ObamagandA -- 2010 

Custom Search

  

Obama has the best propaganda machine since Joseph Goebbels

 

   

 
 

help fight the media
 

 

 

 

 
Items on this page are archived in the order of discovery.
The Press Is AWOL
Byron York did a Nexis search on the Van Jones controversy, on September 4, 2009.  Here are the results:
    

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.

    
If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving Obama's Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, "Huh?"  If you heard that that adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions in the recent past, your response would be, "What?"  And if you were in the Obama White House monitoring the Jones situation, you would be hoping that the news organizations listed above continue to hold the line -- otherwise, Jones, who is quite well thought of in Obama circles, would be history.

Sometimes, propaganda is what you don't report.
The New York Times Misrepresents The Facts
It's no surprise that the media are in the tank for Barack Obama, but the willingness of the New York Times to simply misrepresent the facts -- while pretending to act as a fact-checker! -- is pretty breathtaking.  You may think the Times is an outlier, if not a joke, but I suspect that many more news outlets are prepared to follow the Times' lead in flat-out misreporting the facts, if that's what it takes to get Obama elected.

There's a May 5th Times' story, "On McCain, Obama and a Hamas Link."  It takes John McCain to task for pointing out that Hamas has endorsed Obama.  The Times reporter, Larry Rohter, says that John McCain has "again portrayed the Democratic contender as being the favorite of Hamas, the militant Palestinian group."  Of course, this is not McCain's "portrayal;" it is an indisputable fact that Hamas has endorsed Obama and has said that it hopes he will be elected.  But the paper's most egregious error, in its campaign "fact check" column, is yet to come.

Rohter notes that charges and counter-charges have gone back and forth between the McCain and Obama campaigns, but Rohter judges that McCain is mostly at fault:

But important nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos, particularly on Mr. McCain’s side.  McCain, Rohter writes, is guilty because he says that Obama has advocated "unconditional" meetings with Iran's President:

[I]n a fund-raising letter sent out in April, a spokesman for Mr. McCain wrote: "We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad."

That, the Times says, is wrong.

But, who you gonna believe -- well, here's the video -- is the Times lying -- is Obama's Campaign lying -- you decide.

 

 


Not good enough?  How about the fact that Obama's web site contains this statement -- Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

Obama's Plan To Desecrate 9/11
Obama is behind a cynical, coldly calculated political effort to erase the meaning of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from the American psyche and convert 9/11 into a day of leftist celebration and statist idolatry.

This effort to reshape the American psyche has nothing to do with healing the nation and everything to do with easing the nation along in the ongoing radical transformation of America that Obama promised during last year's election campaign.  Obama signed into law a measure in April that designated 9/11 as a National Day of Service, but it's not likely many lawmakers thought this meant that day was going to be turned into a celebration of ethanol, carbon emission controls, and radical community organizing.

Obama's plans were outlined in an August 11, 2009,  White House-sponsored teleconference call run by Obama ally Lennox Yearwood, president of the Hip Hop Caucus, and Liv Havstad, the group's senior vice president of strategic partnerships and programs.

On the August 11th call, Yearwood and other leaders kept saying repeatedly that they wanted 9/11 to be used for something "positive," "forward-leaning," and "productive," said a source with knowledge of the teleconference.

The plan is to turn a "day of fear" that helps Republicans into a day of activism called the National Day of Service that helps the left.  In other words, nihilistic liberals are planning to drain 9/11 of all meaning.

"They think it needs to be taken back from the right," said the source.  "They're taking that day and they're breaking it because it gives Republicans an advantage.  To them, that day is a fearful day."

Continue reading here . . .
Rage Against The Obama Propaganda Machine
"Choose you this day whom ye will serve." That may be from the Bible's Book of Joshua, but it could be from a book of Barack Obama.  Kathryn Lopez asks, is that hyperbole?  Only slightly, unfortunately.

In U.S. Department of Education materials surrounding the first national presidential address to public-school students, children were encouraged to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help Obama.  After some genuine and vociferous backlash, the Obama administration took back some of these recommendations for recruiting students to the cause that is Barack Obama.

But the pullback came around the same time that an elementary school in Utah was scheduled to show students a video parade of celebrities pledging allegiance to Obama, and to the liberalism for which he stands.  In this video, various tabloid types seeking to "Be the Change" vow to "smile more" and "love more."  Other plans include "to be the voice for those who have no voice"; and to not always flush the toilet, for the sake of the planet; "To pledge allegiance to the funk, of the United Funk of Funkadelica"; and, most audaciously, "To free one million people from slavery in the next five years."  Yes, it was a bit of a mix.

The culmination of the whole mess, however, was very clear; to "pledge to be of service to Barack Obama . . . to be a servant of Obama and all mankind."

Rational people would argue that the head of a republican government serves the people who elected him, not the other way around.  But reason does not live in an era of vague feelings.

The video was produced and directed by noted thespian and liberal scold Demi Moore and her husband Ashton Kutcher, who recently told Reuters: "There's an assumption that this one man is going to take on his new job full-time and somehow wave a magic wand of change, and I don't believe that to be true.  I think that we have to be the leaders, and that's not celebrities -- I think that we as citizens have to be leaders of the movement that we want to create."  Evidently, in order to get people to be the change, you have to get to them early, when they're in public school.  "We're all in this together," one celeb declared.  Would that have only been the case when George W. Bush was president?  Instead, examples of celebrity service during that era took the form of actress Cameron Diaz (who makes an appearance in the Moore pledge video) declaring on the Oprah Winfrey show during the 2004 election: "If you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote.  But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote."

What the heck is she talking about?  Abortion, obviously, once you cut through all the craziness.  It's safe to say Diaz wasn't into presidential servitude back then.

The school indoctrination stories have been airing at the same time as revelations, on the right-leaning Web site Big Hollywood, of a government body organizing an artistic propaganda machine.  Film producer Patrick Courrielche was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts to join a conference call sponsored by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve, the organization created by Obama to promote volunteer service.  The stated purpose of the call was "to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda -- health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal."

A few days after the call, Courrielche noticed that the starry-eyed Rock the Vote campaign, whose "mission is to engage and build the political power of young people in order to achieve progressive change in our country," sent out an e-mail declaring: "We can't stand by and listen to lies and deceit coming from those who are against reforming a broken system...Young people demand health care now."  Unsurprisingly, Rock the Vote is in favor of a public component to said health care.

A representative for Rock the Vote was on the NEA conference call.  He picked up the orders.

These have been tough times for Obama.  With a majority in Congress, and an adamant imperative that his health-care reform will should be done, he had to let summer recess in Washington come and go without his commands fulfilled.  You can understand wanting to use every resource available to him.

Aristotle said that art completes what nature cannot bring to a finish.  Perhaps Obama's NEA might say that art completes what democracy isn't obedient enough carry out.

The problem is that, if the National Endowment for the Arts exists -- which some of us think has always been regrettable in a nation that has more than enough private resources and enthusiasm to support the arts without need of government support -- it is not at the political service of a politician.  It's not meant to be an extension of his communications office.

The video, the Department of "Political" Education directives, the secular crusading ... these are alarm bells.  An emptiness exists, created by a tyrannical reign of elite secularism.  And self-declared servants of Obama may not realize this yet, but it's a void that ultimately can't be filled by hollow rhetoric and bureaucratic disasters.

We are a culture that understands art as an elevation, not as a campaign tactic.  And there is a higher authority than the Resident of the United States whom you're still free to pledge service to if you so choose.
Obama "Appointed By God"
Obama was "appointed by God," we are instructed by a man boasting academic credentials.

Writing in the Orlando Sentinel, Jeremy Levitt, "associate dean for International Programs and a distinguished professor of international law at Florida A&M University College of Law in Orlando," makes this case at the conclusion of a rambling attack on critics of ObamaCare and the right in general:
   

I would remind the far right what the Apostle Paul wrote, " ... there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God."  Hence, Obama is the U.S. president and leader of the Free World because he was appointed by God.

 
Thomas Lifson wonders how much criticism this statement will encounter on the left, from the militant atheists and church-haters?

How many Obama supporters actually believe this "distinguished professor"?
Brainwashing Kindergarteners


"Obama, Mmm, mmm, mm!"  (02:24)
( lyrics here )
   
Criminney!  Reader "JH" just emailed me another one.  The perpetrators of this outrage are so proud of their "song," they even have a website, complete with the words, and additional pictures of the children subjects.  Here's their email.  I'm sure they'd love to hear what you have to say about their wonderful, wonderful work.

This is wrong on so many levels.  This is nothing more than the brainwashing of children -- and these children haven't even reached the age of reason yet.  It's just not wrong, it's criminal.  Everyone involved with these outragous videos should be fired.

Just imagine what goes on in these classes when the cameras are off?

Here is the
email to the principal of the B. Bernice Young Elementary School, Dr. Denise King, and here's Mrs. Carol Zulla's, the vice-principal's, email.
Americans Say Media In Tank For Obama
Much of the Mainstream Media has a low opinion of the American people -- just like Obama.  They believe them to be mindless cattle who are easy to influence.  To the MSM, it was propaganda that got us into the war on terror, and it is their job to use propaganda to get us out.  The problem with that theory, is that the American people are not dumb.  They mistrust government and ask lots of questions which is why people tend to gravitate toward the conservative point of view.  And one thing's for sure they see through the Mainstream Media's act.

The latest update of the Sacred Heart University media poll asked people about their attitudes regarding the Mainstream Media.  Most Americans felt that the media is not neutral, it tries to influence public opinion and policy.  They feel that most media has a STRONG liberal bent, Fox news is the most accurate of news services, they don't want one red cent spent on bailing out the Newspaper Industry, and the media is in the tank for Obama.

•  86.6% strongly and somewhat agreed that the news media have their own political and public policy positions and attempt to influence public opinion.

•  85.3% strongly and somewhat agreed that the news media have their own political positions and attempt to influence public policies.

•  83.6% agreed that national news media organizations as very or somewhat biased.

•  89.3%, agreed the national media played a very or somewhat strong role in helping to elect Obama.

•  69.9% agreed the national news media are intent on promoting the Obama residency.

•  56.4%, agreed that the news media are promoting Obama’s healthcare reform without objective criticism.

Details here . . .

Why I do what I do.
Capitol Hill Switchboard Used For Partisan Purposes
Warner Todd Huston says this certainly can't be legal… can it?  If you call the switchboard for Congress, the number you'd call to be put through to your Congressman or Senator's office, you get a short message selling Obama's healthcare policies before being transferred to the switchboard operator.  This should be the sort of story the Old Media would investigate fully.  But will it?

How can this even be legal?  After all, this isn't the Democrat Party hotline we are talking about here.  It is the main phone number representing all of Congress, not just Obama and his nationalized healthcare policies.  I repeat, this is the phone number for all of Congress, not an activist's number to sell Democrats and their policies.

While it lasts, try it yourself and you'll see.  The number is 1-800-828-0498.

Here is the transcript of the message you'll hear:
  

Thank you for calling your Representative and your Senators.

Please urge them to vote yes on health insurance reform. Because the American people can no longer wait for more choices, lower costs, and coverage we can count on.

   
After this little message the phone rings once again and is patched through to the switchboard operator.

Here is the audio that I recorded just in case the Obama administration does the "transparent" thing and makes this message disappear down the memory hole.
  
  
I have to say, this message is frightening.  We can't even call our representatives without being hit over the head by the socialized healthcare message.  Not to mention the fact that the message is a arguably untrue.  A good argument can be made that ObamaCare will not give us "more choices," ObamaCare will not "lower costs," and ObamaCare will not give us better coverage.

I just cannot see how this is legal, and even if it is legal it is gauche and not right.  Can the message for the Congressional switchboard be used for partisan purposes?  I just can't see it being legal.

Naturally, the big question here is if the Old Media will report this?  If a Republican president or a Republican controlled House and Senate were to sponsor such a phone message on the Capitol Hill switchboard, one would think that the Old Media would lose its collective mind that a general government service was being used for partisan purposes.  One might rather imagine that the media would fall into a feeding frenzy over such a thing were it to occur with the GOP in controlling power.

I received a single email suggesting this may be a scam.  However, I called the number myself before posting this item.  The operator who answered was very annoyed, and suggested that she would put me through to my rep (So. Boston's Steve Lynch).  I said that would be useless, connect me with any Republican, and she put me right through to the Republican Congressional Committee.
The Obama Show
Matthew Continetti says it's time to change the channel.

Unemployment is close to 10 percent.  The government is embedded in the auto, banking, housing, and insurance sectors.  Obama's domestic agenda hangs in the balance.  Things aren't rosy on the global front, either.  Public opinion has turned against the war in Afghanistan just as a major decision on troop levels must be made.  The Iranians are busily working to obtain nuclear weapons. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains as intractable as ever.  It's a dangerous world at an uncertain time, and last week Obama responded by going on the Late Show with David Letterman.

It's all too apparent: Faced with the choice, Obama prefers the comforts of celebrity to the duties of leadership.  In addition to Letterman, there was his appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno last March and his running commentary in the ESPN broadcast booth during baseball's All-Star game last July.  You might imagine a lame-duck making such media appearances, but not one barely nine months into his term.  Obama clearly sees himself as a sort of salesman-in-chief, and considers endless speechifying and interview-giving as the best way to further his agenda.  The adoring crowds, raucous applause, and obsequious press coverage that accompany his appearances are cherries on top.

