The following items are archived
chronologically and/or in order of discovery. Previous year items in left column
. . .
Don't Mess With Obama
The New York Times is
reporting that a journalist who wrote an article on Monday has left
the wire service. A Reuters spokeswoman declined to say whether
the journalist, Terri Cullen, left voluntarily, or why. "I can't
really go into any detail," said the spokeswoman, Courtney Dolan.
Ms. Cullen stepped down less than a month after being hired for the
newly created position of wealth management editor. She had worked
for more than a decade for The Wall Street Journal Online.
Her
article said that Obama’s budget amounted to a backdoor tax increase for
middle-income and even lower-income people, based largely on the
scheduled expiration of income tax cuts passed in 2001, but the gang at
the White House insisted that Obama had actually proposed keeping those
cuts in place for all but high-income families.
After a complaint
from the White House, Reuters caved, and withdrew the article, stating
that it was inaccurate.
Inaccurate? Really?
The
Hill blog is running an article, "President Obama’s budget seeks an end
to tax break for the middle class," that
begins: Grappling to contain record deficits, Barack Obama is
seeking to end a middle-class tax break he once said would be permanent.
The $3.8 trillion budget request rolled out by the White House on
Monday would renew the Making Work Pay tax credit for fiscal 2011, but
then would have it sunset. That’s a switch from last year, when
Obama’s budget called for making the tax credit permanent.
Where to begin? Lets'
start here:
"Obama had actually proposed keeping those cuts in
place for all but high-income families" -- hey, gang, a proposal is only
that -- a proposal. Try taking one to the bank and cashing it.
But, far more important is the fact that, once again, Obama and his
henchmen didn't hesitate to pressure Reuters, and now Obama can add one
more to his legions of unemployed.
Free speech is a wonderful
thing -- but not in ObamaWorld.
Obots Get Violent
Roger Hedgecock says that last Saturday, a
brick bearing the message "stop the right wing" smashed through the
window of the Republican Party headquarters in Marion, Ohio. An
Obama campaign contributor was arrested last week after threatening to
kill Rep. Cantor and his wife because they are Jews. The
registered voter in the "Christian militia" arrests turns out to be a
Democrat.
Fill in your own incident -- the really dangerous
political violence in America is coming from the Obots.
Be
warned. The Obama regime considers opposition to its long march to
"transform America" illegitimate, and a fair target for government
retaliation and violent retribution.
You can tell this is true
not only from the spreading incidences of such violence, but also from
the frantic propaganda assault by the government-controlled media
claiming that the violence is actually coming from conservative
opponents to the Obama agenda. Read your Alinsky. "Community
organizers" are taught to accuse your enemies of using the dastardly
tactics you are using on them.
In Sunday's New York Times, the
tea-party movement is compared to the violent Weather Underground of the
1960s. A recent picture of a peaceful tea-party protest is placed
side by side with a black-and-white file photo of violent Weather
Underground radicals -- and guess who's in that picture? None
other than bomber Bill Ayers himself.
So, the newspaper of
record for Obama's left wants you to believe that peacefully standing up
for the restoration of the Constitution and for the return to an
opportunity society and a free-market economy is the equivalent of
bombing the Pentagon to help America's enemies win the Vietnam War.
We've been through this "left slimes conservatives to cover up its
own violent tactics" before.
In the book "Harvest of Rage,"
subtitled "Why Oklahoma City is only the Beginning," author Joel Dyer
blamed Reagan for the desperation of farmers in the '80s which caused
Timothy McVeigh's bombing and, says the author, will inspire many more
returning disgruntled right-wing veterans to similar violence.
Really Joel?
At the time of the Oklahoma City bombing, President
Clinton publicly blamed Rush Limbaugh and talk radio for the climate of
violence that led to McVeigh, ignoring and suppressing all contrary
evidence of McVeigh's ties to radical Islam.
Change.org is a social entrepreneurship venture based in San
Francisco, CA. As "citizens of the world," Change.org is a central
platform informing and empowering movements for social change around the
most important issues of our time.
On
this page, Change.org, is urging Discovery Communications to drop
Sarah Palin's new television show.
They are asking the Obot
community to sign their petition to Discovery Communications -- telling
Discovery that "Sarah Palin doesn't deserve to represent the 'powerful
beauty of Alaska' in front of millions of people."
Here's the
text of the petition:
Dear Mr. David Zaslav,
Please Drop
Sarah Palin's New Show
As a supporter of Defenders of
Wildlife Action Fund, I am disappointed and angered by Discovery
Communication's decision to produce and air Sarah Palin's Alaska.
As governor, Sarah Palin championed a bloody aerial wolf-slaughter
campaign that continues to this very day. She even planned on
offering a $150 bounty for the severed forelimb of each killed wolf.
Palin also fought against increased protections for struggling Cook
Inlet beluga whales and America's only populations of polar bears.
As parent company of Animal Planet, The Discovery Channel
and TLC, and known for your wildlife-focused productions, I hope
that you will reconsider your decision to partner with such a
terribly anti-wildlife and politically divisive persona as Sarah
Palin.
[Your name]
It just never
occurs to these fascists that the 1st Amendment applies to all
Americans, not just the nutbags on the political Left.
