people to forward e-mail to them.
Chilling Effect Doctrine: "In Constitutional Law, any practice or law that has the effect of seriously dissuading the exercise of a constitutional right, such as Freedom of Speech." (emphasis added)
...Chilling Effect Doctrine[/url]: "In Constitutional Law, any practice or law that has the effect of seriously dissuading the exercise of a constitutional right, such as Freedom of Speech." (emphasis added)
That could apply to a political party organizing dissruptive mobs to scare and shout down people.
...Chilling Effect Doctrine[/url]: "In Constitutional Law, any practice or law that has the effect of seriously dissuading the exercise of a constitutional right, such as Freedom of Speech." (emphasis added)
That could apply to a political party organizing dissruptive mobs to scare and shout down people.
Oh...you're talking about ACORN.
But, seriously Zick, no.
The "chilling effect" comes into play when it involves the government and it's police powers.
A political party and a government are not the same thing. A political party, even one whose members might be president, has no police power. It can't punish people for their exercise of free speech. In fact, the point of a political party's whole existence is to engage in free speech.
When you try to draw comparisons like this, Zick, you're really no better than Snarf when he was whining that the constitution prevented people on a message board from calling him a dumbass.
Unemployment rising, dollar crashing, a news media with no objectivity or ability to criticize Obama, Russian submarines right off our coast, and long-range Russian bombers flying right up to Alaskan air-space for the first time since the Cold War... but hey, the Annointed One is our president, so the media says everything's great !
Why don't I believe them? Because I can see with my own eyes that it's not.
In an effort to push back against criticism of its health care reform plans, the Obama administration is sending one of the many former journalists in its employ onto the digital airwaves of Youtube to attack Matt Drudge and other critics for spreading "disinformation" and "lies." Since "we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House," health reform Communications Director Linda Douglass says, "we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
Reason.tv's Dan Hayes is nothing if not patriotic, and with a good nose for fish, so he took his camera in the dead of night and went hunting for perpetrators. The results, as shown in this two-and-a-half-minute video, should scare every American who cares about truth and health care.
Wish we had a real lawyer that had some credability here on the board. G-man could be right but his logic of late is so fringe wacko. I'm not a lawyer so I just went with the definition that was posted that used the word "any practice". My guess is there isn't a legal issue with this, just cockroaches scurrying around upset that they might get caught.
In an effort to push back against criticism of its health care reform plans, the Obama administration is sending one of the many former journalists in its employ onto the digital airwaves of Youtube to attack Matt Drudge and other critics for spreading "disinformation" and "lies." Since "we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House," health reform Communications Director Linda Douglass says, "we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov http://www.youtube.com/v/r9bWqcZnrDg
Reason.tv's Dan Hayes is nothing if not patriotic, and with a good nose for fish, so he took his camera in the dead of night and went hunting for perpetrators. The results, as shown in this two-and-a-half-minute video, should scare every American who cares about truth and health care.
Yeah, O'Reilly Factor's talking points memo had a great commentary on Linda Douglass' comments last night (August 4th).
O'Reilly also showed Andrea Mitchell saying in a broadcast panel discussion that regarding Obama's proposed healthcare reform and its widespread unpopularity, that "the American people might not know what's best for them", in a classic manifestation of condescending liberal elitism.
My guess is there isn't a legal issue with this, just cockroaches scurrying around upset that they might get caught.
"Caught" doing what? Exercising their free speech rights?
Zick is tacitly admitting that he thinks people who disagree with Obama are doing something that can get them "caught."
No I'm not. You can disagree with Obama all you want but if there is an organized effort to lie and intimidate others going on I want to know about it. That's what I want caught.
No I'm not. You can disagree with Obama all you want but if there is an organized effort to lie and intimidate others going on I want to know about it. That's what I want caught.
Bullshit. Zick has never shown a whit of interest in prosecuting the UAW or ACORN.
No I'm not. You can disagree with Obama all you want but if there is an organized effort to lie and intimidate others going on I want to know about it. That's what I want caught.
Bullshit. Zick has never shown a whit of interest in prosecuting the UAW or ACORN.
You don't support this, so take a look in the mirror and take a good whiff of your own logic.
there is an organized effort to lie and intimidate others going on I want to know about it. That's what I want caught.
You're going to hear this a lot from him. The newest DNC talking point (seriously) is that there is yet another "vast right wing conspiracy" of potential terrorists out to "lie and intimidate" people in order to oppose Obama.
The Weekly Standard has a great piece exposing this latest version of the "if you're not with Obama you're a potential terrorist/cockroach/racist/bigot/etc. The whole conspiracy theory is based on, get this, a memo written by the leader of an obscure grassroots organization with something like---OOH SCARY--thirty members:
Right Principles PAC was formed by Bob MacGuffie and four friends in 2008, and has taken in a whopping $5,017 and disbursed $1,777, according to its FEC filing.
"We're just trying to shake this state up and make a difference up here," MacGuffie told me during a telephone interview. He's surprised at his elevation to national rabble-rouser by the Left.
Right Principles has a Facebook group with 23 members and a Twitter account with five followers. MacGuffie describes himself as an "opponent of leftist thinking in America," and told me he's "never pulled a lever" for a Republican or Democrat on a federal level. Yet this Connecticut libertarian's influence over a national, orchestrated Republican health-care push-back is strong, indeed, if you listen to liberal pundits and the Democratic National Committee, who have crafted a nefarious web out of refutable evidence.
Think Progress highlighted his memo's directives to "‘Yell,’ ‘Stand Up And Shout Out,’ ‘Rattle Him’," calling it a "right-wing harassment strategy against Dems." The blog falsely connected MacGuffie to the national conservative group FreedomWorks through the most tenuous of threads. The Think Progress link that purports to establish MacGuffie as a FreedomWorks "volunteer" leads to his one blog posting on a Tea Party website (on the free social networking site, ning.com). Think Progress calls Tea Party Patriots a "FreedomWorks website."
The problem is it's not a FreedomWorks site, according to FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon. FreedomWorks is a "coalition partner" of TeaPartyPatriots.org, but does not fund the site in any way.
Wow. A 'vast right conspiracy' that could fit comfortably in a public school classroom. Thank goodness Obama and Homeland Security are fixing to shut them down.
there is an organized effort to lie and intimidate others going on I want to know about it. That's what I want caught.
You're going to hear this a lot from him. The newest DNC talking point (seriously) is that there is yet another "vast right wing conspiracy" of potential terrorists out to "lie and intimidate" people in order to oppose Obama.
The Weekly Standard has a great piece exposing this latest version of the "if you're not with Obama you're a potential terrorist/cockroach/racist/bigot/etc. The whole conspiracy theory is based on, get this, a memo written by the leader of an obscure grassroots organization with something like---OOH SCARY--thirty members:
Right Principles PAC was formed by Bob MacGuffie and four friends in 2008, and has taken in a whopping $5,017 and disbursed $1,777, according to its FEC filing.
"We're just trying to shake this state up and make a difference up here," MacGuffie told me during a telephone interview. He's surprised at his elevation to national rabble-rouser by the Left.
Right Principles has a Facebook group with 23 members and a Twitter account with five followers. MacGuffie describes himself as an "opponent of leftist thinking in America," and told me he's "never pulled a lever" for a Republican or Democrat on a federal level. Yet this Connecticut libertarian's influence over a national, orchestrated Republican health-care push-back is strong, indeed, if you listen to liberal pundits and the Democratic National Committee, who have crafted a nefarious web out of refutable evidence.
Think Progress highlighted his memo's directives to "‘Yell,’ ‘Stand Up And Shout Out,’ ‘Rattle Him’," calling it a "right-wing harassment strategy against Dems." The blog falsely connected MacGuffie to the national conservative group FreedomWorks through the most tenuous of threads. The Think Progress link that purports to establish MacGuffie as a FreedomWorks "volunteer" leads to his one blog posting on a Tea Party website (on the free social networking site, ning.com). Think Progress calls Tea Party Patriots a "FreedomWorks website."
The problem is it's not a FreedomWorks site, according to FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon. FreedomWorks is a "coalition partner" of TeaPartyPatriots.org, but does not fund the site in any way.
Wow. A 'vast right conspiracy' that could fit comfortably in a public school classroom. Thank goodness Obama and Homeland Security are fixing to shut them down.
So how is this considered censorship from the left?
What evidence do you base such rhetoric as, "Thank goodness Obama and Homeland Security are fixing to shut them down." or is this something you just know?
Interesting how when popular opinion went against Bush, it was reported as "grass roots opposition". But when popular opinion goes against Obama, it's reported as an "angry mob", or as a staged republican event.
With no evidence, town hall opposition to Obama that looks to be clearly spontaneous and by average citizens, are labelled by Obama and his people as "astro-turf" staged Republican orchestractions, despite absolutely no evidence to support the allegation.
But when emotional appeals to Obama at a town hall discussion were discovered later to ACTUALLY BE OBAMA CAMPAIGN WORKERS, no one in the media questions its obvious lack of authenticity.
My guess is there isn't a legal issue with this, just cockroaches scurrying around upset that they might get caught.
"Caught" doing what? Exercising their free speech rights?
Zick is tacitly admitting that he thinks people who disagree with Obama are doing something that can get them "caught."
No I'm not. You can disagree with Obama all you want but if there is an organized effort to lie and intimidate others going on I want to know about it. That's what I want caught.
Correction: There is an organized effort BY OBAMA to lie and intimidate others !
The evidence is overwhelming. The Obama secret police are out in force, to slander all opposition, and otherwise intimidate them into silence.
And the beauty is, despite the Obama smear machine, opposition --both spontaneous grassroots opposition, as well as separate organized GOP opposition-- is increasing. It is having effect, *NOT* because it's a lie, but precisely because the opposition to Obama is true and legitimate in its concerns.
Obama is the one who is lying, who says he isn't trying to destroy private heathcare. When in fact he said "If I had my choice, I'd prefer to set up a single payer system." [i.e., socialized medicine] And that while he is allowing private healthcare to remain in existence, he anticipates that his state-run healthcare system will take "ten, fifteen, maybe 20 years" to snap the spine of private healthcare and private health insurance, and that advocates of a completely state-run system should just "be patient". In light of these comments, straight from Obama's mouth and videotaped, readily available on Youtube, who is the liar, M E M ?
there is an organized effort to lie and intimidate others going on I want to know about it. That's what I want caught.
You're going to hear this a lot from him. The newest DNC talking point (seriously) is that there is yet another "vast right wing conspiracy" of potential terrorists out to "lie and intimidate" people in order to oppose Obama.
The Weekly Standard has a great piece exposing this latest version of the "if you're not with Obama you're a potential terrorist/cockroach/racist/bigot/etc. The whole conspiracy theory is based on, get this, a memo written by the leader of an obscure grassroots organization with something like---OOH SCARY--thirty members:
Right Principles PAC was formed by Bob MacGuffie and four friends in 2008, and has taken in a whopping $5,017 and disbursed $1,777, according to its FEC filing.
"We're just trying to shake this state up and make a difference up here," MacGuffie told me during a telephone interview. He's surprised at his elevation to national rabble-rouser by the Left.
Right Principles has a Facebook group with 23 members and a Twitter account with five followers. MacGuffie describes himself as an "opponent of leftist thinking in America," and told me he's "never pulled a lever" for a Republican or Democrat on a federal level. Yet this Connecticut libertarian's influence over a national, orchestrated Republican health-care push-back is strong, indeed, if you listen to liberal pundits and the Democratic National Committee, who have crafted a nefarious web out of refutable evidence.
Think Progress highlighted his memo's directives to "‘Yell,’ ‘Stand Up And Shout Out,’ ‘Rattle Him’," calling it a "right-wing harassment strategy against Dems." The blog falsely connected MacGuffie to the national conservative group FreedomWorks through the most tenuous of threads. The Think Progress link that purports to establish MacGuffie as a FreedomWorks "volunteer" leads to his one blog posting on a Tea Party website (on the free social networking site, ning.com). Think Progress calls Tea Party Patriots a "FreedomWorks website."
The problem is it's not a FreedomWorks site, according to FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon. FreedomWorks is a "coalition partner" of TeaPartyPatriots.org, but does not fund the site in any way.
Wow. A 'vast right conspiracy' that could fit comfortably in a public school classroom. Thank goodness Obama and Homeland Security are fixing to shut them down.
Conservatives --and any other independent thinkers-- are the scapegoated Jews in Obama's Germany.
A telling video clip of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) on MSNBC’s “Hardball” has been making the rounds:
Quote:
So all of this is a diversion by the people who want to, frankly, hurt President Obama. You’ve heard the Republican senator Jim DeMint say it: Let’s make this “Obama’s Waterloo, let’s break him. That’s what this is about....
It reminds us of those hilarious “Leave Britney alone!” videos that were the rage on YouTube a couple of years back. How exactly does Boxer expect this to persuade anyone to support the legislation? Just imagine the thought process: I don’t want higher taxes and government rationing of medical care. But doggone it, I’m for it anyway, because I don’t want to hurt the president!
Goddam Wall Street Journal stole MY joke.
The editorial goes on to say:
Boxer is not alone in this...The Democratic National Committee has an ad out that strikes a similar note:
Quote:
Narrator: The right-wing extremist Republican base is back.
Crackpot at town meeting: He is not an American citizen!
The ad does not identify the congressman whose town meeting was disrupted by the birther crackpot. It was Rep. Michael Castle of Delaware, a Republican. So the DNC expects us to believe that the RNC has “called out the mob” against its own members!
Senator Dick Durbin, repeating the Obama mantra to silence all dissent: anyone who disagrees with Obama is Republican-manufactured "astroturf", not actual honest and widespread dissent.
There are similar remarks by Sen. Barbara Boxer, and several other high-level DNC slanderers as well.
Obama in his own words : His goal is a single-payer system, that will drive private insurance out of business. Contrary to what Obama normally says, alleging a single payer system is not his goal.
When in truth (opposite what Obama tells the American people) his goal is to crush all private health insurance, that will be unable to compete with a vastly cheaper state-run single-payer healthcare system. And as planned by Obama, private insurance will gradually be run out of business over "10, 15, maybe 20 years".
When I entered the room, HALF of the seats were already filled by easily identifable ACORN, SEIU, and local Dems. In fact, the president of the Hillsborough Democrats was there letting people in through a side door.
Anyway, I was one of the first people there and half of the 220 seats were already filled by these pro-Obama and Organizing for America (OFA) people.
By some accounts, 1000 people were outside wanting to get in for their voices to be heard. They were denied.
The Union Goons Attack video features a man who was denied entrance into the townhall. He was promptly roughed-up by 4 SEIU union guys. He has scratches on his chest and his shirt is ripped.”
It's sad that the left doesn't want opposing voices heard, but it is nice to see people finally standing up for what is right. I think this power grab by the socialist may wake up a sleeping giant.
The White House strategy of turning supporters into snitches when they see "fishy" information about the health care debate may run afoul of the law, legal experts say.
"The White House is in bit of a conundrum because of this privacy statute that prohibits the White House from collecting data and storing it on people who disagree with it," Judge Andrew Napolitano, a FOX News analyst, said Friday.
"There's also a statute that requires the White House to retain all communications that it receives. It can't try to rewrite history by pretending it didn't receive anything," he said.
"If the White House deletes anything, it violates one statute. If the White House collects data on the free speech, it violates another statute."
Napolitano was referring to the Privacy Act of 1974, which was passed after the Nixon administration used federal agencies to illegally investigate individuals for political purposes. Enacted after Richard Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal, the statute generally prohibits any federal agency from maintaining records on individuals exercising their right to free speech.
The White House has been under fire since it posted a blog on Tuesday that asked supporters to e-mail any "fishy" information seen on the Web or received electronically to flag@whitehouse.gov.
"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there," the blog said, adding that "since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help."
The blog was posted partly in response to a video posted on the Web that claimed to show Obama explaining how his health care reform plans eventually will eliminate private insurance.
The video, featured on the Drudge Report, strung together selected Obama statements that the White House said were taken out of context.
The White House said it wanted to be made aware of "fishy" comments about its health care plan because it wants to set the record straight. But critics called White House move an Orwellian tactic designed to control the health care debate.
"This is a very troubling attempt to stifle the free speech of Americans who have the constitutional right to express their opinion and concerns about health care," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. He called on Obama to repudiate his blog.
"This move is an attempt to intimidate those who have legitimate concerns about the health care plan," Sekulow said. "And, worse, it turns the White House into some sort of self-appointed 'speech police.' This new White House reporting program strikes at the heart of the First Amendment and has no place in this important debate about health care."
Sekulow said he imagines that opponents of mandatory abortion coverage are engaging in what the White House considers "fishy" speech and should be reported.
"What the White House is touting is absurd," he said.
But Napolitano said the White House probably cannot be sued because of sovereign immunity, unless someone was harmed by what the government did with the records. But that's unlikely, he said, because the person would probably be unaware of the harm.
"That's a silent violation of your right to privacy," he said.
The White House Thursday denied that it was playing "Big Brother."
"Nobody is collecting names," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. "We have seen, and as I've discussed from this podium, a lot of misinformation around health care reform, a lot of it spread, I think, purposefully."
Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who has called on Obama to end the program, rejected the White House explanation.
"Of course the White House is collecting names," he said, arguing that anyone with access to the e-mail account has access to private information.
"The question is not what the White House is doing, but how and why," he said. "How are they purging names and e-mail addresses from this account to protect privacy? Why do they need the forwarded e-mails, names, and 'casual conversations' sent to them instead of just the arguments that they want to rebut?
Asked by FOX News whether the White House was using the blog post as a way to expand the e-mail list for the administration and Obama's political arm, Organizing for America, Gibbs said the two are "not in any way connected" and repeated that the White House is not collecting names.
Pressed about the program's goal, Gibbs said it was to clarify for everybody what the misinformation is, adding that's not a new tactic.
"When you make a mistake in your report, sometimes I e-mail you," Gibbs said to FOX News' Major Garrett. "Occasionally, I call. Sometimes I just throw something against the wall. Occasionally, it's all three."
Garrett asked why it's necessary to ask so many people to e-mail the White House.
"All we're asking people to do is, if they're confused about what health care reform is going to mean to them, we're happy to help clear that up for them. Nobody's keeping anybody's names. I do have your e-mail. ...Maybe that's because I assume future mistakes. But I'm not going to say that," Gibbs said, drawing laughter.
"But nobody's collecting information," he added. "Everybody is trying to give people only the facts around what we all understand is a very complicated issue."
So...I guess the union thugs were just following orders from on high.
But, seriously, the DNC is already trying to use this as an example of how opponents of heath care are "out of control" and, presumably, need to be investigated. So expect MEM to come along tonight and parrot that talking point.
Funny. I was just going to post this and you beat me to it. Good show, sir.
Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
The White House strategy of turning supporters into snitches when they see "fishy" information about the health care debate may run afoul of the law, legal experts say.
"The White House is in bit of a conundrum because of this privacy statute that prohibits the White House from collecting data and storing it on people who disagree with it," Judge Andrew Napolitano, a FOX News analyst, said Friday.
"There's also a statute that requires the White House to retain all communications that it receives. It can't try to rewrite history by pretending it didn't receive anything," he said.
"If the White House deletes anything, it violates one statute. If the White House collects data on the free speech, it violates another statute."
Napolitano was referring to the Privacy Act of 1974, which was passed after the Nixon administration used federal agencies to illegally investigate individuals for political purposes. Enacted after Richard Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal, the statute generally prohibits any federal agency from maintaining records on individuals exercising their right to free speech.
The White House has been under fire since it posted a blog on Tuesday that asked supporters to e-mail any "fishy" information seen on the Web or received electronically to flag@whitehouse.gov....critics called White House move an Orwellian tactic designed to control the health care debate.
"This is a very troubling attempt to stifle the free speech of Americans who have the constitutional right to express their opinion and concerns about health care," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. He called on Obama to repudiate his blog.
"This move is an attempt to intimidate those who have legitimate concerns about the health care plan," Sekulow said. "And, worse, it turns the White House into some sort of self-appointed 'speech police.' This new White House reporting program strikes at the heart of the First Amendment and has no place in this important debate about health care."
Remember a few days ago, MEM trying to say that there was nothing illegal about this.
Remember a few days ago, MEM trying to say that there was nothing illegal about this.
As long as there isn't an enemies list (right wing wacko talking point) being used I would think they would be safe. Otherewise anyone could essentially make the White House break the law by sending an e-mail to it. At some point (for normal people) reason comes into play.
violent-right-wing Town Hall Mob: Linked With Group Promoted by Glenn Beck August 7, 2009 (ChattahBox)—An angry mob of near-rioting right-wing protesters overwhelmed a Tampa, Florida Democratic town hall Thursday night organized to discuss health reform, requiring dozens of police officers to control the unruly crowd. Many of the protesters were members of a right-wing Conservative activist group, called Tampa 912 that’s promoted by Conservative Fox News host Glenn Beck.
Other members of the right-wing mob were encouraged to protest the town hall by an email blast sent out by the Hillsborough Republican party, which provided the right-wing protesters with “talking points” to challenge health reform supporters. The result was over one thousand angry protesters showing up ready for a fight and armed with racist signs of President Obama, for a town hall event in a room that would only hold about 250 people.
Violent scuffles broke out in the angry crowd outside and inside the town hall event.
When the doors to the town hall, attended by U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, (D) Fla., were shut after the room became filled well beyond its capacity, the angry protesters began pounding on the doors and windows, chanting in loud angry voices, “You work for us,” “Hear our voice,” “Why are you shutting the Doors?,” “We can’t hear You,” “It’s a Public Event,” “Open the Doors.” One man was seen whacking the closed door with his cane.
Inside was not any calmer. The angry protesters who made it inside, shouted down Rep. Castor as she tried to answer their questions shouting, “Tyranny! Tyranny! Tyranny!,” according to the St. Petersburg Times.
The right-wing protesters roundly booed Castor when she said; “There is more consensus than there is disagreement when you get right down to it.” The angry protesters then started shouting, “Tell the truth! Tell the truth!” “Read the bill!” “Forty-million illegals! Forty million illegals!”
Castor was nonplussed, noting the dire need for health reform in our country. “The insurance industry and … Republican activists are manufacturing a lot of these phony protests,” said Castor. State Democratic chairwoman Karen Thurman said, the angry mob of protesters were “…extreme ideologues, only interested in ‘breaking’ the president and thwarting the change Americans voted for last November.”
Some of the unruly protesters carried signs depicting President Obama as a Joker and a Socialist, with other signs against government run health care. As noted by Rep. Castor, many of these confused and angry protesters would have opposed Medicare and Social Security, as well. ...
Disagreement and asking tough questions are one thing but trying to shout down everyone else is just being a thug.
the DNC is already trying to use this as an example of how opponents of heath care are "out of control" and, presumably, need to be investigated. So expect MEM to come along tonight and parrot that talking point.
the DNC is already trying to use this as an example of how opponents of heath care are "out of control" and, presumably, need to be investigated. So expect MEM to come along tonight and parrot that talking point.
violent-right-wing Town Hall Mob: Linked With Group Promoted by Glenn Beck August 7, 2009 (ChattahBox)—An angry mob of near-rioting right-wing protesters overwhelmed a Tampa, Florida Democratic town hall Thursday night organized to discuss health reform, requiring dozens of police officers to control the unruly crowd. Many of the protesters were members of a right-wing Conservative activist group, called Tampa 912 that’s promoted by Conservative Fox News host Glenn Beck.
Other members of the right-wing mob were encouraged to protest the town hall by an email blast sent out by the Hillsborough Republican party, which provided the right-wing protesters with “talking points” to challenge health reform supporters. The result was over one thousand angry protesters showing up ready for a fight and armed with racist signs of President Obama, for a town hall event in a room that would only hold about 250 people.
Violent scuffles broke out in the angry crowd outside and inside the town hall event.
When the doors to the town hall, attended by U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, (D) Fla., were shut after the room became filled well beyond its capacity, the angry protesters began pounding on the doors and windows, chanting in loud angry voices, “You work for us,” “Hear our voice,” “Why are you shutting the Doors?,” “We can’t hear You,” “It’s a Public Event,” “Open the Doors.” One man was seen whacking the closed door with his cane.
Inside was not any calmer. The angry protesters who made it inside, shouted down Rep. Castor as she tried to answer their questions shouting, “Tyranny! Tyranny! Tyranny!,” according to the St. Petersburg Times.
The right-wing protesters roundly booed Castor when she said; “There is more consensus than there is disagreement when you get right down to it.” The angry protesters then started shouting, “Tell the truth! Tell the truth!” “Read the bill!” “Forty-million illegals! Forty million illegals!”
Castor was nonplussed, noting the dire need for health reform in our country. “The insurance industry and … Republican activists are manufacturing a lot of these phony protests,” said Castor. State Democratic chairwoman Karen Thurman said, the angry mob of protesters were “…extreme ideologues, only interested in ‘breaking’ the president and thwarting the change Americans voted for last November.”
Some of the unruly protesters carried signs depicting President Obama as a Joker and a Socialist, with other signs against government run health care. As noted by Rep. Castor, many of these confused and angry protesters would have opposed Medicare and Social Security, as well. ...
Disagreement and asking tough questions are one thing but trying to shout down everyone else is just being a thug.
G-man of course has a bent view on this where the angry mob shouting and pounding to shut down an event are the victims. If one side can't be reasonable maybe the dems just need to take their bruises and pass some good health care reform that the country (minus the fringe) will support.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Quote:
violent-right-wing Town Hall Mob: Linked With Group Promoted by Glenn Beck August 7, 2009 (ChattahBox)—An angry mob of near-rioting right-wing protesters overwhelmed a Tampa, Florida Democratic town hall Thursday night organized to discuss health reform, requiring dozens of police officers to control the unruly crowd. Many of the protesters were members of a right-wing Conservative activist group, called Tampa 912 that’s promoted by Conservative Fox News host Glenn Beck.
Other members of the right-wing mob were encouraged to protest the town hall by an email blast sent out by the Hillsborough Republican party, which provided the right-wing protesters with “talking points” to challenge health reform supporters. The result was over one thousand angry protesters showing up ready for a fight and armed with racist signs of President Obama, for a town hall event in a room that would only hold about 250 people.
Violent scuffles broke out in the angry crowd outside and inside the town hall event.
When the doors to the town hall, attended by U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, (D) Fla., were shut after the room became filled well beyond its capacity, the angry protesters began pounding on the doors and windows, chanting in loud angry voices, “You work for us,” “Hear our voice,” “Why are you shutting the Doors?,” “We can’t hear You,” “It’s a Public Event,” “Open the Doors.” One man was seen whacking the closed door with his cane.
Inside was not any calmer. The angry protesters who made it inside, shouted down Rep. Castor as she tried to answer their questions shouting, “Tyranny! Tyranny! Tyranny!,” according to the St. Petersburg Times.
The right-wing protesters roundly booed Castor when she said; “There is more consensus than there is disagreement when you get right down to it.” The angry protesters then started shouting, “Tell the truth! Tell the truth!” “Read the bill!” “Forty-million illegals! Forty million illegals!”
Castor was nonplussed, noting the dire need for health reform in our country. “The insurance industry and … Republican activists are manufacturing a lot of these phony protests,” said Castor. State Democratic chairwoman Karen Thurman said, the angry mob of protesters were “…extreme ideologues, only interested in ‘breaking’ the president and thwarting the change Americans voted for last November.”
Some of the unruly protesters carried signs depicting President Obama as a Joker and a Socialist, with other signs against government run health care. As noted by Rep. Castor, many of these confused and angry protesters would have opposed Medicare and Social Security, as well. ...
Disagreement and asking tough questions are one thing but trying to shout down everyone else is just being a thug.
violent-right-wing Town Hall Mob: Linked With Group Promoted by Glenn Beck August 7, 2009 (ChattahBox)—An angry mob of near-rioting right-wing protesters overwhelmed a Tampa, Florida Democratic town hall Thursday night organized to discuss health reform, requiring dozens of police officers to control the unruly crowd. Many of the protesters were members of a right-wing Conservative activist group, called Tampa 912 that’s promoted by Conservative Fox News host Glenn Beck.
Other members of the right-wing mob were encouraged to protest the town hall by an email blast sent out by the Hillsborough Republican party, which provided the right-wing protesters with “talking points” to challenge health reform supporters. The result was over one thousand angry protesters showing up ready for a fight and armed with racist signs of President Obama, for a town hall event in a room that would only hold about 250 people.
Violent scuffles broke out in the angry crowd outside and inside the town hall event.
When the doors to the town hall, attended by U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, (D) Fla., were shut after the room became filled well beyond its capacity, the angry protesters began pounding on the doors and windows, chanting in loud angry voices, “You work for us,” “Hear our voice,” “Why are you shutting the Doors?,” “We can’t hear You,” “It’s a Public Event,” “Open the Doors.” One man was seen whacking the closed door with his cane.
Inside was not any calmer. The angry protesters who made it inside, shouted down Rep. Castor as she tried to answer their questions shouting, “Tyranny! Tyranny! Tyranny!,” according to the St. Petersburg Times.
The right-wing protesters roundly booed Castor when she said; “There is more consensus than there is disagreement when you get right down to it.” The angry protesters then started shouting, “Tell the truth! Tell the truth!” “Read the bill!” “Forty-million illegals! Forty million illegals!”
Castor was nonplussed, noting the dire need for health reform in our country. “The insurance industry and … Republican activists are manufacturing a lot of these phony protests,” said Castor. State Democratic chairwoman Karen Thurman said, the angry mob of protesters were “…extreme ideologues, only interested in ‘breaking’ the president and thwarting the change Americans voted for last November.”
Some of the unruly protesters carried signs depicting President Obama as a Joker and a Socialist, with other signs against government run health care. As noted by Rep. Castor, many of these confused and angry protesters would have opposed Medicare and Social Security, as well. ...