So, in order to pressure Congress to act on health care and "call out" all the lying racist, nihilist cynics who stand in his way, Obama delivered his major address to a joint session of Congress on September 9.  He followed that up with giant "Si Se Puede" rallies in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Maryland and a dizzying turn on five Sunday morning news shows.  Amazingly, Obama has also found time in September to deliver a speech to the nation's schoolchildren; give major addresses on the financial crisis and climate change; and contribute remarks at Walter Cronkite's funeral.  The month isn't even over yet, and the salesman-in-chief has become a poor imitation of the late pitchman, Billy Mays.

Continue reading here . . .

Selling White House Policy Through Art

Patrick Courrielche received a call from his cousin.  He’d been hearing some chatter from the family about something happening with a series of NEA articles that I’d written for Big Hollywood and wanted to find out from the horse’s mouth what was going on.  His question was simple and concise.

 

"What did the White House do wrong," he asked.

 

"The White House attempted to use federal agencies for political gain," I blurted out.

    

yosi-obama-kzo
Obama with former NEA Communications Director Yosi Sergant

   

And that is The Big Truth in a nutshell.  A moment of clarity hit me, and as with most eureka moments, a path of how to explain this big truth came into sight.  The full story needed to be told -- including possible collusion, the White House’s novel mode of operation, and the eventual cover-up -- to fully understand and illuminate the government’s intention with their arts effort.

 

Up until now, I have not discussed Sergant’s former job in the White House Office of Public Engagement, where Buffy Wicks currently resides, because the story had to develop to understand the significance.  I also haven’t discussed the email that I received from Michael Skolnik, the moderator of the call, immediately after the publication of the original conference call article -- an email that attempted to revise history and the role of the NEA and the White House in the meeting.  And what has yet to be discussed is the White House’s recent ability to set up an ArtistCorps, brought into existence with less than 20 words in the Serve America Act. (more…)

Jarrett’s Ministry of Culture
Conservative journalists have exposed the Obama administration’s attempts to politicize the National Endowment for the Arts.  Andrew Breitbart’s website has detailed two conference calls in August aimed at recruiting artists to shill for health care "reform" and environmental legislation.  However, it has been overlooked that an NEA official and numerous employees in Valerie Jarrett’s office hosted an earlier meeting on May 12 to enroll "artists" in advancing its political agenda – and to get their input in shaping it. Both aspects are troubling, as the invited participants included several of Van Jones’s ideological fellow travelers, three people who claimed the CIA sells crack in minority neighborhoods, a Jewish lesbian who confessed to having "a little crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ," representatives of the SEIU and the Tides Foundation, a publisher who dubbed 9/11 "a major piece of performance art conceived by" a jihadist with "an artist’s mind," a director who wrote 9/11 was tied to Ronald Reagan’s withdrawal from UNESCO, and the "former International Spokeswoman for the Universal Zulu Nation."

The evidence shows the heavy involvement of Valerie Jarrett’s office -- and possibly Jarrett herself -- the participants’ explicit understanding they were to promote Obama’s legislative agenda, and the administration’s acceptance of those whose beliefs are at least as radical as those of Van Jones.

The furor began when word leaked out then-National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) communications director Yosi Sergant invited Patrick Courrielche and 74 other artists to participate in an August 10th conference call supporting the United We Serve Program.  Sergant invited his readers to "celebrate how the arts can be used for a positive change!"  The call’s organizer, Michael Skolnick said (as administration officials listened in) that artists who had worked to elect Obama must continue "to support some of the president’s initiatives…to push the president and push his administration."  Sergant then emphasized, "I would encourage you to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the environment…." (Read the full call transcript.)

However, it was one of Valerie Jarrett’s employees, Deputy Director of the Office of Public Engagement Buffy Wicks, who was most explicit about the call’s partisan goals.  She told the participants, "we’re going to come at you with some specific asks here."  She did this because, "We’re actually running the government.  We need your guys’s help to promote this."

Continue reading Ben Johnson here . . .
Obama Receives Nobel Peace Prize
No, this is not a joke.  I Googled (News) to make sure this one was on the level -- it is.

Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Nobel Committee said in Oslo today.

The Nobel Committee awarded Obama his Peace Prize after only 11 days in office.

Obama says he's humbled.  Why are you laughing?
     
  

Obama, 48, last year was elected on a platform of extracting the U.S. from the Iraq war (which he hasn't) while increasing focus on an eight-year conflict in Afghanistan (which he hasn't).  All U.S. forces are scheduled to be withdrawn from Iraq by 2011 (which they won't), after the 2003 the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

Obama is the third occupant of the Oval Office to be awarded the prize, following Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 and Woodrow Wilson in 1919.  Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter won in 2002.

What the hell has Obama done to even be considered for this award -- it's a disgrace -- but when one reads the list of presidential honorees -- Wilson, Carter and Obama -- it kinda makes sense -- three losers!

The bloom was off the Nobel Rose when they gave the thing to Yasser Arafat.

Even 4th-Worlders are saying it's a joke.

Liaqat Baluch, a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a conservative religious party in Pakistan, called the award an "embarrassing joke."

"Obama has a long way to go still and lots of work to do before he can deserve a reward," said Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri.  "Obama only made promises and did not contribute any substance to world peace.  And he has not done anything to ensure justice for the sake of Arab and Muslim causes."

Issam al-Khazraji, a day laborer in Baghdad, said: "He doesn't deserve this prize.  All these problems -- Iraq, Afghanistan -- have not been solved... The man of 'change' hasn't changed anything yet."
White House Admits They Control News Media
Gina's blog at Sodahead reports Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled," White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference.

"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn.

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters," said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama's chief campaign manager.

"We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter.  So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it," Dunn said.

Dunn: "Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was -- making the press cover what we were saying."

Anita Dunn's husband is Obama's personal attorney -- he's the guy that's keeping Obama's bona fides hidden from the American People -- and she's Obama's mouthpiece and a proud admirer of Chairman Mao -- it's a tight little bunch.
Obama Fumbles On Monday Night Football
Kyle Smith says his propaganda has seeped into everything.

Remember that time President Bush interrupted the Emmy telecast to tell people we should support reform of Social Security before it bankrupted the country?

Neither do I.  Yet when I tuned in to watch "Monday Night Football" this week to check out the Miami Dolphins’ Wildcat offense, I didn’t expect to see Obama taking the direct snap and trying to pound his political message into the end zone.

Where’s the flag for illegal procedure?  Obama is popping up everywhere but Cialis commercials.  How long before we have to watch him and Michelle holding hands in matching bathtubs as they lecture us about executive compensation schemes?

With the full blessing of the media, Obama is still in election mode, and I say:  If elections persist more than 24 months, it’s a problem.  Especially when the networks are giving him free time to air what amount to campaign commercials.

Continue reading here . . .
He Came, He Saw, He Kowtowed
Jonah Goldberg says that Rocco Landesman, the head of the National Endowment for the Arts, didn’t get the memo, literally.

On September 22, stung by controversy over the administration’s effort to turn the arts community into proselytizers of its very special brand of hope and change, the White House issued a stern warning to all government agencies:  Keep politics out of the arts.

The White House denied that was ever the intent.  Many in the media, as is their wont, took the Obama administration at their word.

But not the website Big Government (which broke the story) and the Washington Times.  They demonstrated that from the earliest days of the presidential transition, Barack Obama’s political operation sought to entrench the arts community in its "outreach" operations.  Bill Ivey, Obama’s transition adviser on the arts, admitted in June:  "I wanted to see some real connection between administration objectives and the capacity of all the cultural actors in government.  I made some progress.  I got some agreement."

That "progress" mostly came in the form of enlisting arts groups -- groups that received stimulus money -- in Obama’s national-service agenda.

Three days after Landesman was confirmed as the head of the NEA, his communications director, Yosi Sergant, told NEA grantees in a conference call:  "I would encourage you to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the environment -- you know, there’s four key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service."

Two days later, a host of arts organizations endorsed Obama’s health-care plan:  "We call on Congress to pass:  A health-care reform bill that will create a public-health option....  There is little time to waste...."  Of the 21 groups signing the statement, 16 had recently received grants from the NEA or were affiliated with organizations that had.

Sergant was thrown under the bus, and the September 22 memo put an end to the story for the supportive media.

But the story continues here . . .
NEA Scandal Expands
The Lid blog reports on a new set of National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) emails that have been released, linking the White House directly to the NEA scandal.

Four weeks ago, Big Hollywood posted an audio of a conference call in which Obama administration officials asked "grant recipients to plug Barack Obama’s domestic agenda."

At least six federal laws and regulations were violated when then–NEA communications director Yosi Sergant and White House Office of Public Engagement deputy director Buffy Wicks tried twisting the arms of artists and arts groups interested in getting federal arts grants to produce government propaganda.

To protect the scandal from expanding further, the White House threw Sergant under the bus, denied that they were involved issued new guidelines for the NEA and promised that it will never, ever, cross my heart, ever happen again.

Last week, Judicial Watch, announced it had obtained documents from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) related to the NEA's controversial August 10 conference call encouraging artists to create work that promotes the Obama agenda.  The first set of documents were internal NEA correspondence involving disgraced former NEA Communications Director Yosi Sergant, who resigned over the scandal, and former actor, star of House and current Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, Kalpen Modi.

They indicate that the call was part of a specific White House Arts Policy to use the NEA as propaganda tool.

The following are excerpts from the email correspondence:
Using Tax Money To Push Obama Agenda
WashingtonExaminer.com reports that buried in the interior appropriations bill headed to Obama's desk is a big spending increase for a controversial agency that his White House staff aims to use as artistic cover for creating political propaganda.  The National Endowment for the Arts's annual spending goes from $155 million to $167.5 million, the most since the Clinton administration.  A mere $12 million in a budget with $1.4 trillion in deficits might seem trifling.  But documents obtained by Judicial Watch via a Freedom of Information Act request leave no doubt that Obama aides meant to put those tax dollars to work paying "artists" to create posters and other propaganda paraphernalia supporting the Obama agenda.

As The Examiner reported Friday, the documents made public by Judicial Watch include a series of e-mails from White House associate director of public engagement Kalpen Modi, whose boss is Valerie Jarrett, director of the Office of Public Engagement and a close Obama confidant.  Modi worked with then-NEA communications director Yosif Sergant planning an Aug. 10 telephone conference call hosted by Sergant.  The purpose of the call, moderator Michael Skolnik explained at the outset, was to encourage participants "to get involved in things that we're passionate about as we did during the campaign but continue to get involved in those things, to support the president's initiatives ..."  Skolnik, political director for hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons, told conference participants that he was asked "by people in the White House and folks in the NEA" to organize the call, which was joined by officials representing 21 arts groups around the country.

Judicial Watch unearthed e-mail between Sergant, Modi and Buffy Wicks, deputy director of the White House public engagement office.  Wicks campaigned for Obama in Missouri in 2008, and before that worked for an ACORN-like activist group known as Wake-Up Wal-Mart that was funded by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.  Use of government time, equipment and facilities in planning the conference call may violate the Anti-Lobbying Act, which says "no part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation.  ..." Sergant resigned from the NEA following disclosure of the Aug. 10 conference call.  Why are Modi and Wicks still on the White House payroll?

Buffy Wicks ran Obama’s Missouri campaign and the "Obama Truth Squad."  Along with two of St. Louis' high-profile prosecuting attorneys, Wicks' Truth Squad threatened anyone who dared to disseminate information that they didn't like about the then-candidate Obama.

One year ago on September 23rd, KMOV Channel 4 in St. Louis
reported that St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCullough and St. Louis Circuit attorney Jennifer Joyce joined a high-profile group of law enforcement officials (including Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer) threatening to invoke "Missouri ethics laws" against anyone the prosecutors determined had spread misleading information about Obama.

Obama has shown that he has no problem using goon squad tactics, whether the goons come from the SEIU or the halls of justice.
Obama Lunches With ObamaMedia
Michael Calderone says Obama met with several journalists for lunch today at the White House, according to a source with knowledge of the event.

The attendees for Friday’s lunch were as follows: CNN's David Gergen, Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Howard Fineman, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker, POLITICO's Mike Allen, NPR/ Fox's Mara Liasson, Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall and New York Times trio David Brooks, Andy Rosenthal, and Gail Collins.

Also on hand were administration officials: David Axelrod, Anita Dunn, Bill Burton, and Robert Gibbs.

The off-the-record lunch lasted about two hours, and included a green salad, halibut and a pear fart for dessert (excuse me "tart" -- I couldn't help myself)

Obama's had several meetings with columnists, editors and reporters since shortly before inauguration.  Early on, there was a conservative columnist dinner at George Will's house, followed by a meeting with liberal and moderate writers the next day.  Just two weeks ago, Obama met with a group of mostly liberal columnists and cable personalities.

Obama and the Obots continue to compromise the American press, who have lost all sense of journalistic independence. 

The ObamaMedia are now working directly for Barack Obama.  They are now promoters of his agenda, and defenders of his questionable background.
Obama’s Great Leap Forward
When Barack Obama was campaigning in 2007, his backers frequently compared him to former president John F. Kennedy.  After a year in office, however, Obama’s words and actions align more closely with China’s despotic Chairman Mao than with JFK’s.