Team Obama Calls Out Swat Team on Tea Party
Patriots
Police power in force -- a glimpse of America's future under
the Obama administration (03:05)
A Quincy, Ill., Tea Party protest convened this afternoon as Barack
Obama spoke at the nearby convention center. Things got so out
of hand, the SWAT team was called in for crowd control. Check
out some of the horrifying images from the riot.
The Quincy
Herald Whig did not report the truth on the protest.
Here
is an extract from their report:
There were a few tense moments when the
crowd moved west down York toward Third Street after the
president’s motorcade arrived. A Secret Service agent
asked the crowd to move back across the street to the north
side.
When the crowd didn’t move and began singing "God
Bless, America" and the national anthem, Quincy Deputy Police
Chief Ron Dreyer called for members of the Mobile Field Force to
walk up the street.
The officers, mainly from Metro East
departments near St. Louis and dressed in full body armor,
marched from the east and stood on the south side of York facing
the protesters.
There was no physical contact, and the
officers did not come close to the crowd, but there were
catcalls and more than a few upset tea party members, including
a woman who shouted, "This is communism!"
CNBC: Obama's A Bully
Hot Air
suggests Barack Obama just hasn’t adjusted yet to life as an
executive, as compared to that of a campaigner. After fifteen
months, though, CNBC’s Media & Technology Editor has tired of giving
Obama the benefit of the doubt. In a lengthy essay from two days
ago, Dennis Kneale calls Obama a "bully" and compares him to Richard
Nixon for communication skills:
Obama’s latest broadside came over the
weekend, when he vehemently criticized the state of Arizona and its
(Republican) governor for passing a tough new law on illegal
immigration.
Obama called the measure "misguided" and all but
labeled it un-American. He even ordered the Department of
Justice, before the ink on this bill-signing has even dried, to
examine the civil-rights "implications" of the new law. Seems
like the courts and rights groups could handle that once any problem
actually emerges.
Can you remember any other modern
president, wagging a finger from on high, so directly and bitterly
criticizing a new law passed by any state?
Kneale doesn’t support Arizona’s new
immigration-enforcement law; in fact, he says he "hates it."
However, that kind of a response from Obama hardly helps, and it ignores
his role in a federal republic:
This is hubris at best and ignorance of the
Constitution at worst. The U.S. was founded in part on the
precept of states’ rights as an important counterweight to a
rapacious federal government. Thus Obama must step softly
here, questioning gently but avoiding rancor and browbeating.
Nor is it the first time that we’ve seen "Bam the
Bully," as Kneale calls Obama. His excoriation of the Supreme
Court during the State of the Union speech shocked those at its breach
of decorum, although Obama’s defenders predictably blamed Samuel Alito
for having the temerity to indulge a normal human reaction to it.
Obama has all but demanded that Wall Street firms shut up while Congress
debates financial regulation reform, despite Congress’ ineptitude at it
over the past twelve years and the collapse they caused with their
blundering interventions. Obama also demanded that Republicans
shut up last year, a line that Obama dropped shortly afterward.
One group gets to keep talking, though, as Kneale observes:
Similarly, Obama maligns Wall Street for
trying to have a say in financial reform and lobbying for its
interests, though this input is a vital ingredient in any democratic
process. Yet Obama doesn’t criticize giant unions like the
AFL-CIO and the SEIU when they similarly lobby on fin-reg.
Why? Because the unions agree with him. Even though Wall
Street has a far more legitimate claim to get involved in this
debate than do the unions, which represent only 7% of the private
work force and essentially should have no dog in this fight at all.
It’s not just because they agree with Obama.
It’s because they fund the Democratic Party. Money talks, even
especially in the Obama administration. That’s why the White House
welcomes union input on financial regulation and disdains that of Wall
Street, and why the bankrupt unions have a seat on the new federal
deficit commission with retiring SEIU chief Andy Stern -- who will leave
his union swimming in red ink.
Obama offers a bully pulpit,
indeed … in the most literal sense possible, and one deployed on behalf
of his closest contributors.
Reporters Afraid To Criticize White House
The very liberal Salon
comments on a Politico article describing the growing anger of the
White House press corps towards the Obama White House. Many of the
grievances are petty, though some are serious and substantive (involving
lack of transparency and media manipulation), but the passage that I
found most revealing is this one:
Much of the criticism is off the record,
both out of fear of retaliation and from worry about appearing
whiny. But those views were voiced by a cross section of the
television, newspaper and magazine journalists who cover the White
House.
Just think about that for a minute. National
political reporters are furious over various White House practices
involving transparency and information control, but are unwilling to say
so for attribution due to fear of "retaliation," instead insisting on
hiding behind a wall of anonymity (which Politico, needless to say,
happily provides). Isn't that a rather serious problem: that the
White House press corps is afraid to criticize Obama and the White House
for fear of losing access and suffering other forms of retribution?
What does that say about their "journalism"? It's the flip side of
those White House reporters who need the good graces of Obama aides for
their behind-the-scenes books and thus desperately do their bidding:
what kind of reporter covering the White House would possibly admit that
they're afraid to say anything with their names attached that might
anger Obama and his aides? How could you possibly be a minimally
credible White House reporter if you have that fear? Doesn't that
unwillingness rather obviously render their reporting worthless?