Disagreement and asking tough questions are one thing but trying to shout down everyone else is just being a thug.
violent-right-wing Town Hall Mob: Linked With Group Promoted by Glenn Beck August 7, 2009 (ChattahBox)—An angry mob of near-rioting right-wing protesters overwhelmed a Tampa, Florida Democratic town hall Thursday night organized to discuss health reform, requiring dozens of police officers to control the unruly crowd. Many of the protesters were members of a right-wing Conservative activist group, called Tampa 912 that’s promoted by Conservative Fox News host Glenn Beck.
Other members of the right-wing mob were encouraged to protest the town hall by an email blast sent out by the Hillsborough Republican party, which provided the right-wing protesters with “talking points” to challenge health reform supporters. The result was over one thousand angry protesters showing up ready for a fight and armed with racist signs of President Obama, for a town hall event in a room that would only hold about 250 people.
Violent scuffles broke out in the angry crowd outside and inside the town hall event.
When the doors to the town hall, attended by U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, (D) Fla., were shut after the room became filled well beyond its capacity, the angry protesters began pounding on the doors and windows, chanting in loud angry voices, “You work for us,” “Hear our voice,” “Why are you shutting the Doors?,” “We can’t hear You,” “It’s a Public Event,” “Open the Doors.” One man was seen whacking the closed door with his cane.
Inside was not any calmer. The angry protesters who made it inside, shouted down Rep. Castor as she tried to answer their questions shouting, “Tyranny! Tyranny! Tyranny!,” according to the St. Petersburg Times.
The right-wing protesters roundly booed Castor when she said; “There is more consensus than there is disagreement when you get right down to it.” The angry protesters then started shouting, “Tell the truth! Tell the truth!” “Read the bill!” “Forty-million illegals! Forty million illegals!”
Castor was nonplussed, noting the dire need for health reform in our country. “The insurance industry and … Republican activists are manufacturing a lot of these phony protests,” said Castor. State Democratic chairwoman Karen Thurman said, the angry mob of protesters were “…extreme ideologues, only interested in ‘breaking’ the president and thwarting the change Americans voted for last November.”
Some of the unruly protesters carried signs depicting President Obama as a Joker and a Socialist, with other signs against government run health care. As noted by Rep. Castor, many of these confused and angry protesters would have opposed Medicare and Social Security, as well. ...
Disagreement and asking tough questions are one thing but trying to shout down everyone else is just being a thug.
I'm not defending g-mans copy and paste. I've said before how stupid it is to run to someone else to speak for you. Its not my fault all of you are so weak minded you can't even put a sentence together to defend your views.
violent-right-wing Town Hall Mob: Linked With Group Promoted by Glenn Beck August 7, 2009 (ChattahBox)—An angry mob of near-rioting right-wing protesters overwhelmed a Tampa, Florida Democratic town hall Thursday night organized to discuss health reform, requiring dozens of police officers to control the unruly crowd. Many of the protesters were members of a right-wing Conservative activist group, called Tampa 912 that’s promoted by Conservative Fox News host Glenn Beck.
Other members of the right-wing mob were encouraged to protest the town hall by an email blast sent out by the Hillsborough Republican party, which provided the right-wing protesters with “talking points” to challenge health reform supporters. The result was over one thousand angry protesters showing up ready for a fight and armed with racist signs of President Obama, for a town hall event in a room that would only hold about 250 people.
Violent scuffles broke out in the angry crowd outside and inside the town hall event.
When the doors to the town hall, attended by U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, (D) Fla., were shut after the room became filled well beyond its capacity, the angry protesters began pounding on the doors and windows, chanting in loud angry voices, “You work for us,” “Hear our voice,” “Why are you shutting the Doors?,” “We can’t hear You,” “It’s a Public Event,” “Open the Doors.” One man was seen whacking the closed door with his cane.
Inside was not any calmer. The angry protesters who made it inside, shouted down Rep. Castor as she tried to answer their questions shouting, “Tyranny! Tyranny! Tyranny!,” according to the St. Petersburg Times.
The right-wing protesters roundly booed Castor when she said; “There is more consensus than there is disagreement when you get right down to it.” The angry protesters then started shouting, “Tell the truth! Tell the truth!” “Read the bill!” “Forty-million illegals! Forty million illegals!”
Castor was nonplussed, noting the dire need for health reform in our country. “The insurance industry and … Republican activists are manufacturing a lot of these phony protests,” said Castor. State Democratic chairwoman Karen Thurman said, the angry mob of protesters were “…extreme ideologues, only interested in ‘breaking’ the president and thwarting the change Americans voted for last November.”
Some of the unruly protesters carried signs depicting President Obama as a Joker and a Socialist, with other signs against government run health care. As noted by Rep. Castor, many of these confused and angry protesters would have opposed Medicare and Social Security, as well. ...
Disagreement and asking tough questions are one thing but trying to shout down everyone else is just being a thug.
Can you join a Town Hall Meeting on health care with Rep. Eric Massa TONIGHT?
We need to make sure Rep. Massa hears from constituents that we're counting on him to fight for health care reform with a real public health insurance option that will expand coverage and bring down costs for all of us.
The Town Hall is tonight at 7:30 p.m. and the more of us who attend, the more likely we'll be to get our message across.
Here are the details:
What: Health Care Town Hall Meeting with Rep. Eric Massa When: Thursday, August 6th at 7:30 p.m. Where: Mendon Community Center, 167 N. Main St, Honeoye Falls, NY
Click here to RSVP:
Yes, I'll attend the Town Hall tonight at 7:30.
Sorry, I can't make it.
This is a critical month for President Obama's agenda. Corporate lobbyists are trying to weaken or kill both his energy and health care plans. MoveOn members from across the district are participating in this event as part of MoveOn's "Heat Up Congress" campaign to fight back.
And recently we've seen a trend that makes it even more important for us to speak out. Right-wing opponents of President Obama's agenda have been flooding town halls and other public events--and they're even using fraudulent tactics, like bringing in people who don't even live in the district.1 We urgently need to make sure everyday constituents are heard in the public debate over health care--and this Town Hall Meeting is a timely and easy way to do that.
Thanks, and we hope you can make it.
--Nita, Anna, Lenore, Ilya and the rest of the team
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members--no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
I'm not defending g-mans copy and paste. I've said before how stupid it is to run to someone else to speak for you. Its not my fault all of you are so weak minded you can't even put a sentence together to defend your views.
I'm not defending g-mans copy and paste. I've said before how stupid it is to run to someone else to speak for you. Its not my fault all of you are so weak minded you can't even put a sentence together to defend your views.
When it comes to reporting what happened at an event like this townhall it can't just be all opinion. I posted what happened at the event and followed that up with my opinion.
....Close to 1,500 people came to the Tampa suburb of Ybor City to speak with Democratic State Rep. Betty Reed and U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, an event that exploded into a near riot.
According to local media reports, the larger-than-expected crowd gathered outside the Hillsborough County Children's Board building, where several hundred people, most of whom opposed a government health care plan, began to loudly chant and scuffle with organizers posted at doorways after the auditorium filled to capacity.
A freelance videographer was roughed up in an altercation, which damaged his camera equipment and glasses, and at least one man was treated for minor injuries after a scuffle left his shirt partially torn from his body.
"That's the most violent anyone has been towards me," Mark Bishop told WTSP-TV. "It was surprising, to say the least." ...
FOX The people pounding on the windows and trying to force their way into a building filled to capacity are not the victims here. They're thugs who didn't want debate but to shut the debate down.
Carnahan Met By Angry Mob At News Conference By George Sells August 4, 2009
ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI-FOX2now.com) - One of St. Louis' best known Congressmen was met by an angry mob in South City Tuesday. Russ Carnahan was talking about the Cash for Clunker's program that's looking more and more like it will be extended, but his news conference took a relatively odd turn. Carnahan is urging the Senate to allocate additional funding for the "Cash for Clunkers" program. As Congressman Carnahan tried to speak about three dozen demonstrators, who had been locked out of a South City auto showroom, tried to shout him down. They pressed signs against the glass in an effort to get the attention of media inside.
Carnahan said, "We have some nay-sayers here today, and it's their right to do that." ...
Health Debate Turns Hostile at Town Hall Meetings Kimberly P. Mitchell/Detroit Free Press, via Associated Press
Published: August 7, 2009 The bitter divisions over an overhaul of the health care system have exploded at town-hall-style meetings over the last few days as members of Congress have been shouted down, hanged in effigy and taunted by crowds. In several cities, noisy demonstrations have led to fistfights, arrests and hospitalizations.
Democrats have said the protesters are being organized by conservative lobbying groups like FreedomWorks. Republicans respond that the protests are an organic response to the Obama administration’s health care restructuring proposals.
There is no dispute, however, that most of the shouting and mocking is from opponents of those plans. Many of those opponents have been encouraged to attend by conservative commentators and Web sites.
“Become a part of the mob!” said a banner posted Friday on the Web site of the talk show host Sean Hannity. “Attend an Obama Care Townhall near you!” The exhortations do not advocate violence, but some urge opponents to be disruptive.
“Pack the hall,” said a strategy memo circulated by the Web site Tea Party Patriots that instructed, “Yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”
“Get him off his prepared script and agenda,” the memo continued. “Stand up and shout and sit right back down.”
The memo was obtained by the liberal Web site ThinkProgress. Its author, Robert MacGuffie, a founder of the conservative Web site Right Principles, confirmed to The New York Times that the memo was legitimate.
In response, liberal groups and the White House have also started sending supporters instructions for countering what they say are the organized disruptions.
A volatile mix has resulted. In Mehlville, Mo., St. Louis County police officers arrested six people on Thursday evening, some on assault charges, outside a health care and aging forum organized by Representative Russ Carnahan, a Democrat. Opponents of the proposed changes, organized by the St. Louis Tea Party, apparently clashed with supporters organized by the Service Employees International Union outside a school gym.
That same day in Romulus, Mich., Representative John D. Dingell, a long-serving Democrat, was shouted down at a health care meeting by a rowdy crowd of foes of health care overhaul, many crying, “Shame on you!” A similar scene unfolded in Denver on Thursday when Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California visited a clinic for the homeless there.
In a statement Friday, Mr. Dingell, 83, deplored those trying to “demagogue the discussion,” but said he would not be deterred. “As long as I have a vote, I will not let shouting, intimidation or misinformation deter me from fighting for this cause,” he said.
The tenor of some of the debates has become extreme. Ms. Pelosi has accused people at recent protests of carrying signs associating the Democratic plan with Nazi swastikas and SS symbols, and some photographs showing such signs have been posted on the Web.
On Thursday, the talk show host Rush Limbaugh said the administration’s health care logo was itself similar to a Nazi symbol.
On Friday, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League released statements criticizing the comparison.
“It is preposterous to try and make a connection between the president’s health care logo and the Nazi Party symbol, the Reichsadler,” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the founder and dean of the Wiesenthal center. ...
Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh three days ago
The Weekly Standard has a great piece exposing this latest version of the "if you're not with Obama you're a potential terrorist/cockroach/racist/bigot/etc. The whole conspiracy theory is based on, get this, a memo written by the leader of an obscure grassroots organization with something like---OOH SCARY--thirty members... Right Principles PAC was formed by Bob MacGuffie and four friends in 2008, and has taken in a whopping $5,017 and disbursed $1,777, according to its FEC filing.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man today
“Pack the hall,” said a strategy memo circulated by the Web site Tea Party Patriots that instructed, “Yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”
“Get him off his prepared script and agenda,” the memo continued. “Stand up and shout and sit right back down.”
The memo was obtained by the liberal Web site ThinkProgress. Its author, Robert MacGuffie, a founder of the conservative Web site Right Principles, confirmed to The New York Times that the memo was legitimate.
MEM's hoping you forgot that. He's also hoping you don't notice this, in his own post:
Quote:
In response, liberal groups and the White House have also started sending supporters instructions for countering what they say are the organized disruptions.
A volatile mix has resulted. In Mehlville, Mo., St. Louis County police officers arrested six people on Thursday evening, some on assault charges, outside a health care and aging forum organized by Representative Russ Carnahan, a Democrat. Opponents of the proposed changes, organized by the St. Louis Tea Party, apparently clashed with supporters organized by the Service Employees International Union outside a school gym.
So, Obama and the DNC are sending goons from a giant union out to harass a group with about thirty members (engaging in constitutionally-protected free speech) and Zick expects us to believe that the members of the "Vast Right Conspiracy" are the ones shouting down opposition?
How do you even think you make sense G-man? There's more than just one group involved in organizing the protests. There wouldn't be a problem if those groups protested respectfully but instead they're pounding on windows and trying shout out everyone else.
You're the one using a memo written by the head of a thirty-person group as the smoking gun to "prove" that there is some sort of big conspiracy at play.
If you're going to use something as your evidence, you can't whine when people point out how weak the proof is.
At the same time you're also ignoring the evidence of big labor* inciting the violence and preventing legitimate protests from occurring.
*(and we all know that big labor has a documented history of organized violence and political intimidation)
You're the one using a memo written by the head of a thirty-person group as the smoking gun to "prove" that there is some sort of big conspiracy at play.
If you're going to use something as your evidence, you can't whine when people point out how weak the proof is.
...
You're the one who posted the Weakly Standtard piece that said that was all there was to it, not me.
The Weekly Standard report is based on government filings. I suppose it's possible that that the Standard fabricated those records. However, regardless of how you feel about their politics, I don't think it likely that a well established opinion magazine would falsify government documents. That's a pretty serious felony.
The Weekly Standard report is based on government filings. I suppose it's possible that that the Standard fabricated those records. However, regardless of how you feel about their politics, I don't think it likely that a well established opinion magazine would falsify government documents. That's a pretty serious felony.
It's an opinion magazine and you were the one that posted the piece from it that you claimed I presented as evidence. Whats up with that or are you done with that bit?
It's an opinion magazine and you were the one that posted the piece from it that you claimed I presented as evidence. Whats up with that or are you done with that bit?
I don't follow you. Really. Could you please rephrase?
Go up to the top of the page where you get all bitchy amid your whining...
Quote:
You're the one using a memo written by the head of a thirty-person group as the smoking gun to "prove" that there is some sort of big conspiracy at play.
Go up to the top of the page where you get all bitchy amid your whining...
Quote:
You're the one using a memo written by the head of a thirty-person group as the smoking gun to "prove" that there is some sort of big conspiracy at play.
With all due respect, you're still unclear. Again, I'm not trying to be coy here but your post is very hard to follow.
Go up to the top of the page where you get all bitchy amid your whining...
Quote:
You're the one using a memo written by the head of a thirty-person group as the smoking gun to "prove" that there is some sort of big conspiracy at play.
With all due respect, you're still unclear. Again, I'm not trying to be coy here but your post is very hard to follow.
Actually that's the problem I'm having with your posts. First you post the thing about the memo and the thirty person group and then you act like I posted it.
Three days ago I posted the Weekly Standard article, debunking the notion that the author of the memo was the leader of a large group and pointing out it was a group with about $5000.00 in donations to its name.
Today, apparently ignoring or forgetting that, you posted a piece citing that memo as proof of a large organized effort.
Therefore, I pointed out that your "proof" had already been debunked.
I never stated or implied that you had relied on the Standard piece. In fact I said the opposite.
Three days ago I posted the Weekly Standard article, debunking the notion that the author of the memo was the leader of a large group and pointing out it was a group with about $5000.00 in donations to its name.
Today, apparently ignoring or forgetting that, you posted a piece citing that memo as proof of a large organized effort.
...
My article referenced that but it wasn't presented as that group being behind a large organized effort.
Inventing tales of a union "beating" August 08, 2009 10:11 am ET by Eric Boehlert
The conservative blogosphere is absolutely atwitter with news that an activist was attacked by union thugs at a town hall meeting this week in St. Louis. It's the best the right-wing can do to deflect blame for unleashing mini-mobs on town hall forums: They did it!
The tale was first told in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
Kenneth Gladney, 38, a conservative activist from St. Louis, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with "Don't tread on me" printed on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room at St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was awaiting treatment for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack.
The newspaper had no witnesses, just Gladney's account. Then Gladney's attorney got involved and from conservatives' perspective, the tale got better and better:
He went to the ground. Subsequently, two other SEIU representatives or members, however you want to say it, jumped on top of him, yelled racial epithets at him...kicked him, punched him...He sustained some injuries to his back, some bruising.
And even better:
The SEIU member used a racial slur against Kenneth, then punched him in the face. Kenneth fell to the ground. Another SEIU member yelled racial epithets at Kenneth as he kicked him in the head and back. Kenneth was also brutally attacked by one other male SEIU member and an unidentified woman. The three men were clearly SEIU members, as they were wearing T-shirts with the SEIU logo.
Gladney was clearly beaten at length (it was "brutal"), and at least from this description, was lucky to survive with his life, right?
Mary Katharine Ham wrote up an especially excited write-up at The Weekly Standard about the vicious union thugs and how Gladney was severely beaten. The only mistake Ham made was including a YouTube clip of the incident; a clip that pretty much undercuts the entire tale of run-away union violence.
Go watch the YouTube video. (Or, the "shocking video," as Power Line hypes it.) The first thing you notice when the camera starts rolling is a union member already sprawled out on the ground with somebody standing over him. No explanation of how he got there (pushed, shoved, punched?) and Ham couldn't care less. Then yes, Gladney is pulled to the ground by somebody wearing a union shirt. (At the :06 mark.) But instead of Gladney being beaten and punched, as his attorney describes, and instead of union "thugs" standing over him and threatening him, Gladney bounces right back on his feet in approximately two seconds and the scuffle ends.
That was the savage "beating" the conservative blogosphere can't stop talking about?
The only real mystery from the incident is why Tea Party member Gladney, who's seen up-close after the brief encounter walking around and talking to people and who appears to be injury-free, then decided to go to the hospital to treat injuries to his "knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face." All that from a two-second fall to the pavement?
Also unclear is why he contacted a newspaper reporter, or why his attorney wrote up lavish accounts and sent them to conservative bloggers, or why Gladney and his attorney appeared on Fox News.
FYI, according to his attorney, Gladney plans on filing a civil lawsuit against the union.
Despite concerns that the program breaks federal law, the Obama administration has taken the next step in its 'fishy' health care offensive, launching a Web site that asks the public to report 'wild rumors' and 'myths.
Can you join a Town Hall Meeting on health care with Rep. Eric Massa TONIGHT?
We need to make sure Rep. Massa hears from constituents that we're counting on him to fight for health care reform with a real public health insurance option that will expand coverage and bring down costs for all of us.
The Town Hall is tonight at 7:30 p.m. and the more of us who attend, the more likely we'll be to get our message across.
Here are the details:
What: Health Care Town Hall Meeting with Rep. Eric Massa When: Thursday, August 6th at 7:30 p.m. Where: Mendon Community Center, 167 N. Main St, Honeoye Falls, NY
Click here to RSVP:
Yes, I'll attend the Town Hall tonight at 7:30.
Sorry, I can't make it.
This is a critical month for President Obama's agenda. Corporate lobbyists are trying to weaken or kill both his energy and health care plans. MoveOn members from across the district are participating in this event as part of MoveOn's "Heat Up Congress" campaign to fight back.
And recently we've seen a trend that makes it even more important for us to speak out. Right-wing opponents of President Obama's agenda have been flooding town halls and other public events--and they're even using fraudulent tactics, like bringing in people who don't even live in the district.1 We urgently need to make sure everyday constituents are heard in the public debate over health care--and this Town Hall Meeting is a timely and easy way to do that.
Thanks, and we hope you can make it.
--Nita, Anna, Lenore, Ilya and the rest of the team
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members--no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
Sounds like manufactured Left-wing "astro-turf" to me !
Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 6000+ posts 5 minutes 36 seconds ago Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: Censorship Under Obama
Can you join a Town Hall Meeting on health care with Rep. Eric Massa TONIGHT?
We need to make sure Rep. Massa hears from constituents that we're counting on him to fight for health care reform with a real public health insurance option that will expand coverage and bring down costs for all of us.
The Town Hall is tonight at 7:30 p.m. and the more of us who attend, the more likely we'll be to get our message across.
Here are the details:
What: Health Care Town Hall Meeting with Rep. Eric Massa When: Thursday, August 6th at 7:30 p.m. Where: Mendon Community Center, 167 N. Main St, Honeoye Falls, NY
Click here to RSVP:
Yes, I'll attend the Town Hall tonight at 7:30.
Sorry, I can't make it.
This is a critical month for President Obama's agenda. Corporate lobbyists are trying to weaken or kill both his energy and health care plans. MoveOn members from across the district are participating in this event as part of MoveOn's "Heat Up Congress" campaign to fight back.
And recently we've seen a trend that makes it even more important for us to speak out. Right-wing opponents of President Obama's agenda have been flooding town halls and other public events--and they're even using fraudulent tactics, like bringing in people who don't even live in the district.1 We urgently need to make sure everyday constituents are heard in the public debate over health care--and this Town Hall Meeting is a timely and easy way to do that.
Thanks, and we hope you can make it.
--Nita, Anna, Lenore, Ilya and the rest of the team
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members--no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
Sounds like manufactured Left-wing "astro-turf" to me !
There's nothing wrong with both parties trying to get supporters to these townhalls as long as they behave. If it's just to disrupt and destroy any debate that's not right or fair to others attending.
Tom Harkin, at Iowa town hall meeting. Harkin attempts to dismiss protestor as a Republican pawn who was planted at the meeting, and then Harkin gets the smackdown of his life.
Shouting down the debate... that's not right or fair to others attending....I just have a standard of right and wrong that isn't based on party affilliation
This is awfully rich, given that the Web site of the Service Employees International Union, which backs ObamaCare [and which attacked the protesters in Tampa] urges its members to do just that:
We must fight back against lies and fear-mongering to drown out the opposition--and send the message that health care reform must happen this year.
My sister nailed it many years ago when she said, "Your basic human is not such a hot item."
Keep that filed in your head as I tell my little tale.
About five or six years ago, roughly, I was solicited to write a column every two weeks for the Sunday New York Times Business Section. I was really thrilled. I have written for the Washington Post (when I was a teenager), for the Wall Street Journal edit page under the legendary Bob Bartley, for Barron's, under the really great Alan Abelson and Jim Meagher, for my beloved American Spectator, under the great Bob and Wlady, and now having a regular column at the Times was going to be great stuff.
The column went well. I got lots of excellent fan mail and fine feedback from my editors, who, however, kept changing.
The first real super problem I had was when the movie I narrated and co-wrote, Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed, was in progress. A "science writer" for the Times blasted the movie on the front page and noted that I, whom she repeatedly called "...a freelance writer..." (not a columnist ) for the Times, was somehow involved. That was followed by a really fantastically angry blast against the movie by a reviewer who really hated it a lot. (I note that the Times also disliked Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Hmm.)
Expelled was a plea for open discussion of the possibility that life might have started with an Intelligent Designer. This idea, that freedom of academic discussion on an issue as to which there is avid scientific disagreement has value, seems obvious to me. But it drives the atheists and neo-Darwinists crazy and they responded viciously.
Some of them started a campaign against me in various forums, including letters to the Times.
At roughly the same time, I made a new set of antagonists by repeatedly and in detail criticizing the real power in this country, the "investment bank" Goldman Sachs, for what seemed to me questionable behavior. This elicited a mountain of favorable mail but also some complaints by well-placed persons.
Still, my editor at the Times stood by me loyally and was steadfast, even inspiring.
Now, in the time I had been doing my column, roughly five or six years, I had done many commercials for goods and services. No one at the Times ever said a word negatively about these. In fact, when I did a series of commercials with Shaquille O'Neal, the legendary basketball star, one of my superiors at the Times asked me for souvenirs. No one ever told me in any way, by word, look, or gesture, not to do commercials.
Meanwhile, the haters connected with atheism and neo-Darwinism continued to attack me.
Then, two things happened to change and end my career at the Times. Well, maybe three. The Times told me they were forced by budgetary pressures to only run me every four weeks. This was a blow and I started to think about where else I might write. (I had been solicited by many major publications while at the Times but my editors had asked me not to write for them and I did as asked.)
But the two main things, as I see them, were that I started criticizing Mr. Obama quite sharply over his policies and practices. I had tried to do this before over the firing of Rick Wagoner from the Chairmanship of GM. My column had questioned whether there was a legal basis for the firing by the government, what law allowed or authorized the federal government to fire the head of what was then a private company, and just where the Obama administration thought their limits were, if anywhere. This column was flat out nixed by my editors at the Times because in their opinion Mr. Obama inherently had such powers.
They did let me run a piece querying what I thought was a certain lack of focus in Mr. Obama's world but that was it, and then came another issue.
I had done a commercial for an Internet aggregating company called FreeScore. This commercial offered people a week of free access to their credit scores and then required them to pay for further such access.
This commercial was red meat for the Ben Stein haters left over from the Expelled days. They bombarded the Times with letters. They confused (or some of them seemingly confused ) FreeScore with other companies that did not have FreeScore's unblemished record with consumer protection agencies. (FreeScore has a perfect record.) They demanded of the high pooh-bahs at the Times that they fire me because of what they called a conflict of interest.
Of course, there was no conflict of interest. I had never written one word in the Times or anywhere else about getting credit scores on line. Not a word.
But somehow, these people bamboozled some of the high pooh-bahs at the Times into thinking there was a conflict of interest. In an e-mail sent to me by a person I had never met nor even heard of, I was fired. (I read the e-mail while having pizza at the Seattle airport on my way to Sandpoint.) I called the editor and explained the situation. He said the problem was "the appearance" of conflict of interest. I asked how that could be when I never wrote about the subject at all. He said the real problem was that FreeScore was a major financial company and I wrote about finance. But, as I told him, FreeScore was a small Internet aggregator, not a bank or insurer.
Never mind. I was history. "You should have consulted us," was the basic line.
Of course, there was not one word of complaint when I did commercials for immense public companies. By a total coincidence, I was tossed overboard immediately after my column attacking Obama. (You can attack Obama from the left at the Times but not from the right.)
I still do not see the conflict of interest. Credit reports on the Internet never was in my subject area. However, I don't sue newspapers. And the gig was getting to be so small that it really had a minor effect on my economic life. Still, I shall miss waking up on Sunday to see my column unless a neighbor here in Beverly Hills has stolen my paper. (No place, not one place, in Sandpoint sells the Times.)
The whole subject reminds me of a conversation Bob Dylan had long ago with a reporter who asked him what he thought about how much criticism he was getting for going from acoustic to electric guitar. "There are a lot of people who have knives and forks," he said, "and they have nothing on their plates, so they have to cut something."
I will miss writing my column for the Times but I miss many things. There were some great people there, really standup people. I got to love some of them. But as to the haters and the weak willed, I think my sister and Bob Dylan had it right.
You will still see my little thoughts, maybe in some big places. And I can put this Times gig on my résumé when I apply for Social Security. And, I really mean this, I will pray for those who use me despitefully, even if the neo-Darwinists think that's a waste of time. It's not.
One final thought. Well, maybe two final thoughts: first, it's sad that the Internet has become a backyard gossip freeway for the whole world's sick people to pour out their neuroses. I have seen a tiny fraction of all of the hate mail that's come in the wake of the NY Times announcement (which they promised they would not make in any event). Too many sick people out there on the web for comfort.
Second, among those who are not really such hot items, I fully include myself. Without doubt, I have made as many mistakes as a person not in custody can make. I make no claims to anything even remotely like perfection or even desirability as a role model. It is just that in this case, I didn't do anything wrong. In my life, I have done plenty wrong. I am not the master. I am the servant and a poor one at that.
Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu.
Shouting down the debate... that's not right or fair to others attending....I just have a standard of right and wrong that isn't based on party affilliation
This is awfully rich, given that the Web site of the Service Employees International Union, which backs ObamaCare [and which attacked the protesters in Tampa] urges its members to do just that:
We must fight back against lies and fear-mongering to drown out the opposition--and send the message that health care reform must happen this year.
Since you approve of these tactics why call them thugs?
At this point I think the Dems should just give up on the townhalls and ram a bill through when they get back.
At this point I think the Dems should just give up on the town halls and ram a bill through when they get back.
At least you've finally admitted that this isn't about the voice of the people and is about the Democrats doing whatever hell they want.
I'm part of that "voice of the people" G-man. Like many others I voted for those that campaigned for this reform. Since the townhalls just seem to be turning into a screaming match what's the point in having them? I think if the Republicans want to continue having them though they certainly should. I may even go to some myself
At this point I think the Dems should just give up on the town halls and ram a bill through when they get back.
At least you've finally admitted that this isn't about the voice of the people and is about the Democrats doing whatever hell they want.
Like many others I voted for those that campaigned for this reform. Since the townhalls just seem to be turning into a screaming match what's the point in having them? I think if the Republicans want to continue having them though they certainly should. I may even go to some myself
Typical Zick. He supports free speech for himself and like-minded Democrats but thinks that anyone with a differing viewpoint should be shut down and silenced.
At this point I think the Dems should just give up on the town halls and ram a bill through when they get back.
At least you've finally admitted that this isn't about the voice of the people and is about the Democrats doing whatever hell they want.
Like many others I voted for those that campaigned for this reform. Since the townhalls just seem to be turning into a screaming match what's the point in having them? I think if the Republicans want to continue having them though they certainly should. I may even go to some myself
Typical Zick. He supports free speech for himself and like-minded Democrats but thinks that anyone with a differing viewpoint should be shut down and silenced.
That's not free speech G-man. Your right of free speech doesn't extend to forcing others to be your audience.
At this point I think the Dems should just give up on the town halls and ram a bill through when they get back.
At least you've finally admitted that this isn't about the voice of the people and is about the Democrats doing whatever hell they want.