When Mao Tse Tung conquered China in 1949, his secret goal was to dominate the world.  When Obama was elected, many started referring to him as "President of the World."  Both Obama and Mao had carte blanche to set out a path of radical change.

As part of his strategy, Mao informed his top echelon, "There has to be a personality cult…it is absolutely necessary."  With the aid of the state media, Mao crafted an iconic image of himself as the savior of the common man.  Propaganda was everywhere -- including the fields where workers could listen to messages from Mao as they worked.

Sound familiar?

In 1958, Mao kicked off what he called The Great Leap Forward, an extraordinarily creative intervention in China’s economic development.  Mao planned to abolish wages and put society on a non-cash basis.  He then set about abolishing private property.

The ownership of tools, animals, and other means of production were taken over by the state -- in the name of the people.  Just as the ownership of the auto, banking and insurance industries of today have been taken over by Obama's government.

Chairman Mao, in the name of the people, also took over China’s health care.  The "state" determined who would receive this essential service.  The elderly were moved into "houses of happiness" so that they could be looked after -- by the state.  Much like the proposed government takeover of America’s health care today.

Chairman Mao’s government also plunged the country into a deep debt by drastically increasing spending on the development of heavy industry.  But the state-sponsored industry that developed was not only non-productive, it ended up wasting money and resources on a massive scale without producing anything of value.  Much like the bloated government behemoth Obama’s policies are producing today.

Mao, through a cult of personality and firm control of the levers of government, had the ability to impose his own version of reality on China.  Just as Obama has today.

Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Continue reading here . . .
Just How Brilliant Is Barack Obama?
John Lillpop says for nearly two full years now, the American people have been force-fed a steady diet of propaganda as to the formidable genius and superior intellect of one Barack Hussein Obama.

According to the mainstream media and other liberal sources, Obama’s superior intelligence was more important than the fact that, at age 46, this savant from Chicago had no practical problem solving experience and no accomplishments to his credit when he decided to seek the presidency.

His IQ is so extraordinary, they said, that he was entitled to step into the most powerful position in the world with only the Audacity of Hope on his resume, and the word CHANGE on his lips and loaded into his teleprompter.

Barack Obama was the messiah, the One, the Healer, all things good and glorious rolled into one clean and articulate ball of genius that would save the world, America, and all of mankind from eight years of W. and the Republicans.

Unfortunately, the American people bought into this bull excrement and elected an enthusiastic agent of CHANGE who was, and is, exactly clueless about the real world.

For the nightmare now residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we can thank mainstream media and the Democrat party, and the 69 million people who voted with their hearts rather than their brains.

After less than a full year in the presidency, Barack Obama has distinguished himself as the most overrated and unqualified president in American history.

It gets better . . . continue reading here . . .
Obama's America -- A Terrible Place
The Associated Press gleefully reports that the Obama administration has told the United Nations that America's human rights record is less than perfect, but stressed that the U.S. political system has built-in safeguards that promote improvements.

In its first-ever report to the U.N. Human Rights Council on conditions in the United States, the State Department said Monday that some Americans, notably minorities, are still victims of discrimination.  Despite success in reforming such inequities as slavery and the denial of women's right to vote, the department said, considerable progress is still needed.

"Although we have made great strides, work remains to meet our goal of ensuring equality before the law for all," it said.

The report noted that although the U.S. now has an African-American in the Oval Office and that women and Hispanics have won greater social and economic success, large segments of American society suffer from unfair policies and practices.

High unemployment rates, hate crime, poverty, poor housing, lack of access to health care and discriminatory hiring practices are among the challenges the report identified as affecting blacks, Latinos, Muslims, South Asians, Native Americans and gays and lesbians in the United States

The American Civil Liberties Union praised the administration for engaging with the council but said the report neglected to address key areas where the U.S. has not met its human rights obligations.  Those areas include inhumane prison conditions, racial disparities in death penalty cases, and abuses in the immigration detention system.

"It is time for the U.S. to match its human rights rhetoric with concrete domestic policies and actions and create a human rights culture and infrastructure that promote American values of equality and justice for all," said Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU's human rights program.

Continue reading this crap here . . .

Those straight white people are evil -- evil I tell you.

Related:  U.S. human rights report hails Obama practices

Related:  Obama Hauls Arizona Before the UN Human Rights Council
What Has Obama Accomplished?
Nancy Morgan points out a question that's making the rounds of conservative talk shows lately:  "What has Obama accomplished so far?"  The question is asked of Obama supporters and the answers range from "abolishing lobbyists" to "securing world peace" to "lowering taxes."

One thing all answers have in common:  They are all grounded in perception as opposed to reality.

Obama has accomplished the amazing feat of convincing millions of Americans that black is white, that cold is hot, that the bad economy is the fault of George W Bush, and the only things standing between America and peace on earth are those darn Republicans and greedy capitalists.

As author Thomas Sowell points out in "Is Reality Optional," social history in the last 30 years has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good. And no-where is this more evident than in the "change" Obama is foisting on the American people.

The empty rhetoric of "social justice" and "compassion" is convincingly and successfully being used to justify ever more ludicrous social policies, which just happen to come with a huge price tag and more government control.

Ignored by the left and the media, however, is the inconvenient fact that every single policy promoted by Obama and passed by congress has been a dismal failure. From the jobs "stimulus" package that has cost taxpayers a whopping $236,436 per job created -- to the the "cash for clunkers" -- to the $61 billion bucks taxpayers just lost through the AIG and auto industry bailout.

Add in the $75 billion mortgage relief program to stem the largely government caused "foreclosure crisis."  This program has helped a grand total of 31,000 borrowers to date, a paltry 4% of the 760,000 who have applied.

Despite the dismal failures of these policies, Obama and his cohorts continue advocating more of the same.  As Dr. Sowell points out, "The anointed are often wrong but never in doubt."

Continue reading here . . .
Obama Compromises The ObamaMedia
The Post & Email reports that in the aftermath of yet another insult to our allies via the refusal to participate to the traditional events surrounding the award of the Nobel Prize including a dinner with the King, on the pretenses that the recipient was a very busy, sitting "President," responsible for not one, but two, wars and facing the worst economic crisis "EVAHHH," the White House is quietly organizing yet another vacation for the Obamas.

They would have you believe that nothing has been decided yet, when in fact the logistics of booking their 13 day vacations in Hawaii, from December 23 to January 3, are in full swing, and the invitations for the entourage are out!

Yesterday, December 10, AFP's Laurence Haim, the only French-Press-accredited, White House correspondent,  revealed that she had received an email inviting her and a guest to stay for the duration of Obama’s trip to Hawaii, at a Hotel next to the Obamas’ vacations spot.  Her revelations were aired on the French TV leading evening news program.

To listen to the program in French, go to the 20:00 mark in this broadcast.

According to Haim, the entire corps of White House correspondents, domestic and international has been invited (with a guest of their choice), to follow the Obamas under the sun at the American taxpayer expense.

In times when the American people are facing a bleak and sobering Christmas, when millions have lost their jobs and homes, the Obama Court is relocating to a Hawaiian paradise on the public dime.  And to insure the cooperative silence of the Main Stream Media, it is bribing the lackeys of the press, with lavishing and outrageous favors.

This would be cause enough to raise eyebrows, but since when is 13 day vacation outside of the mainland U.S.A. accpetable the "President" of a nation at war?

I guess Christmas at home in Chicago or New Year at Camp David does not fit the standards of the Grandiose Obamas.

Probably not Historic enough!
State Control?
The Radio Equalizer says anyone wondering why an increasing number of conservatives now use the term "state-controlled media" (which originated with Rush Limbaugh) to refer to television networks and newspapers, here's one that drives the point home.

During his syndicated radio show Friday, libtalker and MSNBC host Ed Schultz relayed to listeners how he observed "Morning Joe" Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski take feedback directly from the White House during their program last week.

Schultz appeared on Thursday's Morning Joe and directly challenged Obama's David Axelrod on the current version of the health care bill under consideration in Congress.  Interestingly, this particular segment has since generated a great deal of attention elsewhere, given the defensive nature of the White House advisor and the supposed conflict between the far left and the administration:

Is it really possible that the White House has a direct line to MSNBC's hosts, communicating with them during their live broadcasts?  Now THAT'S state control!

And do MSNBC staffers actually carry out the administration's commands?  In this case, they certainly made room on short notice for a lengthy segment featuring Axelrod, there to rebut comments made by Howard Dean and other recent guests.

Check out the videos, here . . .
ObamaMedia Provides Coverage And Excuses
TakingSides.com notes that Obama finally made a public statement about the terrorist attack on Flight 253 that occurred on Christmas Day.  It was not remarkable in its content including statements such as "This was a serious reminder of the dangers that we face and the nature of those who threaten our homeland," and "We will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable."  What was interesting was the timing of the statement coming three days after the actual event and only after much criticism of Obama's silence on the matter.  Perhaps most interesting of all was the way some in the liberal media combined objective news reporting with custom made excuses for Obama's latest misstep.

According to an article in The New York Times, "Mr. Obama’s remarks to reporters were the first public comments he has made since arriving here Thursday and the first since a Nigerian man tried to set off explosives aboard a flight approaching Detroit on Friday" -- completely factual and objectively stated.

Yet several lines later the same article states: "Until now, Mr. Obama had tried to strike a balance between signaling that he is on top of the situation and not drawing more attention to it than it already was generating.  Each day since Friday, his staff accompanying him here in his home state put out statements indicating that the president was holding conference calls and requesting action of government agencies.  But he declined for three days to address it in public himself, cognizant perhaps of warnings by some terrorism experts against elevating such incidents and by extension their authors."

How do these supposed journalists know that the president was attempting to strike such a balance?  Not even the usual "sources requesting anonymity" are cited for this information.  And is it a journalist's job to speculate what a world leader might "perhaps" be cognizant of?

As Obama proves time and again that he and his cronies are not up to the challenges they face, the media outlets that worked so hard to help get him elected are twisting their professional ethics beyond recognition in a desperate attempt to defend his missteps, mistakes and miscalculations.  They are delivering not just the news but built-in excuses for those who are making that news.
Obama is greater than Jesus
No media bias here.

The writer's description of ObamaCare, "...a welfare policy breakthrough ...".

Bad timing though, his messiah is turning out to be a disaster.
Lead by Playing Golf -- Another Obama First
Constitutional Guardian doesn't want to be distracted from the health care crime the Senate committed against the American people on Christmas Eve, yet the Christmas day terrorist attack in the skies over Michigan deserves our attention.  Because, in essence, it is part of the same problem.

Irresponsible leadership.

Obama continued on with his Hawaiian golf vacation for almost three full days before he took the time to inform the nation that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was "an isolated extremist."  Except the problem is, he wasn't.  He is a self confessed, Al-Quada-connected terrorist.  And to make matters worse, while Obama was enjoying the links, his administration was busy circulating the Sunday news programs saying things like: "the system worked."  That from Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, earning her the nickname:  Janet Incompetano.  I hate to draw an obvious comparison but does Janet Reno and Waco ring a bell?

And, may I ask where the critics are that assailed President Bush during Katrina?  Demanding he end his vacation and return to the helm?  Rest assured, they are still with us, still peddling their form of editorial journalism at places like The Washington Post, which declared Obama's un-response to the terrorist attack: "low key."  Below is an excerpt from the Post's, December 27th report:
    

"President Obama has performed a difficult but familiar balancing act over the past few days: ordering new security measures in the wake of an attempted airliner attack without excessively alarming the public -- or triggering an outcry from civil liberties advocates.

He has done so almost entirely out of sight.  On vacation in Hawaii, tucked away in a lush neighborhood where his family is renting a waterfront home, Obama dispatched surrogates back in Washington -- chiefly Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano and press secretary Robert Gibbs, who appeared on the Sunday talk shows -- to reassure the public and explain his approach.

Yet even as the president avoided cameras and played golf and basketball over the weekend, his aides were quick to explain how fully Obama minded the aftermath of the Detroit case."

      

No longer can we call this editorial journalism.  This pathetic Pablum can only be called one thing: Propaganda.  No where is the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" used.  No where is Obama's delayed response challenged.  No where is the Homeland Secretary's absurd statement: "the system worked" denounced or even thoughtfully examined.  There is no outrage over his "lush" waterfront home or the fact that he amused himself with golf and basketball instead of addressing the American people in the aftermath of the terrorism.

The standards traditionally used to measure not just President Bush, but all former presidents no longer seem to apply.  Ignore terrorists, ignore the airline security of Americans, ignore the cold-blooded shooting of our soldiers at Fort Hood, ignore the unemployed, ignore the Constitution, public opinion, common sense economic policies and most importantly, the truth and you will be hailed as "historic."

The question is: historic what?
    
Related:  This is what is considered "journalism" in the Age of Obama - - from the Associated Press.
Obama Is Greater Than Jesus
No media bias here -- bad timing though, his messiah is turning out to be a disaster

The writer's description of ObamaCare is interesting, "...a welfare policy breakthrough ..."
Lead by Playing Golf -- Another Obama First
Constitutional Guardian doesn't want to be distracted from the health care crime the Senate committed against the American people on Christmas Eve, yet the Christmas day terrorist attack in the skies over Michigan deserves our attention.  Because, in essence, it is part of the same problem.

Irresponsible leadership.