The article notes that aside from punishing reporters who say things it
dislikes, the White House rewards those reporters (with special "scoops"
and other privileges) who subserviently promote its agenda, and
specifically identifies White House "favorites" David Sanger of The New
York Times (the Judy Miller of The Iran Threat) and Richard Wolffe (the
single most sycophantic White House stenographer after Jonathan Alter).
It's nice that the White House's most loyal journalist-servants are
petted on their head for their Good Behavior (it'd be sad to see that
level of devotion go completely unrewarded). I'm sure Alter and
Ryan Lizza's Obama books will be accordingly suffuse with White House
favors. I can't recall reading any sentence quite as illustrative
as this one from Politico stating (without any irony) that White House
reporters insisted upon anonymity because they're afraid of angering the
White House with their public statements.
Obama's Dysfunctional Marriage To The Press
David N. Bass
says Obama’s approach to the press: love 'em and leave 'em.
Except he never did much loving, and now that the newlywed phase has
petered out, the press is questioning its own infatuation with the Oval
Office dweller. That’s typified by Obama’s joke at a White House
correspondence dinner last year that "most of you covered me" and "all
of you voted for me."
The press corps was not amused. And
the antagonism has only grown over time, as explained in an expansive
Politico
story on the Obama administration’s ill treatment of the media.
It has all the trappings of a dysfunctional marriage. The
press wants to communicate with Obama via direct questions, but he’s
aloof. The press wants behind-the-scenes access, but Obama is too
busy feeding exclusives and scoops to his mistress, The Gray Lady, and
he doesn’t even try to hide the affair.
He gives the quiet
treatment to The Wall Street Journal and scolds Fox News -- and in so
doing telegraphs a message to other journalists: criticize me, and we’ll
freeze you out. Or worse.
If Obama is guilty of press
beating, then White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is the enabler.
He makes Obama look like a paragon of humility in comparison. He
excels at covering for the big guy’s indiscretions. And he’s
aggressive about it, too.
The White House might not comply with
reporters’ information requests, but it’s punctual in lambasting any
negative press, as Politico reports:
Among White House reporters, tales abound of
an offhand criticism or passing claim low in an unremarkable story
setting off an avalanche of hostile e-mail and voice-mail messages.
'It’s not unusual to have shouting matches or the e-mail
equivalent of that. It’s very, very aggressive behavior,
taking issue with a thing you’ve written, an individual word, all
sorts of things,' said one White House reporter.
Obama’s handling of the media is in line with the
arrogant bravado that characterizes the rest of his presidency.
Even though most journalists are in his back pocket, as evidenced by
their bootlicking coverage during the campaign, Obama can’t abide even a
smidgen of criticism. His White House staff has absorbed the same
mentality.
Is Obama Trying To Shut Down The Oil
Industry?
Sharon Rondeau
says SWAT teams are to be
dispatched to "inspect all platforms and rigs."
An explosion on
an oil rig on April 22, 2010 which resulted in a massive oil spill in
the Gulf of Mexico has resulted in the expansion of the Department of
the Interior and a statement from the putative president indicating that
SWAT teams, which are normally used in apprehending criminals and
protecting foreign dignitaries, will be dispatched to the scene:
Earlier today, DHS Secretary Napolitano
announced that this incident is of national significance and the
Department of Interior has announced that they will be sending SWAT
teams to the Gulf to inspect all platforms and rigs. And I
have ordered the Secretaries of Interior and Homeland Security as
well as Administrator Lisa Jackson of the Environmental Protection
Agency to visit the site on Friday to ensure that BP and the entire
U.S. government is doing everything possible, not just to respond to
this incident, but also to determine its cause. And I’ve been
in contact with all the governors of the states that may be affected
by this accident.
According to a report today, members of the Obama
regime are predicting a catastrophic fallout from the event, and
speculation as to whether or not any offshore drilling, which had been
"approved" by Obama on the Atlantic coast, will occur at all. On
March 31, Obama had stated that an increase in offshore oil drilling
would help "short-term economic needs." Others who might have
supported such measures are also reconsidering.
However, a report
also from today states that the oil spill, while severe, is about 1/50
of the size of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.
Originally the
Coast Guard stated that there was no oil leaking from the rig following
the explosion. A report dated April 27, 2010 stated that 42,000
gallons of oil each day are leaking into the Gulf of Mexico.
Obama has termed the accident the "BP oil spill." White House
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "We will keep a boot on the throat of
BP." Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar was also reported as
having said, "Our job is to keep the boot on the neck of BP."
While Obama blames BP for the spill, BP has stated that the equipment
failure which led to the oil spill was the property of a company named
Transocean.
The Department of the Interior website contains a
subpage on the National Park Service, which states that SWAT teams for
the United States Park Police have been in existence since 1975 and that
they engage in training, provide escorts for foreign dignitaries,
apprehend criminals, and seek "new innovative ways to safely and
effectively protect the visitors to our National Treasures." There
is nothing which might suggest that SWAT teams might have the expertise
to inspect oil rigs or offshore equipment.