Like many others I voted for those that campaigned for this reform. Since the townhalls just seem to be turning into a screaming match what's the point in having them? I think if the Republicans want to continue having them though they certainly should. I may even go to some myself
Typical Zick. He supports free speech for himself and like-minded Democrats but thinks that anyone with a differing viewpoint should be shut down and silenced.
That's not free speech G-man. Your right of free speech doesn't extend to forcing others to be your audience.
I'm glad you oppose Obama's forced press conferences!
Your right of free speech doesn't extend to forcing others to be your audience.
what about pretending to have an open forum?
Quote:
Facing a barrage of questions Wednesday over the friendliness of the audience at President Obama's New Hampshire town hall meeting, the White House insisted that all questions were selected at random -- including one from an 11-year-old girl whose mother worked as an Obama organizer.
Julia Hall of Malden, Mass., grabbed the microphone Tuesday during Obama's town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., and told the president she saw signs "outside saying mean things about reforming health care" as she walked into the building.
"How do kids know what is true and why do people want a new system that can, that help more of us?" she asked Obama.
Kathleen Manning Hall, Julia Hall's mother and a coordinator of Massachusetts Women for Obama during the campaign, was seated next to the girl as she asked the question -- prompting some to question whether Obama recognized the girl or her mother.
But thousands of organizers worked for Obama during the campaign, White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said, dismissing suggestions that the president knew those who questioned him on Tuesday.
"The president selected questions at random, as he always does," Cherlin told FOXNews.com.
The friendliness of the audience at Obama's event was in stark contrast to the often rowdy and antagonistic crowds that attended similar events held around the country by members of Congress.
As an organizer and donor, Manning Hall had previously met first lady Michelle Obama, Obama daughters, Sasha and Malia, and Vice President Biden, according to a report published Wednesday in the Boston Globe. And her daughter also attended this year's White House East egg hunt, according to WCVB-TV, the ABC affiliate in Boston.
Yeah, funny how just about every "open" Obama forum "coincidentally" turns out to have "random" Democrats chosen to ask softball questions. Too bad Mr. Ripley's dead, otherwise this would make a great entry for "Believe it or Not."
As for this point:
Quote:
That's not free speech G-man. Your right of free speech doesn't extend to forcing others to be your audience.
Actually, the whole point of "town hall meetings" is to be an open forum where people get to say what they want. So, anyone who chooses to attend is volunteering to be the audience for others' viewpoints. There's no "forcing others to be [one's] audience."
Now, if these protesters were breaking into meetings of, say, a Democrat Party caucus or a private event that would be a different story. But that isn't what's happening here. Instead, politicians are finding themselves confronted by their constituents which is SUPPOSED to be the point of such a meeting.
Yeah, funny how just about every "open" Obama forum "coincidentally" turns out to have "random" Democrats chosen to ask softball questions. Too bad Mr. Ripley's dead, otherwise this would make a great entry for "Believe it or Not." As for this point:
Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
He supports free speech for himself and like-minded Democrats but thinks that anyone with a differing viewpoint should be shut down and silenced.
Quote:
That's not free speech G-man. Your right of free speech doesn't extend to forcing others to be your audience.
Actually, the whole point of "town hall meetings" is to be an open forum where people get to say what they want. So, anyone who chooses to attend is volunteering to be the audience for others' viewpoints. There's no "forcing others to be [one's] audience."
Now, if these protesters were breaking into meetings of, say, a Democrat Party caucus or a private event that would be a different story. But that isn't what's happening here. Instead, politicians are finding themselves confronted by their constituents which is SUPPOSED to be the point of such a meeting.
Free speech is a right, having town halls isn't. You confused the one with the other. And there probably would be more town halls if there was less shouting and window pounding.
Free speech is a right, having town halls isn't. You confused the one with the other.
Not at all. My point has been clear. While there is nothing that forces a member of congress to hold a town hall meeting, once the decision has been made to hold such meetings, it is violative of free speech to start deciding who can or can't speak at them (or attend them) based on the views of the speaker.
The Democrats were all in favor of these meetings when they thought they would be orchestrated events with planted friendly questions. But as soon as people started showing up who were angry about the administration's proposals, we start hearing about how there shouldn't be such meetings and that the Democrats should "ram through" these unpopular proposals.
Deciding not to have a town hall isn't infringing on your free speech rights G-man. If republicans want them then they should start doing more of them.
You're too busy hauling the DNC bullshit wagon to actually read what people post, aren't you? I saw nowhere where G-man said that not having a town hall was an infringement on free speech. He stated that town halls are forums designed specifically for free speech and not just a place for a single party to spout off their talking points.
... I saw nowhere where G-man said that not having a town hall was an infringement on free speech. ....
Try reading the posts yourself...
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
At this point I think the Dems should just give up on the town halls and ram a bill through when they get back.
At least you've finally admitted that this isn't about the voice of the people and is about the Democrats doing whatever hell they want.
Like many others I voted for those that campaigned for this reform. Since the townhalls just seem to be turning into a screaming match what's the point in having them? I think if the Republicans want to continue having them though they certainly should. I may even go to some myself
Typical MEM. He supports free speech for himself and like-minded Democrats but thinks that anyone with a differing viewpoint should be shut down and silenced.
That's not free speech G-man. Your right of free speech doesn't extend to forcing others to be your audience.
If people want to shout and disrupt town halls then let them organize there own.
... I saw nowhere where G-man said that not having a town hall was an infringement on free speech. ....
Try reading the posts yourself...
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
At this point I think the Dems should just give up on the town halls and ram a bill through when they get back.
At least you've finally admitted that this isn't about the voice of the people and is about the Democrats doing whatever hell they want.
Like many others I voted for those that campaigned for this reform. Since the townhalls just seem to be turning into a screaming match what's the point in having them? I think if the Republicans want to continue having them though they certainly should. I may even go to some myself
Typical MEM. He supports free speech for himself and like-minded Democrats but thinks that anyone with a differing viewpoint should be shut down and silenced.
That's not free speech G-man. Your right of free speech doesn't extend to forcing others to be your audience.
If people want to shout and disrupt town halls then let them organize there own.
I did read the posts, and I believe that G-man's reference to free speech being 'shut down and silenced' is in reference to this point he made earlier:
Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
This is awfully rich, given that the Web site of the Service Employees International Union, which backs ObamaCare [and which attacked the protesters in Tampa]
But thanks for playing. Sorry, but there are no parting gifts for the loser.
I made it pretty clear that I didn't support people attacking others from either side of this, Doctor. G-man's denouncing me as with the free speech stuff doesn't fit.
Could you give me a link to all your posts denouncing the UAW, ACORN and the Black Panthers for threatening people with opposing views? I can't seem to find them.
Roadblocks Devised to Push Back Against Health Care Town Hall Protesters: Americans who want to express their opinions on health care reform at town halls across the country are encountering a host of roadblocks, ranging from fake schedules to a demand that they show their driver's licenses or photo identification.
Ironic. Democrat politicians are demanding ID before letting people speak but they block attempts to require IDs before voting.
FCC Diversity Chief Says Republican Communications Policies Hurt Civil Rights Friday, August 28, 2009 By Matt Cover
Mark Lloyd, chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), claimed that communications policies enacted by Republicans negatively impacted the civil rights of minorities.
Lloyd made the claim in a 1998 essay he wrote while working for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. He said that two decades of Republican communications policies had eroded the gains made by the civil rights movement in minority ownership in communications.
Lloyd also said that, prior to the Reagan administration, the FCC recognized that civil rights and communications policy were linked, and he said that minority ownership of radio and television stations was necessary to correct the lack of diversity in media.
“In the late seventies, in recognition of the lack of progress made with these [equal opportunity] employment policies, the FCC ruled that minority ownership was essential to create a diverse range of messages over the public’s airwaves,” Lloyd wrote.
Among the requirements the FCC created were licensing rules that required that the public participate in the license renewal process; caps on how many radio and television stations a company could own in one city; three-year license terms; and a process called ascertainment: requiring station owners to canvas the local community to find out what the public was interested in.
Lloyd said that, starting with Reagan, the Republican-dominated FCC had rolled back these rules, and with them the gains of the civil rights community.
Radio station (public domain)“[T]he great progress made by the civil rights communities in the communications policy arena has been rolled back,” Lloyd said. “The Reagan-dominated FCC destroyed the ascertainment process, arguing that it was too much of an administrative burden on the stations and the FCC.
“Licensing renewal can now be accomplished with a postcard,” he wrote. The worst blow, according to Lloyd, would come from the Telecommunications Act of 1996, passed by a Republican Congress allegedly beholden to big business.
“While touted as a landmark bill updating the sixty-year-old Communications Act for the benefit of U.S. consumers, the T96 Act was created by and for a communications industry dominated by global conglomerates,” said Lloyd in his essay.
The law relaxed the ownership restrictions that had prevented broadcasters from growing and competing with one another, something Lloyd says led to the further triumph of international corporations over local, minority-owned ones.
“Despite the promise of greater competition, the effect of the Act has been an unprecedented wave of consolidation,” Lloyd said. “National broadcast ownership limits were increased to 35 percent. Prohibitions limiting ownership of radio, television, and newspapers by one company in the same market were lifted, thus encouraging media consolidation and the crowding out of independent voices.
“Broadcast license periods were increased, making it virtually impossible for local communities to exercise any control over the stations licensed to serve them,” said Lloyd.
These changes combined to replace a civil rights agenda at the FCC with a commercial one, he said.
“The civil rights agenda has given way to the agenda of the commercial market,” wrote Lloyd. “The work of the civil rights community has suffered through a sustained assault by the right. The core of that assault is to deny funding to civil rights work, silence liberal voices, and set the agenda of public debate by an opposition that is better funded, more organized, and more savvy about strategic communications.
“Combined with this assault is a relentless marketing of the failed dogma of laissez-faire economics,” he wrote.
However, official reports on minority ownership of media show that while there are far fewer minority-owned outlets than white-owned ones, the reason is not FCC rules or right-wing conspiracies but simple market forces and financial issues.
A 1998 report from the National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) shows that in 1998 – the same year Lloyd made his claims – increased competition and lack of capital were responsible for the meager 2.9 percent share of minority-owned stations.
“Minority broadcasters are finding it increasingly difficult to compete,” the report found. “Access to capital remains one of the most significant impediments to ownership for minorities.”
Competition, the report found, was responsible for the minority owners’ problems, as most had difficulty holding on to popular syndicated hosts and talented employees.
“Minority broadcasters also report that they are facing increased competition in securing nationally syndicated programming,” said the report. “Some minority broadcasters report that their general managers, sales managers, and on-air talent are being hired by competing non-minority group owners who can offer higher salaries and wider exposure.”
Today, the situation apparently is no different. A 2007 report commissioned by the FCC and conducted by researchers from Duke University found that while minority ownership had increased slightly, the reasons for the disparity between minority and white ownership remained.
“Since the observed ownership asymmetries are economy-wide, they are undoubtedly linked to broad systemic factors,” the report said. “[T[he most direct explanation lies in unequal access to capital. Many businesses require individuals to sink substantial financial investments upon entry. This is likely to be especially true in media enterprises.”
The only way to change this, the 2007 report said, was to redistribute wealth or increase minorities’ access to capital markets. The report did not mention license terms, renewal procedures, or ascertainment.
“[I]n order to change ownership patterns we need to either change the aggregate distribution of wealth or otherwise increase access to capital markets,” said the report.
The report specifically rejected the idea of ownership bans, saying they would not achieve a diversity of views because content was consumer-driven.
“While it is certainly true that an even distribution of ownership seems ‘fair’ and that it might promote a more balanced airing of voices, it is not at all clear that ownership restrictions are the best way to achieve these goals,” stated the report. “[R]ecent research suggests that media content is driven much more by demand considerations (i.e., consumer preferences) than supply factors (i.e., owner preferences).”
In other words, those stations best able to meet those “demand considerations” – what their customers want – are the ones that profit and prosper, and the ones that do not provide what consumers want do not succeed.
The report said: “‘Conservative’ newspapers offer a ‘conservative’ viewpoint and ‘liberal’ newspapers a ‘liberal’ viewpoint because that is what their subscribers prefer, not to satisfy the agenda of a specific owner. Since most every owner has the goal of maximizing profits [by best serving customers] it is unclear what impact ownership restrictions would in fact have.
I feel sorry for MEM, after he made such a big deal out of protesters not being allowed signs inside a Bush rally, this must be really embarrassing for him.
So, a black cop prevented a white man from protesting Obama?
Will they be invited to the Oval office for a beer?
Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
I feel sorry for MEM, after he made such a big deal out of protesters not being allowed signs inside a Bush rally, this must be really embarrassing for him.
Not at all. In Zickland, even though they were two clearly different things, this counts as 'a republican did it first.'
Sunday, August 30, 2009 Mark Lloyd-Architect of the Fairness Doctrine?
by Gary Fouse fousesquawk
Mark Lloyd-FCC Diversity Chief
That old bugaboo, the Fairness Doctrine, is still waiting in the wings. With Obama and the Democrats in power, only public vigilance is standing between us and the shutdown of conservative talk radio. Oh, the Henry Waxmans of the world will assure us that nothing is in the works...until, BAM! It's a done deal. Of course, they won't say that it's all about restoring balance to political talk radio. They have a more subtle way to get it done. It's called things like "localization" and "diversity". They are going to control licensing and who owns radio stations. They are going to hit private talk radio stations with so many regulations, they will all throw in the towel and switch to country music instead of talk shows. Enter Mark Lloyd, President Obama's new head of Diversity for the FCC.
Mark Lloyd comes right out of the Marxist playbook. He doesn't care a whit about freedom of speech. What Mr Lloyd cares about is the government controlling the dissemination of political thought over the airwaves.
Here is a clip (from the Glenn Beck Show on Fox News) showing Lloyd speaking at a conference in 2008, in which he sings the praises of Hugo Chavez and his handling of the media in Venezuela:
Did you catch the references to those evil property-owners in Venezuela and the US trying to oust Chavez? Does that give you some clues about Mr Lloyd's agenda?
Want more? Here is Lloyd commenting on the idea of freedom of speech in general:
“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”
Prior to joining the White House, Lloyd was a senior fellow at the liberal think tank, Center for American Progress, established by Clinton Administration henchman, John Podesta. According to Wikipedia, here is what that outfit thinks about talk radio:
"The Center for American Progress was criticized by conservative commentators for its 2007 report titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio."[15] The report states: "out of 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive." The report did not include analysis of the content of other radio providers, such as universities and public radio. The report suggests three steps to increase progressive radio voices in talk radio: restoring local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations; ensuring greater local accountability over radio licensing; and require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting."
That is exactly what Mr Lloyd wants. He wants private outlets to pay to support that insipid, liberal, and publicly financed National Public Radio.
But you liberals, of course, have nothing to worry about. You will continue to have your MSNBC, AIR America, CNN and all your liberal newspapers. Those of you whose view of life has been shaped by David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher will be just fine. But if I recall correctly, I used to hear liberals scream about freedom of speech not so many years ago. Do you really care about freedom of speech? Or only your speech? For those of you liberals who truly care about freedom of speech-for all-then you too should be concerned about what's coming down the pike. As for us conservatives, we need to stand up and scream just as loudly about this as we do about government health care.
The National Legal Policy Center has uncovered a plan by the White House New Media operation to hire a technology vendor to conduct a massive, secret effort to harvest personal information on millions of Americans from social networking websites.
The information to be captured includes comments, tag lines, emails, audio, and video. The targeted sites include Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr and others – any space where the White House “maintains a presence.”
While the solicitation specifies a 12-month contract, it allows for seven one-year extensions. It specifies no dollar cap. Other troubling issues include:
extremely broad secrecy terms preventing the vendor from disclosing to the public or the media what information is being captured and archived (page 7, “Restriction Against Disclosure”)
wholesale capturing of comments by non-White House staff on publicly accessible sites
capturing of content of any type (text, graphics, audio, or video)
capturing of comments by both Obama critics and supporters, with no restriction as to how the White House would use the information.
The government is investigating a major insurance company for allegedly trying to scare seniors with a mailer warning they could lose important benefits under health care legislation in Congress.
The Health and Human Services Department launched its investigation of Humana after getting a complaint from Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a senior lawmaker usually viewed as a reliable ally of the insurance industry.
"It is wholly unacceptable for insurance companies to mislead seniors regarding any subject--particularly on a subject as important to them, and to the nation, as health care reform," Baucus said Monday, disclosing the HHS investigation. . . .
In a warning letter to Humana, HHS said the government is concerned that the mailer "is misleading and confusing" partly because the company's lobbying campaign could be mistaken for an official communication about Medicare benefits.
HHS ordered the company to immediately halt any such mailings, and remove any related materials from its Web site. In the letter, the government also said it may take other action against Humana.
Sort of proves what many of us feared when the White House started their web site to report "untrue" statements about socialized medicine, namely, that the government would go after the people who disagreed with "the One."
Now of course, the government has considerable authority to regulate commercial speech to make sure it is not "misleading and confusing," but the this mailing sounds political. Misleading and confusing political speech (which Zick has claimed is common among politicians, including this president) is protected by the First Amendment.
If the government can start investigating people or organizations that oppose its policies under the guise of saying "they are inaccurate" any president would have carte blanche to target anyone who has a different opinion than that administration.
The federal government resorted to bullying tactics when it ordered an investigation of Humana -- one of the country's biggest private insurers -- for its decision to send customers a letter alerting them about pending health reform legislation, a leading Republican charged Wednesday.
U.S. health officials launched the probe after the Louisville-based company mailed a letter to patients enrolled in its Medicare Advantage plans -- private options that replace standard Medicare -- warning that President Obama's health overhaul could eliminate important benefits of the program.
Humana said in its letter that if Medicare Advantage funding gets cut, "millions of seniors and disabled individuals ... could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable."
Republican Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell blasted the investigation of Humana on Wednesday, calling it a "federal gag order" that seeks to silence a health provider that disagrees with the administration. McConnell said he's called for a complete legal justification of the probe.
"This is so clearly an outrage," McConnell said on the Senate floor. "For explaining to seniors how legislation might affect them, the federal government has now issued a gag order on that company, and any other company that communicates with clients on the issue, telling them to shut up -- or else.
"This is precisely the kind of thing Americans are worried about with the administration's health care plan. They're worried that government agencies which were created to enforce violations even-handedly will instead be used against those who voice a different point of view," he said.
The investigation was first suggested by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, whose committee has jurisdiction over Medicare. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) -- which officiates over the Medicare program for seniors and Medicare Advantage options -- ordered a "cease and desist" order on all of Humana's health care mailings until the investigation is concluded.
Baucus has called the Humana letter a "scare tactic" meant to distort the current reforms under consideration. The CMS alleges that Humana's letter may have violated federal regulations, but the information distributed by the health provider was supported by the nonpartisan, independent analysis of the Congressional Budget Office.
Obama has insisted that despite planned cuts to Medicare providers, seniors would not see their benefits reduced under a health care overhaul. But CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf contradicted that Tuesday under questioning by Finance Committee Republicans, saying seniors in the private Medicare Advantage plans could see reduced benefits under Baucus' legislation. Proposed changes "would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans," Elmendorf said.
Humana spokesman Jim Turner said Wednesday that the company is cooperating with CMS in its investigation. But, Turner added, "We also believe Medicare Advantage members deserve to know the impact that funding cuts of the magnitude being discussed would have on benefits and premiums."
A Republican aide told FOXNews.com that the investigation is a clear breach of First Amendment rights and said the Republican leader is asking the CMS to provide legal justification for its investigation. The aide said CMS's investigation follows a pattern of intimidation put forth by the administration for any kind of dissent in the health care debate.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee lashed out at McConnell's charges Wednesday, saying, "If there was ever any doubt who Republicans are looking out for in the health care debate, Mitch McConnell has offered conclusive proof: the insurance companies.
"Republicans jeopardize their own credibility when they choose to defend big insurance companies trying to make false claims about senior citizens," the DSCC said in a press release.
Nine months into Obama's administration, no administrator of the CMS has been named -- leading some Republicans to question whether the White House had a direct hand in silencing Humana.
While the administration referred all questions about the investigation to CMS, White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said the confirmation of a CMS administrator "is a priority for the administration." CMS did not immediately answer requests for comment.
House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., has called on CMS to provide additional information on the so-called gag order, including the person or persons who authorized the agency to issue it.
"I have never seen anything like this and I question if politics was the deciding factor," Camp said in a press release. "Given that the administration has failed for more than eight months to nominate a director for CMS, I wonder if undue political pressure may have been applied on the CMS staff.
"It is Congress' responsibility to find out the facts and protect the interests of the American people. We need to know who contacted CMS, when they did it and what was said," he said.
In addition to intimidating Humana and similar counter-argument, Obama's thugs are attempting to dissuade any investigation of ACORN and other Obama-wing front groups.
In this case, by launching a harassment lawsuit against Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe, as well as the publisher of their story, Breitbart.
As this article from the conservative WorldNetDaily points out, ACORN's case against Giles and O'Keefe is on pretty weak and shaky ground.
COLUMBUS, Ga. – A federal judge in Georgia fined a leader of the movement challenging President Barack Obama's citizenship and warned her against using the legal system to pursue "political rhetoric and insults."
U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land's scathing 43-page order Tuesday said California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz filed "frivolous" litigation and attempted to misuse the federal courts to push a political agenda.
Taitz, a leader of the so-called birther movement, sued in Georgia federal court on behalf of Army Capt. Connie Rhodes. Rhodes sought to avoid deployment to Iraq by claiming Obama wasn't born in the U.S. and that he was "an illegal usurper, unlawful pretender and unqualified impostor."
Land had already dismissed the lawsuit, but Taitz continued filing motions. He said he fined her $20,000 "as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct and to protect the integrity of the court."
"The absolute absence of any legitimate legal argument, combined with the political diatribe in her motions, demonstrates that Ms. Taitz's purpose is to advance a political agenda and not to pursue a legitimate legal cause of action," Land wrote.
He added that while Taitz's speech is protected by the First Amendment, "the federal courts are reserved for hearing genuine legal disputes, not as a platform for political rhetoric and insults."
Taitz told The Daily Report that Land's order is "an absolute outrage."
"All I can say is that this order is issued with a goal to intimidate me, harass me and retaliate against me for bringing a legitimate action on behalf of my client," she said.
I'm not the biggest Beck fan, but he nailed this one. So far that bitch has tried three different excuses and all have failed. The most recent was to pin the quote on Atwater. Sure, Atwater had quoted Mao, but he never called him his favorite political philosopher. This bitch is a freakin' commie.
Have you heard the news? President Obama inherited an economic mess from the Bush administration.
You say that's hardly news? But it's been the message sounded over and over by the White House. Top Obama adviser David Axelrod said on one of the Sunday news shows, "He walked in the door, we had the worst economy since the Great Depression." In San Francisco, Obama talked of being "busy with our mop." White House heavy hitter Rahm Emanuel used the worst-economy-since-the-Depression line on a public TV news show.
You'd think it's October 2008, the final month in the Obama presidential candidacy, rather than October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency. Yet the Obama White House is in full campaign mode -- maybe because it needs to mask the shortcomings of the Obama presidency.
Take, for example, all the talk of inheriting the worst economy since the 1930s crisis. That came in response to the news that the federal deficit hit $1.4 trillion.
Yet just a few months ago, the Obama camp was singing a little different tune. It was under criticism for the $787 billion stimulus package it bulldozed through Congress on grounds that massive spending was needed to keep the unemployment rate from breaching 8 percent. When joblessness hit 9.5 percent in June, Vice President Joe Biden said, "We misread how bad the economy was."
They inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, or the economy turned out to be worse than they thought. Which is it? It can't be both -- unless your brain is completely addled by the Obama charisma.
Obama is still popular, but polls show the public losing faith in his policies. Another indicator was a ''Saturday Night Live'' skit lampooning Obama for the major accomplishments of his administration -- "jack and squat." If the honeymoon is ending with the American voter, it isn't for obsequious elements of the mainstream media. CNN prostrated itself by fact-checking the ''SNL'' comedy skit.
But that's harmless compared to the virulent campaign against Obama critics carried out by the denizens of MSNBC. Its Obama acolytes seek to demonize opponents of Obama's policies by focusing on most marginal corners of right-wing politics like, for example, the "birthers" who deny Obama is a natural born citizen. The larger scheme is to imply Obama critics are racists.
That's the backdrop to the story of Rush Limbaugh getting booted from a group bidding to buy the St. Louis Rams. He was smeared on CNN and MSNBC with false accusations of making two racist comments. He is an abrasive critic of Obama, so he must be racist, or so goes the left-wing story line. I wouldn't defend everything Limbaugh has ever said, but lies were used to blacklist him from professional football for his political views.
Recently an MSNBC personality accused the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of lobbying for policies that amount to being "treasonous to this country." Remember how liberals roared in outrage at any hint of their patriotism being questioned for criticizing the Iraq War? Well, it's the left that doesn't shy from attacking the patriotism of those it dislikes. Recall the repulsive Moveon.org "General Betray-us" ad against Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus. Recent opposition to Chicago's Olympic bid was cast as a sign of a lack of patriotism among Obama critics.
The MSNBC blast against the chamber appears to dovetail with what the Politico newspaper reports is a White House and Democratic effort "to marginalize" the business organization. That echoes the administration assault on the Fox News Channel: It says Fox isn't a news organization.
The White House trying to dictate who's a news organization. Democrats out to gut a business group. Obama media allies damning Americans as racist, unpatriotic and treasonous. Is this the America Obama promised when he campaigned to end the cynical and divisive politics of the past?
An official at a Democratic-leaning organization sends on a memo the group Media Matters is circulating today to progressive groups, calling Fox "a lethal 24/7 partisan political operation" and rallying a coalition of groups to join the White House assault on the network.
"The danger to progressive causes and the institution of journalism has become too significant to ignore," says the introduction to a memo by Media Matters founder David Brock. "At Media Matters, we believe it is of paramount importance that progressive leaders have the information necessary to understand exactly what Fox News has become. We hope this brief memorandum will assist you in reaching your own decision on how best to engage this threat."
One of the group's conclusions: Progressive groups should join the White House's effective boycott of the network, and failing that, "any progressive who chooses to go on Fox News should understand that they will be debating the political opposition, not conducting a news interview."
Amazing. A "news" organization calling for censoring a TV network because their politics differ.
However, it looks as if the Soros/Brock/Obama plan isn't taking hold.
White House Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview: The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.
White House Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview: The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.
I think the mainstream press is starting to get tired of the way Obama's Admin. has been walking all over them taking the good will from the election for granted.
Donald Sensing has a fascinating analysis of President Obama's war against Fox News. He describes the effort as "directly out of the Saul Alinsky playbook."
Alinsky was the author of "Rules for Radicals," bible of left-wing community organizers. One of his rules, or "power tactics": "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Sensing analyzes how Obama is carrying out this advice:
Pick the target. Do not make the mistake of thinking that FoxNews Channel is the actual target. The bullseye target of this campaign is all the public media. FNC's role in this much broader attack is the next two precepts.
Freeze it. This does not mean to shock the target into inactivity, but to fix a certain perception about the target in the minds of the broader community, in this case the media figures in general and the minds of the community (in this case, the whole nation is the community) as a whole.
The White House strategy here is twofold. First, to freeze FNC away from being thought of as just one of the universe of media outlets. White House Communications Director Anita Dunn opened this volley by declaring that FNC is not really a news organization, but the propaganda arm of the Republican party. . . .
Personalize it. Attacking FNC puts a face, a personal identity on the White House's enemy, but also serves to obscure the larger identity of the enemy. FNC is separated from the rest of the "real" media and personalized as a partisan, ideological arm of the president's political opposition. The White House wants the other media to think that its fight is with FoxNews exclusively, hoping they won't see that the real fight is with all media.
The other media may expect to be flattered as "real" reporters and news organizations who are actually the ones being "fair and balanced." The more a [sic] White House reporters and editors toe the White House line, the greater access they will be granted, especially to power figures such as Rahm Emmanuel, David Axelrod and, ultimately, Barack Obama himself, whom we may expect to give a one-on-one interview with the biggest suckup reporter gaining Dunn's favor. Reporters who don't fall into place will discover they are being frozen out of access and will have to rely exclusively on press briefer Robert Gibbs, which is the kiss of death to a White House reporter.
Polarize it. The White House wants to set up an us-v-them dynamic among the White House press pool. Hence, "White House Urges Other Networks to Disregard Fox News."
White House Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview: The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.
Wow, good for them.
Yeah I agree. FOX may be right leaning but it wouldn't be good for anyone if they were frozen out. The political strategy the WH is employing is really dumb and it's costing them support.
(CBS) After months of taking incoming fire from the prime-time stars of Fox News, the Obama White House is firing back, charging that FOX News is different from all other news.
"FOX News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican party," said Anita Dunn, White House communications director.
"If media is operating basically as a talk radio format, then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another," Mr. Obama said.
And the White House has gone beyond words, reports CBS News senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield. Last Sept. 20, the president went on every Sunday news show - except Chris Wallace's show on FOX. And on Thursday, the Treasury Department tried to exclude FOX News from pool coverage of interviews with a key official. It backed down after strong protests from the press.
"All the networks said, that's it, you've crossed the line," said CBS News White House correspondent Chip Reid.
Tension between presidents and the press is as old as the Republic. FDR was so incensed by the war reporting of one New York Daily News correspondent he tried to present him with an Iron Cross from Nazi Germany. John Kennedy tried to get New York Timesman David Halberstam pulled out of Vietnam; and Vice-President Spiro Agnew's assaults on the network press is legendary.
"We have more than our share of nattering nabobs of negativism," Agnew said.