Obama continued on with his Hawaiian golf vacation for almost three full days before he took the time to inform the nation that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was "an isolated extremist."  Except the problem is, he wasn't.  He is a self confessed, Al-Quada-connected terrorist.  And to make matters worse, while Obama was enjoying the links, his administration was busy circulating the Sunday news programs saying things like: "the system worked."  That from Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, earning her the nickname:  Janet Incompetano.  I hate to draw an obvious comparison but does Janet Reno and Waco ring a bell?

And, may I ask where the critics are that assailed President Bush during Katrina?  Demanding he end his vacation and return to the helm?  Rest assured, they are still with us, still peddling their form of editorial journalism at places like The Washington Post, which declared Obama's un-response to the terrorist attack: "low key."  Below is an excerpt from the Post's, December 27th report:
    

"President Obama has performed a difficult but familiar balancing act over the past few days: ordering new security measures in the wake of an attempted airliner attack without excessively alarming the public -- or triggering an outcry from civil liberties advocates.

He has done so almost entirely out of sight.  On vacation in Hawaii, tucked away in a lush neighborhood where his family is renting a waterfront home, Obama dispatched surrogates back in Washington -- chiefly Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano and press secretary Robert Gibbs, who appeared on the Sunday talk shows -- to reassure the public and explain his approach.

Yet even as the president avoided cameras and played golf and basketball over the weekend, his aides were quick to explain how fully Obama minded the aftermath of the Detroit case."

      

No longer can we call this editorial journalism.  This pathetic Pablum can only be called one thing: Propaganda.  No where is the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" used.  No where is Obama's delayed response challenged.  No where is the Homeland Secretary's absurd statement: "the system worked" denounced or even thoughtfully examined.  There is no outrage over his "lush" waterfront home or the fact that he amused himself with golf and basketball instead of addressing the American people in the aftermath of the terrorism.

The standards traditionally used to measure not just President Bush, but all former presidents no longer seem to apply.  Ignore terrorists, ignore the airline security of Americans, ignore the cold-blooded shooting of our soldiers at Fort Hood, ignore the unemployed, ignore the Constitution, public opinion, common sense economic policies and most importantly, the truth and you will be hailed as "historic."

The question is: historic what?
    
Related:  This is what is considered "journalism" in the Age of Obama - - from the Associated Press.
Ellie Light:  Obama Astroturfer?
Patterico says a woman has written the same letter defending Obama to dozens of publications across the country, getting them published in at least 42 newspapers in 18 states, as well as Politico.com, the Washington Times, and USA Today.  And the woman, Ellie Light, has claimed residence in many of these states.

Think there might be some phony Astroturfing there?  At the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sabrina Eaton makes a nice catch:

Ellie Light sure gets around.

In recent weeks, Light has published virtually identical "Letters to the Editor" in support of Barack Obama in more than a dozen newspapers.  Every letter claimed a different residence for Light that happened to be in the newspaper’s circulation area.
   

"It’s time for Americans to realize that governing is hard work, and that a president can’t just wave a magic wand and fix everything," said a letter from alleged Philadelphian Ellie Light, that was published in the Jan. 19 edition of The Philadelphia Daily News.

    
A letter from Light in the Jan. 20 edition of the San Francisco Examiner concluded with an identical sentence, but with an address for Light all the way across the country in Daly City, California.

Variations of Light’s letter ran in Ohio’s Mansfield News Journal on Jan. 13, with Light claiming an address in Mansfield; in New Mexico’s Ruidoso News on Jan. 12, claiming an address in Three Rivers; in South Carolina’s The Sun News on Jan. 18, claiming an address in Myrtle Beach; and in the Daily News Leader of Staunton, Virginia on Jan. 15, claiming an address in Waynesboro.  Her publications list includes other papers in Ohio, West Virginia, Maine, Michigan, Iowa, Pennsylvania and California, all claiming separate addresses.

She has more houses than John McCain!

But there are a few more places her little pro-Obama missive appeared, besides those documented.  Like . . .
Obama-Drooling Media
Joan Swirsky says, that's right, the Obama-drooling media created their own lame-duck, and it wasn't only Katie Couric.

For the past two years, when Obama was in campaign mode and after his Acorn- and foreign-money-fueled election, the entire leftwing media debased what once passed for legitimate journalism.  With absolute consistency, they:
    

•  Failed utterly to vet an inexperienced, document-concealing candidate (we still haven't seen Obama's Illinois law license or an authentic birth certificate).

•  Failed to investigate the veracity of aggrandizing information spewed by Obama's spin doctors and then repeated their spin (they still say, for instance, that he was a law professor, which he never was).

•  Failed to conceal their stunning lack of objectivity through the soft-ball questions they asked and, as Bernard Goldberg says, their "slobbering" obsequiousness.

•  Failed to distance themselves from the leftwing radicals who see racism where none exists -- and even echoed their paranoia!

•  Failed to camouflage their personal biases both for Obama and against any of his critics or political opponents and competitors.

•  Failed to correct his virtual avalanche of lies, which John Ellis has catalogued in scandalous and chilling detail, saying that "the accumulated weight of Obama's deceit is overwhelming....as a result, this nation is now in a position where it cannot believe a word that he says, and that amounts to an unprecedented crisis of confidence in the Presidency."

    
Continue reading, "Tyranny of the American Media," here . . .
The "Ellie Light" Scandal
Brent Bozell says the declining (or is it dying?) newspaper industry has suffered another blow to its image as punctilious skeptic.  So much for the motto, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out."  It turns out a pile of American newspapers can’t manage to check out the most basic information about people who are flat-out using their pages to push political agendas.

A person with the name of "Ellie Light" has been successfully published with the same letter in at least 68 newspapers defending President Obama -- defrauding the editors by using local addresses.  Reports have "her" published in two papers overseas.

Who is "Ellie Light"?  We know this much: "She" is a fraud.

Is this an official White House or Organizing for America campaign?  Is it simply a dirty trick?  Is this brass-knuckles (and dishonest) politics from the DNC?  Or an unauthorized Obama groupie?  Some investigating conservative bloggers have found several candidates for the mysterious "Light" writer that could be connected to Obama.

But the ObamaMedia won’t.  This story hurts Obama, so they’ll spike it.  Count on that.

Continue reading here . . .
     
Gawker has confirmed that the mysterious pro-Obama letter-writer is, in fact, a nurse named Barbara Brooks from Kern County, Calif.  Except now Brooks says it's really her husband, Winston Steward (picture).
Did Reuters Yank Article Because It Was Too Truthful?
Big Journalism says sometimes, the truth hurts.  In the case of an article published yesterday at 4:04 p.m. Eastern, it appears that Reuters editors were afraid writer Terri Cullen’s adventure into truthful journalism might hurt their news agency’s relationship with Barack Obama -- so they yanked it.

Published under the headline "Backdoor taxes hit middle class," the article opened by describing the Obama Administration’s plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade as relying "heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families."  Four hours and three minutes after it hit the wire, the story was "withdrawn," apparently at the Administration’s urging, with a promise that "a replacement story will run later in the week."

Why did Reuters pull the story?  One site cited a Reuters rep as saying the piece was withdrawn "due to significant errors of fact" and "should not have gone out."  I think it was the language used in the article that prompted Reuters to pull it.  In particular, it was the series of phrases shown below that, combined with the one mentioned above, must have made the hair stand up on the back of Rahm Emanuel’s neck:
    

"…effectively a tax hike by stealth."

"middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases."

    
Perhaps the largest contributing factor to the article being yanked is a list of tax break provisions popular among middle-class families that Obama might allow to expire:
    

*  Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes.

*  The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies.

*  The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses.

*  Individuals who don’t itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid.

*  The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

    
The last line of the story was, perhaps, the proverbial "nail in the coffin" for the Reuter’s piece:
    

* Trickle-down-taxation.

Here Come The Cheerleaders

The quarterback scores a touchdown, and is jubilant.  Now it's the cheerleader's turn to take the field -- to lead the celebration of the great victory.  That's what's coming.

Obama scores a great victory (in his mind) by using a questionable formation and play that has been described as, "a messy perversion of democracy."  He cheated.  But now the cheerleaders, the ObamaMedia will take the field -- and they're platooning -- half of them will laud their hero and his deeds -- while the other half will savagely attack anyone they perceive to be his foes, or foes of Obama's agenda.

There will be hundreds of millions of taxpayer and network dollars disbursed for an endless campaign -- glorifying Obama and ObamaCare -- the greatest thing in 100 years!

On the other hand, tens of millions of taxpayer and network dollars will be spent on a relentless campaign against the perceived foes of Obama and Obamacare.

If you even look like you're gonna criticize Obama or ObamaCare, you're gonna get it.  Watch out Tea Partiers! Watch out Rush -- Glenn!  You guys are about to see a massive public relations campaign directed directly at you, and folks like you. It's already started.

FoxNews.com is reporting that Tea Party protesters on Capitol Hill Saturday, were accused of spitting on a congressman, shouted the "n-word" at black lawmakers, and calling a gay congressman a slur.  None of it happened.  48 Hours after the Capital Hill event, there are 786 news items returned from a search of -- "Tea Party" slur -- in Google News.

Last night, on his MSNBC show, Keith Olbermann went on a rant that included the following, "If racism is not the whole of the Tea Party, it is in its heart, along with blind hatred, a total disinterest in the welfare of others, and a full-flowered, self-rationalizing refusal to accept the outcomes of elections, or the reality of Democracy, or of the narrowness of their minds and the equal narrowness of their public support."

CNN's Roland Martin, the Network's political analyst, took a cheap shot at ObamaCare critics who claim Democratic health care reform measures are not free-market approaches by saying, "And so if you want to make an argument that there are core differences, there are no doubt between Democrats and Republicans on this issue.  And you know what?  You sometimes have to make tough issues -- tough decisions.  And so I just don't believe in these ridiculous names, what's communism and what's socialism.  People probably can't even spell communism and socialism, much less identify it."

And, then, there's Organizing for America's 14,000,000-member database, pumping out mass e-mailings every day  --  several times a day -- different banners, different sponsors -- same mass-marketed message from OFA's state-of-the-art marketing database.  The stuff pumped out of here is pure unadulterated propaganda -- pure indoctrination.

Besides the propaganda, the Obots use OFA's information for producing "Action Alerts."  If OFA wants to shut down an appearance of Jon Voight on a conservative radio program, out goes the Action Item.  Everyone in the database that lives in the radio station's market gets an email to "call radio station WXXX at 8 PM tonight, and keep calling until 9 PM.

They can shut you down. 

You need a couple of thousand protesters or counter-protesters.  Press a button -- and a motivated bunch shows up -- right where you need them -- right when you need them.

To see what is being disseminated from this bunch click here to enroll -- you  can un-enroll anytime by going to the bottom of any message and clicking "unsubscribe."  It's worth taking a look at this stuff.  Unbelievable propaganda.

Watch this gain mass and momentum daily.
Could Chavez-Style Media Crackdowns Be Coming?
Steve Forbes says that many of Hugo Chavez’s most ardent supporters here in the U.S. come out of the "media reform" movement, which believes that our corporate media has been thoroughly co-opted by capitalists bent on destroying the benevolent leadership of the likes of Chavez.  They think that our capitalist-plagued media world is in dire need of reform.

The chief proponent of this thinking – which amounts to an unprecedented government intrusion into our own country’s media -- is Professor Robert McChesney, founder of the Orwellian-named Free Press, one of the most influential organizations in the growing "media reform" movement on the far-left.

Free Press’ curious stance on media reform can best be summed up by McChesney who suggests that, "Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself."

Such radical hyperbole coming from the founder of a group called "Free Press" drips with irony.  But it’s a rhetorical flourish that Dr. McChesney is apparently quite comfortable with.  He has employed it repeatedly to argue that his version of media reform is the first step in the struggle to remake American society in a socialistic fashion.  In his attack on the existing media "power structure" in the U.S., he calls for a "class struggle from below…  In the end there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles."

If any of this sounds eerily familiar, it should. It’s right out of Hugo Chavez’s playbook.  Like Chavez, Free Press' call for "media reform" harkens back to a bygone era when the radical left’s doctrinarian opposition to a genuinely free press was rooted in the totalitarian political theories of Marx, Lenin, Hitler and others.

All of this could be ignored as the comical rants of a loony leftist professor safely ensconced in the tenured halls of academia, were it not for Free Press’ astonishing -- and growing -- influence on policymaking within the current administration and Congress.

As hard as it may be to believe, McChesney and his indefatigable band of media revolutionaries are being taken seriously by some policymakers in Washington.  They are granted regular audiences with those overseeing our nation’s media policy at the FCC and FTC, and meeting regularly with members of Congress.

Their latest plan to defacto nationalize the media calls for the federal government to bail out newspapers with $60 billion in new government subsidies.  As anyone familiar with Washington knows, money does not come free:  Such subsidies will virtually invite the government into the fourth estate as overseers.  Richard Nixon must be rubbing his eyes in disbelief.  But Free Press tells us not to worry.  Such media reform will have safeguards in place to protect the freedom of the press from government influence.  Uh-huh!

Excerpted, read the entire article here . . .
Right Wing Violence That Hasn't Actually Happened
The headlines are all warning about right wing violence that hasn't actually happened but journalists seem to feel is imminent.  Here's a few of today's headlines:
    

The big headline in the last couple of days is that lawmakers concerned as health-care overhaul foes resort to violence.