A statement from the
Department of the Interior today on the oil spill reads:
The National Response Team (NRT), an
organization of 16 federal departments and agencies responsible for
coordinating emergency preparedness and response to oil and
hazardous substance pollution incidents was quickly activated and a
coordinated group of federal partners-including the United States
Coast Guard, Departments of Homeland Security, Commerce, Interior
and the Environmental Protection Agency-immediately began directing
and overseeing BP’s response.
On April 30, the Department of the Interior created
a new department named the "Outer Continental Shelf Safety Oversight
Board," which "will provide recommendations regarding interim measures
that may enhance OCS safety and recommendations for improving and
strengthening the Department’s overall management, regulation and
oversight of OCS operations."
The Department then made the
following statement:
In this eleventh day of the massive,
coordinated response to the Deepwater Horizon incident, we must
continue to do everything we can to oversee and support BP’s efforts
to stop and clean up the oil that is spilling from the well head.
At the same time, we must take aggressive action to verify the
safety of other offshore oil and gas operations, further tighten our
oversight of industry’s practices, and take a careful look at all
the questions that this disaster is raising.
9 Indicted For Accessing Obama Records
Nine people were indicted Wednesday on federal
charges of accessing Barack Obama's student loan records while they were
employed for a Department of Education contractor in Iowa.
The
U.S. attorney's office said a grand jury returned the indictments in
U.S. District Court in Davenport.
All nine are charged with
exceeding authorized computer access. They are accused of gaining
access to a computer at a Coralville office where they worked between
July 2007 and March 2009, and accessing Obama's student loan records
while he was either a candidate for president, president-elect or
president.
U.S. attorney spokesman Mike Bladel referred questions
to online copies of the indictments.
Each of eight indictments
posted by Wednesday night were brief, saying the charged individual
"intentionally exceeded authorized access to a computer and thereby
obtained information from a department and agency of the United States"
and "intentionally accessed student loan records" of Obama without
authorization.
Is Congress About To Limit The Political
Speech Of Bloggers?
Hot Air blog
says the same sloppy legislative writing that created so many
unintended consequences in ObamaCare also plagues the DISCLOSE Act, the
effort in Congress to tighten spending rules in the wake of the Citizens
United decision -- and that’s the generous take on the situation.
Reason’s Bradley Smith and Jeff Patch warn that the perhaps-unintended
consequences of legislative language will allow the FEC to regulate
political speech online. The fact that media entities like the New
York Times have specific exemptions built into the bill makes the
intent, or lack thereof, rather murky.
The response to this
criticism has been both predictable and instructive. Instead of
actually discussing how Reason got the argument wrong in its initial
reporting on the subject, a Public Citizen lobbyist (which supports the
legislation) called it a death-panel argument. Another group
attempted to defend Congress by assuring us that the FEC would "most
likely … stand by the 2006 Internet rules" and not investigate political
bloggers.
Most likely? Color me comforted. If the
Democrats in Congress wanted to ensure that the FEC would not
investigate political speech by bloggers, they would have written their
exemptions to include bloggers instead of just traditional media
outlets. The purposeful lack of exemption for bloggers looks
ominous indeed -- and could be used to harass smaller, unfunded bloggers
out of the realm of political debate.
Even if bloggers were
included in the exemption, why should the law discriminate between two
similar corporations producing similar intellectual property simply on
the basis of product when it comes to free speech? As Reason
points out, the Supreme Court stated that such discrimination violates
the First Amendment, and probably the 14th as well. What about
NBC, owned (at the moment) by GE, which produces a myriad of products
and services unrelated to speech. Should their media subsidiaries
get that exemption, and if so, why? Surely NBC has a much more
obvious incentive to bolster GE and avoid reporting on its problems, and
the politics that impact them, than a blog has in backing a candidate or
a bill in Congress.
This isn’t about "good government" or clean
elections. It’s an attempt by Congress to step around the First
Amendment and regulate political speech that threatens incumbents, just
as McCain-Feingold attempted.
Bartender Burns Obama in Effigy -- Secret
Service Investigates
After a short ad, WTJM-TV reports, in a video, that people in West
Allis were shouting and laughing as a bar tender torched the statue
for the crowd. Flames tore through the statue with what looks
like duct tape wrapped around it's neck.
Naturally, Charles
Benson, the WTJM-TV reporter has his panties in a twist, and
"selects" a few folks to interview who naturally declare, "It's a
form of racism." What WTJM-TV or Benson doesn't tell you, is
that this has happened many times before -- when George Bush was the
legal and eligible president -- this
YouTube video
never made any news that I'm aware of -- nor the bunch of videos
listed to its right
The WTJM-TV anchors refer to this
recording as an "exclusive." They also report that "the
Secret Service is interested."
Now, how do you think the
Secret Service became aware of this "exclusive" recording?
Note: The video will not
stop at the end. It continues to another story, and you can't
click the stop button while the commercial is running, so, at the
end, click stop, or click stop as soon as the second commercial ends.
Leadership
Real Clear Politics has a
video of Obama responding to the criticism he's receiving over his
handling of The Leak.
In the video, Obama gets tough and growls,
"I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college
seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best
answers, so I know whose ass to kick."