What gives this dust-up special irony is that FOX News success comes in no small part from its ability to convince its viewers that the "mainstream" media are slanted to the left. Now, the White House is arguing that the network is not a real news organization at all, and that has brought some mainstream media voices to its defense.
Here's ABC's Jake Tapper at a recent White House briefing:
"You made it sound like that was evidence of them not being a news organization," Tapper said.
There's no question that FOX's prime-time voices come from the right. Moreover, its owner, Rupert Murdoch is a staunch conservative, and its first and only CEO, Roger Ailes, is a veteran of Republican media wars.
But MSNBC in prime-time has its own lineup of commentators - all of whom are on the left side of the spectrum, some of whom met with the president the White House this week.
So why is the White House out to "de-legitimize" FOX? Not because it has opinions, but because its opinion voices are so hostile to Mr. Obama - and because FOX News is, as it has been for a decade, by far the most watched of the cable news networks. In fact, its ratings have increased 13 percent this summer. So if FOX is feeling any pain from the White House's stance, it's crying all the way to the bank.
The White House has berated Fox News for days now for purportedly pushing an agenda and calling it news. So Americans may have been surprised when, as reported by Noel Sheppard, Obama invited two of MSNBC's most divisive liberal pundits--Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow--to the White House for an off-the-record briefing.
As it turns out, Maddow and Olbermann were only two of the left's heavyweights at the briefing. Yesterday, TVNewser received from the White House a complete list of names. Virtually all of them have their histories of shilling for the administration or Democrats generally, and of bashing conservatives.
Let us review the colorful histories of these pundits, and the reader can decide whether they "have a perspective," in the words of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (in the context of a Fox News attack).
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd hears racism everywhere. She somehow managed to draw racial motivations from Joe Wilson's 'you lie!' outburst last month. That the comment may have been a valid--if poorly timed--objection to disingenuousness on the President's part was of course out of the question. Because, you know, Wilson's from South Carolina.
E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post wanted Democrats to "make the world safe for tax increases." He notably accused President Bush of using "the post-Sept. 11 mood to do all he could to intimidate Democrats from raising questions more of them should have raised."
Another WaPo columnist, Eugene Robinson, suggested in 2005 that fears of a conspiracy in New Orleans to "save the French Quarter and the Garden District at the expense of the Lower Ninth Ward, which is almost all black" were not that crazy, and that the people muttering these theories were "reasonable" and "sober."
New York Times columnist Frank Rich has compared Joy Behar to Edward R. Murrow. He also attributed a large portion of the opposition to Obama to conservatives who are "irrationally fearful of the fast-moving generational, cultural and racial turnover Obama embodies."
PBS anchor Gwen Ifill penned a book about the Obama campaign that contained these glowing words about inauguration day: "the romance and achievement of 1960s civil rights marches bearing fruit, as the lions of the movement mingled with the up and comers. Some had been slow to embrace Barack Obama. Some had been quick. But, this night, all wanted to bear witness..."
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert claimed that an ad attacking Barack Obama during the campaign was racist because it showed Paris Hilton and Britney Spears (in the context of criticizing Obama's celebrity) and contained the phallic (in Herbert's words) images of the Washington Monument and the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
These pundits have certainly shown their willingness to shill for Obama and liberals and to decry opposition as somehow illegitimate. They all have "perspectives," and push their agendas through the media for which they report. If that makes Fox News an enemy, why are these commentators being invited to the White House?
Fox Network's numbers speaks for themselves. In the first quarter Fox was the second-most-watched network in primetime. It bagged the top spot among nine out of ten cable shows. It made CNN and MSNBC look like amateurish high school student broadcast facilities. In the second quarter Fox did even better with an astonishing ratings jump more than thirty percent higher than the first quarter. Their runaway number one audience, ad, and ratings recruiter is President Obama. Yet, Obama keeps pitching Fox. First he publicty tried to shoo everyone away from the network. Then he blocked its request to interview so-called pay czar Kenneth Feinberg. This got the dander of even some moderate Democrats up. They recognize that he's making a cardinal blunder in propping up Fox through the backdoor with his attacks.
It also ticked off the major TV networks. Free Speech, First Amendment, the right to broadcast, and accessibility were the issues that made them see red about Obama's ham handed effort to punish Fox. Hey, it's Fox today it could be us tomorrow the president dumps on. Obama just can't seem to help himself with his obsessive need to bash Fox and gorge its ratings binge. Fox, of course, giddily loves every swipe that he takes at it. It should. Having the president attack you is the best advertising in the world without having to spend a nickle on it.
The puzzle is not so much that Obama hasn't figured out that he's the best pitch man for Fox. But that he hasn't learned that bad mouthing the right side media gabbers only makes them bigger than life. Take Limbaugh. In January, Obama took the ill-fated step and made him his momentary punching bag. The predictable happened. The Media Research Center found that Limbaugh's ratings soared through the roof. Radio affiliates that carried Limbaugh's syndicated show floated on Cloud Nine with the listener stampede to his show. Limbaugh quickly saw the goldmine, mined it for all it was worth, and hasn't missed a beat since.
It further coronated him as the de facto mouthpiece for the GOP. It set in stone GOP opposition to anything that Obama and the Democrats come up with, and gave the legion of Obama baiters and loathers more ammunition to blast him on the airwaves, in chat rooms, websites, and even more despicably in race baiting cartoons, emails, Facebook and twitter posts.
Obama, it seemed at one point, knew enough not to be a salesman for his critics. During the campaign when Republican rival John McCain dredged up Sarah Palin some Team Obama members foolishly saw this as a chance to go dirty with him and her. Obama quickly saw the folly of this. He publicly congratulated her for being the VP pick and then said not another mumbling word about her. He understood that he was running against McCain not Palin. Despite her mind boggling incompetence and unfittness she was a woman, a mother, had an afflicted child, and was the darling of the rabid right. Beating up on her would simply rally the hordes of christian fundamentalist and ultra conservative troops and inflate her (and the politically moribund McCain) to colossal proportions in the media. The lesson from ignoring Palin obviously didn't last.
Obama's pummel of Fox won't do anything to shove down the Network's huge ratings numbers. It will only boost them. You'd think the president would figure out by now he's their star unpaid pitchman.
A gunshot was fired at the New Jersey home of CNN's Lou Dobbs after a series of threatening phone calls earlier this month, the host told listeners on his nationally syndicated radio show.
Dobbs, a fervent proponent of U.S. border enforcement, told listeners of "The Lou Dobbs Show" on Monday that the incident is part of an ongoing assault against anyone who opposes amnesty or leniency toward illegal immigrants.
"They've created an atmosphere and they've been unrelenting in their propaganda," Dobbs said in reference to pro-immigration groups like the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the National Council of La Raza and America's Voice. "Three weeks ago this morning, a shot was fired at my house where I live. My wife was standing out and that followed weeks and weeks of threatening phone calls."
Dobbs continued, "But this shot was fired with my wife not, I don't know, 15 feet away, and we had threatening phone calls that I decided not to report because I get threatening phone calls."
Reached early Thursday at her home, Dobbs' wife, Debi Lee Segura, told Foxnews.com that she was outside the house when the shot was fired in her direction. She declined to elaborate, referring calls to Dobbs, who could not be immediately reached for comment.
A spokeswoman for CNN declined to comment Thursday.
New Jersey State Police Sgt. Steve Jones said troopers were called to the Dobbs' estate in rural Wantage, N.J., at about 10:30 a.m. on Oct. 5. The investigators who responded to the call were told that Dobbs and his wife were outside their home when they heard a gunshot, and a bullet struck their attic.
"It struck the siding and then fell to the ground," Jones said.
A search of the vicinity was unsuccessful; the bullet was taken for analysis.
"It's a shot fired that struck the house," Jones continued. "We're not sure what the intended target was. It's still under investigation."
No injuries were reported.
William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC), said it's very likely Dobbs' outspokenness on illegal immigration led to the shooting.
"That shot, that attack on the Dobbs family is an attack on every American that values First Amendment rights," Gheen told Foxnews.com. "The chances are greatest that it was political, because pro-amnesty groups have tried to dehumanize Lou Dobbs and lie about him."
Dobbs, who claimed the "national liberal media" has in part created a hostile environment regarding immigration, said enduring such incidents has become a "way of life" for him.
"It's become a way of life — the anger, the hate, the vitriol — but it's taken a different tone where they've threatened my wife," he said Monday. "They've now fired a shot at my house while my wife was standing next to the car.
"It's become something else. And if anybody thinks we're not engaged in a battle for the soul of this country right now, you're sorely mistaken."
I have to think that all this demonizing of people on the right by Obama and Pelosi are sparking this kind of violence against people on the right. I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw — I saw this myself in the late ’60s in Washington DC, this kind of — of rhetoric was very frightening and it gave — it created a climate in which we — violence took place. And so I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, understanding that — that some of the people — the ears it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume. But, again, our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe, but I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.
It is an odd, and we'd say regrettable, pattern of this White House that it lets itself get dragged down into fights with specific media outlets.
George W. Bush experienced acrimony with the New York Times, but for the most part, other than general frustrations of a conservative administration, complaining about a liberal media, it was no big deal.
But in addition to Fox News, now The White House is going after highly-respected and influential car site Edmunds .com.
They're actually using The White House blog to dispute the site's analysis of Cash-For-Clunkers (via Detroit News).
The post is snarkily titled: "Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers"
Harsh!
Here's the full post:
-----
On the same day that we found out that motor vehicle output added 1.7% to economic growth in the third quarter – the largest contribution to quarterly growth in over a decade – Edmunds.com has released a faulty analysis suggesting that the Cash for Clunkers program had no meaningful impact on our economy or on overall auto sales. This is the latest of several critical “analyses” of the Cash for Clunkers program from Edmunds.com, which appear designed to grab headlines and get coverage on cable TV. Like many of their previous attempts, this latest claim doesn’t withstand even basic scrutiny.
The Edmunds analysis is based on two implausible assumptions:
1. The Edmunds’ analysis rests on the assumption that the market for cars that didn’t qualify for Cash for Clunkers was completely unaffected by this program.
In other words, all the other cars were being sold on Mars, while the rest of the country was caught up in the excitement of the Cash for Clunkers program. This analysis ignores not only the price impacts that a program like Cash for Clunkers has on the rest of the vehicle market, but the reports from across the country that people were drawn into dealerships by the Cash for Clunkers program and ended up buying cars even though their old car was not eligible for the program.
This faulty assumption leads Edmunds to a conclusion that is at odds with many independent analyses: Edmunds assumption that more than 80% of the payback from Cash for Clunkers would occur in 2009 isn't how many mainstream analyses, including Moody's and IHS Global Insight approach the problem (see pages 5 and 15 of this CEA report [PDF]). In fact, Deutsche Bank recently concluded that “The important takeaway from recent sales trends is that it suggests that there has been minimal 'payback' for the U.S. government’s 'cash for clunkers' program.”
2. Edmunds also ignores the beneficial impact that the program will have on 4th Quarter GDP because automakers have ramped up their production to rebuild their depleted inventories.
Major automakers including GM, Ford, Honda and Chrysler all increased their production through the end of the year as a result of this program, which will help boost growth beyond the third quarter. The actions of private market participants, who would not increase production if they didn’t think demand for their product would be there through the end of the year, is a far better indicator of market dynamics – and one that Edmunds.com conveniently ignores.
Most importantly, this program is helping boost our economy and create jobs now when we need it most. In a comprehensive report, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated that the Cash for Clunkers will create 70,000 jobs in the second half of 2009. The strength of recent auto sales data suggest that, if anything, this projection underestimates the actual impact of the program. CEA’s analysis is transparent and comprehensive, laying out all of its assumptions for the public to understand. Edmunds.com, on the other hand, is promoting a bombastic press release without any public access to their underlying analysis.
So put on your space suit and compare the two approaches yourself:
* Edmunds.com * Council of Economic Advisors
Seriously, what's the point of this? Clunkers is over. It just makes The White House look thin-skinned, though it's great publicity for Edmunds. And yes, Clunkers massively distorted this morning's GDP number, as we demonstrated here, but we're with Edmunds that it was a giant waste with little long-term benefit.
At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.
The Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said.
The message was, "We better not see you on again," said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."
n a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day.
The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site "not to disclose the existence of this request" unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.
Kristina Clair, a 34-year old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department's subpoena. (The Independent Media Center is a left-of-center amalgamation of journalists and advocates that – according to their principles of unity and mission statement – work toward "promoting social and economic justice" and "social change.")
The subpoena (PDF) from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded "all IP traffic to and from http://www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.
"I didn't think anything we were doing was worthy of any (federal) attention," Clair said in a telephone interview with CBSNews.com on Monday. After talking to other Indymedia volunteers, Clair ended up calling the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, which represented her at no cost.
Under long-standing Justice Department guidelines, subpoenas to members of the news media are supposed to receive special treatment. One portion of the guidelines, for instance, says that "no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media" without "the express authorization of the attorney general" – that would be current attorney general Eric Holder – and subpoenas should be "directed at material information regarding a limited subject matter."
Still unclear is what criminal investigation U.S. Attorney Morrison was pursuing. Last Friday, a spokeswoman initially promised a response, but Morrison sent e-mail on Monday evening saying: "We have no comment." The Justice Department in Washington, D.C. also declined to respond.
Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, replied to the Justice Department on behalf of his client in a February 2009 letter (PDF) outlining what he described as a series of problems with the subpoena, including that it was not personally served, that a judge-issued court order would be required for the full logs, and that Indymedia did not store logs in the first place.
Morrison replied in a one-sentence letter saying the subpoena had been withdrawn. Around the same time, according to the EFF, the group had a series of discussions with assistant U.S. attorneys in Morrison's office who threatened Clair with possible prosecution for obstruction of justice if she disclosed the existence of the already-withdrawn subpoena -- claiming it "may endanger someone's health" and would have a "human cost."
Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of The Press, said a gag order to a news organization wouldn't stand up in court: "If you get a subpoena and you're a journalist, they can't gag you."
Dalglish said that a subpoena being issued and withdrawn is not unprecedented. "I have seen any number of these things withdrawn when counsel for someone who is claiming a reporter's privilege says, 'Can you tell me the date you got approval from the attorney general's office'... I'm willing to chalk this up to bad lawyering on the part of the DOJ, or just not thinking."
Making this investigation more mysterious is that Indymedia.us is an aggregation site, meaning articles that appear on it were published somewhere else first, and there's no hint about what sparked the criminal probe. Clair, the system administrator, says that no IP (Internet Protocol) addresses are recorded for Indymedia.us, and non-IP address logs are kept for a few weeks and then discarded.
EFF's Bankston wrote a second letter to the government saying that, if it needed to muzzle Indymedia, it should apply for a gag order under the section of federal law that clearly permits such an order to be issued. Bankston's plan: To challenge that law on First Amendment grounds.
But the Justice Department never replied. "This is the first time we've seen them try to get the IP address of everyone who visited a particular site," Bankston said. "That it was a news organization was an additional troubling fact that implicates First Amendment rights."
This is not, however, the first time that the Feds have focused on Indymedia -- a Web site whose authors sometimes blur the line between journalism, advocacy, and on-the-streets activism. In 2004, the Justice Department sent a grand jury subpoena asking for information about who posted lists of Republican delegates while urging they be given an unwelcome reception at the party's convention in New York City that year. A Indymedia hosting service in Texas once received a subpoena asking for server logs in relation to an investigation of an attempted murder in Italy.
Bankston has written a longer description of the exchange of letters with the Justice Department, which he hopes will raise awareness of how others should respond to similar legal demands for Web logs, customer records, and compulsory silence. "Our fear is that this kind of bogus gag order is much more common than one would hope, considering they're legally baseless," Bankston says. "We're telling this story in hopes that more providers will press back and go public when the government demands their silence."
Obama,"Now, I should tell you, I should be honest, as President of the United States, there are times where I wish information didn't flow so freely because then I wouldn't have to listen to people criticizing me all the time."
The owner of a car dealership in Wheat Ridge is defending his new billboard that has drawn large amounts of criticism for its anti-Obama messages.
The large sign outside Wolf Automotive, near Interstate 70 and Kipling, shows two caricatures of President Obama, one in which he's wearing a turban. It reads "President or Jihad?"
The billboard also urges Obama to prove he's an American with the words "Birth Certificate" and "Prove It." At the bottom is the message "Wake up America! Remember Ft. Hood!"
On Saturday Phil Wolf let a CBS4 crew in the business to listen to the plethora of phone calls -- both in support and against -- that they've been getting about the billboard. He said some of the calls have included threats to his employees.
"Our service manager was threatened to put a bullet in his head," said Wolf, who says he has no immediate plans to take the billboard down and claims he has a large amount of support.
Below are a sample of some of the calls that came in while CBS4 was there:
"I think it's the most racist, disgusting thing I've ever seen in my entire life on a billboard. You should be ashamed of yourself," one male caller said.
"I hope you never sell another car and I hope you go bankrupt," a woman said.
"Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for being one heck of an American," a male caller said.
"I just wanted to give you a call and say 'Way to go.' I love it," another man said.
Wolf believes Barack Obama has not proven he was born in the country as is required to become president. Hawaiian officials have said Obama was born there.
A birth certificate, widely posted on the Internet, is what many believe is the proof. But some don't think it's real, and won't until Obama himself holds up his certificate.
"Just show a piece of paper, like the rest of us have to," Wolf said.
Maggie Couch was outside the dealership on Saturday urging a boycott and holding up signs.
"This display of hatred and lies hurts me. It hurts our country," she said.
In explanation of his inclusion of a reference to the Fort Hood shootings and "Jihad," Wolf said he thinks the president is soft on terrorism.
"You've got an enemy within our military ranks. Where else are enemies implanted at?" he said.
Couch said she thinks you can't "blame every lunatic action on our president."
Wolf said he isn't a racist and that callers who are accusing him of it have no grounds.
"My write-in candidate was Alan Keyes, and I married an Hispanic woman, so don't come to me with racism," he said. Keyes is a conservative political activist and African-American.
Police said during the day on Saturday a man threw a wooden pallet at some women who were outside protesting the billboard. He was charged with criminal mischief and disorderly conduct.
The Denver Post reported that Wolf's sign has drawn criticism from the Anti-Defamation League and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Now the loony left is openly threatening to kill opposition to Obama. MEM I suggest you distance yourself from the liberal mob before these associations totally discredit you.
Facing rising unemployment rates and having seen uncertain results from the stimulus bill, President Obama is hosting a "jobs summit" at the White House Thursday that will be packed with business leaders and economists supportive of White House policies but lacks a diversity of opinion, several analysts say.
Missing from a partial list of attendees released by the White House are the self-proclaimed voices of business - the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business - both of which have been critical of Mr. Obama's proposed health care overhaul.
Confirmed attendees include liberal economists credited with shaping the $787 billion stimulus package, union leaders, environmental advocates and executives from Google and other blue-chip firms.
"He's going to get lots of recommendations to spend more money," said Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business. "These are the very same people who gave us the stimulus package. My feeling is we're not going to get what we need, and that's a complete change in direction on economic policy."
A spokeswoman for the White House would not comment for the record on the format or how the list of participants was drawn up.
Democrats Diane Feinstein and Dick “Turban” Durbin – who have long been the Dems’ official trial-balloon-floaters for assaults on free speech like the “Fairness Doctrine” – are proposing an amendment to a Senate bill (S.448) clarifying the press shield law.
And it’s aimed squarely at citizen journalists like you and I. Via RWN, here’s the amendment text, with some emphases added:
AMENDMENTS intended to be proposed by Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. DURBIN )
Viz:
In section 10(2)(A), strike clause (iii) and insert the following:
[a "journalist" is shielded if he/she] (iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity—
(I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, 1or other means; and
(II) that—
(aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;
(bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;
(cc) operates a programming service; or
(dd) operates a news agency or wire service;
In other words, you need to be an employee of a news business. All of us hobby hacks in our pajamas in our basements are out in the cold.
In section 10(2)(B), strike ‘‘and’’ at the end.
In section 10(2)(C), strike the period at the end and insert ‘‘; and’’.
In section 10(2), add at the end the following:
(D) does not include an individual who gathers or disseminates the protected information sought to be compelled anonymously or under a pseudonym.
This would seem to be aimed at the likes of James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles – provided they’re not employed by a Major News Outlet, of course.
Leaving aside the obvious indication that this is the Democrats’ way of circling their wagons around ACORN – this is a fascinating look into the authoritarianism of the Democrat party at work.
The conservative blogosphere is dominated by independents who cover their fields of expertise, whatever they are (this blog: music, financial planning, wine, tomatos and Minnesota politics) for the pure, unadulterated love of the game. From Power Line (which covers all they survey) to Speed Gibson (who patrols the ramparts of northwest-suburban education), we mostly do it because we want to, money be damned.
The left, on the other hand, has built up a network of “business” entities and non-profits, from the pseudo-newspaper-y “MNPost” to the not-very-covert propagandists at the “Center for Independent Media” (parent of the Minnesoros “Indepdendent”), at exquisite cost; one might now presume that this money was spent to get ahead of the legislative curve that the Feinstein/Durbin proposal represents, as a further attempt to shut down independent, non-government-vetted thought in this country.
FCC "diversity czar" Mark Lloyd wants to shut down conservative free speech by resurrecting a variation of the Fairness Doctrine, where conservative speech is heavily fined, and the money from their fines given to their liberal competitors. Intimidating conservative speech by fining it into bankruptcy.
This is only for radio, where conservative programming dominates.
But print and television, where liberalism are overwhelmingly dominant (with only a few pockets of consrvative thought) are, of course, exempt from any similar "levelling of the playing field".
Mark Lloyd has also praised Hugo Chavez for the effectiveness of how thoroughly Chavez has taken over media control of authoritarian Venezuela, and Lloyd has described this takeover as "a good model to follow" for the Obama administration in the U.S.
BASAMs quoted hotair in the post above mine, and you had nothing to say.
I posted a clip of Glenn Beck about Mark Lloyd (Beck being one of the few sources against the vast ocean of liberal coverage that refuses to report Lloyd's authoritarian craziness) and you snipe at it while making no real point.
Both HotAir and Beck are conservative opinion sources. They are also both sources that present a factual case that liberal sources won't report.
The only difference is you go after me, for posting conservative sources like those, that BASAMS, G-man, Sammitch and many others post as well. But I could shorten that to: you just go after me. Political affiliation has nothing to do with your pathology.
Basically, you have a problem with anything I post. Your obsession with me continues, even to forums that have nothing to do with politics.
i am getting sick and tired of being your fucking obsession around here. i cant post anything without you following me around the board. if you dont have anything constructive to say about my posts i wish you would leave.
You're such an easy target. As long as you keep breaking I'll keep trolling you.
If "breaking" is humiliating you, then you win, I guess.
That's kind of like arguing you're beating the shit out of my knuckles with your face.
Dumbass.
I guess you have a point there. After all I'm the one who shows up every couple weeks, spams other people's opinions then throws a hissy fit when I'm not takes seriously. I should be ashamed of myself.
Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue is a wanted man -- at least according to the liberal activist group that's put a de facto bounty on his head.
A network of liberal groups known as Velvet Revolution started an ad campaign offering $200,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the man whose trade organization has become a thorn in the side of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.
The group is not leveling any specific charges of criminal behavior. Rather, it is casting a wide net, fishing for any whistleblowers from Donohue's past who might come forward with allegations of wrongdoing. The campaign against the Chamber was launched in response to the group's opposition to climate change legislation and health care reform, and its plan to spend $100 million lobbying against these and other initiatives.
"On every issue, the Chamber is kind of the lead corporate advocate for the status quo," said Kevin Zeese, a lawyer who sits on the board for Velvet Revolution, calling Donohue a "knee-jerk reactionary" and the Chamber a "right-wing extremist group."
The Chamber of Commerce, meanwhile, decried the ad campaign and threatened possible legal action.
"The media should be following the money trail behind this scurrilous group instead of giving credence to its outrageous tactics -- and we are considering legal options with the ad," spokesman Eric Wohlschlegel said.
The Chamber has already taken a lot of heat from the White House. Top aides tried to neutralize the group earlier in the year by doing an end-run around the organization and dealing directly with members, as some big companies, like Apple, peeled off from the Chamber due to disagreements over issues like climate change.
The organization was also not invited to Obama's jobs forum in Washington last week.
But Zeese said the White House has nothing to do with the bounty on Donohue.
"It's individual donors. We have no connection to the White House or unions or anything like that," he said.
Velvet Revolution launched the StoptheChamber campaign in October and started offering a bounty for information on Donohue a month later. A $100,000 reward was increased to $200,000 early this month, thanks to what Zeese called a "handful of larger donors" whom he would not identify.
A full-page print ad that looks like a "wanted" poster out of the wild West began to run in the Washington City Paper this week. It features a head shot of Donohue and offers a tip line for "insiders and whistleblowers possessing information not already in the public domain."
The tip line is live. When FoxNews.com called, the operator asked for "criminal" information about Donohue.
Zeese said that a handful of tips have come in which the group is "pursuing."
He said the hope is to forward any damaging information onto the Justice Department or Congress for further investigation.
File this story under the pot calling the kettle black.
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), prone for throwing his own political bombs at Republicans, has threatened a local critic with five years in jail for creating the website “mycongressmanisnuts.com,”
The Orlando Sentinel reports that Grayson wrote a letter this week to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that the federal government imprison Republican activist Angie Langley for five years because of her website criticizing him.
The website, designed to raise money against Grayson, catalogues videos and news clippings that portray the provocative congressman in an unfavorable light. It courts donors to donate money to help elect his Republican challenger next year – collecting $3,725 to date.
Grayson accuses the activist of misrepresenting the fact that she’s a constituent of his (she lives outside his district).
“Ms. Langley has deliberately masqueraded as a constituent of mine, in order to create the false appearance that she speaks for constituents who don’t support me,” Grayson wrote in the letter.
(You can read Grayson's complete letter to Holder here.)
It’s awfully ironic that Grayson is demanding to silence one of his critics, given his history of red-meat rhetoric against a host of powerful Republicans. Earlier this month, he told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews he wished Dick Cheney would “STFU.”
Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs."
In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.
Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).
“Democrats” and “tradition” seldom appear in the same sentence, unless the left is doing something to trash a tradition — such as traditional marriage, prayer in public, strong defense, respect for the military, free speech, etc.
But who knew Democratic presidents would be so good at establishing new traditions?
We can thank Jimmy Carter for the Sore Loser tradition. He was first among modern presidents to publicly attack and second-guess the presidents who followed him. For generations, former presidents showed respect to the office, at least, by biting their tongues. During the Clinton scandals, George Bush Sr. probably bit his in half — but he never criticized Clinton the way Carter has scorched Reagan and both Bushes.
And we can thank Bill Clinton for another tradition — the permanent campaign. He was the one who decided the Shite House is really just a big campaign office, to be used to stroke donors and run a war-room for 24-7, 365 electioneering. He also adopted the Carter tradition of undermining presidents in office — as long as they are Republicans.
And now we have new traditions created by Barack Obama. There’s the one for bowing to tinpot tyrants. One for government takeovers of private industries (which is a revival of an FDR tradition). And the latest is his direct attacks on the Supreme Court (another FDR tradition).
When the Supreme Court ruled that McCain-Feingold campaign finance restrictions were violations of the First Amendment, Obama sounded more outraged than he was by terrorist attacks on Americans.
In fact, he said, “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest.”
Really? Really!?
I can think of many things, starting with terrorism, economic meltdowns, Obamacare and the way he tanked the market by threatening big bank taxes. But it’s not just the intemperate hyperbole — it’s the tone that is disturbing.
Presidents often disagree with Supreme Court decisions. But they traditionally show respect to the court as a co-equal branch of government. And they seldom call out the partisan dogs in Congress to reverse the court’s decision.
Anyone who was an honest observer, who read the campaign finance restrictions could see that they unconstitutionally limited political speech, which is the first purpose for protection of free speech in the First Amendment.
To the same of newspapers everywhere, the media mostly looked the other way, because they got a loophole. Media corporations were given free speech, but other corporations were gagged.
The Supreme Court has corrected that by insisting that the Founders wanted us to err on the side of free speech, and avoid any kind of censorship — like McCain Feingold.
And Obama’s immature, childish response is to harshly attack the court and make reckless threats about what he will do to “fix it.” This is not another new tradition we need. But as usual, Obama thinks everything is about Obama.
He should pay more attention to another message last week — from the voters in Massachusetts. Now that was about Obama.
And maybe he should just grow up and start acting more like a president and less like a state senator.
Speaking in the East Room of the White House, President Obama told the nation’s mayors he understand the difficulty of governing in communities large and small in the wake of the financial crisis.
"It's just not easy being a mayor. But rarely, if ever, has it been more difficult than it is today," he told more than 200 mayors in town for the U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting being held in Washington this week, "Your constituents are feeling the pain of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, not to mention an economy that wasn't working for a lot of them long before this particular crisis hit."
He and Vice President Joe Biden engaged in a question and answer session with the mayors, though the press was not allowed to stick around for that.
more information emerges on the Obama Administration's decision to house propagandist "new media specialists" in most major Cabinet-level Offices of Public Affairs. These bloggers, paid with taxpayer funds, routinely pass along "Administration approved" talking points to bloggers and online journalists, monitor conservative or "adversarial" websites, and post comments in support of the Administration on a number of those sites.
In the case of Justice, that "blogger," as reported by the Muffled Oar blog is Tracy Russo, a former Democrat National Committee staffer, with ties to Sen. John Edwards' campaigns. But similar jobs also exist at the Department of Treasury, the Department of State and the Department of Education.
According to a reporter, who has covered the Department of Justice for a major financial wire service during the current administration, a number of daily newspaper reporters were aware of the work Russo was undertaking at DOJ, and yet withheld reporting the situation, "because those reporters were being given access and information from OPA that helped them with their daily news filings."