The ObamaMedia misreported the coffin
placed on Rep. Russ Carnahan's (D-Mo.) lawn.


Allegations of spitting and directing slurs at awmakers‎.

 
Rep. Markey claims to have received threats over ObamaCare vote.

    
If you listened to the media as much of our country still sadly does, it would be clear that right wing violence is a burgeoning crisis.  And as we know, this White House doesn't like to see a good crisis go to waste.

So I'm thinking hey, wouldn't this be the perfect time for some kind of...I don't know...national civilian security force that...you know...answers to Obama...for our own protection of course...or something.

It's not like Obama's not thinking about it.  Remember.  He actually said, "America must balance and integrate all elements of our national power.  We can not continue to push the burden onto our military alone, or leave dormant any aspect of the arsenal of American capability.  That's why my administration is committed to renewing diplomacy as a tool of American power and developing our civilian national security capabilities."

And he spelled it out a little clearer by saying: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.  We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

I wonder how many more stories the media will have to write about right wing violence (that hasn't actually happened yet) before Obama starts chatting up the security force idea again.  You know, for our own protection.

What you are seeing, is the application of Saul Alinsky's Rule 12, "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."  Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.  Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

When George Bush was president the media ignored the vicious attacks on him by the Left.  Now, a few incidents, that may or may not have happened, are being used to stop the argument -- and this is just the beginning.  It's exactly the same trick as the "racist" attack -- and it works.

The ObamaMedia is tsk-tsking and Republicans and conservatives find themselves responding to what may be baseless charges, instead of unmasking these tactics and exposing the hypocrisy.

RelatedThe Obots continue to take political advantage of reports of Republican vandalism and threats, with the head of the Obama campaign organization, Mitch Stewart, referring to one the alleged incidents in a fundraising appeal.

Also related:  You won't read about this death threat made against the Palin family in the ObamaMedia though:
    

A fellow calling himself Jason Brown has been posting since May 10, 2009, and has a total of 379 messages posted so far.  He is a fan of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.  Typical of his leftist political beliefs are messages like the one above.

In recent days, Brown has been saying that he is concerned about the violence that he believes Sarah Palin is fostering -- his irrational response -- threatening to kill Sarah Palin and her family.
"Hundreds Of People, At Least Dozens"
NewsBusters.com reports that at the Tea Party Express event on March 27 in Searchlight, Nev., where former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin spoke, the Communist News Network's Fredericka Whitfield wasn't quite prepared to give the rally credit it was due as far as participation.  She estimated that hundreds, but if not, "at least dozens of people" were in attendance.

"Hundreds of people, at least dozens of people -- we haven’t gotten a count of how many people turned out there.  We heard Sarah Palin talk about everything about the campaign, to unseat Sen. Reid to what she calls ObamaCare, on the heels of that health care vote and even talking about her definition of her love of America."
         
    
Politico's Kenneth Vogel had a little higher number than CNN, saying "an estimated 20,000 tea partiers gathered for a rally in a windswept desert lot," in his March 27 report on the event.  And check out this photo of the people who didn't make it into the event.
You Never Saw This Hate In The ObamaMedia
  

    
Nor This Behavior


    
You Did See These "Most Offensive" Images
The Huff-n-Puff Post has an article featuring the "10 most offensive" Tea Party signs and extensive photo coverage of the Tax Day Protests by "citizen photojournalists." 

Warning!  There are other outrageous images like these horrific pictures at the link (click the little dots).
    
         
These are the kinds of images that have the ObamaMedia outraged -- what the asshats at the Huff-n-Puff Post see as "most offensive." 

Oh, the humanity!    
Obama Doesn't Like "Vitriol"?
John Hinderaker says CBS's interview with Barack Obama has to be seen to be believed.  Here, Harry Smith asks Obama whether he is aware that some have called him a "socialist" or a "Nazi."  The tone of the interview is remarkable; just try to imagine a network news correspondent asking George Bush in the same sympathetic manner what he thinks about the appalling excesses of the other side:
    
    
Note how Obama immediately starts talking about the "vitriol" of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.  This is a bad joke: has Obama never listened to Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow et al.?  I've never watched or listened to Beck, but Limbaugh is a more moderate and sophisticated analyst of the political scene than, say, Paul Krugman or E.J. Dionne.

As for vitriol, has Obama forgotten his own contributions?  "If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun," and "Get in their face"?  Or how about his many denunciations of the insurance industry, of doctors, and others involved in health care?  Can you remember the last time a president insulted millions of Americans in this manner?  I can't.  As far as Obama is concerned, "vitriol" is entirely a matter of whose ox is being gored.

Just a couple of buddies out for a stroll.
It Was a Setup

Jim Hoft says the American Thinker did an outstanding job describing the events on March 20th, when democratic members of Congress in Washington DC were reportedly taunted by tea party activists with racial and sexual slurs.  It appears from the timeline of the events that this race-baiting story was in the works before the Black Caucus members paraded through the tea party crowd on Capitol Hill.

 

Now Doug Ross found this:

McClatchy
released their story on the reported attacks on the Black Caucus members at 4:51 PM EST. The McClatchy reporter William Douglas refers to Huffington Post contributor Sam Snead as a source in his article.

 

But… The Huffington Post did not post their article until 4:56 PM EST:

      

    
Amazing!  It looks like the democratic-media complex was working on this story before it even occurred.  If it even occurred.

 

The Black Caucus members and democratic-media complex STILL have not provided any proof that the N-word was said once, let alone 15 times, as Rep. Andre Carson claimed.

 

Andrew Breitbart has more on Obama’s helter-skelter Alinskyite plans to deconstruct America.

Rep. Michele Bachmann agrees with Andrew Breitbart -- Pelosi wanted to incite Tea Partiers when she paraded through the protesters on Capitol Hill.

      

In three years I have never seen Nancy Pelosi cross the street, the way that you saw in that picture," Bachmann told Sean Hannity. "They deliberately went through that crowd perhaps to try and incite something." Bachmann said the Democrats were "slandering" Tea Partiers by calling them racist.

      

Update: The lies are unraveling:  Black Dem Rep. Emanuel Cleaver who said he was spit on now says others are making the claim up on his behalf.

Communications Corruption At The White House

An unhealthy pattern is developing in this White House -- a trend that may very well have been a part of other presidencies as well -- but what is happening today needs comment.  Some journalists seem to be putting their self interest above their responsibilities to the public as well as their employers.

 

As Howard Kurtz and Glenn Greenwald have both commented, many White House correspondents and other top tier journalists want to write Obama books -- anything with "Obama" on it is running at a huge premium in the book publication market.

 

But the kind of books that sell need "inside access" and this is something that the communications team at the White House doles out minimally, and increasingly, only when favors are part of the arrangement.

 

What I have learned after discussions over the last several days with several journalists who either have regular access to the White House or are part of the White House press corps is that there is a growing sense that access is traded for positive stories -- or perhaps worse, an agreement that things learned will not be reported in the near term.

 

The White House is working hard to secure deals that yield fluffy, feel good commentary about the Obama White House.  One American White House reporter used colorful terms to describe the arrangement.  The reporter said, "They want 'blow jobs' first [in the press sense].  Then you have to be on good behavior for a bit or be willing to deal, and then you get access."

 

"Axe" and "Gibbs" know who needs access to get their books pushed forward.  They know who will pay for play -- and are taking notes on who has been naughty and nice in their reporting.

 

Excerpted from here . . .

Obama the Divider
Peter Wehner says one of the core claims made by Barack Obama during his presidential campaign -- a commitment absolutely central to his run for the presidency -- is that he would change the political culture of Washington.  He would, by the force and power of his personality, uproot old habits.  He would elevate the national debate, usher in an unprecedented period of transparency, eschew "spin" and the "50 plus one" style of governing, and "turn the page" on the "old politics" of division and anger.

The political culture has changed, but arguably for the worse.  Obama has already established himself as the most polarizing first-year president in modern times.  Our politics are tumultuous and often dyspeptic; there is anger all around.  Those conducting focus groups report that citizens are turning against one another in a way that is disquieting.  The political divisions within our society appear to be deepening rather than healing.

From the Obama perspective, the reasons for all this have to do not with him but with his critics.  Many of them are, according to some of Obama's chief defenders, people who are racist and bigoted, Klansmen without the robes and hoods, individuals who have not made inner peace with a man who is African-American.  Obama's critics are attempting to incite, or about to employ, political violence.  Sarah Palin, in particular, uses phrases that act like a dog whistle.

Other Americans, we are told, are simply fearful because of the difficult economic times we face.  This is a moment of great discontent.  Obama, it is said, is an enlightened agent of change, helping to bring a sometimes reluctant and benighted citizenry from where it is to where it needs to be.  This journey, while necessary, can be unsettling.  And of course the locus of our divisions can be found in talk radio, the bane of our human existence, and Fox News.  These are the pillars of the vast right-wing conspiracy.  And vast it is.  Barack Obama may have the Oval Office, Democrats may control the House and the Senate, and most members of the press may have voted, in overwhelming numbers, for Obama -- but the right wing is still winning the messaging war.  It is both malignant and in possession of almost mythical communication powers.

That, at least, is one narrative.  There is another.

Continue reading here . . .
Obama Shill Smears Tea Party Patriots
Markos Moulitsas, the Obama operative that gave us Obama's phony Certification of Live Birth, is still on the job.

The founder of the sleazy leftist blog, the Daily Kos, appeared with MSNBC propagandist Keith Olbermann to lob some rhetorical bombs at the Tea Party movement.  Most notably he seemed to accuse the Tea Party of espousing genocide, a statement that host Keith Olbermann did nothing to dispute and sounded like he agreed with.

No stranger to controversy, Moulitsas first questioned the "tea baggers" motives and whether their support for smaller government was real, before stating:
    

"They’re against democratic government, they’re anti-democratic… basically with just respect for democracy in this nation, I mean this is what the people voted for, and it’s one thing to oppose it on policy, it’s another thing to use the kind of exterminationist, eliminationist rhetoric that they’re using in appealing to violence and uh, and uh, that sort of thing."

Is Obama Administration Behind Anti-Tea Party Website?
Erick Erickson says "Astroturf" is the act of professional interest groups designing campaigns that appear to be grassroots efforts, but are not.  It is what the left has accused the tea parties of being.  Only more and more it looks like the anti-tea party movement is truly astroturfing.

Writing on January 15, 2010, Glenn Greenwald at Salon noted Barack Obama’s new head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, had championed creating fake websites and using outside 501(c)(3) interest groups to act as alleged independent champions of government policy and to "cognitively infiltrate" opposition websites, etc.

In other words, Cass Sunstein has favored the government using outside parties as government propaganda agents to paint their opposition as fringe and undermine their credibility.  Kind of like what has been happening with the tea party movement -- lots of SEIU members pretending to be tea party activists causing violence in front of TV cameras.
    

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.

    
Considering Sustein’s recommendations, it is not far removed to speculate the Obama administration is behind a new anti-tea party website called The Other 95, which defends the government from tea party criticisms and attacks the tea party movement as fringe.

The website purports to be authentically grassroots, though one must wonder when the last time was any grassroots activist took the time to defend the government.

The designer is affiliated with MoveOn.org and other leftwing sites and causes.

But most notable, the donations page makes donations out to Democracy in Action.  Democracy in Action is not for individual activists to use.  It is for small and medium sized 501(c)(3) organizations and others on the left.  Among its clients?  ACORN, True Majority, NAACP, and others. -- note:  Brian has now changed Democracy In Action to The Other 95 -- nobody ever said that Obots weren't adaptable -- or deceitful.

Let’s also remember that Center for American Progress, led by Obama’s transition team director John Podesta, has regular 8 a.m. phone calls to coordinate activity on the left.

It’s a play right out of Lenin’s handbook, forget Alinsky, to call the authentic "inauthentic" and then create something inauthentic demanding it be called "authentic."
Obamas Take "Middle Class" Holiday
Obama's propaganda machine is working overtime this weekend.  The Telegraph (UK) and hundreds of other sources all claim that Barack and Michelle Obama flew off for a brief holiday in North Carolina on Friday in what was seen as an attempt to take a "middle class" vacation more in keeping with those of ordinary Americans, a private weekend without their daughters.

The Christian Science Monitor describes Asheville as hip, environmentally aware, self-reliant and undeniably quaint.  It's a progressive's vision of what America could be.

Founded as a health resort, the little city of "hillbilly-hippies," entrepreneurs, musicians, retirees, and community drum circles is, indeed, a progressive's vision of America.

Nestled in the oldest hills on earth, Asheville (pop. 70,000), the first East Coast city to require sustainable green construction, is a sort of experiment in environmentalism that has made the city the gateway to the new Appalachia and gotten it listed both as one of America's "happiest places" and as one of the "best places to reinvent your life."

It also represents conservative fears about what Obama's intentions might wreak: A dearth of high-paying jobs, relatively high taxes, large numbers of homeless and other wards of the state, a high crime rate, and a progressive ruling class perhaps more interested in maintaining quaintness than thickening residents' wallets.

"At least as far back as the arrival of the "middle class" Vanderbilts, it has been a haven for artists, innovative types, sophisticated thinkers, and people who want a little something more out of life than the average," writes former resident Thomas Osborne on City-Data.com.  "Asheville is cultured and educated, perhaps more like a New England town, but amazingly friendly and polite, like a piece of decent southern aristocracy."