Obama is now
taking direction from Spike Lee. Obviously, it's because he hasn't
got a clue about
what to do about The Leak himself.
A leader leads. The Leader stands out front,
tells us what we need to do and why we need to do it, and then says
follow me. If the People believe him or her and the policy, they
will freely follow.
Kicking ass is done from the rear. It's
not leadership. It's intimidation. It's classic Chicago.
That's not a leader. That's a gangster.
GTR640 would venture to say that even Ghandi and MLK would be willing to
kick Obama’s ass. Because pacifism, at some level, takes
courage. But this guy is just a craven politician, and he deserves
it!
And, ladyingray says if you were really kickin’ ass, you
wouldn’t have to go on morning news shows sayin’ you were!!!
Example: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama
yesterday blamed "irresponsible decisions" by the Bush
administration and Wall Street for the country's economic woes as
government officials said the budget deficit would soar to record
heights next year.
That's not a leader.
And
this: Obama told the graduates at Kalamazoo High School not to
make excuses.
"Don’t make excuses. Take
responsibility not just for your successes, but for your
failures as well. … It’s the easiest thing in the world to start
looking around for someone to blame."
Obviously, his speech writers forgot who they were
writing for -- oh, and he needed the teleprompters to talk to high
school kids (video).
The kid over Obama's left shoulder, the one who passes out
cold, (photo)
(video)
has become an Internet sensation.
The Republican Senators
whipped up
this list of Obama's better-known excuses right after his
speech. It's easy to do. Everybody's got a list.
Google returns 6,680,000 items after a search for -- Obama excuse --
no quotes.
Obama's Enemies List
Peter Wehner
says I have argued before that the tone and manner in which one
practices politics are undervalued commodities, especially at a
presidential level. The public looks for leaders who are
large-minded rather than petty and peevish, who engage in public
arguments rather than in personal attacks, who want to solve problems
rather than settle scores. Tone and approach are important not
simply for the aesthetics of politics but also because of what they
reveal about a person's predisposition and attitude, temperament and
spirit.
That is but one reason why Obama's war on Fox News --
being carried out by him and his top aides -- is so unwise. One of
the attractions of Obama during the election -- one of his attractions
to me, who wrote favorably about him several times -- was his tone and
countenance, his apparent interest in a serious engagement with issues,
and his professed allergy to politics practiced by those who are bitter
and brittle. We should, he said, "resist the temptation to fall
back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has
poisoned our politics for so long." He went on to say, "I will
listen to you, especially when we disagree." All impressive and
high-minded sentiments. And all, apparently, a ruse.
We
have seen from this White House Nixonian tendencies and, it would
appear, a burning anger and resentment toward its critics. Whether
it's Fox News, the Chamber of Commerce, or companies that sponsor
reports that take issue with the administration's assessments, there
seems to be a cast of mind that views critics as enemies, as individuals
and institutions that need to be ridiculed, delegitimized, or ruined.
Given the administration's brazen public statements, one can only
imagine what is being said privately, behind closed doors, as strategies
are plotted and put into effect.
This is disquieting for any
number of reasons. Among them is that the presidency is the most
powerful office in the world and the temptation for the chief executive
and his top aides to misuse that power is considerable. I
understand that in the daily give-and-take of politics there will be
some rough stuff said and done, that the better angels of our nature can
often get pushed aside given the pressure of governing this nation and
the partisan crossfire that is a permanent feature of politics.
And in the White House it's easy enough to feel that you're being
treated unfairly and therefore want to strike back. I get all
that. But there are lines that ought not to be crossed,
temptations that need to be resisted, and people in the White House who
need to say "no" to tactics that begin to drag an administration, and a
country, down. There needs to be, in short, people who care about
character.
The Obama White House is showing a fondness for
intimidation tactics that might work well in the wards of Chicago but
that don't have a place in the most important and revered political
institution in America. To see these impulses manifest themselves
so early in Obama's presidency, and given all that he has said to the
contrary, is rather startling. The danger is that as the pressures
mount and the battles accrue and the political heat intensifies, these
impulses will grow stronger, the constraints on them will grow weaker,
and the voices of caution and reason will continue to be ignored.
If that should come to pass -- if what we are seeing now is only a
preview of coming attractions -- then the Obama administration, and this
nation, will pay a very high price. Mark my words.
Obama Signs Bank Bailout Bill -- ACORN
Assaults Bank
Big Government is
reporting that
Obama signed the
financial regulations bill into law yesterday. At the exact time of the
signing, leftist agitators from the former Missouri
ACORN assaulted a
Chase Bank sales branch in Chesterfield, a suburb of St Louis.
Missouri ACORN Assaults Chase Bank Branch (01:58)
The timing was precise -- planned to bring further pressure and
media attention on the banks just as massive federal regulations, many
not yet written, are signed into law. Local reporters from KMOX were
tipped off to the protest, ostensibly about renegotiating a mortgage, as
was local television affiliate KSDK.
The scene was mayhem as
forty protestors, including several children brought in tow, stormed
into the offices of the Chase branch and began chanting, shouting with a
bullhorn, and demanding meetings with the bank principals (there were no
principals, as it was a sales branch), but that didn’t matter to
protestors.