Meanwhile, according to a career employee in the Department of Justice, both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees sent formal letters of inquiry to the Department of Justice regarding its "blogging" policies, but DOJ officials have yet to even acknowledge the letters.
The Federal Communications Commission has made little effort to hide its goal of ending free television. The recent -- and perhaps most brazen -- act was the appointment by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski of a Duke University Law Professor to serve as the commission's architect to dismantle the nation's 1,600 television stations. Sound like hyperbole? Consider the following.
Last month, Genachowski appointed Stuart Benjamin, who referred to broadcast television as "a powerful source of homogenization and pablum," as a key advisor on spectrum policy and First Amendment matters. Last May, Duke University published a paper by Benjamin titled "Roasting the Pig to Burn Down the House: A Modest Proposal." Benjamin recommends the FCC impose onerous "broadcast regulations that seem undesirable on their own terms but that may result in such harms to broadcasting that broadcasting leaves the [radio-TV] spectrum."
Benjamin argues in favor of "new regulations on broadcasters that will make broadcasting unprofitable." He suggests "some regulations will impose costs on broadcasters and not only have no benefits but also impose additional costs in their effects (e.g., make programming worse)." Benjamin favors regulatory measures that "will reduce the viewership of broadcasting and thus hasten the demise of broadcasting -- what I [Benjamin] would regard as a win-win."
Further, Benjamin notes that "every dollar of additional costs for broadcasters is one less dollar of profit, and thus reduces the attractiveness of over-the-air broadcasting as a business model." He suggests "onerous record-keeping requirements, ascertainment requirements" and other regulations that have no public interest benefit and "will likely be pure cost."
In other words, ChavezObama's people plan to put so many new regulations on "free broadcasters" that they go out of business without a government bailout/takeover.
Apparently to the liberal Thought Police, a man can't sit in an audience and quietly mouth to himself the thoughts he has about Obama's blatant misrepresentation of the truth. Alito didn't heckle or interrupt the speech in any way whatsoever. He just thought it. Apparently that is too much freedom in the age of the Annointed One.
The canyon-like chasm between what Obama said last night, and what he has done --and been thwarted from doing by patriots-- is vast indeed. And yes, at many points Obama's words last night were "not true"
And as Juan Williams pointed out, it was intimidating to the Supreme Court, and to the Court's independent decision-making, for Obama to chastise them from just a few feet away, with hundreds of Democrats applauding his chastising of the Court.
Again, so much for freedom of thought and respecting the separation of powers.
has any other President ever used the State of the Union to pay lip service to the Separation of Powers doctrine and then publically attack the Supreme Court for supporting free speech? Or was that another historic first for this guy?
A new White House policy on permissible lobbying on economic recovery and stimulus projects has taken a decidedly anti-First Amendment turn. It's a classic illustration of Big Government trying to control every aspect of a particular activity and in the process running up against civil liberty.
Check out this passage from a post on the White House blog by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Government Reform (emphasis added):
"First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.
"Second, we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest –after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made. Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits. To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see.
"Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists. If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency’s website documenting the contact."
For the full blog post by Eisen, go here.
The key passage is the reference to expanding regulation from registered lobbyists to "anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program."
This is the Camel's nose under the tent, being poked because of special circumstances. Let government restrict political expression - i.e. lobbying of government officials regarding policy - in one small, supposedly specialized area and not long after the specialized area starts expanding. Eventually, all political expression regarding all policy will become subject to government regulation.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) on Tuesday said he’d support the uphill battle to amend the Constitution to gut the impact of a Supreme Court decision lifting restrictions on corporate campaign spending.
“I think we need a constitutional amendment to make it clear, once and for all, that corporations do not have the same free-speech rights as individuals,” Kerry said during a Senate Rules Committee hearing.
The constitutional change would require the support of two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-fourths of the states to ratify it, a serious challenge, particularly since many Republicans support the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.
Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) is the only other senator so far to back the idea of a constitutional amendment.
In the House, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) introduced language Tuesday amending the Constitution to allow Congress to regulate corporate spending in politics.
“I think we need a constitutional amendment to make it clear, once and for all, that corporations do not have the same free-speech rights as individuals,” Kerry said during a Senate Rules Committee hearing.
“I think we need a constitutional amendment to make it clear, once and for all, that corporations do not have the same free-speech rights as individuals,” Kerry said during a Senate Rules Committee hearing.
Holy motherfucking fuck.
What the fuck is wrong with this fucking moron?
Actually, I'm kinda with Lurch on this one with a small caveat. I don't mind restricting a businesses free speech so long as we extend it to not recognizing corporations as people. Meaning, we don't tax them and we let them spend, build, and hire.
The news on healthcare reform this week is that right off the bat, the major corporations are discovering they will be losing stunning amounts to taxes as a result of Obamacare.
Caterpillar, the first to speak out, reported it will take a one-time write-down of $100 million in order to account for the elimination of a federal tax refund it has been receiving for providing drug benefits to its retired employees. In the following days, AT&T, Verizon, 3M, Deer & Co., and AK Steel Holdings announced they would take similar write downs. AT&T's new tax bill will come to over $1 billion. The news is a body blow to major companies hoping to recover profitability and add jobs.
If all this sounds familiar, it should. It is exactly what Republicans predicted would happen if Obamacare became law. All this, however, was too much for Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He demanded that CEOs from the major companies appear before him on April 21 to explain just what's going on. "These assertions appear to conflict with independent analyses," said the chairman, "which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs."
There's a simple reason for that. Congressmen don't go to jail for intentionally disseminating bogus financial statements. Corporate CEOs do. These companies are all legally obligated to report these charges right now.
More to the point, however, take note of the chilling effect on free speech here. These CEOs have done nothing more than offer a prediction, or opinion if you will, on the probable outcome of this legislation. In this case, the opinion runs counter to the opinion shared by the current congressional majority of congress.
As a result of a difference in opinion from the party in power, private citizens are now being hauled before a government body to give testimony under penalty of perjury to defend their opinion.
The intent is clear. Question your leaders at your own peril.
Obama Calling 'Information' a Threat? President Obama used a commencement speech over the weekend to bemoan the onslaught of information in the digital age and suggest that the gusher of news out there is too much of a good thing.
Was there anything you dissagree with Obama there G-man? It doesn't seem like he's saying anything to wild when it comes to news.
Quote:
The class of 2010 is "coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter," the president said, earning an honorary doctorate of laws degree during the ceremony.
"And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- (laughter) -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy," he said.
It's just been a matter of course that news has been trending towards more sensationalism. Stuff that would have been at best tabloid news is now regular news. It's not censorship to talk about it btw.
Was there anything you dissagree with Obama there G-man? It doesn't seem like he's saying anything to wild when it comes to news.
The whole theory of free speech is to have, as general rule, as much of it as possible.
I'm no expert on X-boxes and Play Stations but it seems to me that they aren't even used to convey "information" except in the sort of raw form than any game or toy does. So why bring them up as a form of "information"?
The President then singles out iPods and iPads, both of which are used to distribute and convey information. The iPod can be used to listen to music or podcasts or to watch television or movies. The iPad is, of course, a tablet computer that can be used to surf the net, read books, etc.
Sure, they can be used to convey "entertainment." But they can also be used to convey "serious" ideas. Why would Obama complain about their existence, then?
Obama had no problem using the web and other non-traditional campaign methods when he was running. Similarly, he's the guy who insisted on having a blackberry even when there were security concerns.
But, now, that he's in charge, suddenly these new fangled ways to make information more accessible (and harder for the government or old media to control) are bad?
Oh how I love how everyone voted for Obama and yet they are still in the same shit they were 8 years ago. and they are all bitching, moaning, or groaning because THEY aren't being given their nice excessive lifestyles that so many of my countrymen have fallen prey to. It's a shame how a lot of Generation X turned out to be like their parents, the Baby-Boomers, just as whiny, greedy, narcissistic(sp?), and 'GIMME THAT, IT'S MINE" filled. Oh well, people get what they deserve.
The class of 2010 is "coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter," the president said, earning an honorary doctorate of laws degree during the ceremony.
"And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- (laughter) -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy," he said.
Words do matter and have context. Obama's words here talk about "new pressure" but he doesn't imply that it's too much.
Obama vs. the iPad: There’s a reason why the president thinks information is “a distraction.”
Obama’s disdain for new media has become so consistent that it is hard to dismiss as mere posturing. This is all the more ironic because Obama’s political movement supposedly mastered the new art of communication. During the 2008 campaign, the Obamistas let the world know they were cool by, among other things, speaking digital as a first language.
By contrast, since taking office, Obama has sounded downright nostalgic about the old newspaper era, all the while warning that the new communication revolution is producing more information than people can digest.
Confused? You shouldn’t be.
now that he has to govern, President Obama would just as soon dispense with all those niggling critics carping about his policies. It was better in the days when three liberals — say Cronkite, Reasoner, and Brinkley — had a monopoly over deciding what the news was every day, and synthesized it every night on TV. Then they let the New York Times echo those views the next morning. Those were the days.
it’s beginning to dawn on this White House that the Internet is not its friend and, in fact, that the web stands for the opposite of what has emerged as the Obama administration’s animating spirit. The Internet is centrifugal, dispersing power outward; the Obama administration is centripetal, concentrating power at the center. Google is moved hither and thither through choices made by millions; Wikipedia relies upon the wisdom of crowds. In the blogosphere, everyone can have an opinion, and every opinion has a chance to be considered — and perhaps to prevail — in the online marketplace of ideas.
The Obama administration, conversely, prides itself on offering top-down governance by the best and the brightest — not realizing that, as most Americans see it, that type of thinking creates a self-selected elite prone to hubris and atrocious error. In a mere 15 months, the Obama administration has concentrated in Washington control over important parts of industries as important and diverse as automobiles, banking, and health care. It wants to do the same with energy.
Given these two opposing forces — the centripetal, governing one and the centrifugal, technological one — a collision was inevitable. It has happened so early in Obama’s first term because his administration has been in such a rush. Its single-minded will to bring all this power to Washington quickly cannot countenance debate and criticism, which are the mother’s milk of the Internet.
What the Obama administration will do about all this is another question. The FCC recently announced that it will ignore its own previous determination — and a court ruling — and proceed to regulate broadband communications.
Oh how I love how everyone voted for Obama and yet they are still in the same shit they were 8 years ago. and they are all bitching, moaning, or groaning because THEY aren't being given their nice excessive lifestyles that so many of my countrymen have fallen prey to. It's a shame how a lot of Generation X turned out to be like their parents, the Baby-Boomers, just as whiny, greedy, narcissistic(sp?), and 'GIMME THAT, IT'S MINE" filled. Oh well, people get what they deserve.
what No link please Joe?
and i think i stumped Nowie on this one... eithwer that or i had an original thought in my head....
Obama Calling 'Information' a Threat? President Obama used a commencement speech over the weekend to bemoan the onslaught of information in the digital age and suggest that the gusher of news out there is too much of a good thing.
You surely know the drill by heart: Barack Obama promised to run the most transparent White House in history – avoiding lobbyists, publicizing donations and televising health-care debates on C-Span. You also certainly know that he's broken his pledge in every possible respect. But what's even more offensive to me is his arrogance and defiance in the process.
Exhibit A –-and this was so egregious it's the only proof you should need-– was press secretary Robert Gibbs' recent exchange with WorldNetDaily correspondent Les Kinsolving at a White House briefing... an arrogant, youngish smart aleck in a position of power taunting and ridiculing an elder member of the press corps, who was respectfully questioning him about Obama's striking inaccessibility.
You simply can't get the full flavor of Gibbs' despicably supercilious, insulting and disrespectful attitude without watching it.
Kinsolving asked Gibbs why President Obama has "held not a single White House press conference since last July," considering "President Franklin Roosevelt's 998 press conferences."
Gibbs retorted that Obama took eight questions from the White House press corps at the Nuclear Security Summit. "What would you call that?"
Unbowed, Kinsolving said: "That was not a press conference. It was a select few reporters. It was not a White House press conference."
Gibbs then argued with Kinsolving about what constitutes a press conference, and the discussion quickly degenerated into Gibbs' sarcastic Socratic drilling of Kinsolving about how many press members, "38 or 55," is the right number.
Can anyone imagine the indignation if a Republican president treated a member of the media with such contempt and derision?
But it's not just Gibbs' mistreatment of Kinsolving that is significant here. It's that this White House believes it can a) promise unprecedented transparency; b) flagrantly breach the promise; c) avoid accountability for the breach; and d) even ridicule those who dare to inquire about it.
Also note the double avoidance of accountability. Obama refuses to be open about his agenda through routine press conferences and also refuses to be open about his refusal to be open.
His arrogance in defying accountability is only exceeded by his arrogance in defying the public's will in the first place by pressing forward with items of his agenda they've begged him – in essence – not to pursue.
But this is how radicals operate. In their relativistic world, their end of advancing a radical agenda justifies any means, including making and breaking promises of accountability to the electorate and then mocking media representatives who dare to question them about it.
But Obama doesn't just owe the public answers about being AWOL on White House press conferences. We deserve answers on his broken promises concerning [vowing not to hire] lobbyists; [on breaking his promise to] televise the health-care debates; [regarding breaking his promise to] post bills on his website 72 hours before a vote; [regarding] his surreptitious packaging of unpopular provisions in larger pieces of legislation to avoid public scrutiny, such as his reversal of the highly successful welfare reform; [regarding his] his establishment of a medical bureaucratic board (which some have referred to as a "death panel") as part of his "stimulus" bill; and [regarding] his government takeover of student loans with Obamacare.
And how about his staged town-hall meetings, where he took questions only from planted supporters; his phony assertions of executive privilege; his punitive firing of AIG watchdog Gerald Walpin for investigating his friend; a bizarre lack of accessibility on stimulus fund data; and his Justice Department's dismissal of a case already won against New Black Panther Party members for voter intimidation and then stonewalling both the Commission on Civil Rights and a Freedom of Information Act request by the Washington Times seeking reasons for the arbitrary dismissal?
Or his abundant denials of other [Freedom Of Information Act] requests; his Federal Communications Commission's shielding of diversity czar Mark Lloyd from media questions about his past statements on FCC policy; his withholding of documents requested by Republicans from private meetings between the White House and medical providers; his withholding of data from the Cash for Clunkers program; his shielding from public view information on the expenditure of unions' dues; his failed effort to exclude Fox News interview access to his pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg; and his "secret slush fund ... for taxes and spending on climate change hidden inside the administration's 2011 budget," as reported by Fox News?
-------------------------------
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party (Regnery) was recently released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website, http://www.davidlimbaugh.com. And to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website.
In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pointed to the argument Kagan's office made before the Supreme Court in Citizens United vs. FEC, a controversial campaign finance case.
"Solicitor Kagan's office in the initial hearing argued that it would be OK to ban books," McConnell said. "And then when there was a rehearing Solicitor Kagan herself in her first Supreme Court argument suggested that it might be OK to ban pamphlets.
"I think that's very troubling, and this whole area of her view of the First Amendment and political speech is something that ought to be explored by the Judiciary Committee and by the full Senate," McConnell said.
In the case in question, Chief Justice John Roberts asked the government lawyer whether the law in question could also prevent the publication of a campaign-related book, if it was paid for by a corporation or labor union.
“If it's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, 'and so vote for x,' the government could ban that?” Roberts asked.
Kagan's deputy, Malcolm L. Stewart, said yes.
"We could prohibit the publication of that book," he responded.
In a later oral argument, Kagan slightly modified that position, but still found herself arguing that the government could ban certain pamphlets, depending on who paid for their publication.
"And if you say that you are not going to apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet?" Roberts asked.
“A pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering, so there is no attempt to say that [law] only applies to video and not to print," Kagan responded.
Shortly after McConnell's comments, his office highlighted the case in an e-mail to reporters, suggesting famous pamphlets like Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" and the Federalist Papers could be banned under Kagan's logic.
It's a scary path this country is going down. This is the first time I can remember a since the days of the Communism scare that a party in power has fought so hard to ban opposition speech.
It's a scary path this country is going down. This is the first time I can remember a since the days of the Communism scare that a party in power has fought so hard to ban opposition speech.
What's amazing is that Obama and his staff find it impossible to identify true islamic terrorists as terrorists.
The only people who Obama wants to identify as terrorists are Tea Party members and other "right wing" conservatives.
As Glenn Beck pointed out, Obama's reluctance to even identify muslim terrorists as terrorists, makes it clear that Obama's desire to suspend Miranda rights of terrorists "in a crisis situation" are more likely to be used on patriotic dissenting conservatives than on muslim terrorists.
Beck's not the only one who's made this argument. In fact, it does small harm to the argument to cite Beck for it.
People on both sides of the aisle, including some liberals and civil libertarians, are very uncomfortable with Obama's decision to scale back civil liberties by blurring the line between terrorist and criminal.
Historically, the government has provided criminal court constitutional rights to U.S. citizens and denied them the "enemy combatants" or "prisoners of war." Bush was criticized for continuing that trend.
Now, Obama is actually going farther than Bush did. He's actually pondering creating a situation where U.S. citizens (not enemy combatants) can lose their rights simply by being charged as a "terrorist." .
FTC officials began a project in May 2009 to consider the challenges the journalism industry faces in the digital age. The federal agency recently released a discussion draft titled "Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism," a 47-page document that outlines a major government push to rescue the country's flailing media platforms -- specifically newspapers, which have seen advertising revenues drop roughly 45 percent since 2000.
Among the numerous proposals mentioned in the document are:
-- the creation of a "journalism" division of AmeriCorps, the federal program that places 75,000 people with local and national nonprofit groups annually;
-- tax credits to news organizations for every journalist employed;
-- establishing citizenship news vouchers, which "would allow every American tax payer to allocate some amount of government funds to the non-profit media organization" of their choice;
-- increased funding for public radio and television;
-- providing grants to universities to conduct investigative journalism;
-- increased postal subsidies for newspapers and periodicals;
-- a 5 percent tax on consumer electronics, which would generate roughly $4 billion annually, to pay for increased public funding.
But some critics are voicing concerns about the draft document, saying that if the government has any influence over the Fourth Estate, it could lead to a dizzying web of conflicting interests and the eradication of independent journalism.
"I find it dangerous for government to have a role in speech because the government gives and the government taketh away," Jeff Jarvis, an associate professor at the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism, said.
"Most of the ideas examined in this are politically untenable," Jarvis said. "The problem with this is that the FTC is trying to set an agenda here, that some sort of government intervention is necessary. It's a power grab by the FTC and it's also an example of one old power structure circling its wagons around another."
In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pointed to the argument Kagan's office made before the Supreme Court in Citizens United vs. FEC, a controversial campaign finance case.
"Solicitor Kagan's office in the initial hearing argued that it would be OK to ban books," McConnell said. "And then when there was a rehearing Solicitor Kagan herself in her first Supreme Court argument suggested that it might be OK to ban pamphlets.
"I think that's very troubling, and this whole area of her view of the First Amendment and political speech is something that ought to be explored by the Judiciary Committee and by the full Senate," McConnell said.
In the case in question, Chief Justice John Roberts asked the government lawyer whether the law in question could also prevent the publication of a campaign-related book, if it was paid for by a corporation or labor union.
“If it's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, 'and so vote for x,' the government could ban that?” Roberts asked.
Kagan's deputy, Malcolm L. Stewart, said yes.
"We could prohibit the publication of that book," he responded.
In a later oral argument, Kagan slightly modified that position, but still found herself arguing that the government could ban certain pamphlets, depending on who paid for their publication.
"And if you say that you are not going to apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet?" Roberts asked.
“A pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering, so there is no attempt to say that [law] only applies to video and not to print," Kagan responded.
Shortly after McConnell's comments, his office highlighted the case in an e-mail to reporters, suggesting famous pamphlets like Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" and the Federalist Papers could be banned under Kagan's logic.
Looking thought the Sarah Palin thread I noticed Matter-eater Man was upset that Palin possibly tried to ban books, I wonder where his outrage is now?
A Michigan lawmaker wants to register reporters to ensure they’re credible and have “good moral character.”
State Sen. Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much as the state regulates hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers. Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets -- traditional, online and citizen generated -- and an even greater amount of misinformation.
“Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government,” he said.
He told FoxNews.com that some reporters covering state politics don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re working for publications he’s never heard of, so he wants to install a process that’ll help him and the general public figure out which reporters to trust.
“We have to be able to get good information,” he said. “We have to be able to rely on the source and to understand the credentials of the source.”
Critics say the proposed law will stem press freedoms and is bound to be politicized, with disgruntled politicians going after reporters who don’t paint them in a positive light. They also say that adding members of the fourth estate to the list of government-regulated occupations is probably unconstitutional.
“It’s misguided and it’s never going to fly,” said Kelly McBride, media ethics expert at the Poynter Institute. She is currently involved in a project examining the transformation of the journalism profession.
The bill was introduced on May 11 and has been referred to the Michigan legislature’s Committee on Economic Development and Regulatory Reform.
“It’s a single sponsor bill. I think that says it all,” said Mike MacLaren, executive director of the Michigan Press Association.
“I’ve not talked to the senator about this but whenever you see a single sponsor it’s usually indicative of what others think of it, which is not much.”
According to the bill, reporters who register will have to pay an application and registration fee and provide a "Board of Michigan Registered Reporters" with proof of:
-- "Good moral character” and demonstrate they have industry “ethics standards acceptable to the board.”
-- Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent.
-- Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information.
-- Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.
-- Three or more writing samples.
Unregistered reporters would not be prevented from covering Michigan politics, and registering with the state would be voluntary.
Patterson conceded that he didn’t actually think his bill would be enacted into law. He said he’s winding down his two-decade political career and wants to provoke public discussion before he leaves office.
“I would argue the First Amendment feels otherwise,” said MacLaren. “He’s entitled to his thoughts. The First Amendment protects those as well.”
“What’s the definition of a reporter? I haven’t been able to find out? What’s a reporter? What’s a journalist?” Patterson said. “I thought you had to have a degree in journalism, but apparently not. I could retire and be a journalist.”
Patterson said he wants a central place where members of the public can go to find out about reporters’ credentials, background and experience.
“I’m talking about a central depository for information so someone can go find all that out,” Patterson said, comparing his idea to the vetting process for expert witnesses who testify in court.
He said he feels that there’s no way to tell who’s a legitimate journalist and who’s just rewriting other reporters’ reporting and twisting facts.
“He is right, the problem is “How do I know where I’m getting my news from?”” said McBride, who is working on a Ford Foundation project for the Poynter Institute that address the issue of the growing fifth estate -- non-professional bloggers, community reporters, and citizen journalists -- and the shrinking of the fourth estate, the traditional press.
But even though McBride agreed with Patterson’s concerns that people don’t know which news outlets to trust, she said the bill introducing government-registered reporters is just a bad idea.
Plus, she said, governments often try to control journalists through a credentialing process -- and these attempts are usually deemed unconstitutional.
“I think that his concern is a legitimate one,” McBride said, “But you’re not going to solve the problem by creating some kind of licensing system.”
After General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt told a private dinner of Italian business executives that ...the Obama Administration's heavy regulatory approach was not conducive to helping the U.S. economy, senior White House officials, upon hearing about the comments, went into bully mode.
Immelt made his comments at dinner in Rome earlier this week and they were later reported by the Financial Times. The remarks about the Obama Administration did not include any disparagement of the president himself.
Yet, according to a contracting lobbyist for GE in Washington, senior White House officials and senior members of the Commerce and Energy Departments called Washington GE officials and corporate officers in New York.
"They [the Obama Administration] weren't happy, and wanted to know why a GE official would be making those comments," said the lobbyist. "The underlying message was that GE has dealings with the federal government. It wasn't a threat, but these folks are from Chicago."
Within hours GE released an official statement saying Immelt's comments didn't reflect the company's views. The lobbyist says he does not know if the White House demanded the statement.
The lobbyist would not identify who in the administration made the calls, but in the past senior officials like Valerie Jarrett, Rahm Emanuel and deputy Jim Messina have been known to make such calls to business executives.
"It's fairly common with this crowd," says another lobbyist, who is employed by a Fortune 50 company in Washington. "The second my boss says something that could be interpreted as anti-Obama administration, we get phone calls. They are very thin skinned. Add to that the fact that they just hate the business community, and you have a tense relationship."
After General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt told a private dinner of Italian business executives that ...the Obama Administration's heavy regulatory approach was not conducive to helping the U.S. economy, senior White House officials, upon hearing about the comments, went into bully mode.
Immelt made his comments at dinner in Rome earlier this week and they were later reported by the Financial Times. The remarks about the Obama Administration did not include any disparagement of the president himself.
Yet, according to a contracting lobbyist for GE in Washington, senior White House officials and senior members of the Commerce and Energy Departments called Washington GE officials and corporate officers in New York.
"They [the Obama Administration] weren't happy, and wanted to know why a GE official would be making those comments," said the lobbyist. "The underlying message was that GE has dealings with the federal government. It wasn't a threat, but these folks are from Chicago."
Within hours GE released an official statement saying Immelt's comments didn't reflect the company's views. The lobbyist says he does not know if the White House demanded the statement.
The lobbyist would not identify who in the administration made the calls, but in the past senior officials like Valerie Jarrett, Rahm Emanuel and deputy Jim Messina have been known to make such calls to business executives.
"It's fairly common with this crowd," says another lobbyist, who is employed by a Fortune 50 company in Washington. "The second my boss says something that could be interpreted as anti-Obama administration, we get phone calls. They are very thin skinned. Add to that the fact that they just hate the business community, and you have a tense relationship."
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is blocking certain websites from the federal agency's computers, including halting access by staffers to any Internet pages that contain a "controversial opinion," according to an internal email obtained by CBS News.
The email was sent to all TSA employees from the Office of Information Technology on Friday afternoon.
It states that as of July 1, TSA employees will no longer be allowed to access five categories of websites that have been deemed "inappropriate for government access."
The categories include:
Chat/Messaging
Controversial opinion
Criminal activity
Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content
Gaming
The email does not specify how the TSA will determine if a website expresses a "controversial opinion."
There would really be nothing wrong with banning computer use that is non work related. What you seem to have missed is the fact that the Obama administration has appointed itself as the sole decider on what is "controversial opinion". Sites that they deem uncontroversial will be allowed.
I'm guessing that the following will be sites deemed to have controversial opinions: Fox News, National Review, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tea Parties, Sarah Palin 2012.
I'm guessing that the following will NOT be deemed sites expressing controversial opinions: The Huffington Post, Media Matters, Raw Story, Al Jazeera, the Facebook page of William Ayers
WTKK posts a clip of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick responding to a question about the Glenn Beck rally by noting that it’s a free country — and then that he’s not terribly happy about that:
Sebelius as "Speech Czar": President Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius is still threatening to bankrupt insurance companies who tell their customers that ObamaCare‘s mandates will increase premiums by more than 2 percent, even though her [own] department's projections show that.
Pres. Obama's newly appointed [head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau went on MSNBC today and in effect proclaimed that the right to petition government for the redress of government "scares" her. More disturbingly, Warren suggested we need to work on "dialing back" that right.
I want to say that I am shocked by the President's latest utterance about FOX News, but I fear that we have moved past shock into numbness. Mister Obama, in a chatty colloquy with the publisher of Rolling Stone, while being treated with deference befitting a royal, thought it sporting to hound FOX. That network is destructive to America, he said....
To use the Presidential bully pulpit as a blunt instrument against a news organization, to label its approach destructive, to label its content destructive, that is -- to coin a phrase -- destructive. Think back to our first clue that Hugo Chavez was an autocrat, bent on subverting those national institutions which did not refract his glory. It was when he came out against various newspapers and television stations, saying much the same things as our own El Presidente.
This President has again set a bad precedent. When I meet him next, in the polling booth in 2012, I hope it will not be too late to tell him what I think: "Hugo!"
Damn...I can't wait to see MEM's defense of that. My top choice is that he says it was only directed at supposed "astro-turf" groups.
And by "astro-turf", the Democrats mean individual citizens who voice their opinion in peaceful demonstrations and town hall meetings, who have gradually evolved into the Tea Party. And, y'know, definitely not the SEIU or other union members who are organized and bussed into events to intimidate and stifle free speech of anti-Obama protestors.
Fox News' Viewpoint "Destructive" for U.S. Growth, Obama Says Posted by Lucy Madison 436 comments Share 6060diggsdigg Share E-mail Print Font President Obama weighed in on Fox News in a recent interview with Rolling Stone (Credit: CBS) In this month's cover story for Rolling Stone magazine, President Obama weighs in on the cable network Fox News, saying that while he can't object to the network carrying out its constitutional right to freedom of the press, he thinks it promotes a perspective that is "ultimately destructive for the long-term growth" of America.
"Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press," Obama laughed, in response to a question from Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner about whether or not Fox News was "a good institution for America and for democracy."
"We've got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints," Mr. Obama said. "I think Fox is part of that tradition -- it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view." ...
SACRAMENTO, CA - An airline pilot is being disciplined by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for posting video on YouTube pointing out what he believes are serious flaws in airport security.
The 50-year-old pilot, who lives outside Sacramento, asked that neither he nor his airline be identified. He has worked for the airline for more than a decade and was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit.
He is also a helicopter test pilot in the Army Reserve and flew missions for the United Nations in Macedonia.
Three days after he posted a series of six video clips recorded with a cell phone camera at San Francisco International Airport, four federal air marshals and two sheriff's deputies arrived at his house to confiscate his federally-issued firearm. The pilot recorded that event as well and provided all the video to News10.
At the same time as the federal marshals took the pilot's gun, a deputy sheriff asked him to surrender his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.
A follow-up letter from the sheriff's department said the CCW permit would be reevaluated following the outcome of the federal investigation.