But, middle class?  Shirley, you jest!
    

click for more images of Asheville's "middle class" resort
Surprise!  Surprise!
P.J. Gladnick says it turns out that the "grassroots" organizer of the "progressive alternative" to the Tea Parties, the Coffee Party, has been exposed as an Obama political operative.  If you had read the profiles of the Coffee Party founder Annabel Park (photo) in the Washington Post or New York Times you wouldn't have had a hint as to her extensive political activity in the 2008 Obama campaign.  So how did William A. Jacobson of Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion discover this "deep secret" that the two major newspapers with their vast resources were unable to find?  Well, it required the "tremendous effort" of tapping a few keys and a whole mouse click to find this subject matter as Jacobson explains:
    

In fact, a simple internet search (which the NY Times apparently is not capable of doing) reveals that Park organized the Coffee Party for the specific purpose of undermining the Tea Party movement.

Park is a former Strategy Analyst at the NY Times who was one of organizers and operators of the United for Obama video channel at YouTube.

    
A strategy analyst for the New York Times who was one of the organizers for United for Obama?  Some grassroots person!  Perhaps in the rarified air which Times reporter Kate Zernike breaths.  After all she was the same reporter who somehow managed to detect racial overtones in the Brooklyn accent of Jason Mattera speaking at CPAC.  So what was Zernike's lame excuse for failing to reveal Park's background working as a political operative for Obama?

Continue reading here . . .
ODSD: Obama Double Standard Disease
Larry Elder says "Obama Double Standard Disease" (ODSD), is an affliction that causes the media to ignore, rationalize or trivialize in order to defend, support and advance the tax-the-rich, spread-the-wealth, expand-the-government agenda of Obama and his party.  This stands in stark contrast with the media treatment of those who refuse to embrace the left-wing, America-bullies-the-world, dissenters-are-racist, pro-amnesty, gay marriage-is-a-right, pro-Roe v. Wade worldview.

ODSD is pandemic. Here are just a few cases.

When the economy recovered under Bush, the major news media pronounced it a "jobless recovery."  Now, despite unemployment stalled at 9.7 percent for several months, the same media call it a "surprising" or "unexpected" recovery.

Obama urged passage of an $800 billion "stimulus" package in order to prevent unemployment from reaching 8 percent.  Post-stimulus passage, unemployment reached 10 percent.  Consider how the media would have treated Bush had he given varying predictions about, and then varying accounts of, the number of jobs supposedly "created or saved" -- a laughably unprovable yardstick.

Obama brazenly claims that under his policies, 95 percent of "working Americans" received a "tax cut."  But nearly half of American workers pay absolutely nothing in income taxes.  And after exemptions, tax credits and other deductions, the Obama tax cut even exceeded many workers' payroll taxes.  How does a check, given to someone who pays little or no taxes, become a "tax cut"?

The Service Employees International Union, to elect Obama and other Democrats in 2008, spent $85 million.  And in support of corporate bailouts, ObamaCare and higher taxes to "spread the wealth differently," SEIU President Andy Stern said, "Western Europe, as much as we used to make fun of it, has made different trade-offs which may have ended with a little more unemployment but a lot more equality."

NBC's Matt Lauer did not ask Obama about the incredible willingness of the SEIU -- his biggest financial supporter -- to accept fewer jobs for "a lot more equality."  CBS' Katie Couric did no story on the union's admission that higher taxes mean fewer jobs.  No Washington Post editorial page asked how Stern's "trade-off" of fewer jobs squares with what Obama said about the importance of creating jobs: "That's the single most important thing we can do."

ACORN strongly endorsed Obama.  The community activist group's CEO, Bertha Lewis, gave a speech at the winter conference of the Young Democratic Socialists.  She said: "Any group that says, 'I'm young, I'm Democratic and I'm a socialist,' is all right with me.  You know, that's no light thing to do, to actually say, 'I'm a socialist.'  Right now, we are living in a time which is going to dwarf the McCarthy era.  It's going to dwarf the internments during World War II. ... We are right now in a time that is going to dwarf the era of Jim Crow and segregation. ... This rise of this tea party so-called 'movement' -- bowel movement, in my opinion -- and this blatant uncovering is ripping off the mask of racism."

Did the media ask Obama about Lewis' lunatic attack on those who disagree or about her open embrace of socialism?  Did the media ask if Obama cared to comment on his promise, made during the campaign, to allow ACORN to "shape the agenda" of his presidency?  Did they ask why Obama dismisses critics who call his agenda "socialism" -- even as one of his biggest backers uses that very word?

ODSD ravages the country, and it guarantees a pass is given to an administration that refuses to use the term "Islamofascism"; that offends traditional allies like Israel and new ones like Poland and the Czech Republic; that apparently accepts a nuclear Iran; that ignores government's role in the housing meltdown while blaming Wall Street "greed"; and that makes appeals to voters along racial lines.

It means that the harmful consequences of the exploding welfare state get ignored, trivialized or disputed.  It means that "experts," hand-picked and quoted by the media, overwhelmingly support the administration's income-equality agenda.  It means that inconvenient news stories -- ones that question "bigger and better" government or show there is another side -- are downplayed, underreported or dismissed.

The Obama Double Standard Disease is a pre-existing illness -- not covered, even under ObamaCare.
Angry Journalists Refuse To Review Book
Lachlan Markay says that one of the worst ways that the lack of ideological diversity in America's newsrooms shows forth is in the media's treatment of sensational accusations against Barack Obama.

Oftentimes, explosive allegations against presidents are either untrue or drastically overstated: George W. Bush deliberately lying to get the U.S. to war so he can cash in, or deliberately ignoring Hurricane Katrina due to his hatred of black people (a la Kanye West), Bill Clinton's supposed involvement in the drug trade, so on and so forth.

Journalists do the public a service by rebutting absurd conspiracy theories and wacko charges.  In recent memory, though, they have taken a much greater zeal toward stamping out allegations against Democrats, particularly Obama, a stark contrast to the kid glove or even promotional attitude they took toward books by liberal authors alleging all sorts of anti-Bush absurdities.

Aaron Klein recently discovered this when he sent his new book, "The Manchurian President," to members of the media he hoped would review it.  He got some very angry responses. Here are some of the more colorful ones:
    

"Never, ever contact me again," wrote Time Magazine senior writer Jeffrey Kluger.

Newsweek deputy editor Rana Foroohar quipped, "This is sensational rubbish that is of no interest to any legitimate publication."

"Absolute crap," replied Evelyn Leopold, a Huffington Post contributor who served for 17 years as U.N. bureau chief for Reuters until recently.

Nancy Gibbs, editor-at-large for Newsweek, fired, "Remove me from your list."

David Knowles, AOL's political writer, responded, "seriously, get a life."

Ben Wyskida, publicity director for The Nation, claimed Klein's book is "so offensive" and "so far afield."

    
Say what you will about this book's claims -- its sub-header claims to expose "Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists" -- but some of these reporters' publications had no such qualms reviewing, and occasionally endorsing, the far-left's radical anti-Bush claims during the last administration, even when they were backed by unreliable sources, or by no sources at all.

Continue reading here . . .
ObamaMedia Misshapes The Facts On Obama Approval
Matt Towery says that being fair as a pollster isn't that hard if you don't have an agenda.  The same can be said of opinion pieces, as long as you can persuade readers to join you in weighing all sides of an issue.  So here's my go at interjecting reality into some contemporary issues that often have been distorted.

1. Obama's approval ratings.  CBS News has it at 51 percent, with 37 percent disapproving of the job he's doing.  The rest are undecided.  Ludicrous polls like this rarely draw the criticism in Washington political and media circles that polls by, say, Rasmussen do.  Rasmussen sometimes shows Obama's approval rating as lagging his disapproval rating by as much as 10 points -- the opposite extreme of the CBS poll.

The average of all national polls shows Obama's approval rating at around 48 percent and his disapproval at 45 percent.  So while he is not the revered hero CBS would have us believe, he is also not considered an abject disaster by the public.  (CBS polls appear to under-sample Republicans, based on the generally accepted axiom that partisan identification in America is now about evenly split.)  Suffice to say Obama is not Mr. Popular right now.

2. A new Gallup Poll says that GOP voter intensity -- how excited Republicans are about turning out to vote in this year's elections -- has dropped.  This is true enough, but so what?  There's nothing now in the news to equal the healthcare legislation that so inflamed Republican passions.  Besides, the same poll shows Democrats' enthusiasm about voting to be about 10 points below that of Republicans.

For the GOP, the good news is that by the time campaign TV ads start running and we're well into the fall election season, Republican voter intensity likely will be sky-high.  The bad news is that despite many Washington insiders saying the GOP will take majority control of the House, my best guess for now is that some significant new political development may have to arise for that to happen.

3. Most media underplayed the fact that the man who tried to bomb Times Square has ties to Islamic terrorists.  This shouldn't just be a part of the story, it should be the story.  Had the bomb worked, the Gulf oil spill -- horrendous as it has been -- would be below the fold on newspaper front pages.

Few want to face the truth -- most Americans resent that they have to undergo the third degree when boarding airplanes, even though they don't remotely resemble the profile of successful modern-day terrorists.  That, while those who do fit the profile seem to get waived past security.  This is not my opinion, but a well-researched fact that also is underreported.

4. As for offshore drilling, proponents of more drilling can expect to wait at least six months before this is politically feasible.  The first wave of media photos depicting oil-drenched wildlife or unemployed fishermen will see to that.

5. For all the hysteria about Arizona's new immigration law, public opinion continues to harden in favor of enforcement of such laws, and of the repatriation of illegals.  Again, this is not my opinion, but the scientifically documented opinion of the American public.
The AP Whitewashes Its Favorite President
John Hinderaker says the Associated Press takes up the question whether the Gulf oil spill is the Obama administration's Katrina and concludes that the administration has acquitted itself admirably.  The AP headlines: Obama oil response: aggressive as crisis unfolded.  The AP takes on the Katrina comparison directly:
    

Would there be a repeat of the bureaucratic bungling that marked President George W. Bush's response to the hurricane?

While the Obama administration has faced second-guessing about the speed and effectiveness of some of its actions, a narrative pieced together by The Associated Press, based on documents, interviews and public statements, shows little resemblance to Katrina in either the characterization of the threat or the federal government's response.

    
Two things about the AP story immediately jump out at the reader.  First, it is based on interviews with administration sources.  It accepts their narrative and repeats it uncritically.  Second, despite describing the Obama administration's response as "aggressive," the AP does not detail a single action taken by the administration that did anything to effectively combat the spill.  Yet this doesn't seem to bother the AP; its analysis takes place entirely on a symbolic level.

Actually, if you pay attention to the dates, the AP documents, as many others have, the slow pace of the administration's response to the spill.  The Deepwater Horizon blew up on April 20, yet it wasn't until April 28 that Barack Obama told his advisers that he wanted meaningful action taken to counteract the spill.  By what standard, one wonders, is this an "aggressive" response?

Moreover, the AP is either ignorant of, or prefers not to mention, the key facts that we and others have publicized about this incident.  As we have pointed out, responsible federal officials believed by April 21 -- the day after the oil rig exploded -- that a major oil leak, on the order of 10,000 to 20,000 barrels per day, was likely if not inevitable.  This is completely at odds with the AP's comforting assurance that in the early days after the explosion, any resulting oil spill was believed to be minimal.

Further, the AP never mentions the most obvious failing of the federal response to the disaster -- the fact that, despite a 1994 plan that said major oil spills in the Gulf would be fought with fire booms, when the Deepwater Horizon blew up the federal government did not have a single fire boom on hand.  This is malfeasance of an extraordinary nature, and if a Republican administration were in the White House, every American would know about it by now.  Yet the Associated Press and its fellows in the liberal media have successfully kept the lid on what should be a scandal of major proportions.  This time it is the AP that says: Barry, you're doing a heck of a job!
White House Leaning on Its Press Office, Not the Media
FoxNews.com says the White House press office is behaving more and more like an independent media outlet, bypassing traditional news avenues in favor of releasing its own "exclusive" video, voicing administration opinions on its official blog and blasting out updates via Twitter.

The administration's use of its myriad new media platforms has raised questions among the press corps about whether the White House is looking to just tap its own resources to make major announcements.  Obama leans more on internal media as he continues to criticize the "24/7" media environment -- singling out cable news, radio and blogs for occasional lectures -- and appears to be abandoning the prime-time press conference forum he used to discuss major developments during his first few months in office.

"They're doing a very adept job of using new media in the White House," said Pete Snyder, CEO of New Media Strategies.  "Whether it's from the constant updates of information at the White House website to ... bypassing the mainstream news media in answering questions and thoughts via Twitter to their use of the photo-sharing site Flickr, really to show the softer side, the more human side, of the administration."

But the White House says the office is just trying to get information out as directly and efficiently as possible.

Continue reading here . . .
Obama:  No Questions At Press Freedom Event
Julie Mason is reporting that Barack Obama today signed the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act, a measure that gives the federal government an oversight role in tracking international press freedom issues.  The pool-only event went down in the Oval, where Obama was asked if he would entertain some questions -- specifically about the BP oil spill.

"Speaking of press freedoms," ventured Chip Reid of CBS News.

"You're certainly free to ask the question," Obama repield.  "I won't be answering, I'm not doing a press conference today, but we'll be seeing you in the course of the week."