The group was professionally organized by former
Missouri ACORN Midwest director Jeff Ordower, in addition to Hannah
Allison, the paid organizer for Missourians Organizing for Reform and
Empowerment, the newly branded spawn of the Missouri ACORN employees. The group had everything set up. The protestors get inside the building,
disrupt the operations, ignore the complaints of office staff, and
continue until the police arrive. At that point, the two white
organizers negotiate with the police, while the mainly black crowd goes
out to the lobby. As more police and building security arrive, the group
heads outside, where the organizers speak in measured tones to the
compliant local media.
Hannah Allison, the pretty young
college-educated organizer is tasked with speaking to police. Ordower
arranges the media interviews, trying to stay off camera. The
group gets their media attention, meets a few local managers, and
quietly leaves after getting Chase to "agree" to negotiate the terms of
the mortgage.
Related: Even in the U.S. heartland, the
Communist Party USA is working to forever change America. Notice
the last few seconds of the video. A young Anglo woman in a black
T shirt, is clearly a leader of the group.
Trvor
Loudon says his woman looks suspiciously like Missouri ACORN legislative
liaison and Communist Party USA
supporter Julie Terbrock.
Terbrock is one of several
Communist Party operatives active in Missouri ACORN in recent times.
This certainly indicates
coordination between the White House, ACORN, and the CPUSA, but why this isn't considered extortion is beyond me.
Conservative Student Group Shut Down
The Orlando Political Press
is reporting that Palm Beach State College (PBSC) officials have
shut down a conservative student group after seeing political literature
criticizing Barack Obama’s economic policy.
On Tuesday September
7, 2010 at around 11:00am, one PBSC student and two Young Americans for
Freedom (YAF) members, state chairman Daniel P. Diaz and state vice
chairman Eddie Shaffer, were shut down and had campus police called on
them after tabling and recruiting during club rush at the college.
The PBSC student, Christina Beattie, had received prior permission from
college administrator Olivia Ford-Morris to promote her organization on
campus via telephone and email communication.
Ms. Ford-Morris
was visibly disturbed by the material presented, published by the
Heritage Foundation, criticizing Obama’s administration. College
officials then called the campus police to assure the group left campus.
Ms. Ford-Morris denied having ever talked to Ms. Beattie about giving
permission to the organization to be a part of PBSC club rush. Ms.
Ford-Morris
says, in this video,
"It does not matter. Move it now."
"I was shocked and
offended by her dishonesty. She outright denied giving me
permission to table at Club Rush simply because she disagreed with my
beliefs! The fact is, she was using her administrative power to
silence the conservative opposition." said Christina Beattie.
Christina Beattie, a student at PBSC has been the lead organizer of a
weeklong recruitment event for YAF. Christina saw a need for a
conservative club on campus and decided to create a YAF Chapter. Beattie
inquired with college Student Activities Coordinator, Ms. Olivia
Ford-Morris, via email about being allowed to recruit at the college
rush. To Christina’s surprise Ms. Ford-Morris called her and allowed the
group to table at the event. Other groups on campus attended the event
and tabled, but had not registered with the student activities
coordinator. These groups remained untouched and were allowed to recruit
even without permission. The Film Club, one of the groups not authorized
to participate in the event, declined to comment for fear of reprisal
from college administration.
Old Joe Stalin would be so proud.
Banned From America For Life
Virginia Wheeler
is reporting that a British teenager who sent an email to the White
House calling Obama an obscenity was banned from America for life.
The FBI asked local cops to tell college student Luke Angel, 17, his
drunken insult was "unacceptable."
Angel said he fired off a
single email criticizing the U.S. government after seeing a TV program
about the 9/11 attacks.
He said, "I don't remember exactly what I
wrote as I was drunk. But I think I called Barack Obama a pr*ck.
It was silly -- the sort of thing you do when you're a teenager and have
had a few."
Angel, of Bedford, in central England, said it was "a
bit extreme" for the FBI to act. "The police came and took my
picture and told me I was banned from America forever. I don't
really care but my parents aren't very happy."
A Bedford Police
spokesman confirmed they had spoken to Angel about the email.
Officers will take no criminal action.
Joanne Ferreira, of the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said there are about 60 reasons a
person can be barred from visiting America.
She said, "We are
prohibited from discussing specific cases."
The notoriously
thin-skinned Obama is getting really, really touchy.
Gibbs Shifts Anger Over Obama "Rage"
Article to Forbes
Jonathon Seidl
says after Press Secretary Robert
Gibbels and Vice President Joe Biden
attacked Dinesh D‘Souza’s
article explaining the origins of what he calls Obama’s
"anti-colonialism," the administration is now shifting its anger to the
publisher of the article -- Forbes.
The Washington Post‘s Howard
Kurtz quoted Gibbels as saying: "It’s a stunning thing, to see a
publication you would see in a dentist’s office, so lacking in truth and
fact. I think it represents a new low."
According to Kurtz,
Gibbels is meeting with Forbes’s Washington bureau chief Brian Wingfield
this afternoon to discuss his objections. "Did they not fact-check
this at all, or did they fact-check it and just willfully ignore it?"
Gibbels asks.
Forbes shows no sign of backing down from the story.