The YouTube videos, posted Nov. 28, show what the pilot calls the irony of flight crews being forced to go through TSA screening while ground crew who service the aircraft are able to access secure areas simply by swiping a card.
"As you can see, airport security is kind of a farce. It's only smoke and mirrors so you people believe there is actually something going on here," the pilot narrates.
Video shot in the cockpit shows a medieval-looking rescue ax available on the flight deck after the pilots have gone through the metal detectors. "I would say a two-foot crash ax looks a lot more formidable than a box cutter," the pilot remarked.
A letter from the TSA dated Dec. 6 informed the pilot that "an administrative review into your deputation status as a Federal Flight Deck Officer has been initiated."
According to the letter, the review was directly related to the discovery by TSA staff of the YouTube videos. "The content and subject of these videos may have violated regulations concerning disclosure of sensitive security information," the letter said.
The pilot's attorney, Don Werno of Santa Ana, said he believed the federal government sent six people to the house to send a message.
"And the message was you've angered us by telling the truth and by showing America that there are major security problems despite the fact that we've spent billions of dollars allegedly to improve airline safety," Werno said.
The pilot said he is not in trouble with his airline, but a supervisor asked him to remove public access to the YouTube videos.
He does, however, face potential civil penalties from the TSA. He said he would likely go public when it becomes clear what the government plans to do with him.
A public access television crew complained of police mistreatment Thursday, after trying to get a picture of President Barrack Obama.
Just after dawn Wednesday, the three-woman crew for a Big Island public access program called "We Are Change Hawaii" drove up to the barricade near the president's vacation home in Kailua.
Host B.J. Hampton was told they couldn't stay, so she spoke into the video camera as she returned to the car.
"OK, you know it Obama we're OK with you, you OK with us,” Hampton said on the tape, provided to KITV. “We just wanted to get a glimpse of you but we're moving on because this is a private street and we don't want to make anybody nervous. Aloha!” She waved to the Secret Service agents at the barricade as she climbed back into the car.
The crew was video-taping vehicle searches along the potential motorcade route as they left the neighborhood. They noticed a van behind them.
At this point Sherri Kane, who describes herself as an investigative journalist, looked into the camera and said, “Behind us we have the Secret Service following us now so this is kind of exciting.”
Exciting turned to scary after they pulled into a gas station. On their video, a police officer approached the car and said, “Stay in the car. Put that camera off of me.”
Producer Sativa Jones can be heard saying “OK.”
The women said police vehicles and up to five officers surrounded the car, demanded IDs and registration without explanation. Then without warning an officer reached into the car and grabbed Jones’ camera.
“He grabbed it out of my hand and then he slammed it on top of the car,” Jones said. She said the camera was damaged – the automatic lens cover no longer worked.
Jones’ fingers were gashed by the sharp edge on the camera mount. She said the officer appeared shaken by what he'd done and courteously showed her how to complain, writing his name and badge number on a card with contact information for the Honolulu Police Commission.
Kane said other officers on the scene would not let them make a criminal complaint against the officer who grabbed the camera.
“What went down was something that should not happen here in the United States of America,” Kane said. “You have all of these police officers that could be looking at legitimate or people who are really trying to harm the president. Instead, you have so many of them on us.”
Police would not comment on the specific incident but a spokesman said in protecting the President suspicious vehicles are taken very seriously.
Asked if it was legal for police officers to stop someone from videotaping an officer in a public place, the department said citizens are allowed to video in public places.
The Secret Service Office in Honolulu did not respond to telephone and e-mail requests for comment.
A local blogger who was critical of Rep. Billy Long during last year's congressional campaign has been interviewed by the FBI about his encounters with the congressman.
Clay Bowler, who lives in Christian County, says he was shocked to find an agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at his doorstep. Accompanying the agent was Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott.
While it's tempting for conservatives to cheer the terminationof the liberal blowhard {Keith Olbermann} from MSNBC, I have a bad feeling that the Obama administration will try and use this to ram through some of their proposals for regulating broadcast content and the internet.
Despite the fact that MSNBC will still feature liberals Matthews, Maddow, O'Donnell and Schultz as their big "stars," and despite the center-left bent to the big three networks and CNN, liberals are already using the Olbermann firing to advance the myth that there is nothing out there to balance against "Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the vast network of right-wing talk radio."
That sort of rhetoric typically comes shortly before the left takes another stab at censoring conservative media outlets. And with the Olbermann news coming on the heels of liberals trying to blame free speech for the Giffords shooting one can easily envision yet another attempt at censorship.
I read elsewhere it was a money play by Olbermann and he lost, doesn't mean of course the socialists won't use this as a way to attack free speech.
Yeah. Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and talk radio had nothing to do with the Giffords shooting either. But to this day the liberals are pretending it did.
So much for the new-and-improved, "I'm not a bully," Rahm Emanuel.
Since returning to Chicago to run for mayor, Emanuel has shied away from the public outbursts and vulgar language that famously earned him the nickname "Rahmbo."
But I've learned the new-and-improved Rahm has a way to punish the press when they report on stories he doesn't like.
He cuts off access.
This week NBCChicago and Ward Room published details of the Emanuel Inauguration, which includes a plan to charge donors up to $50,000 for a premium seat at the swearing-in on May 16th. While noting that there will be "free, open and accessible" events around the ceremony, our writers took him to task for being the first Chicago mayor to charge a fee of any sort for his inaugural.
The Emanuel team says that money will pay for the event and save the taxpayers.
So the day after the "Mini White House Inaugural" was reported, the Emanuel team refused to notify NBC of rare one-on-one interviews allotted to our competitors. The TV business is competitive, but typically politicians and public figures who are involved with big events grant the same access to all-comers.
When we asked why we were left out of the mix, the Emanuel communications team implied they weren't happy with the coverage of the VIP inauguration. They didn't challenge facts, but were upset with tone. So they left us out.
It's an old game ... kill the messenger not the message; cut off the access.
The story continued on Friday, when during a press conference about Chicago Public Schools changes, Emanuel abruptly left the podium before taking questions about his inaugural, nor would he comment on a report about incoming communications director Chris Mather, who has racked up nine personnel complaints during her time at the USDA (See the above video for the Emanuel reaction and how I tried to follow up him.)
Remember what outgoing Alderman Berny Stone said about preparing Emperor Emanuel? Which Rahm replied "My family says I don't look good in a toga."
Washington (CNN) -- Don't like the way airport screeners are doing their job? You might not want to complain too much while standing in line.
Arrogant complaining about airport security is one indicator Transportation Security Administration officers consider when looking for possible criminals and terrorists, CNN has learned exclusively. And, when combined with other behavioral indicators, it could result in a traveler facing additional scrutiny.
CNN has obtained a list of roughly 70 "behavioral indicators" that TSA behavior detection officers use to identify potentially "high risk" passengers at the nation's airports.
Many of the indicators, as characterized in open government reports, are behaviors and appearances that may be indicative of stress, fear or deception. None of them, as the TSA has long said, refer to or suggest race, religion or ethnicity.
But one addresses passengers' attitudes towards security, and how they express those attitudes.
It reads: "Very arrogant and expresses contempt against airport passenger procedures."
TSA officials declined to comment on the list of indicators, but said that no single indicator, taken by itself, is ever used to identify travelers as potentially high-risk passengers. Travelers must exhibit several indicators before behavior detection officers steer them to more thorough screening.
But a civil liberties organization said the list should not include behavior relating to the expression of opinions, even arrogant expressions of opinion.
I suppose they mean arrogant criticisms such as "quit feeling up that six year old." Or, factually pointing out that the TSA has stopped exactly zero terrorist attacks.
When the even-keeled and cool President Obama gets prickly in public, it never goes unnoticed.
For Obama, who has carefully cultivated a reputation of easily managing confrontations with people who disagree with him, these moments are as rare as they are revealing of the person behind the presidency.
So it’s no surprise that Washington took notice when after a tense interview with a Texas TV reporter on Monday, Obama unclipped his microphone with no smile in sight, and tersely warned, “Let me finish my answers next time we do an interview, all right?”
The president of the United States was not happy. Obama had been corrected (he lost Texas by 12 points, not “a few,” in 2008), he was accused of punishing the state for political reasons (he denied that the White House had any part in the decision not to award a space shuttle to Houston), and he was challenged with the most basic of political questions: Why are you so unpopular in Texas?
And all that in a setting the White House anticipated would be largely free of tricky questions.
The conservative media type Matt Drudge broadcasted word of the interview on his website’s banner spot with the headline “First time: Reporter turns aggressive with Obama,” accompanied by the image of Obama, mid-reprimand.
On Twitter on Tuesday morning, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer took the bait by responding to the interview, which had been bouncing around the beltway echo chamber for hours.
The White House often expects the toughest questions from reporters outside of Washington, not the easiest, Pfeiffer tweeted.
The problem: The reporter’s questions weren’t particularly difficult, but they were clearly not what Obama was expecting. The result was a viral video that depicted Obama as angry when faced with tough questioning. And it unveiled some of the degree to which the White House would like to control its message.
Pfeiffer was asked by Time reporter Michael Scherer, “So will WFAA's Brad Watson get another interview one day?”
Instead of quickly taking the high road, Pfeiffer suggested that Watson may truly be out in the cold after irritating the president. And he did it by revealing yet another trick of Washington communications: playing one news outlet against its rival.
“Right around the time we do our next interview with @TIME. I am kidding ... or am I. @Newsweek is on the other line,” Pfeiffer responded.
It wasn’t the first time Obama has gotten a bit of bravado from local reporters who are granted a rare 7-minute one-on-one with him.
In March, just hours before Obama announced the attack on Libya, Philadelphia news reporter Jim Gardner was warned by Obama’s aides that he wouldn’t be taking any questions on that subject. Gardner asked anyway.
“I think as was already mentioned to you, I’m not going to comment beyond the statement that I made today,” Obama responded flatly.
That interview, which aired late on a Friday night, was buried beneath the news that Obama had ordered the strike. The White House had dodged another slew of potential headlines declaring that Obama had evaded a request to clarify the mission in Libya, but just barely.
There’s no question that there are significant upsides to the White House arranging local sit-downs. Among other reasons, the interviews shoot instantly to the top of local evening and nightly broadcasts in key battleground states like Florida, Philadelphia and, apparently, Texas. And outside the beltway, reporters might ask focused questions that give Obama a chance to circumvent the national narrative and pitch the local impact of his policies.
But Obama’s latest interview indicates at least some of the potential downsides. Obama’s prickly response to Watson’s questioning not only made the local news, but it suddenly became the national news as well.
This is not so much new information about Obama, so much as it is establishing an enduring pattern for Obama. He has previously kicked reporters off his plane, and tried to shut out FOX News for daring to venture into actual reporting of his presidency, as opposed to joining the glowingly pro-Obama coverage of the remaining news networks, that equates itself to an Obama Ministry of Truth.
The hip, transparent and social media-loving Obama administration is showing its analog roots. And maybe even some hypocrisy highlights.
White House officials have banished one of the best political reporters in the country from the approved pool of journalists covering presidential visits to the Bay Area for using now-standard multimedia tools to gather the news.
The Chronicle's Carla Marinucci - who, like many contemporary reporters, has a phone with video capabilities on her at all times - pulled out a small video camera last week and shot some protesters interrupting an Obama fundraiser at the St. Regis Hotel.
She was part of a "print pool" - a limited number of journalists at an event who represent their bigger hoard colleagues - which White House press officials still refer to quaintly as "pen and pad" reporting.
But that's a pretty Flintstones concept of journalism for an administration that presents itself as the Jetsons. Video is every bit a part of any journalist's tool kit these days as a functioning pen that doesn't leak through your pocket.
In fact, Carla and her reporting colleague, Joe Garofoli, founded something called "Shaky Hand Productions" - the semi-pro, sometimes vertiginous use of a Flip or phone camera by Hearst reporters to catch more impromptu or urgent moments during last year's California gubernatorial race that might otherwise be missed by TV.
The name has become its own brand; often politicians even ask if anyone from Shaky Hand will show at their event. For Carla, Joe and reporters at other Hearst newsrooms where Shaky Hand has taken hold, this was an appropriate dive into use of other media by traditional journalists catering to audiences who expect their news delivered in all modes and manners.
That's the world we live in and the President of the United States claims to be one of its biggest advocates.
Just the day before Carla's Stone Age infraction, Mr. Obama was at Facebook seated next to its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, and may as well have been wearing an "I'm With Mark" t-shirt for all the mutual admiration going back and forth.
"The main reason we wanted to do this is," Obama said of his appearance, "first of all, because more and more people, especially young people, are getting their information through different media. And historically, part of what makes for a healthy democracy, what is good politics, is when you've got citizens who are informed, who are engaged."
Informed, in other words, through social and other digital media where videos of news are posted.
The President and his staffers deftly used social media like Twitter and Facebook in his election campaign and continue to extol the virtues and value. Except, apparently, when it comes to the press.
So what's up with the White House? We can't say because neither Press Secretary Jay Carney nor anyone from his staff would speak on the record.
Other sources confirmed that Carla was vanquished, including Chronicle editor Ward Bushee, who said he was "informed that Carla was removed as a pool reporter." Which shouldn't be a secret in any case because it's a fact that affects the newsgathering of our largest regional paper (and sfgate)and how local citizens get their information.
What's worse: more than a few journalists familiar with this story are aware of some implied threats from the White House of additional and wider punishment if Carla's spanking became public. Really? That's a heavy hand usually reserved for places other than the land of the free.
But bravery is a challenge, in particular for White House correspondents, most of whom are seasoned and capable journalists. They live a little bit in a gilded cage where they have access to the most powerful man in the world but must obey the rules whether they make sense or not.
CBS News reporter, Mark Knoller, has publicly protested the limited press access to Obama fundraisers, calling the policy "inconsistent." "It's no way to do business," wrote Politico's Julie Mason, "especially [for] a candidate who prides himself on transparency."
A 2009 blog by the White House Director of New Media states that "President Obama is committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history."
Not last week.
Mason referred to the San Francisco St. Regis protest as "a highly newsworthy event" where "reporters had to rely on written pool reports..."
Except, thanks to Carla's quick action with her camera, they didn't.
I get that all powerful people and institutions want to control their image and their message. That's part of their job, to create a mythology that allows them to continue being powerful.
But part of the press' job is to do the opposite, to strip away the cloaks and veneers. By banning her, and by not acknowledging how contemporary media works, the White House did not just put Carla in a cage but more like one of those stifling pens reserved for calves on their way to being veal.
Carla cannot do her job to the best of her ability if she can't use all the tools available to her as a journalist. The public still sees the videos posted by protesters and other St. Regis attendees, because the technology is ubiquitous. But the Obama Administration apparently wants to give the distinct advantage to citizen witnesses at the expense of professionals.
Why? Well, they won't tell us.
Some White House reporters are grumbling almost as much as the Administration about Carla's "breaking the rules." I can understand how they'd be irritated. If you didn't get the video because you understood you weren't supposed to, why should someone else get it who isn't following the longstanding civilized table manners?
The White House Press Correspondents' Association pool reporting guidelines warn about "no hoarding" of information and also say, "pool reports must be filed before any online story or blog." While uploading her video probably was the best way to file her report, Carla may have technically busted the letter of that law.
But the guidelines also say, "Print poolers can snap pictures or take video. They are not obliged to share these pictures...but can make them available if they so choose."
Then what guidelines is the White House applying here? Again, we don't know.
What the Administration should have done is to use this incident to precipitate a reasonable conversation about changing their 1950's policies into rules more suited to 2011. Dwight Eisenhower was the last President who let some new media air into the room when he lifted the ban on cameras at press conferences in 1952.
"We've come full circle here," Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Foundation's Project for Excellence in Journalism told me today. "A newspaper reporter is being punished because she took pictures with a moving camera. We live in a world where there are no longer distinctions. The White House is trying to live by 20th century distinctions."
The President's practice not just with transparency but in other dealings with the press has not been tracking his words, despite the cool glamour and easy conversation that makes him seem so much more open than the last guy.
It was his administration that decided to go after New York Times reporter James Risen to get at his source in a book he wrote about the CIA. For us here in SF who went through the BALCO case and other fisticuffs with the George W. Bush Attorney General's prosecutors, this is deja vu.
Late today, there were hints that the White House might be backing off the Carla Fatwa.
Barack Obama sold himself successfully as a fresh wind for the 21st century. In important matters of communication, technology, openness and the press, it's not too late for him to demonstrate that.
MEM, JLA what are your thoughts on the President of the United States punishing reporters for filming protests? This isn't Beck, Fox, or any of your boogeymen reporting this, it's a report by the San Francisco chronicle.
Is it scary that the press can be squashed? Or was this plebe deserving?
Update: In a pants-on-fire moment, the White House press office today denied anyone there had issued threats to remove Carla Marinucci and possibly other Hearst reporters from the press pool covering the President in the Bay Area.
Chronicle editor Ward Bushee called the press office on its fib:
Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday. It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges with key people in the White House communications office who told us they would remove our reporter, then threatened retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be removed after all.
The Chronicle's report is accurate.
If the White House has indeed decided not to ban our reporter, we would like an on-the-record notice that she will remain the San Francisco print pool reporter.
I was on some of those calls and can confirm Ward's statement.
SAN FRANCISCO – The White House says a San Francisco Chronicle reporter broke the rules when she put down her pen and picked up a video camera to film a protest. The newspaper says the Obama administration needs to join the 21st century.
Marinucci was covering the event when about a half-dozen protesters who paid a combined $76,000 to attend the breakfast broke into a song chastising Obama for the government's treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst suspected of illegally passing government secrets to the WikiLeaks website.
"We paid our dues, where's our change?" the protesters sang.
Although a print reporter, Marinucci is seldom seen without a small video recorder while covering politicians. She captured video of the protest, which was posted with her written story in the online edition of the Chronicle and on its politics blog.
Editor Ward Bushee said in the Chronicle's story Friday that the paper acted within its rights to cover the newsworthy incident.
He also said White House officials in off-the-record conversations Thursday threatened to bar Marinucci from pool coverage of future presidential appearances. He added that the officials, whom Bushee did not name, threatened to freeze out Chronicle and other Hearst Newspaper chain reporters if they reported on the threat against Marinucci.
"We expect our reporters to use the reporting tools they have to cover the news, and Carla did," Bushee said in the Chronicle story. The White House rule against print reporters shooting and posting video is "objectionable and just is not in sync with how reporters are doing their jobs these days." he said.
"The White House of course would have no problem including any reporter who follows the rules in pool-only events," he said.
The White House should rethink those rules in an era when few reporters limit their coverage to just one medium, and when several other attendees not with the media were taking their own video of the protest, Bushee said.
The protesters' own footage ended up appearing on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."
The fundraiser came a day after Obama appeared at the Palo Alto headquarters of Facebook, praising the social media giant for enabling a more open, two-way conversation between citizens and politicians. The president said he was interested in holding the event, billed as a social media town hall, because young people especially were now getting their information through a range of different media.
Dan Gillmor, a media critic and head of the Knight Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University, said the White House needs to update the rules for its pool reports to match the realities of 21stcentury reporting.
A small weekly paper in California claims that a White House official asked it to remove a sentence from a “benign” feature about Marine One because it reflected poorly on first lady Michelle Obama.
In an email to The Daily Caller, Gina Channell-Allen, president of the Pleasanton Weekly in Pleasanton, California, said that her paper “received a call from the White House asking us to take out part of the story because it reflected poorly on the First Lady.”
The story in question was a soft feature about Marine One titled, “Inside Marine One, President Obama’s helicopter,” that ran in the paper on April 20. Pleasanton staffer Amory Gutierrez “didn’t get to ride in ‘Marine One,’” she wrote in her story, “but I did get the VIP tour and took photographs of the otherwise unseen aircraft.”
She also wrote a sentence that the White House thought made FLOTUS look snooty.
“Basically the reporter said that the First Lady didn’t speak to the pilots but acknowledged them by making eye contact,” Allen wrote in her email.
Allen says she “complied” with the White House’s request “because it was not worth making a fuss over.”
She added, “I thought it was interesting, though, that the [White House] was concerned enough about image to contact a little weekly paper in Pleasanton.”
As if Obama's attempts to discredit and shut down Fox News, or periodically kick reporters off his plane for asking the wrong questions (i.e., silencing all dissenting media) didn't make that clear enough already.
I think the thread pretty clearly shows that you posted, I posted a link to what you posted, making it obvious where your original post was, and then responded.
Again, if you don't want people to respond, or only want them to respond in a way with which you agree, you probably shouldn't post here.
I think the thread pretty clearly shows that you posted, I posted a link to what you posted, making it obvious where your original post was, and then responded.
Why don't you two have your hot gay hate sex and get it over with. Your attraction to each other is obvious and, quite frankly, the board is sick of being used for your secret lust.
Why don't you two have your hot gay hate sex and get it over with. Your attraction to each other is obvious and, quite frankly, the board is sick of being used for your secret lust.
Wait.... If you believe there to be something obvious, how can you then call it secret? Also, do you not know where the question mark is on the keyboard?
On Friday, Melaleuca CEO Frank VanderSloot told Fox News' Greta van Susteren that his children have apparently become targets of the President's allies.
"There’s been a ton of electronic media… that have lodged all kind of innuendo in my direction, accused me of all kinds of bad things. People have called my children. They’ve been surfing their LinkedIn sites. They’ve been asking interviews of my kids,“ he said.
VanderSloot, one of the eight Romney donors targeted by Obama's re-election campaign on a website in late April, made the allegation in a phone interview from Idaho Falls, ID. The reason for the scrutiny: VanderSloot contributed $1 million to Romney's Super PAC.
In a recent Wall Street Journal column, Kimberley A. Strassel wrote:
About a week after that post, a man named Michael Wolf contacted the Bonneville County Courthouse in Idaho Falls in search of court records regarding Mr. VanderSloot. Specifically, Mr. Wolf wanted all the documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot's divorces, as well as a case involving a dispute with a former Melaleuca employee.
According to Strassel, "until a few months ago," Wolf worked as "a law clerk on the Democratic side of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations." Now, Strassel adds, it seems Wolf has found new work with a company called Fusion GPS, which Strassel says, "describes itself as providing 'strategic intelligence,' with expertise in areas like 'politics.'"
"That's a polite way of saying 'opposition research,'" she added.
Since then, she wrote, "[b]loggers have harassed his children, visiting their social media accounts and asking for interviews and information."
"Although there are no records indicating Fusion or Wolf have been paid by the Democratic National Committee, Strassel notes that 'it is not uncommon to hire a less controversial third party, which then hires the researchers,'” Becket Adams wrote at The Blaze.
As a result of the scrutiny brought to bear by the President's allies, Vandersloot says his business has taken a beating.
"Those people that I know well weren't affected by this [attack]," he said. "But for people who didn't know me, who are members of our business or customers, and they were reading this, then we got a barrage of phone calls of people cancelling their customer memberships with us."
According to Vandersloot, about "a couple hundred" cancellations have taken place as a result of the attacks.
"Do you have any grounds to sue?" van Susteren asked.
"I suppose we do," he replied.
He added that the allegations of being "anti-gay" could not be farther from the truth, and he is not backing down.
"I'm going to support [Romney] more than I was originally," he said.
"Still. If details about Mr. VanderSloot's life become public, and if this hurts his business or those who work for him, Mr. Obama will bear responsibility. This is what happens when the president makes a list," Strassel wrote.
A pretty standard practice for Obama, and the ruthless Democrat zealots who follow him.
As demonstrated by Democrat employees within Ohio's government, who abused their authority to pull up information on "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher, to better harass, intimidate and discredit him, for daring ask questions that humiliated the Annointed One. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/31/new...oe-the-plumber/
As demonstrated by Eric Holder's justice department in refusing to prosecute the Black Panthers voter intimidation case, a slam-dunk case, that even liberal human rights attorney and 1968 RFK campaign manager Bartyl Bull called "the most blatant case of voter intimidation I've ever seen."
As demonstrated by Obama's attempts to shut down Fox News. (i.e., his intended first blow against all dissenting speech, that fortunately failed because the other networks --for once-- sided with Fox News.)
As demonstrated by Obama, Reid and Pelosi's ramming through Obamacare, despite that 53% of the American people polled at the time said they didn't want it passed.
That number has now risen to 56%.
As demonstrated by the many examples in this topic, and more.
Mandatory Campaign Advertising: Health-insurance companies must tell customers who get a premium rebate this summer that the check is the result of the Obama administration's health-care law.
There's no corresponding requirement that insurers inform customers if and when premiums go up as a result of the law.
On Friday, Melaleuca CEO Frank VanderSloot told Fox News' Greta van Susteren that his children have apparently become targets of the President's allies.
"There’s been a ton of electronic media… that have lodged all kind of innuendo in my direction, accused me of all kinds of bad things. People have called my children. They’ve been surfing their LinkedIn sites. They’ve been asking interviews of my kids,“ he said.
VanderSloot, one of the eight Romney donors targeted by Obama's re-election campaign on a website in late April, made the allegation in a phone interview from Idaho Falls, ID. The reason for the scrutiny: VanderSloot contributed $1 million to Romney's Super PAC.
In a recent Wall Street Journal column, Kimberley A. Strassel wrote:
About a week after that post, a man named Michael Wolf contacted the Bonneville County Courthouse in Idaho Falls in search of court records regarding Mr. VanderSloot. Specifically, Mr. Wolf wanted all the documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot's divorces, as well as a case involving a dispute with a former Melaleuca employee.
According to Strassel, "until a few months ago," Wolf worked as "a law clerk on the Democratic side of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations." Now, Strassel adds, it seems Wolf has found new work with a company called Fusion GPS, which Strassel says, "describes itself as providing 'strategic intelligence,' with expertise in areas like 'politics.'"
"That's a polite way of saying 'opposition research,'" she added.
Since then, she wrote, "[b]loggers have harassed his children, visiting their social media accounts and asking for interviews and information."
"Although there are no records indicating Fusion or Wolf have been paid by the Democratic National Committee, Strassel notes that 'it is not uncommon to hire a less controversial third party, which then hires the researchers,'” Becket Adams wrote at The Blaze.
As a result of the scrutiny brought to bear by the President's allies, Vandersloot says his business has taken a beating.
"Those people that I know well weren't affected by this [attack]," he said. "But for people who didn't know me, who are members of our business or customers, and they were reading this, then we got a barrage of phone calls of people cancelling their customer memberships with us."
According to Vandersloot, about "a couple hundred" cancellations have taken place as a result of the attacks.
"Do you have any grounds to sue?" van Susteren asked.
"I suppose we do," he replied.
He added that the allegations of being "anti-gay" could not be farther from the truth, and he is not backing down.
"I'm going to support [Romney] more than I was originally," he said.
"Still. If details about Mr. VanderSloot's life become public, and if this hurts his business or those who work for him, Mr. Obama will bear responsibility. This is what happens when the president makes a list," Strassel wrote.
...
Vandersloot has a high ranking position with Romney's campaign and it's deceptive of FOX to portay him as just a private citizen. He also has a history of suing people or threatning litigation. As for his allegation that he's not anti-gay... salon.com
Vandersloot has a high ranking position with Romney's campaign and it's deceptive of FOX to portay him as just a private citizen. He also has a history of suing people or threatning litigation. As for his allegation that he's not anti-gay... salon.com
And that makes it okay to intimidate him into silence, slander him as a homophobe, and attempt to destroy his business? Just for supporting Romney and giving the Romney campaign 1 million dollars?
That is his right. What Obama and his cronies are doing is trying make an example of Vandersloot, to publicly intimidate, harass and financially damage him, as a deterrant to other potential Republican donors. That is abuse of authority, and Chicago-style intimidation politics. Vandersloot is a private citizen, with a right to support whoever he wants, even if it is --to the exasperation of you and other Democrats-- NOT barack Obama.
Bill Maher gave Obama a check for 1 million dollars. Likewise Spike Lee. And last weekend George Clooney and other hollywood elites gave Obama another 15 million dollars. None of these Obama supporters were subjected to the same intimidation tactics that Obama has unleashed on GOP supporters.
Vandersloot has a high ranking position with Romney's campaign and it's deceptive ... to portay him as just a private citizen.
Unless he's a government official he is a private citizen.
If actively supporting candidates and causes, or even donating to them, somehow means a person loses their right to privacy and deserves to be harassed by the candidates' opponents, does that mean you'd like me to start publishing your real name, occupation and address? Not to mention your sexual history?
Not that I have all those things, mind you. I mean, someone would have to have connections in the government and subpoena power to get shit like that...or pay careful attention when a dumbass posts it here
[quote=Matter-eater Man] Vandersloot has a high ranking position with Romney's campaign and it's deceptive of FOX to portay him as just a private citizen. He also has a history of suing people or threatning litigation. As for his allegation that he's not anti-gay... salon.com
And that makes it okay to intimidate him into silence, slander him as a homophobe, and attempt to destroy his business? Just for supporting Romney and giving the Romney campaign 1 million dollars?
It's pretty clear that he hasn't been intimidated into silence. If you read the Slate article he's actually the one who does the intimidating. Also most gays I know don't really care to support somebody who has put up the billboards he did. Vandersloot is one of Romney's high ranking campaign people. If it was Obama's campaign person you would say it was fair game and call it vetting.
Vandersloot has a high ranking position with Romney's campaign and it's deceptive ... to portay him as just a private citizen.
Unless he's a government official he is a private citizen.
I would argue that a high ranking campaign person like Vandersloot is actually a public figure.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
If actively supporting candidates and causes, or even donating to them, somehow means a person loses their right to privacy and deserves to be harassed by the candidates' opponents, does that mean you'd like me to start publishing your real name, occupation and address? Not to mention your sexual history?