Oh, right. Wednesday's press conference with visiting Mexican President Felipe Calderone.  We hear it's two questions per side.  Obama strictly limits his availability to spontaneous inquiry from journalists -- but we're still "free to ask."

Related:  Jennifer Rubin says Obama wouldn’t say who killed Daniel Pearl at the signing ceremony -- it is ironic and shameful that Obama could not bring himself to identify the killers who beheaded the man who fearlessly reported on the jihadist terrorists.  Obama had this to say:
    

All around the world there are enormously courageous journalists and bloggers who, at great risk to themselves, are trying to shine a light on the critical issues that the people of their country face; who are the frontlines against tyranny and oppression.  And obviously the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is, and it reminded us that there are those who would go to any length in order to silence journalists around the world.

    
If you didn’t know already, you’d never figure out that he was talking about the Islamic fundamentalists who butchered Pearl.  Obama then pronounced:
    

What this act does is it sends a strong message from the United States government and from the State Department that we are paying attention to how other governments are operating when it comes to the press.  It has the State Department each year chronicling how press freedom is operating as one component of our human rights assessment, but it also looks at countries that are -- governments that are specifically condoning or facilitating this kind of press repression, singles them out and subjects them to the gaze of world opinion in ways that I think are extraordinarily important.

Oftentimes without this kind of attention, countries and governments feel that they can operate against the press with impunity.  And we want to send a message that they can’t.

    
But of course they can and do, safe in the knowledge that they will pay no price so long as this administration is in power.  Has Obama done anything about the suppression of media critics in Egypt (other than prepare a lucrative financial package for the Egyptian government)?  Has Obama made this a priority with any thugocracy?  No.  And when signing a bill in the name of someone who elevated and personified the freedom of expression, Obama at least could have departed from his campaign to delete the name of our enemies from the public lexicon.
Obama's $12-Per-Hour Photo Op Props
Mark Tapscott asks, has it really come to this?  Brett Michael Dykes reports that BP paid busloads of temporary cleanup workers to show up as stage props for Obama's visit to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill cleanup operations on Grand Isle.

Dykes quoted Jefferson Parish councilman Chris Roberts who said "the overnight contingent of workers was there mainly to furnish a Potemkin-style backdrop for the event -- while also making it appear that BP was firmly in command of spill cleanup efforts.  New Orleans NBC affiliate WDSU reports that the workers were paid $12 an hour and came mostly from neighboring Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes."

"And as soon as Obama was en route back to Washington, the workers were clearing out of Grand Isle too," Roberts said.
Media Wolf Pack Holds Itself At Bay
Paul Mirengoff says here's how Washington Post reporter Michael Shear opens his front page story about the Obama administration's offer, via Bill Clinton, of a position to Joe Sestak:
    

For nearly three months this year, President Obama and his senior White House aides resisted acknowledging what the top West Wing lawyer finally admitted on Friday:  This administration plays politics.

    
I have three observations about this paragraph.  First, shouldn't a news report begin by presenting the facts of the story, rather than the reporter's conclusion about the meaning of those facts?

Second, Shear's conclusion about the meaning of the facts surrounding the White House-Clinton-Sestak story strikes me as pretty close to the mark.

Third, does anyone suppose that, if the same facts had arisen during the administration of George W. Bush, the Post would have reached the same conclusion about their meaning?  I don't.  I agree with John McCain:
    

Imagine if this was the Bush administration.  The media wolf pack would be in full cry.  But this is something we've grown used to.  We have a compliant media.  The good thing is that the American people have figured it out.  They're not being guided by the views of the mainstream media.  If they were, Obama's polls wouldn't be where they are.

      

It's All About Me
Sherman Frederick suggests Obama's motto is, "It's all about me, so, think good thoughts."

Pick just about any issue these days -- unemployment, federal debt, Israel, Iran, terrorism, illegal immigration, Gulf oil spill -- and two words always describe Barack Obama's leadership style: "self" and "absorbed."

He tells us he saved the American economy as we know it, but my hometown of Las Vegas leads the league in unemployment at 14 percent -- and it's still climbing.  If this is what Team Obama calls "saved," then please, let me give purgatory a shot.

Meanwhile, the federal debt skyrockets without a credible plan to repay it, other than to pass the buck to future generations.

Obama won't stand up for Israel as a friend.

And he won't stand against Iran as a foe.

He treats Islamic terrorists like they were 1960s counterculture protesters with a righteous gripe against an imperialist America.

He gives China more respect than Arizona -- one seeks to protect its border, the other seeks to erase Tibet from the map.  In ObamaLand, China gets royal treatment at the White House and Arizona gets investigated by the Justice Department.  Go figure.

As illustrative as all that is, nothing highlights Obama's narcissistic leadership more than what's going on with the Gulf oil spill.  Faced with a dire environmental disaster, this guy can't rise above himself to effectively lead his people.

Just before Memorial Day weekend, for example, Obama visited the Gulf shoreline with a couple of hundred environmental workers suited up in white garb.  They combed the beach with Obama as cameras filmed (or whirred, or whatever cameras do these days).

Local observers said they'd never seen that many workers in one place before, and that the British Petroleum workers in those special white spacesuits were rounded up just for the photo-op, but whether that's true or not isn't that important.  All presidents by their very nature become a walking photo-op, and some administrations are better at staging it than others.

Obama is mighty good at putting form over substance.  Remember the white-coated "doctors" standing with him during the health care debate?  Same schtick, different location.  Heck, might have been the same guys for all we'll ever know from the sleepy watchdogs that are the Washington press corps.

Continue reading here . . .
Hollywood Still Carefully Protecting Obama
John Nolte says that when Hollywood turns against someone, you won’t have to ask if they have.  You’ll know.

When Leftist Hollywood turns against someone, like they did President George W. Bush, neither our country nor the safety of our men and women in uniform means anything -- for this industry will eagerly waste hundreds of millions of dollars on a dozen-plus lousy films specifically designed to undermine our will to win a righteous war.  When Hollywood turns on someone, they not only relentlessly mock, demean and denigrate that individual; they mock, demean, and denigrate their family.

Yes, the children.

Incompetence, broken promises, partisan divisiveness, the Gulf dying before our eyes, deficit forecasts with so many zeroes Einstein couldn’t grasp them, and dirty backroom deals haven’t cooled Hollywood on Obama one bit.  The same industry that stands by a Roman Polanski certainly isn’t going to jump off the USS ObamaWorship over a little thing like double-digit unemployment.  If nothing else, Tinseltowners are loyal and their rules are simple: child rape’s fine, just don’t let us catch you with a Rush Limbaugh bumper sticker.

Yes, recently we’ve heard some in the entertainment industry appear to criticize Obama.  Most notably "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart, who ridiculed His Own Personal One over that oh-so presidential "ass to kick" comment, and director Spike Lee, who suggested Obama drop the cool, calm professorial act and "go off" over the oil spill.  But don’t be fooled.  This is simply Obama’s own personal Palace Guards doing their duty and guarding the palace.

You have to keep in mind that with a very few notable exceptions, the whole of the entertainment industry is a left-wing propaganda machine manned by those who understand that politics is downstream from the culture, and who fully grasp that their primary mandate is to protect Obama at all costs.  All Threats Must Be Eliminated.  The only reason Obama’s been taking a little pop culture heat lately is due to that fact that right now the biggest threat to Obama is Obama and his own incompetence and disconnect.

If anything, Hollywood is worried about and for Obama.  Worried about the upcoming mid-terms, his re-election chances, his sliding poll numbers, and his gilded ship sailing off course and landing in Carter-ita-ville instead of Mt. Rushmore.  Spike Lee, Jon Stewart and their ilk are certainly a little panicked over how they see things going for their guy.  But these recent criticisms from Obama’s entertainment community pals should be interpreted as nothing any more serious than dear and close friends staging a helpful tough-love intervention.  Hollywood can’t even muster a little criticism for Obama’s mishandling of the Gulf oil spill.

The only exception I would grant to my otherwise cynical observations (but that doesn’t make them wrong) is George Clooney’s recent editorial criticism of the Obama’s administration’s lack of engagement in the Sudan.  As misguided as Clooney is in all things (including his decision to make "Leatherheads"), his concern for the Sudan is sincere.  But one sentence in an 800-word piece is far from a mutiny.

Rest assure that Obama can sleep well in the comfortable knowledge that as soon as any kind of existential threat looms on the horizon -- like, say, a feisty, self-made female governor from some far off state -- the entertainment industry will immediately snap back into line and set their powerful, elite broadcast capabilities on DESTROY.
Obama's Radical Associations Matter
Diana West says Obama's radical associations do matter, but they are ignored by press.

A reporter from the Christian Science Monitor offered the first response to publicist Maria Sliwa's e-mail queries to news organizations about whether they would like to receive a review copy of "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists" -- copies available at button in left column.

The answer was "no."  But it wasn't just "no."  The reporter called the book by journalist-author-WABC radio host Aaron Klein and researcher Brenda J. Elliott -- at the time embargoed and thus unread -- a name for toilet paper I'd rather not print.

Reflexively, Sliwa hit the delete button (thus losing the reporter's name for posterity).  But when other e-mails started coming back with similarly visceral (and even similarly scatological) responses, she started saving them, realizing the reactions themselves were a story.
    

"Ridiculous crap," wrote John Oswald, news editor of the New York Daily News.

"Never, ever contact me again," wrote Time Magazine Senior Writer Jeffrey Kluger.

"Absolute crap," wrote Evelyn Leopold, former U.N. bureau chief for Reuters.

"Seriously, get a life," wrote David Knowles, AOL's political writer.

"This is sensational rubbish that is of no interest to any legitimate publication," wrote Newsweek Deputy Editor Rana Foroohar.

    
Such attitudes help explain why Newsweek is on the block, and why mainstream media in general are hurting.  But the mind-set itself remains mysterious.

These ladies and gents of the Fourth Estate didn't just want to ignore the Klein-Elliott book about Obama's radical ties, they wanted to denigrate it, and some quite angrily, which is an out-of-sync reaction to a book that last week debuted on the New York Times best-seller list at No. 10.  Somehow, the book was personally or even existentially offensive to their most cherished convictions.

Whether such convictions balance on a halo affixed to Obama (threatened by the book's revelations) or rest on their own sorry credentials as news professionals (ditto), or something else, I don't know.  But this rejectionist reflex, which characterized the abysmal 2008 Obama campaign coverage, is why we now have a president who poses a danger to the future of the republic.

Unfortunately, conservative media, too, are relatively AWOL on this book.  Even Fox News, which has indeed hosted Klein, hasn't built on the book's newsiest chunks, the ones that make it stunningly clear that Obama's radical-filled past was, as they say, merely prologue.

From Obama's participation in the socialist New Party in the mid-1990s, to his connections to communist-terrorist Bill Ayers, it's all relevant today.  How?  For example, some of the same anti-American, anti-capitalist revolutionaries from those bad old days now help craft republic-changing legislation.

Take Obama's 2009 stimulus package that started the outraged Tea Party movement.  As the authors report, a radical group with a Marx-inspired agenda called the Apollo Alliance strongly influenced the legislation -- as the group repeatedly brags at its Web site (apolloalliance.org), charting similarities between the stimulus bill and Apollo's recommendations, and citing Senate House Majority Leader Harry Reid's tribute to Apollo as an "important factor."

Among Apollo's leftist founders is Joel Rogers, who co-founded the socialist New Party.  Jeff Jones, who co-founded the Weather Underground with Bill Ayers and Mark Rudd, is the director of Apollo's New York office.  The authors further explain why it is that, as a project of the secretive Tides Center -- on whose board sits Wade Rathke, founder of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now and former member of Weather Underground's parent group, Students for a Democratic Society -- the Apollo Alliance's financial sources are effectively impossible to trace.

All of this isn't "guilt by association."  It's association, a key to understanding how the radicalism of Obama's past today shapes the policy dictating our future.  And it cries out for further journalistic digging.

Consumers of new media -- blogs, talk radio -- already know some of the story, while "The Manchurian President's" brisk sales guarantee a wide audience.  But the MSM?  Clueless.

Which wouldn't much matter if it still weren't the case that only the MSM cover Obama.  Or do they cover up for Obama?
66% Of US Voters Are Angry At The Obama-Loving Media
Sixty-six percent (66%) of U.S. voters describe themselves as at least somewhat angry at the media, including 33% who are Very Angry.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 31% say they are not angry at the media, but that includes just nine percent (9%) who say they are not at all angry.

It’s important to note, however, that the question did not in any way define media or differentiate between media outlets such as CNN and Fox News.

But voters have consistently said in surveys that they believe the national media has a liberal bias and that most reporters try to help the candidates they want to win. Just before Election Day 2008, 51% said most reporters were trying to help Barack Obama win the presidency. Just seven percent (7%) thought they were trying to help John McCain, while 31% viewed their coverage as unbiased.

Now 48% of voters think most reporters when they write or talk about President Obama are trying to help the president pass his agenda. Only 18% think most reporters are trying to block the president from passing his agenda. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say they are simply interested in reporting the news in an unbiased manner.

Continue reading here . . .
ObamaMedia Doubles Down On Doublespeak
Howie Carr says the fawning media rumpswabs are finally turning on Barack Obama -- to a point.  So let’s review the state-run media’s role in creating this calamity, by substituting hagiography for journalism in coverage of this clueless boob.  First, how they "reported" on George Bush, then how the Messiah fared until recent days with the same simpering sycophants.