In a statement released by the magazine, it said, "Dinesh D‘Souza’s
cover story was presented as an analysis of how the president thinks.
No facts are in contention. Forbes stands by the story."
D’Souza did admit one error to Kurtz. While he claimed in the
article that Obama "spent his formative years–the first 17 years of his
life -- off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan,
with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa," he realizes now that Obama
first visited Pakistan as a college student, when he was older than 17.
Not to be outdone by the White House, Columbia Journalism Review
gave its opinion of the article: "[It] is a gross piece of innuendo -- a
fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia. This is the worst
kind of smear journalism -- a singularly disgusting work."
Obama And His Enemies
Neo-Neocon
says
that Rolling Stone has become quite the force in political journalism.
First there were the magazine’s revelations about Stanley McChrystal,
which ended up costing the general his job. Now Obama has decided
to use an interview with editor and founder Jann Wenner as a vehicle for
administering a tongue-lashing to his base:
"It is inexcusable for any Democrat or
progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm
election…The idea that we’ve got a lack of enthusiasm in the
Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining,
is just irresponsible. … People need to shake off this lethargy,
people need to buck up."
No doubt Obama sees himself akin to a coach at
halftime when the team is down in the score, talking tough to the
players to motivate them. But he is not a coach; he is actually
the star player. And voters are not team members, they are
observers who don’t like what they see, but don’t take my word for it;
listen to some voices on the left, including David Dayen, who writes:
"…I’ve never seen a politician run an election
with the message "Don’t be stupid, quit your bitching and vote for
me."… There’s a reason that strategy has never been employed:
because it’s so insane to think that open berating would inspire a
voter to action."
What’s more, Obama’s comments were an unforced
error. He was not responding to anything Wenner was asking.
Obama’s remarks were thrown in after the end of the interview, when he
had already left the Oval Office and then felt inexplicably inspired to
return to add them. It’s a bit like the last ski run of the day,
when a person is tired and likely to fall and really should go back to
the lodge, but instead decides to take "just one more." It can
lead to disaster.
Most of Wenner’s questions were set-ups, of the
type Obama has grown accustomed to for most of his public life: "When
did you realize that the Republicans had abandoned any real effort to
work with you and create bipartisan policy?" "How do you feel
about the fact that day after day, there’s this really destructive
attack on whatever you propose? Does that bother you?"
If a
succession of softball questions like that are the sort of grilling
Obama has come to expect from a free press, it might explain the depth
of his antipathy to Fox News, and his inability to resist the
opportunity to bash it -- an opportunity that Wenner afforded him when
he asked Obama: "What do you think of Fox News? Do you think it’s
a good institution for America and for democracy?"
In a way, the
question was an easy one. And had Obama stuck to the first
sentence of his answer -- "Look, as president, I swore to uphold the
Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press" -- he
probably would have scored points on all sides.
Instead, Obama
accused Fox of being a regrettable, destructive case of opinion
journalism, a departure from an unspecified and narrow time when
journalism had its objective "golden age":
"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. I think Fox is part of that
tradition -- it is part of the tradition that has a very clear,
undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree
with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately
destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant
middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an
economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I
suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is,
it’s that Fox is very successful."
Never mind that Obama can’t say when this golden
age was, and who its practitioners might have been. Never mind
that he ignores the blatant liberal bias in an outlet such as MSNBC,
which no doubt he thinks is constructive for America. And never
mind that the prevailing opinion in public polls is that the media is
biased in the liberal direction.
The quote about Fox is notable
for another characteristic Obama attitude: his disdain for the profit
motive and capitalism. No doubt Murdoch is concerned with Fox’s
success. But is this some anomaly, some exception to the rule in
broadcasting? Of course not. Has Obama never heard of
ratings and the keen competition for them? Obama not only posits a
golden age of journalistic objectivity, but an imaginary one of network
self-sacrifice and lack of concern with its viewership or the profit
motive.
It’s not at all unusual for presidents to have
difficulties with the press. What is unusual is for a president to
take on a single news outlet, accuse it of bias, and ignore the opposite
bias in most of the other outlets, pretending that the news business
itself has no generally capitalist aspect, and that the station that
cares about its success is the mercenary exception rather than the rule.
This is part of Obama’s tendency to personalize the attack against
those he sees as his media enemies, in the past criticizing Rush
Limbaugh and Sean Hannity by name rather than ignoring them.
Shutting Up Business
The Wall Street Journal
says if at first you don't succeed, get some friends in high places
to shut your opponents up. That's the latest Washington power
play, as Democrats and liberals attack the Chamber of Commerce and
independent spending groups in an attempt to stop businesses from
participating in politics.
Since the Supreme Court's January
decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Democrats in Congress have been
trying to pass legislation to repeal the First Amendment for business,
though not for unions. Having failed on that score, they're now
turning to legal and political threats. Funny how all of this
outrage never surfaced when the likes of Peter Lewis of Progressive
insurance and George Soros helped to make Democrats financially dominant
in 2006 and 2008.