Not that I have all those things, mind you. I mean, someone would have to have connections in the government and subpoena power to get shit like that...or pay careful attention when a dumbass posts it here
Vandersloot has a high ranking position with Romney's campaign and it's deceptive of FOX to portay him as just a private citizen. He also has a history of suing people or threatning litigation. As for his allegation that he's not anti-gay... salon.com
And that makes it okay to intimidate him into silence, slander him as a homophobe, and attempt to destroy his business? Just for supporting Romney and giving the Romney campaign 1 million dollars?
It's pretty clear that he hasn't been intimidated into silence. If you read the Slate article he's actually the one who does the intimidating. Also most gays I know don't really care to support somebody who has put up the billboards he did. Vandersloot is one of Romney's high ranking campaign people. If it was Obama's campaign person you would say it was fair game and call it vetting.
He hasn't been intimidated, because he is courageous in the face of intimidation, and is now angry that not only he, but also his sons, are being targeted.
It's a case of: Support Romney 100% at this point after Obama's attacks, or just sit back and wait for the second shoe to drop, if Obama and his thugs get a second term.
He hasn't been intimidated, because he is courageous in the face of intimidation, and is now angry that not only he, but also his sons, are being targeted.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Hypocrite
Yeah. I remember how "courageous" it was for President Obama when you and the rest of the Rightwing Racists were trying to validate personal racial attacks made against he and his family.
Your hypocrisy is astounding. You have absolutely no concept of objectivity. Pathetic.
He hasn't been intimidated, because he is courageous in the face of intimidation, and is now angry that not only he, but also his sons, are being targeted.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Hypocrite
Yeah. I remember how "courageous" it was for President Obama when you and the rest of the Rightwing Racists were trying to validate personal racial attacks made against he and his family.
Your hypocrisy is astounding. You have absolutely no concept of objectivity. Pathetic.
He hasn't been intimidated, because he is courageous in the face of intimidation, and is now angry that not only he, but also his sons, are being targeted.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Hypocrite
Yeah. I remember how "courageous" it was for President Obama when you and the rest of the Rightwing Racists were trying to validate personal racial attacks made against he and his family.
Your hypocrisy is astounding. You have absolutely no concept of objectivity. Pathetic.
That... doesn't even make sense.
You don't remember the councilwoman or whatever sending around the Obama = monkey's racist cartoon awhile back? You don't remember our debate because you thought it was "innocent humor", while Bastard, Knut, and the rest of the world explained that, no, comparing a black person to a monkey is not "innocent humor"? You really don't remember that? How conveniently selective of you...
Politico: Is Obama engaged in a double standard, giving insider access to Hollywood types making a movie about the bin Laden raid is acceptable, even carried out at high levels of the administration, while, other lower-level people who allegedly reveal information are prosecuted with zeal?
He hasn't been intimidated, because he is courageous in the face of intimidation, and is now angry that not only he, but also his sons, are being targeted.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Hypocrite
Yeah. I remember how "courageous" it was for President Obama when you and the rest of the Rightwing Racists were trying to validate personal racial attacks made against he and his family.
Your hypocrisy is astounding. You have absolutely no concept of objectivity. Pathetic.
That... doesn't even make sense.
You don't remember the councilwoman or whatever sending around the Obama = monkey's racist cartoon awhile back? You don't remember our debate because you thought it was "innocent humor", while Bastard, Knut, and the rest of the world explained that, no, comparing a black person to a monkey is not "innocent humor"? You really don't remember that? How conveniently selective of you...
You have a slanderously distorted memory.
I remember myself and every other Republican on these boards condemning the e-mail as an action stupid enough that this woman should lose her political position.
I recall repeatedly, for 20 pages or more of the topic, saying that no one, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE, among Republicans supported this lady, and yet post after post, page after page, you slanderously alleged "Republicans are all racist, and they support this lady's e-mail."
i.e., you're a lying piece of shit, and will advance any blatant untruth to advance your partisan liberal fanaticism.
He hasn't been intimidated, because he is courageous in the face of intimidation, and is now angry that not only he, but also his sons, are being targeted.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Hypocrite
Yeah. I remember how "courageous" it was for President Obama when you and the rest of the Rightwing Racists were trying to validate personal racial attacks made against he and his family.
Your hypocrisy is astounding. You have absolutely no concept of objectivity. Pathetic.
That... doesn't even make sense.
You don't remember the councilwoman or whatever sending around the Obama = monkey's racist cartoon awhile back? You don't remember our debate because you thought it was "innocent humor", while Bastard, Knut, and the rest of the world explained that, no, comparing a black person to a monkey is not "innocent humor"? You really don't remember that? How conveniently selective of you...
I'll be happy when the Alinskyite who occupies the White House with his Red Army have vacated and moved back to Illinois, or Kenya or whatever.
Obama has done everything he can to destroy our Constitutional democracy, our border security, our military capability, our nuclear deterrant, and to undermine our sovereignty under expansion of U.N. authority before things like Cap-and-Trade, and the Law of the Sea treaty (LOST). He will further crush jobs and industry if he manages to be re-elected, increase our foreign oil dependence, and drive the coal industry out of business.
Consistent with his indoctrinated Cloward and Piven strategy, he has increased our national debt by over 40% in less than 4 years, and rapidly climbing. A path even his own CBO calls "unsustainable", and his joint chief of staff calls the single greatest threat to our national security.
And that's not even covering the extent of his radical marxist and other anti-American associations and black liberation theology, in Frank MArshall Davis, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Prof. Derrick "hate whitey" Bell, Rashid Khalidi, Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones, Ron Bloom, Mark Lloyd and all the rest.
And of course, the latest manifestation, how Obama is leaking top secret information that alienates our allies and deters cooperation with the U.S. by any person or nation in the future.
Obama is a threat to this country every moment he remains in office.
Internal emails between senior officials at The Gallup Organization, obtained by The Daily Caller, show senior Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod attempting to subtly intimidate the respected polling firm when its numbers were unfavorable to the president.
After Gallup declined to change its polling methodology, Obama’s Department of Justice hit it with an unrelated lawsuit that appears damning on its face.
TheDC is withholding the identities of the Gallup officials to protect them from potential retaliation from Obama’s campaign and his administration. (SEE ALSO: DOJ still hasn’t served Gallup with lawsuit)
In April, Axelrod tweeted that a poll showing Mitt Romney with a 48-43 percent lead over Obama was “saddled with some methodological problems,” directing his Twitter followers to read a National Journal story criticizing Gallup polls showing a Romney lead.
In that National Journal piece, Ron Brownstein wrote that the polls showing Romney leading the president had “a sample that looks much more like the electorate in 2010 than the voting population that is likely to turn out in 2012.”
Internally, Gallup officials discussed via email how to respond Axelrod’s accusations. One suggested that it “seems like a pretty good time for a blog response,” and named a potential writer.
In response to that suggestion, another senior Gallup official wrote — in an email chain titled “Axelrod vs. Gallup” — that the White House “has asked” a senior Gallup staffer “to come over and explain our methodology too.”
Apparently this involves a 2008 Obama campaign staffer (i.e., Obama zealot) who after 2008 worked for Gallup and later either quit or was fired, who is now the star witness against Gallup to discredit Gallup's polling precedures (and in the process discredit any Gallup polls that reflect badly on Obama).
Nobody in the U.S. government, least of all the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff acting in his official capacity, should be calling Terry Jones or any other American citizen about the Mohammed spoof. Not only does that elevate Jones to some sort of semi-official status, but spoofs of deities are entirely within our rights and absolutely no business of the government’s. The U.S. government should not be taking an official position on the Mohammed spoof. It is entirely outside the official competence of United States military to be calling private citizens asking them be quiet, especially when they are exercising a constitutional right. Offending people is not an incitement to violence. Otherwise I could get everyone who wears a Che Guevara t-shirt brought up on charges of incitement.
So the Obama government is now hunting down a guy who exercised his right of free speech, rather than, y'know, hunting down the islamic terrorists who killed our Libya ambassador and three of his embassy staff, and burned much of our embassy building.
It's an inspiration to anti-Muslim opposiion everywhere that Rushdie is still alive, 20 or so years after he published Satanic Verses.
If we don't stand up to muslim fanaticism now, they'll just continue the slaughter of moderates and Christians in their own country, and eventually turn Europe, the U.S. and Canada into Caliphates too.
n early meetings with the inaugural committee, officials privately indicated to reporters that the Jan. 20 event could be closed to reporters and cameras, with an official photograph supplied to press by White House photographer Pete Souza, sources familiar with the meeting told POLITICO.
Fears of such a scenario were reignited this week when the Presidential Inauguration Committee sent out a press release, referring to a “private” inauguration.
Both the White House and the committee note that “private” simply means the event is not open to the public and that press arrangements have not been formalized.
The White House press corps acknowledges that nothing is set in stone. But even the possibility of a closed-press inauguration has stirred up immense frustration among the White House press corps, who note that past Sunday inaugurations were open to press.
“Call me shell-shocked. I’m stunned that this is even an issue; it boggles the mind,” NBC News White House correspondent Chuck Todd told POLITICO. “This is not their oath, this is the constitutional oath. It’s not for them. It’s for the public, the citizens of the United Sates. It just boggles the mind. How is this even a debate?”
Minutes from this week’s WHCA meeting noted “strong sentiment that the entire press pool must witness the moment.”
“We are urging the White House to reconsider any preliminary plans they have at the moment to keep this as a closed event,” C-SPAN political Editor Steve Scully told POLITICO. “This is a historic event and it should be chronicled by news organizations. At a minimum, it should be a pooled event.”
I'm sure that the possibility of closing the ceremony has nothing to do with Obama wanting to take the Oath of Office on the Koran...
Interesting also how on Obama's recent trip to the Middle East, he stood and gave a speech in front of an image of Palestinian terrorist leader Arafat.
So... Obama is more comfortable with images of terrorists than symbols of Christianity.
It says quite a bit about Obama's actions toward Christians and religious freedom. And his comfort with anti-American radical islam, that he advances over U.S. national interests and allies.
The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status, a top IRS official said Friday.
Organizations were singled out because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups.
In some cases, groups were asked for their list of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.
"That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association....
"Today's acknowledgement by the Obama administration that the IRS did in fact target conservative groups in the heat of last year's national election is not enough," McConnell said. "I call on the White House to conduct a transparent, government-wide review aimed at assuring the American people that these thuggish practices are not under way at the IRS or elsewhere in the administration against anyone, regardless of their political views."
And scary at the same time. Hannity and Limbaugh have both openly said they were audited during the Clinton years, and now the IRS is being used as a weapon to harass conservatives under Obama.
Interesting pattern, from a DNC that axalts themselves as the defenders of free speech, and demonizes their conservative opposition as the repressive nazis who want to take away others' rights.
Obama just had a press conference in the Rose Garden outside the White House, with the Turkey prime minister, and answered questions from reporters about the IRS scandal.
It's a combination of laughable and infuriating, that Obama can front "Ohh gee, this is awful that the IRS was biaseedly used to attack conservatives, we can't permit that." EVERYTHING this president and his administration has done since taking office has been along this same trajectory, of abusing federal authority to attack Obama's and the Democrats' political enemies.
Obama tried to deny Fox News interviews and access to the White House, before (incredibly) the liberal media came to Fox's defense, and Obama backed down.
The homeland security memo to investigate military veterans and Tea Party members as a "potential terrorist threat".
Plus many other examples.
The clusterfuck of new scandals, intimidating Benghazi witnesses, Holder's Justice Dept taking AP phone logs to unveil AP's sources in and around the Obama administration, and the IRS that has unquestionably harassed and denied service to conservative Tea Party groups, as well as harassing pro-Israel groups and harassing other political opposition, just follows the consistent path of Chicago-style bullying and intimidation of political opponents.
I'm amazed that Obama can deny this with a straight face.
we need to use major authoritarian measures against wingnuts and theocrats to save this country. That in particular includes deprogramming institutions and a Gitmo like camp to deal with the worst wingnuts. These people should be removed from general society and need to be shut up.
I have believed this for years, but the behavior of the wingnuts at the McCain and Palin rallies further underscores the need to take harsh action against these people. Lincoln and FDR had to bend the Constitution at times, and I hope Obama has the guts to do so too to deal with these third rate creatures.
How would you feel if aides to the president of the United States singled you out by name for attack, and if you were featured prominently in the president's re-election campaign as an enemy of the people?
What would you do if the White House engaged in derogatory speculative innuendo about the integrity of your tax returns? Suppose also that the president's surrogates and allies in the media regularly attacked you, sullied your reputation and questioned your integrity. On top of all of that, what if a leading member of the president's party in Congress demanded your appearance before a congressional committee this week so that you could be interrogated about the Keystone XL oil pipeline project in which you have repeatedly—and accurately—stated that you have no involvement?
Consider that all this is happening because you have been selected as an attractive political punching bag by the president's re-election team. This is precisely what has happened to Charles and David Koch, even though they are private citizens, and neither is a candidate for the president's or anyone else's office.
What Messrs. Koch do, in fact, is manage businesses that provide employment to more than 50,000 people in North America in legitimate, productive industries. They also give millions of dollars to medical researchers, hospitals and cultural institutions. Their biggest offense, apparently, is that they also contribute generously to nonprofit organizations that promote personal liberty and free enterprise, and some of those organizations oppose policies advocated by the president.
Richard Nixon maintained an"enemies list" that singled out private citizens for investigation and abuse by agencies of government, including the Internal Revenue Service. When that was revealed, the press and public were outraged. That conduct will forever remain one of the indelible stains on Nixon's presidency and legacy.
When Joseph McCarthy engaged in comparable bullying, oppression and slander from his powerful position in the Senate, he was censured by his colleagues and died in disgrace."McCarthyism," defined by Webster's as the "use of unfair investigative and accusatory methods to suppress opposition," will forever be synonymous with un-Americanism. Army counsel Joseph Welch's "Have you no sense of decency?" are words that evoke the McCarthy era and diminish the reputations of his colleagues who did nothing to stand up to him.
In this country, we regard the use of official power to oppress or intimidate private citizens as a despicable abuse of authority and entirely alien to our system of a government of laws. The architects of our Constitution meticulously erected a system of separated powers, and checks and balances, precisely in order to inhibit the exercise of tyrannical power by governmental officials.
Our Constitution even explicitly prohibits bills of attainder so that Congress may not single out individual citizens or groups for disfavored treatment or unequal application of the force of government. Prosecutorial power is rigidly constrained and judicially supervised so that government may not accuse private citizens of crimes or investigate them without good cause.
Whoever may be the victim of such abuse of governmental authority, the press and public almost invariably unify with indignation against it. If a journalist, labor-union leader or community organizer on the left can be targeted today, an academic or business person on the right can be the target tomorrow. If we fail to stand up against oppression from one direction, we abdicate the moral authority to challenge it when it comes from another.
This is why it is exceedingly important for all Americans to respond with outrage to what the president and his allies are doing to demonize and stigmatize David and Charles Koch. They have been the targets of the multiyear, carefully orchestrated campaign of vituperation and assault described above—and much more. It has been choreographed from the very top. When the president personally takes leadership, his political surrogates and army of allies in the press and Congress quickly and surely follow the direction and tone he sets.
The misuse of government power to damage or demean one's political enemies is abhorrent and the very antithesis of a free society and a government of laws, not men. It is time for the public to ask those engaged in these practices, "Have you no sense of decency?"
____________________________________
Mr. Olson, a lawyer in Washington, D.C., and a former solicitor general of the United States, represents Koch Industries.
A very prominent attorney, warning of IRS abuse, from the most prominent conservative paper in the United States, 16 months ago.
In addition to the vocal cries and legal action by Tea Party, pro-Israel and othr groups, protesting similar discriminatory treatment by the IRS since at least 2010.
There were warning flares all over the place, but the Obama administration did nothing to stop IRS abuses until the story exploded into the national media. Even then, the Obama administration only discussed it as damage control, to spin the IRS abuses in a slightly less damning light, a few days ahead of an investigative report to be released on the IRS abuses.
Because it it not an abberation that happened on Obama's watch, but a consistent Obama tactic, abusing government power to crush his enemies.
Mitt Romney presents one enormous problem for Barack Obama's campaign: No divorce records. That's why the media are so hot to get their hands on Romney's tax records for the past 25 years. They need something to "pick through, distort and lie about" -- as the Republican candidate says.
Obama's usual campaign method, used in 100 percent of his races, has been to pry into the private records of his opponents.
Democrats aren't going to find any personal dirt on the clean-cut Mormon, so they need complicated tax filings going back decades in order to create the illusion of scandal out of boring financial records.
Romney has already released his 2010 tax return and is about to release his 2011 return. After all the huffing and puffing by the media demanding those returns, the follow-up story vanished remarkably quickly when the only thing the return showed was that Romney pays millions of dollars in taxes and gives a lot of money to charity.
Let's take a romp down memory lane and review the typical Obama campaign strategy. Obama became a U.S. senator only by virtue of David Axelrod's former employer, the Chicago Tribune, ripping open the sealed divorce records of Obama's two principal opponents.
One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader. But then the Chicago Tribune leaked the claim that Hull's second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.
Those records were under seal, but as The New York Times noted: "The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had 'worked aggressively behind the scenes' to push the story." Many people said Axelrod had "an even more significant role -- that he leaked the initial story."
Both Hull and his ex-wife opposed releasing their sealed divorce records, but they finally relented in response to the media's hysteria -- 18 days before the primary. Hull was forced to spend four minutes of a debate detailing the abuse allegation in his divorce papers, explaining that his ex-wife "kicked me in the leg and I hit her shin to try to get her to not continue to kick me."
After having held a substantial lead just a month before the primary, Hull's campaign collapsed with the chatter about his divorce. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.
As luck would have it, Obama's opponent in the general election had also been divorced! Jack Ryan was tall, handsome, Catholic -- and shared a name with one of Harrison Ford's most popular onscreen characters! He went to Dartmouth, Harvard Law and Harvard Business School, made hundreds of millions of dollars as a partner at Goldman Sachs, and then, in his early 40s, left investment banking to teach at an inner city school on the South Side of Chicago.
Ryan would have walloped Obama in the Senate race. But at the request of -- again -- the Chicago Tribune, California Judge Robert Schnider unsealed the custody papers in Ryan's divorce five years earlier from Hollywood starlet Jeri Lynn Ryan, the bombshell Borg on "Star Trek: Voyager."
Jack Ryan had released his tax records. He had released his divorce records. But both he and his ex-wife sought to keep the custody records under seal to protect their son.
Amid the 400 pages of filings from the custody case, Jack Ryan claimed that his wife had had an affair, and she counterclaimed with the allegation that he had taken her to "sex clubs" in Paris, New York and New Orleans, which drove her to fall in love with another man.
(Republicans: If you plan a career in public office, please avoid marrying a wacko.)
Ryan had vehemently denied her allegations at the time, but it didn't matter. The sex club allegations aired on "Entertainment Tonight," "NBC Nightly News," ABC's "Good Morning America," "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," and NBC's "Today" show. CNN covered the story like it was the first moon landing.
(Interestingly, international papers also were ablaze with the story -- the same newspapers that were supposed to be so bored with American sexual mores during Bill Clinton's sex scandal.)
Four days after Judge Schnider unsealed the custody records, Ryan dropped out of the race for the horror of (allegedly) propositioning his own wife and then taking "no" for an answer.
Alan Keyes stepped in as a last-minute Republican candidate.
And that's how Obama became a U.S. senator. He destroyed both his Democratic primary opponent and his Republican general election opponent with salacious allegations about their personal lives taken from "sealed" court records.
Obama's team delved into Sarah Palin's marriage and spread rumors of John McCain's alleged affair in 2008 and they smeared Herman Cain in 2011 with hazy sexual harassment allegations all emanating from David Axelrod's pals in Chicago.
It's almost like a serial killer's signature. Unsealed personal records have been released to the press. Obama must be running for office!
So you can see what a pickle the Obama campaign is in having to run against a Dudley Do-Right, non-drinking, non-smoking, God-fearing, happily married Mormon.
They've got to get their hands on thousands of pages of Romney's tax filings so that the media can -- as Romney says -- lie about them. It will be interesting to see if Obama can pick the lock of the famously guarded IRS.
The steady pattern of abuse by Obama and his staff...
First they came for Fox News, and they did not speak out—because they were not Fox News. Then they came for government whistleblowers, and they did not speak out—because they were not government whistleblowers. Then they came for the maker of a YouTube video, and—okay, we know how this story ends. But how did we get here?
Turns out it’s a fairly swift sojourn from a president pushing to “delegitimize” a news organization to threatening criminal prosecution for journalistic activity by a Fox News reporter, James Rosen, to spying on Associated Press reporters. In between, the Obama administration found time to relentlessly persecute government whistleblowers and publicly harass and condemn a private American citizen for expressing his constitutionally protected speech in the form of an anti-Islam YouTube video.
Where were the media when all this began happening? With a few exceptions, they were acting as quiet enablers.
It’s instructive to go back to the dawn of Hope and Change. It was 2009, and the new administration decided it was appropriate to use the prestige of the White House to viciously attack a news organization -—Fox News—- and the journalists who work there.
Remember, President Obama had barely been in office and had enjoyed the most laudatory press of any new president in modern history. Yet even one outlet that allowed dissent or criticism of the president was one too many. This should have been a red flag to everyone, regardless of what they thought of Fox News. The math was simple: if the administration would abuse its power to try and intimidate one media outlet, what made anyone think they weren’t next?
President Obama went after Fox News in this 2009 interview with CNBC.
These series of “warnings” to the Fourth Estate were what you might expect to hear from some third-rate dictator, not from the senior staff of Hope and Change, Inc.
"What I think is fair to say about Fox … is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party," said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. “[L]et's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."
On ABC’s “This Week” White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Fox is "not really a news station."
It wasn’t just that Fox News was “not a news organization,” White House chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel told CNN’s John King, but, “more [important], is [to] not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization …”
These series of “warnings” to the Fourth Estate were what you might expect to hear from some third-rate dictator, not from the senior staff of Hope and Change, Inc.
Yet only one mainstream media reporter—Jake Tapper, then of ABC News—ever raised a serious objection to the White House’s egregious and chilling behavior. Tapper asked future MSNBC commentator and then White House press secretary Robert Gibbs: “[W]hy is [it] appropriate for the White House to say” that “thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a ‘news organization’?” The spokesman for the president of the United States was unrepentant, saying: “That's our opinion.”
Trashing reporters comes easy in Obama-land. Behind the scenes, Obama-centric Democratic operatives brand any reporter who questions the administration as a closet conservative, because what other explanation could there be for a reporter critically reporting on the government?
Now, the Democratic advocacy group Media Matters -—which is always mysteriously in sync with the administration despite ostensibly operating independently—- has launched a smear campaign against ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl for his reporting on Benghazi. It’s the kind of character assassination that would make Joseph McCarthy blush. The main page of the Media Matters website has six stories attacking Karl for a single mistake in an otherwise correct report about the State Department's myriad changes to talking points they previously claimed to have barely touched. See, the problem isn’t the repeated obfuscating from the administration about the Benghazi attack; the problem is Jonathan Karl. Hence, the now-familiar campaign of de-legitimization. This gross media intimidation is courtesy of tax-deductable donations from the Democratic Party’s liberal donor base, which provides a whopping $20 million a year for Media Matters to harass reporters who won’t fall in line.
In what is surely just a huge coincidence, the liberal media monitoring organization Fairness and Accuracy in the Media (FAIR) is also on a quest to delegitimize Karl. It dug through his past and discovered that in college he allegedly -—horrors!—- associated with conservatives. Because of this, FAIR declared Karl “a right wing mole at ABC News.” Setting aside the veracity of FAIR’s crazy claim, isn’t the fact that it was made in the first place vindication for those who assert a liberal media bias in the mainstream media? If the existence of a person who allegedly associates with conservatives is a “mole,” then what does that tell us about the rest of the media?
What all of us in the media need to remember -—whatever our politics-— is that we need to hold government actions to the same standard, whether they’re aimed at friends or foes. If not, there’s no one but ourselves to blame when the administration takes aim at us.
_______________________________
Kirsten Powers is a columnist for The Daily Beast. She is also a contributor to USA Today and a Fox News political analyst. She served in the Clinton administration from 1993 to 1998 and has worked in New York state and city politics. Her writing has been published in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, New York Post, The New York Observer, Salon.com, Elle magazine, and American Prospect online.
I figure we'll need a separate thread to discuss all the efforts of Glorious Leader Obama to prosecute and silence his critics in the coming years...at least until this site gets shut down.
The Obama administration’s free-speech scandals of today were repeatedly and accurately predicted by conservative pundits during the 2008 election. Obama’s first presidential campaign launched a series of novel and troubling assaults on its critics, leading many conservatives to warn that both the press and political speech would come under attack should Obama be elected president. Some of the predictions about Obama made by conservative writers in 2008 seem uncannily on-the-mark today.
The first incident to spur warnings was the Obama campaign’s move in late August of 2008 to prevent the American Issues Project from airing an ad exploring Obama’s ties to former terrorist Bill Ayers. Rather than simply answering the ad, the Obama campaign threatened economic boycotts, federal investigations of the group’s officers and anonymous donors, and criminal prosecutions. Although the ad ran locally, Fox News and CNN were apparently discouraged by these threats from accepting the ad. Kimberley Strassel wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week about the precedent this controversy set for today’s scandals. Yet the dust-up over the Ayers ad was merely the first of several such incidents.
I know, because I was incident number two. On August 28, just days after the controversy over the Ayers ad, the Obama campaign pressured WGN Radio in Chicago to bar my scheduled appearance on the Milt Rosenberg show to discuss my research into Obama’s ties to Ayers. When the station refused to cancel my appearance, it was deluged with calls from Obama supporters acting on instructions from his campaign. They demanded that I be kept off the air.
A few weeks later, on September 15, a flood of callers, again egged on by the Obama campaign, demanded that David Freddoso, then my colleague at NATIONAL REVIEW, be barred from discussing his just-published biography of Obama on the Rosenberg show.
In late September, a team of prosecutors and sheriffs in Missouri (perhaps not coincidentally, the home state of the group that produced the Ayers ad) was formed to act as an “Obama Truth Squad.” The Truth Squad, said a report, would “target anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad during the presidential campaign.” The group was to respond “immediately to any ads and statements that might violate Missouri ethics laws.” This apparent threat to prosecute critics of Obama set off a firestorm of outrage, which the local press and the Obama campaign later claimed was all based on a misunderstanding.
Also in late September of 2008, the Obama camp attempted to force yet another negative ad off the air, this one the National Rifle Association’s take on Obama’s gun policy. A letter to television stations effectively threatened to have their broadcast licences yanked should they air what the Obama camp claimed was a knowingly false and misleading ad.
Again and again, conservatives cited these incidents as evidence that something new and dangerous was at work: disregard of the fundamental principles of free expression, a willingness to resort to intimidation tactics, and abuse of the law to stifle criticism. The national press on the other hand, either ignored these incidents, or treated them as evidence of the Obama campaign’s effectiveness, and its sophisticated use of social media....
By refusing to complain, or even report on, what conservatives were up in arms about in 2008, the national media bears some share of responsibility for the troubles it faces today.
...something new and dangerous was at work: disregard of the fundamental principles of free expression, a willingness to resort to intimidation tactics, and abuse of the law to stifle criticism.
This is pure textbook Saul Alinsky, from RULES FOR RADICALS.
And Obama from the earliest years of his career, euphemistically labelled as a "community organizer", was trained in these tactics, and taught them to classrooms full of others.
And before they were Alinsky's tactics, they were the tactics of the Bolsheviks:
Quote:
Members and front organizations must continually embarass, discredit and degrade out critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi or anti-Semitic... The association will, after enough repetition, become "fact in the public mind. --Moscow Central Committee, 1943
The first precursors of these all-out assaults on free speech by Obama should have been the open endorsement of Mao and other strong-arm dictators by many appointed in Obama's White House (Anita Dunn, Van Jones, Ron Bloom, Mark Lloyd...)
The allegations concern the Environmental Protection Agency, which is being accused of trying to charge conservative groups fees while largely exempting liberal groups.
That's the core of it right there.
Gibson Guitars is an example that's been out there for almost 2 years. Despite that other guitar makers use the exact same wood, they were not given the same harassment by the EPA. Because only Gibson was a Republican campaign donor.
It both enrages and terrifies me that the highest ranking Democrats can rationalize and excuse this rampant abuse of federal power by Democrats in the IRS and other federal agencies.
And that grassroots Democrats also apparently accept and endorse this. Obama has taken a slight decline in popularity from 49% down to 45%. But that's still 45%. What the hell are these people thinking?
CIA Employees in Benghazi Pressured to Stay Quiet: at least five CIA employees were forced to sign additional nondisclosure agreements this past spring in the wake of the Benghazi attack. These employees had already signed such agreements before the attack but were made to sign new agreements aimed at discouraging survivors from leaking their stories to the media or anyone else.
Fox News' 6PM report tonight showed that while it was such an outrage to mock and attack the president in effigy, and the rodeo clown wearing the Obama mask was banned "for life" from future rodeos, and all the other rodeo clowns who were at the show have to attend "sensitivity training" classes...
...The exact same thing happened at a rodeo when George W. Bush was president, where a bull completely destroyed an effigy of him, and threw the mask across the stadium and trampled it to shreds. No firings. No outrage. No sensitivity classes.
Double-standard, anyone? Free speech?
This is the most ridiculous thing since CNN factchecked a Saturday Night Live skit that parodied Obama.
This goes under the category of liberal/progressives emboldened by authoritarianism at the national level, to bring that same abuse of power to the local level.