Chairman Max Baucus of the powerful Senate
Finance Committee got the threats going last month when he asked
Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman to investigate if
certain tax exempt 501(c) groups had violated the law by engaging in too
much political campaign activity. Lest there be any confusion
about his targets, the Montana Democrat flagged articles focused on
GOP-leaning groups, including Americans for Job Security and American
Crossroads.
Baucus was seconded last week by the ostensibly
nonpartisan campaign reform groups Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal
Center, which asked the IRS to investigate whether Crossroads is
spending too much money on campaigns. Those two outfits swallowed
their referee whistle in the last two campaign cycles, but they're all
worked up now that Republicans might win more seats. Crossroads
GPS, a 501(c)(4) affiliate of American Crossroads supported by Karl
Rove, is a target because it has spent millions already in this election
cycle.
Last Tuesday, the liberal blog ThinkProgress, run by the
Center for American Progress Action Fund, reported that the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce had collected some $300,000 in annual dues from foreign
companies. Since the money went into the Chamber's general fund,
the allegation is that it could have been used to pay for political ads,
which would violate a ban on foreign companies participating in American
elections. The Chamber says it uses no foreign money for its
political activities and goes to great lengths to raise separate funds
for political purposes.
That didn't stop Obama from raising the
issue in a Maryland speech last week, saying that "groups that receive
foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections."
Within hours of the ThinkProgress report, the bully boys at MoveOn.org
asked the Department of Justice to launch a criminal investigation of
the Chamber. In a letter to the Federal Election Commission,
Minnesota Senator Al Franken expressed his profound concern that
"foreign corporations are indirectly spending significant sums to
influence American elections through third-party groups." From the
man who stole his Senate election in a dubious recount, this is rich.
Even Franken admits in his letter that the Chamber's commingling
of funds in its general accounts is not "per se illegal," but apparently
he thinks it's fine to unleash federal investigators because the Chamber
cash might contribute to the defeat of fellow Democrats.
Related:Bob Schieffer correctly noted
on CBS Face the Nation yesterday that the Chamber of Commerce keeps
these foreign dues in a separate account.
Schieffer also nailed
Axelrod with this comment: "I guess I would put it this way.
If the only charge three weeks into the election that the Democrats can
make is that somehow this may or may not be foreign money coming into
the campaign, is that the best you can do?"
Barack Obama And The Chamber Of Secrets
David Harsanyi
asks, so
who's left to demonize? The Girl Scouts? The Rotary Clubs,
maybe?
We're running out devils to distract us. Then
again, the Obama administration's preposterous attack on the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce does nothing to help Democrats, and everything to
reinforce the moderate voter's perception that Obama's party has gone
bonkers.
A recent ad by Democrats makes the charge -- dutifully
echoed through the blogosphere and by talking heads -- that the Chamber
was part of a cabal out to "steal our democracy," accepting foreign cash
and then using the funds to campaign against candidates on the left.
Though, admittedly, they have no proof of any wrongdoing, Democrats have
threatened that investigations will soon uncover this reprehensible
criminal activity.
Inquiry to come post-election, no doubt.
"Stealing democracy," as you may know, loosely translated, means:
Holy crap, Republicans are going to win an election.
You'll also
notice that the insidious sway of outside political money always seems
to blossom into a critical threat to the future of democracy around the
time misguided conservatives start to get the upper hand on Democrats.
Yes, some critics are throwing a more nuanced accusation at the
Chamber of Commerce. They assert that all money is fungible and
thus it is irrelevant how the funding is separated within the
organization. At the end of the day, foreign money helps the
political arm of the Chamber.
This argument holds a lot of
credence. Money is fungible. So it will be interesting to
hear how Democrats defend their support of government funding for, say,
Planned Parenthood, which, one could point out, is also using fungible
government dollars to regularly fund abortions. I believe that's
illegal, as well.
But let's face it, no one is really buying the
argument. Though, a perceptive voter might ask themselves this: If
the United States Chamber of Commerce -- composed of some of the most
moderate, milquetoast, government-friendly saps in the country -- are
now on the Enemies List, who exactly does Obama think is reasonable?
If the crony capitalists aren't good enough for Barack Obama, who is?
Without these helpful attacks and the ensuing kerfuffle, most voters
would never have known about the Chamber's political activities.
Now, they may question why the Chamber of Commerce, which supports an
array of left-of-center policies -- tax hikes, health care "reforms,"
bailouts, etc. -- is so interested in seeing Democratic candidates
beaten in November? Why would the Chamber want to replace these
statesmen with nihilistic Republicans who promise to reject all federal
bailouts?
And how many average American voters believe that the
Chamber of Commerce reflects, in general, the positions of most
mainstream business? Things, they may assume, must be worse than
we thought.
Time magazine's Mark Halperin -- not exactly Glenn
Beck -- recently wrote that the general perception by most Washington
insiders was that "the White House is in over its head, isolated,
insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade
members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class
voters."
Many of us have always thought the administration
insular and arrogant but never clueless. But, you have to ask yourself,
why would Democrats run a campaign that reminds everyone that their
opponents aren't exclusively Tea Party radicals and demon-Bush acolytes,
but moderate groups of small and large businesses?
Politically
speaking, election time is when you retrofit your positions. This
stunt only proves this administration can't even feign moderation in the
face of defeat.