This guy was a parent with concerns about school policy where his child is schooled. The board had a Moscow Central Committee approach, where all questions had to be submitted in advance in writing to the board members (meaning they could simply not answer and leave unvoiced any questions that were inconvenient to them). So this guy stood up and asked his question, and the audience clearly welcomed the question. But the "security" thug (an off-duty prick cop) went way over the line and shoved the dad around, then cuffed and arrested him for no reason. Which the audience clearly objected to.
Man... this is worse than I first thought. The Superintendents were not only selectively omitting questions, of very legitimate concerns about data-mining their kids and who their personal information would be given to...
I hope someone finds out the name of that guard and puts him through the same legal system that they're using as a weapon against Small.
I swear to God, if I were in that room and had seen him put his hands on that man to shut him up, I would have put him in the rear naked choke before restraining him with his own cuffs.
A guy gets arrested at a School meeting, just for asking a question. That seems really disproportionate. Even if they'd just kicked him out of the meeting (which I still think would have been an abuse of power), that at least would have been unfair but arguably within reason.
But this guy might go to jail for up to 10 years, on the bogus charge of assaulting a police officer. Anyone who watches this video can see that the security guard (off-duty cop, who actually should be held accountable to his police department, because he used his badge as if he was on-duty to commit assaault on this guy) is the one doing all the assaulting!
I couldn't agree more. That was an unbelievable display. Or I should say, it wouldn't have been easy to believe, if someone didn't have the good sense to video-record it.
I still can't get over that not only was he thrown out of the meeting, while the Politburo running the meeting voiced no objection to the belligerent manner that Mr. Small was tossed around by the thug cop, but that he was further hit with an "assaulting a police officer" charge, with a potential 10-year sentence. That they even tried to pull that off is deeply infuriating. And, no doubt, intend it as a deterrant to any others who might voice similar dissent in the future.
Why reporters fear Team Obama: Relying on the 1917 Espionage Act, which was rarely invoked before President Obama took office, this administration has secretly used the phone and e-mail records of government officials and reporters to identify and prosecute government sources for national-security stories.
Basically, if you speak out, if you are quoted, you’re going to get a call from the White House, pressure to be quiet...insurance executives are being told to keep quiet...they feel defenseless against the White House PR team…
“The White House is exerting massive pressure on the industry, including the trade associations, to keep quiet.” Sources telling us they fear White House retribution.
Seriously, how can even Democrats support these authoritarian thug tactics?
I saw a poll today that Obama is at "an all-time low" of 42% support. Who the fuck are these 42% ?!? No doubt they would be comfortable living in Stalinist Russia or Hitler's Germany, for them to continue to support this obscene abuse of power.
Conservative filmmaker behind anti-Obama documentary indicted for violating election law: Dinesh D'Souza, whose “2016: Obama’s America” is the second-highest grossing political documentary of all-time, will appear in the U.S. District Court in New York Friday. D’Souza’s co-producer in “2016” Gerald Molen told FoxNews.com he believes the charges are politically motivated and D’Souza is being singled out by federal authorities for a “selective prosecution.”
Sheesh, so even when a republican is guilty it's still put as somehow not fair. This wasn't a mistake he made by accident but an intentional breaking of the law multiple times.
Was there any evidence to back up the targeting allegations? From what I've read he's not denying what he did btw so I think it's fair to say he's guilty as in he did do it and admits it. Guilt can be a non-legal determination too.
Why reporters fear Team Obama: Relying on the 1917 Espionage Act, which was rarely invoked before President Obama took office, this administration has secretly used the phone and e-mail records of government officials and reporters to identify and prosecute government sources for national-security stories.
This is almost exactly what communist China did by other means. Hacking into e-mail accounts of New York Times reporters, and tracking who they were in communication with.
And yet... they still partisanly assisted Obama's campaign through his Nov 2012 re-election, despite they no doubt observed this unprecedentedly closed and media-hostile administration for the four years prior to the election.
And are gearing up to do the same for Hitlery --uh, HILLARY, in 2016. RAH RAH!
Conservative filmmaker behind anti-Obama documentary indicted for violating election law: Dinesh D'Souza, whose “2016: Obama’s America” is the second-highest grossing political documentary of all-time, will appear in the U.S. District Court in New York Friday. D’Souza’s co-producer in “2016” Gerald Molen told FoxNews.com he believes the charges are politically motivated and D’Souza is being singled out by federal authorities for a “selective prosecution.”
How is it possible that D'Souza gets harassed for this, a donation he allegedly made for $20,000, then there are DNC dinners where hundreds of people in an hour donate 45,000 a plate?
J. Christian Adams, in PJ Media, said that Democrats, through unions, have been getting donations in this manner for decades. And yet now that Republicans are trying to access some of the same campaign fundraising methods, Democrats are trying to create rules that allow them to fundraise this way, while denying Republicans the same.
To me it resembles what happened in 2012 to Frank Vandersloot, who made a $1 million donation to Mitt Romney's campaign, and was immediately besieged with harassment, and two IRS lawsuits, on his business and private finances, that even though there was absolutely no wrongdoing on his part, cost him $80,000 in legal fees to defend himself against.
As the Vandersloot case was an attempt to intimidate and cut off GOP campaign finance support, this case with D'Souza is to shut down and intimidate political free speech in documentary media. They are trying to prevent Republican conservatives from having their own counterweight to Michael Moore and other far-left documentary propagandists. It is, again, Obama and the DNC's attempt to abuse control of federal law enforcement, to harass and silence conservative dissent. Just like Vandersloot. Just like the IRS targeting of Tea Party and religious conservative 501 groups.
A conservative group in Hollywood, shrouded in secrecy for fear of a backlash from powerful movie industry liberals, is being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service after applying for tax-exempt status.
Friends of Abe has attempted to stay under the radar and is fiercely determined to protect the identity of its 1,500 members, The New York Times reports.
But now the group has come under the scrutiny of the IRS after the federal agency requested information about its meetings with politicians including 2012 vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan, former Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, and 2012 presidential hopeful Herman Cain, according to anonymous sources who have inside knowledge of the probe.
The report says the IRS has been investigating Friends of Abe — named after Abraham Lincoln — for two years and has had access to its security-protected website containing all the members' names.
Ever since the organization was launched a decade ago, it has endeavored to keep a veil of silence surrounding its members, even banning cameras at events to avoid publication of pictures of its associates.
The Times claims, however, that some supporters, who include Gary Sinise, Kelsey Grammer and Jon Voight, have admitted to their conservative leanings in public.
“It’s a growing movement, and word is getting out that there’s many of us in this business,” singer Pat Boone told The Washington Times in 2008. At the time, he was one of the few conservative stars who spoke openly about the group's existence. “If certain studio execs - hirers and firers - learn that this is a movement and growing, and that some of these people that they hire are of this inclination, these people could be unemployed,” Boone explained.
In 2011, Clint Howard, a conservative actor who is the brother of actor and director Ron Howard, told Newsmax that conservatives are still outcasts who have “trepidations” that their political orientation in a sea of outspoken liberals will sink their careers.
Though he was openly conservative, Howard still stressed that he had to choose his words carefully when discussing politics in Hollywood.
“For years conservative-minded people have been kind of subjected to a lot of — I wouldn’t say bullying, no it’s not bullying,” he told Newsmax. “Conservative minded people have been subjected to a very liberal work place, and it has been frustrating.”
The IRS investigation comes at a time when the agency has been under fire in Congress for targeting groups the tea party movement and other conservative groups over their tax exempt status.
Unlike those groups, Friends of Abe is hoping to win approval from the agency for a status allowing members to claim a tax deduction as long as they do not take part in any partisan political activity.
Jeremy Boreing, executive director of Friends of Abe, told the Times that his organization has "has absolutely no political agenda." He added, "It exists to create fellowship among like-minded individuals."
The organization — whose name is a take on Friends of Bill which consists of people loyal to former President Bill Clinton — was launched in 2005 through an email chain connecting conservatives in the film industry. Although Sinise, best known for his role as Lt. Dan in "Forrest Gump," was the initial leader, he stepped back from his position as the organization grew stronger.
In conversations with the IRS, the group was specifically asked about meetings with Ryan, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, and Republican Los Angeles mayoral candidate Kevin James, who is unrelated to the "King of Queens" actor of the same name.
The agency is also said to have been particularly interested in Cain speaking at a Friends of Abe event in 2011.
Over the past few years, the group has staged events that have included such notable Republican guests as House Speaker John Boehner and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, as well as political strategists Karl Rove and Frank Luntz and conservative commentators Ann Coulter and Mark Levin.
"The IRS would say that if you are inviting only conservative candidates, that’s a problem," Marcus Owens, a former director of the agency's exempt organizations division, told The Times.
So in other words, Carson is fit for posting on a message board. I would think you would have a higher standard for a potential wannabe for the White House.
I'm old enough to remember when only black people called black people "Uncle Tom." Democrats, however, long expanded the category of who can play the race card and on whom. Call them equal opportunity race-card players.
As with black race-card hustlers -- say the Revs. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or any given host on MSNB-Hee-Haw -- white race-card players label others "racist" for the crime of disagreement. As with black race-card hustlers, white race-card hustlers need not name names when accusing someone of "racism." And, as with black race-card hustlers, the mainscream media will not bother to ask the white race-card hustler to identify said racists.
Some examples:
Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y.: When recently asked if his Republican colleagues were racist, Israel responded, "Not all of them, no. Of course not. But to a significant extent, the Republican base does have elements that are animated by racism." "Not all" implies one or more is "animated by racism." He never bothered to name names, let alone what "animated" the racist(s). The host did not ask.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.: Only days ago, the soon-to-retire senator said that he can now speak out about the number of Republicans who oppose President Barack Obama because of his race: "It's an American characteristic that you don't do anything which displeases the voters, because you always have to get reelected here. I understand part of it. It has to do with -- for some, it's just we don't want anything good to happen under this president, because he's the wrong color."
Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, now a Democrat: Crist recently said that "a big reason" he switched parties was because of the way "some" people in his former party -- Republican -- treated Obama: "I couldn't be consistent with myself and my core beliefs, and stay with a party that was so unfriendly toward the African-American president."
Feminist attorney Gloria Allred, Democrat: After the election of George W. Bush in 2000, Colin Powell and Condi Rice, formerly with the Reagan administration, were considered likely to join the new administration. Allred, who then hosted a Los Angeles radio show, referred to them (not by name) as "Uncle Tom types."
Former President Jimmy Carter, Democrat: He attributed opposition to Obamamcare and other Obama policies to racism. "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama," said Carter, "is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American. Racism ... still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country."
CNN's Anderson Cooper: When asked by embattled Clippers' owner Donald Sterling whether there's much prejudice in America, CNN's Anderson Cooper replied, "Yes. ... There's institutional prejudice" in addition to the kind "that people have in their hearts." In fairness to Cooper, Sterling did not ask him to name any "institution" -- but it would have been helpful.
The Republicans-hate-blacks narrative remains crucial to maintaining the monolithic 95 percent Democratic black vote, without which the Democratic Party cannot succeed. Economist Thomas Sowell writes, "If Republicans can get just a fourth or a fifth of the black vote nationwide, that can shift the balance of power decisively in their favor." As recently as 1956, nearly 39 percent of blacks voted Republican in the presidential election.
The next time a Democrat or member of media speaks darkly about these anonymous Republican "racists," ask this question: Don't Israel and Rockefeller, currently in office, have a duty to "out" these racists? Why allow known bigots to remain in government? Doesn't morality require Crist, running as a Democrat for his old job as governor of Florida, to identify and help remove these racist elected officials? Aren't these Republican "racists" -- whose IDs are being protected by their Democratic colleagues -- detrimental to the interests of the nation and serving in violation of their oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution? Doesn't this oath mean protecting and defending the rights of all constituents irrespective of race -- and exposing the "racists" who refuse to do so?
Why protect them? Why conceal their identities? Out the SOBs!
But, no. Democrats would rather just brand unnamed Republicans as "racist," no matter how absurd or outlandish the charge. Given this tepid five-year-old "recovery," the Obama-loving/leftist media/academia/Hollywood crowd cannot, during this off-year election cycle, brag about economic growth. So look for more topic-changers like "income inequality," climate change and the eternal struggle against the unknown "racist" obstructionists who sit across the aisle.
Sigh.
Interesting that it is white liberals cited here pulling the race card.
Somehow their often bitterly personal attacks on black conservatives like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Allen West, Tim Scott and others don't register as "racist" or "can't handle a black man" in office.
How uppity it is for them to uphold the Constitution!
Conservative filmmaker behind anti-Obama documentary indicted for violating election law: Dinesh D'Souza, whose “2016: Obama’s America” is the second-highest grossing political documentary of all-time, will appear in the U.S. District Court in New York Friday. D’Souza’s co-producer in “2016” Gerald Molen told FoxNews.com he believes the charges are politically motivated and D’Souza is being singled out by federal authorities for a “selective prosecution.”
Score another for the selective prosecution by Obama's police state:
But y'know, a group of Black Panthers standing outside a polling precinct, brandishing batons, and addressing whites as "crackers" and threateningly discouraging them from voting, is perfectly OK!
... At the court hearing Tuesday, D’Souza admitted he knew what he did was against the law.
“I knew that causing a campaign contribution to be made in the name of another was wrong and something the law forbids,” D’Souza said, according to Newsday. “I deeply regret my conduct.”
Brafman added in his press statement: “Mr. D’Souza agreed to accept responsibility for having urged two close associates to make contributions of $10,000 each to the unsuccessful 2012 senate campaign of Wendy Long and then reimbursing them for their contributions. Given the technical nature of the charge, there was no viable defense.”
Berman set D’Souza’s sentencing for Sept. 23.
In addition to capping the amount of jail time D’Souza could face, the plea deal could help minimize attention to embarrassing aspects of the case that go beyond the illegality the author admitted to Tuesday.
Evidence disclosed in pre-trial motions indicated that two of the illegal donations were routed through D’Souza’s mistress, Denise Joseph, and her husband, Louis Joseph.
In 2012, D’ Souza resigned from his post as president of evangelical King’s College in New York following reports that he attended a South Carolina conference on Christian values accompanied by Denise Joseph and introduced her as his fiancee despite the fact that he was still married at the time to another woman.
He later said in a statement he’d been separated from his wife for two years and “had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced, even though in a state of separation and in divorce proceedings.”
Not sure how this is censorship WB. He intentionally did it and admits it. This like many of your other posts here just don't measure up to what you allege. Furthermore in cases like this you obviously victimize the crook because he's a republican.
Lady Justice’s blindfold sometimes slips. No argument about that. But now she has thrown it aside to prosecute — some would say persecute — Dinesh D'Souza, a successful conservative author and filmmaker, on flimsy charges of violating campaign finance law. Whether guilty or not, the fact that Mr. D'Souza has been singled out for prosecution while others skate past freely reveals President Obama’s thumb on the famous lady’s scale.
Mr. D'Souza, a sharp but respectful critic of the president, goes on trial Tuesday in a federal courtroom in Manhattan charged with using “straw donors” to bypass federal campaign finance limits. These are the limits that the U.S. Supreme Court has been finding incompatible with the First Amendment. Nevertheless, prosecutors say Mr. D'Souza arranged for others to donate $20,000 to the 2012 U.S. Senate campaign in New York of Wendy Long, a personal friend. By reimbursing them, they allege, he circumvented the $5,000 legal limit. He faces the prospect of two years in prison for what his lawyer calls “an act of misguided friendship.”
Life in the Third World teaches some people to despise America, but not Mr. D'Souza. He embraced the promise of freedom when he arrived in America as an exchange student from his native India. He found his political home among conservatives at Dartmouth College in the 1980s, and strengthened his convictions at the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution. Unabashed in his faith, he wrote several books of Christian apologetics including “What’s So Great about Christianity?” which made him an icon of the right and a pain in the nether regions of those on the left.
Mr. D'Souza’s relentless criticism of the effect that Mr. Obama and his relentless campaign to transform America into a close semblance of failed cultures elsewhere has put the filmmaker in the prosecutorial crosshairs. He wrote “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” in 2010 and produced “2016: Obama’s America” in 2012, the second-highest-grossing U.S. documentary film ever. He is, say his lawyers, “a sharp critic of the Obama presidency who has incurred the president’s wrath.”
Indeed, four Republican senators wrote to FBI Director James Comey in February, pointing out how convenient it was to use the Justice Department to take out one of the administration’s most prominent critics. The senators quoted Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a liberal who said, “I can’t help but think that [Mr. D'Souza‘s] politics have something to do with it… . It smacks of selective prosecution.” U.S. District Judge Richard Berman swept away such objections last Thursday, saying “the court concludes the defendant has respectfully submitted no evidence he was selectively prosecuted.” It’s clear who’s wearing a blindfold now.
The Justice Department that would imprison Mr. D'Souza for two years for giving unfair advantage to a friend’s political campaign declined to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party for threatening white voters with nightsticks at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008. Moreover, Mr. Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was itself fined $375,000 in 2013 for failing to disclose millions of dollars in contributions and missing deadlines for refunding millions in excess contributions. No one was threatened with prison for that. (That was different, of course.)
Whether Dinesh D'Souza is found guilty or not guilty, there’s scant doubt that in Mr. Obama’s America, Lady Justice has retired her blindfold and pledged her sword to the president.
I'm not saying D'Souza shouldn't pay a price for his actions. Just that in arguably equal or worse situations involving DEMOCRAT AND OBAMA donors, there was not price, and no prosecution.
There can be little doubt that D'Souza was selectively prosecuted in retribution for his vocal exposure and opposition of Obama. Similar campaign finance irregularities to Democrats have not been pursued by Obama's appointed attorneys.
Actually there is doubt about that. Somebody just making accusations doesn't make it so. Bush's justice department was the one that actually downgraded the panther case to a civil one. This would be the same department that had conservatives bragging that they hired another conservative for the "team".
D'Souza defends himself, in this wide-ranging interview:
Interesting also how D'Souza's arrest coincided perfectly with the release of his new book and movie documentary. It seems calculatedly timed to discredit him.
He also explains how Barack Obama's "community organizer" skills are from Obama's immersion in the Social Marxist attack techniques of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. And circumnavigating that community organizer euphemism, calls Obama what he truly is, a "resentment organizer".
In unprecedented criticism of the White House, 38 journalism groups have assailed the president's team for censoring media coverage, limiting access to top officials and overall “politically-driven suppression of the news.”
In a letter to President Obama, the 38, led by the Society of Professional Journalists, said efforts by government officials to stifle or block coverage has grown for years and reached a high-point under his administration despite Obama's 2008 campaign promise to provide transparency.
Worse, they said: As access for reporters has been cut off, the administration has opened the door to lobbyists, special interests and “people with money.”
And as a result, they wrote, Obama only has himself to blame for the current cynicism of his administration. “You need look no further than your own administration for a major source of that frustration – politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies. We call on you to take a stand to stop the spin and let the sunshine in,” wrote David Cuillier, president of SPJ.
The administration has dismissed similar charges from other journalism groups, notably the White House Correspondents’ Association, but the new letter sent Tuesday provided several examples of censorship and efforts to block reporter access. Among them:
• Officials blocking reporters’ requests to talk to specific staff people.
• Excessive delays in answering interview requests that stretch past reporters’ deadlines.
• Officials conveying information "on background" — refusing to give reporters what should be public information unless they agree not to say who is speaking.
• Federal agencies blackballing reporters who write critically of them.
“In many cases, this is clearly being done to control what information journalists — and the audience they serve — have access to. A survey found 40 percent of public affairs officers admitted they blocked certain reporters because they did not like what they wrote,” added the letter.
In addition to asking for openness, the groups demanded Obama create an ombudsman position to help clear away barriers to news coverage.
“It has not always been this way,” concluded the letter. “In prior years, reporters walked the halls of agencies and called staff people at will. Only in the past two administrations have media access controls been tightened at most agencies. Under this administration, even non-defense agencies have asserted in writing their power to prohibit contact with journalists without surveillance. Meanwhile, agency personnel are free speak to others — lobbyists, special-interest representatives, people with money — without these controls and without public oversight.”
SPJ's Cuillier told Secrets, "I feel this excessive message management and information control are caused by the professionalization of PR in the bureaucracy — in all levels of government."
And, he added, "It is up to journalists — and citizens — to push back against this force. Hard!" Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.
Security expert pulled off flight by FBI after exposing airline tech vulnerabilities: The FBI interrogation came just hours after Fox News published a report on Roberts’ research, in which he said: “We can still take planes out of the sky thanks to the flaws in the in-flight entertainment systems. Quite simply put, we can theorize on how to turn the engines off at 35,000 feet and not have any of those damn flashing lights go off in the cockpit.”
White House Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview: The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.
Wow, good for them.
Yeah I agree. FOX may be right leaning but it wouldn't be good for anyone if they were frozen out. The political strategy the WH is employing is really dumb and it's costing them support.
Why reporters fear Team Obama: Relying on the 1917 Espionage Act, which was rarely invoked before President Obama took office, this administration has secretly used the phone and e-mail records of government officials and reporters to identify and prosecute government sources for national-security stories.
This is almost exactly what communist China did by other means. Hacking into e-mail accounts of New York Times reporters, and tracking who they were in communication with.
We are officially an authoritarian regime now.
In fairness, attorney general Jeff Sessions two days ago threatened to do the same thing to track down leakers, at a press conference saying to leakers on camera "Don't do it", basically because DOJ has ways to cyber-track them back to the source.
The Obama administration began the abuses, and NSA against their will was revealed by Ed Snowden to be collecting the mete-data of every U.S. citizen, recording every phone conversation and every e-mail to be pulled out and sifted through later, if they feel any person is a potential threat. Once that genie is out of the bottle, I guess it's hard for any future administration to avoid the temptation to do the same to find their adversaries.
Again, I dislike what Snowden did and think he's a traitor (giving all that NSA information first to the Chinese, then going to Russia, and now living probably the rest of his life in Russia). But he was accurate in saying this much: "This is the last generation that will even know what privacy is"
Actually I think the mass data collection started under W and it like deficit spending is only a problem when it's a democrat in office. Lying is also just being a colorful bit of character if it's a republican doing it. And the media calling out the lies are attacked as fake. Tsk tsk
I don't see any specific examples of a "lying Republican doing it." The FBI Inspector General's long-awaited report was released today (a Democrat, appointed by Obama) and he did not list one, NOT ONE, Republican making similar Republican-partisan remarks.
The fact is, the federal bureaucracy in FBI, DOJ, State Department, IRS, NEA, EPA, OSHA, ATF, are all Democrat-controlled, and Democrat-abused. They are Democrat-unionized, pay Democrat union dues that overwhelmingly are donated to support and elect Democrat candidates, who once elected, or re-elected, repay the donations with huge benefits to Democrat-unionized employees, who have vastly out-paced public sector salaries and benefits. It also explains why these public sector Democrat employees are eager to do the bidding of their masters and go after Tea Party/Republican/grass-roots religious conservatives in a thuggish and vindictive way.
As demonstrated by the Lois Lerner/IRS abuses. And these same Tea Party/religious conservative/Romney donor Republicans were targeted by IRS to be deprived of 501 tax exempt group status (preventing them from organizing and fundraising for the 2012 election), as well as harassing/intimidating audits of Republicans. And not only by IRS. IRS also shared their information with EPA, OSHA, ATF, and other federal agencies for further harassment. As I detailed in the Lois Lerner topic.
I'm on the record as saying that the Patriot Act under Bush was an unnecessary intrusion on Constitutional freedoms, and that it was not necessary. That all the protection we as a nation needed was enforcement of our existing laws on border security, illegal immigration, background checks, flight training and so forth.
Very early on for a few months, I briefly had an attitude to some degree of "I have nothing to hide" when it came to Patriot Act intrusions on constitutional freedoms. But fairly quickly I saw that a government with the power to violate those freedoms doesn't stop at those who are guilty. As in the Lois Lerner/IRS case, and in the current FBI/DOJ/Meuller abuses make clear, if one political side wants to weaponize those federal powers, it can manufacture crimes to take out their opposition, and innocence and the rule of law be damned.
Comey told Obama that he voted for the other guy in his book. Obama was able to appoint Comey because a republican controlled congress liked him. And the IG report shows that where he deviated from the standard policies and protocols ended up aiding Trump.
Comey told Obama that he voted for the other guy in his book. Obama was able to appoint Comey because a republican controlled congress liked him. And the IG report shows that where he deviated from the standard policies and protocols ended up aiding Trump.
I frankly wonder if anything said in James Comey's book, or frankly anything James Comey says period, is true. He already said his wife was heavily invested in Hillary Clinton winning in 2016, and that all 5 of his children had voted for Hillary. And asked in the same interview if he were a Democrat, to which he answered "If not before, I am now." I take that as a "yes".
Do you understand that someone can be registered as a Republican and still vote Democrat? I think that's a trick used by many bureaucrats in Washington. And many liberal journalists as well. They are truly "Republicans In Name Only."
As for Comey's actions "ended up aiding Trump", over and over in 2016, Comey actions aided Hillary and the Democrats, softpedaling on investigation of Hillary and her aides:
1) delaying investigation of the contents on her computers and cel phones and giving her time to Bleach-Bit away the evidence and smash her FOUR cel phones with a hammer (while comparatively doing midnight raids on Manafort and Chen on the Trump side),
2) NOT forcing Hillary and her aides to be deposed under oath (while comparatively forcing Trump officials to testify under oath, as in the cases of Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Carter Page, George Pappadapoulos, Roger Stone, Michael Caputo, and Sam Clovis, all whom, mostly former millionaires, have been BANKRUPTED by frivolous charges on manufactured evidence, vs. the mountains of evidence that are ignored and not prosecuted on the Clinton side.)
3) Giving Hillary and her aides immunity from prosecution, in exchange for no discosure of evidence or prosecution (as compared to vindictively prosecuting Trump officials to the absolute limit of their powers, and then some!)
The reality is, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page and Ohr (the entire top shelf of executives in the FBI) did everything in their power to legally tear down Trump to make him lose the election, while doing everything they could to obstruct prosecution of Hillary Clinton despite overwhelming evidence, and everything they could to make her president.
On ONE occasion right before the election in late October, Comey re-opened the Hillary investigation and then closed it again before election day, ONLY to cover his own ass, because he was worried that newly exposed facts would otherwise reveal his overwhelming pro-Hillary bias. Comey's July press conference saying "no reasonable prosecutor" would indict Hillary Clinton, allowed her to remain in the election as the Democrat nominee! If Comey had recommended for indictment in July, Hillary never would have remained politically viable in late October 2016. Comey and Loretta Lynch (who secretly met in the same period of days with Bill Clinton on the airport tarmac, and then lo and behold, right after did not indict Hillary) handed Hillary lifeline after lifeline in the months leading up to Nov 8, 2016. And more than that, kept Hillary out of jail in all their endless obstructions of justice.
The IG report shows that when Comey deviated from standard procedure it aided Trump. Meanwhile folks from the Trump campaign like Rudy have admitted they had agents leaking to them. I would like to see more details about that.
You point to one press conference where Comey re-opened the Hillary investigation in late October 2016.
As I just said in my last post, that ignores the COUNTLESS actions Comey and his corrupt FBI took throughout 2016 on Hillary's behalf, that kept Hillary from being indicted in the first place in July 2016. ALL the uninvestigated avidence on Hillary, ALL the deleted, smashed and Bleachbitted computers and cel phones of Hillary and her minions, ALL the immunity from prosecution handed out like candy the Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Jennifer Palmieri, in exchange for nothing.
If Comey had done his job throughout 2016, and especially not given Hillary a free pass in July from prosecution, Hillary would have in a jail cell wearing an orange jump suit by October 2016.
Comey's one action against Hillary re-opening the Hillary investigation in late October 2016, was because Comey had bent over backward to aid Hillary for an entire year (with McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr, etc., conspiring with Comey to do so). Comey re-opened the investigation for only a few days in October, only to provide himself cover of not ignoring evidence, to save his own ass. Because he HAD ALREADY ignored so much evidence to protect Hillary from prosecution.
I still find it amazing that Hillary Clinton cheated every whichway to win the election, rigged the CNN debates with the questions fed to her by Donna Brazile and Roland Martin, rigged the primary to win over Bernie Sanders, paid for the fake Russia Dossier to smear Trump, and very possibly been involved in the falsified evidence used by Comey and McCabe to get FISA warrants to illegally spy on the Trump campaign. Comey even sent multiple agents into the Trump campaign with the bait of "Russian dirt" and Russian-seized top secret e-mails that were in truth just fake bait offered by spies for the FBI, and the irony is, Trump Jr., Michael Caputo, Sam Clovis not only didn't take the bait, but reported it to the FBI!! And the FBI (under Comey's orders) didn't investigate what was reported, because it was not Russians, it was their own sting operation! And you say Comey betrayed Hillary?!? Quite the contrary, Comey fell on his sword over and over for Hillary. If not for Comey, she would have been in jail since July 2016.
I love how easy it is to get under your skin these days, G. All I have to do is point out your methods of lying and denial, and you twist like crazy. For example, when you bring me up out of the blue in a thread I'm not participating in, in desperate hopes of working up some "bit" for you and basams to back-and-forth on...all the while creating predictably childish insults towards me...I know without a doubt that I have not only broken you (a loooong time ago, old man), but that I have "won". Thanks for that! 
Where are all the free speech absolutists when you need them? Over the past month, left-wing partisans and Democratic lawyers have waged a brass-knuckled intimidation campaign against GOP donors, TV and radio stations, and even an investigative journalist because they have all dared to question the radical cult of Barack Obama. A chill wind blows, but where the valiant protectors of political dissent are, nobody knows.
Sure, Atwater had quoted Mao, but he never called him his favorite political philosopher. This bitch is a freakin' commie.
of the liberal blowhard {Keith Olbermann} from MSNBC, I have a bad feeling that the Obama administration will try and use this to ram through some of their proposals for 