Criticizing Bush -- the highest form of patriotism.  Criticizing Obama -- hate speech. 

Who caused Bush’s problems? -- Bush.  Who causes Obama’s problems? -- Bush.

When Bush mispronounced a word (like nuclear) -- more proof he is a complete cowboy moron.  When Obama mispronounces a word (like corpsman) -- how dare you even bring this up, you racist!

Unemployment at 4.6 percent under Bush -- a jobless recovery.  Unemployment at 9.7 percent under Obama -- the new normal, "steady," a lagging indicator of the happy days that CNBC says are here again.

Demanding the right to videotape flag-draped military coffins at Dover AFB under Bush -- the public has a right to know!  Never showing any returning coffins now that Obama occupies the Oval Office -- the public doesn’t care.

Economic woes under Bush -- portents of a new Depression.  Economic woes under Obama -- a blip on the radar screen, surprising.

Cindy Sheehan under Bush -- a future recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.  Sheehan under Obama -- give it up already, you old bag.

Bush playing a rare round of golf -- complete video coverage, showing his utter indifference to the suffering of the American people.  Obama playing one of his endless rounds of golf -- only still photos allowed, yet another glowing indication of Obama’s youth and physical fitness.

Bush’s speeches -- a chill up their legs.  Obama’s -- a thrill up their legs.

Media reviews of Bush’s handling of Katrina -- he hates black people.  Media reviews of Obama’s handling of the oil spill -- Halliburton did it.

Bush tapping the phones of foreign terrorists with congressional authority -- fascism.  Obama’s continuing attempts to rein in free speech on the Internet -- good public policy.

Bush on Air Force One -- junkets, fund--raising for GOP fat cats.  Obama on Air Force One -- fact-finding missions, reassuring the American people of his tireless FDR-like commitment to them.

Two hundred-point midday drops on the Dow under Bush -- ominous plummet.  Same drops under Obama -- the market is seeking direction.

Democrat women elected under Bush -- a triumph of feminism.  Republican women elected under Obama -- a setback for feminism.  (Brit twit Tina Brown actually said this last week to Obama worshipper George Stephanopoulos on "Good Morning America.")

Popular Bush-era rhyme -- Bush lied, people died.  New rhyme -- Obama snoozed, oil oozed. 

Just kidding -- anyone in the drive-by media who ever dared utter such blasphemy would be banned from both MSNBC and the Hamptons.  They’d be shunned by the Beautiful People as totally as Ann Coulter and Michael Savage -- or George W. Bush.
MSNBC, Joke Network
John Hinderaker says This really has to be seen to be believed. We all know that MSNBC -- Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, etc. -- is in the tank for the Obama administration, but I think this is the first time an on-air MSNBC personality has confessed to "working with the White House" on talking points; here, regarding the Gulf oil spill.  The MSNBC employee in question is Mika Brzezinski, the daughter of Jimmy Carter's national security adviser.  It's really pretty funny to see her reading the White House talking points on air:
    
    
This case is unique because Ms. Brzezinski made no bones about what she was doing, but one wonders: how much of "mainstream" news coverage consists of purported reporters reading Democratic Party talking points on the air?  A great deal, I would say.
Obama Fails The Reality Test
Janet Daley asks why has Barack Obama been such a disappointment?  The weaknesses of his leadership have now gone past the point where they can be overlooked even by the people who had been wildly excited and inspired by his election.

A brilliant article in the Washington Examiner by Noemie Emery captures the moment of disillusion perfectly.  Quoting the innumerable comments of despairing media commentators, she points to a consistent theme: Barack Obama was the intellectual’s dream president.  He was simply "too brilliant to fail," embodying as he did all those virtues of the academic class and the liberal elite which had been awaiting their moment for so many years.  Now the dream had come true: intellect was in the ascendancy, and the crass action-man mentality of the Bush era was put to flight.

So what happened?  Obama staked his political credibility on importing the Big State politics of Europe -- with its unsustainable welfare programs and centralized controls -- at just the moment at which Europe was discovering that such a philosophy was a route to sovereign bankruptcy and social demoralization.  The perverse consequences of Big Government and the wrong-headedness of the benevolent intentions with which it was established are old news in Europe but among the Leftwing intelligentsia of the US, this lesson seems not to have reached home.

But it is the nature of Obama’s "brilliance" itself which is now under useful examination: what exactly does this amount to?  Ms Emery makes the observation that it consists almost entirely of "verbal facility" -- a trait much prized in academic (and journalistic) circles but of rather less relevance to the real, concrete world of oil spills and military incursions.  I recall saying early on in Obama’s presidential campaign that he and his followers would eventually discover that politics was not an endless seminar.  That day seems to have arrived rather sooner than I expected.
The Economist Photoshops Obama
Henry Blodget says you're busted! The Economist photoshopped Obama photo to make him look more depressed and alone.

It's just not quite the same for Barack Obama to be glancing down at the water while chatting with others on the beach as it is for Obama to be solemn and depressed and alone while contemplating oil-soaked sand.

But the Economist didn't have a picture of the latter. So they made one:
    
    
The fraud was discovered by Jeremy Peters of the New York Times -- and don't miss the 10 biggest Photoshop frauds of all time.
JournoList 400
Apparently there are 400 progressive and liberal journalists that have organized themselves into an Obama propaganda cabal.

The fact that 400 journalists can't recognize how incorrect their collusion, however informal, shows an enormous ethical blind spot toward the pretense of impartiality.  As journalists actively participated in an online brainstorming session on how best to spin stories in favor of one party against another, they continued to cash their paychecks from their employers under the impression that they would report, not spin the agreed-upon "news" on behalf of their "JournoList" peers.

The American people, at least half of whom are the objects of scorn of this group of 400, deserve to know who was colluding against them so that in the future they can better understand how the once-objective media has come to be so corrupted and despised.

Andrew Breitbart is offering the sum of $100,000 to the person who provides the full "JournoList" archive.  He says he will protect that person’s privacy and identity forever.  No one will ever know who became $100,000 richer -- and did the right thing, morally and ethically -- by shining the light of truth on this seamy underworld of the media.

Ezra Klein wrote about an actual list of "journalists" who collaborate on leftist propaganda talking points.  Do they actually refer to themselves as "Journo-List" journalists or did Ezra Klein coin that term?  Or did Breitbart?

Dave Weigal, recently of the Washington Post, confirmed the existence of the anti conservative cabal.  Some say it’s a choir of liars who’s religion is a derivative of Communism.

These are the guys who've been tarring the Tea Party Patriots and Sarah Palin.

Related:
 Washington Post forgets to mention that writer is an Obama operative.
Obama's Economic Stimulus Propaganda
The Washington Examiner says there's no better definition of government waste than the estimated $192 million Obama is forcing cash-strapped state officials to spend on road signs touting his failed stimulus program.  Even so, with a critical congressional election coming in November, Americans will see a proliferation of these politically self-serving signs in coming months as Obama tries to convince voters who think his "Recovery Summer" is just an economic Potemkin village.

Such signs would not be needed if Obama's program had succeeded.  Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., recently discovered that the Obama propaganda signs are required for all projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  That's the official name for the $857 billion economic stimulus program Obama promised would keep unemployment below 8 percent.  A White House memo Schock obtained told stimulus fund recipients they must display the newly designed ARRA logo.  According to the memo, the logo is "a symbol of President Obama's commitment to the American People to invest their tax dollars wisely to put Americans back to work."  Instead of "symbol," a far more appropriate word to describe this would be "propaganda."

The memo is wrong on both counts.  It's not a wise expenditure of tax dollars when government spends as much as $10,000 apiece for propaganda signs, especially when unemployment remains near 10 percent.  And Obama's stimulus program has not put Americans back to work, as the latest jobless figures make starkly clear.  A bunch of expensive road signs won't change the fact that only 6 percent of Americans believe that the Obama stimulus program has created new jobs, according to a New York Times/CBS poll.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has demanded that the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board investigate whether the signs violate federal anti-propaganda laws.  Schock also plans to introduce a bill to yank funding for the signs.  Doing that has been the top vote-getter on YouCut, a Web site set up by House Republican Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., that lets ordinary Americans choose federal programs to send to the chopping block.  In just six weeks, more than a million people have voted to save $93.7 billion by axing old-style welfare programs, eliminating raises for federal employees, reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, selling excess federal property, not hiring more Internal Revenue Service agents to enforce ObamaCare's individual insurance mandate, and not subsidizing union activities.

Meanwhile, here's another sign, this one from Tea Partiers who are sick and tired of government profligacy, that has a more accurate description of Obama's policies: "Central Planning: Destroying Human Prosperity Since 4000 B.C."
Obama’s "False Narrative"
Peter Wehner says the Washington Post has an article on Obama’s dismal standing among independents (it stands at 38 percent approval according to Gallup, an 18-point difference from a year ago).  Balz quotes both Republican and Democratic strategists in searching for the reason for this perilous polling condition: high unemployment, an unpopular health-care law, bigger government, a liberal governing agenda, lack of bipartisanship, and the inability to change the culture of Washington.

And then we find this:
    

White House senior adviser David Axelrod said that the criticism of Obama as a big-spending liberal grows out of decisions the president felt he had to make to prevent a depression.  "We were forced to do things from the start to deal with this economic crisis that helped create a false narrative about spending and deficits that’s had some impact on independent voters," Axelrod said.  "And that’s something we have to work on."

    
Ah, yes, there’s that darn False Narrative again.
  
According to the True Narrative, Obama the Great acted with wisdom and courage to forestall another Great Depression.  The charges of profligate spending have been manufactured out of thin air.  The stimulus package has been a spectacular success.  ObamaCare will bend the cost curve down.  The economy is doing swimmingly.  The outreach to the Muslim world has led to unprecedented breakthroughs.  Nation after nation -- Iran, Turkey, Russia, China, Brazil, Venezuela -- are bending to Obama’s will.  And all the problems America faces -- from nearly 10 percent unemployment to polarization to acne among teens -- are owing to Obama’s predecessor.

Yet because the Forces of Darkness so thoroughly and completely control the media and dominate the messaging wars -- because Republicans have such fantastic spokesmen as RNC Chairman Michael Steele and Democrats have no bully pulpits available to them -- Obama has become massively unpopular among independents.  The White House, you see, has a message problem, but no other.  Once they get their message out better, Obama will once again stride atop the political world.

Within the walls of the White House, it seems, Barack Obama is still viewed by people like Mr. Axelrod as a near-mythical figure.  To much of the rest of the nation, he appears to be presiding over a failing presidency.  If Obama and his top advisers persist in their self-delusion -- which is unusual even for those working in a profession (politics) prone to self-delusion -- they and their party are going to face, sooner or later, a brutal awakening.
Obama Propagandist Says Democrats Could Lose House
The Associated Press is reporting Barack Obama's party could lose its House majority in this fall's elections, his spokesman said Sunday, perhaps trying to jolt Democratic voters with the specter of GOP lawmakers rolling back White House policies.

"I think there's no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control.  There's no doubt about that," press secretary Robert Gibbels told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Democrats now hold a 255-178 edge in the House, with two vacancies in the 435-member chamber.  Anywhere from 40 to perhaps 60 House seats could be competitive by the fall.  Republicans would need to take back about 40 seats to slip into the majority, placing the current GOP leader, Ohio Rep. John Boehner, in line to replace Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as speaker.

Those House Democrats who won election for the first time in 2008 in conservative leaning districts as part of the Obama wave are particularly vulnerable this fall, given that Obama is not on the ballot.

Gibbels said retaining House control would depend on strong campaigns by Democrats.  "I think we have to take the issues to them," he said, adding that the primary argument would be how Republicans would govern as the majority party.

His remarks could be intended to light a fire under Democrats who are dispirited after about 18 months of Obama's presidency.

RelatedThe news for Obama is bad.  Very bad
The New York Times Repeats The Big Lie
Scott at PowerLine blog says that The New York Times reporter Matt Bai is writing for readers who get their news from, well, the New York Times. So he feels free to regurgitate this:
    

The question of racism in the amorphous Tea Party movement is, of course, a serious one, since so much of the Republican Party seems to be in the thrall of its activists.  There have been scattered reports around the country of racially charged rhetoric within the movement, most notably just before the vote on the new health care law last March, when Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, the legendary civil rights leader, was showered with hateful epithets outside the Capitol.

    
There are a few problems with this assertion regarding the report that John Lewis was showered with "hateful epithets" outside the Capitol last March.  There was supposedly only one epithet involved.  Rep. Andre Carson was supposedly there for the walk along with Lewis.  And what about Reps. Emanuel Cleaver and James Clyburn?  What are they?  Chopped liver?  Not legendary, I guess.

The real problem with Bai's assertion is that it didn't happen.  It's a big lie.  A complete and utter crock.  Thus the failure of any independent witness or journalist to vouch for the story, and the failure of any video to corroborate it and win Andrew Breitbart's $100,000 reward.  On the contrary, the video record decisively refutes the story.

Is it possible that Matt Bai doesn't know this?  Only if he gets his news from the New York Times.
Liberal Journalists' Libelous Conspiracy
A group of liberal journalists in 2008 sought to sweep under the rug the Rev. Jeremiah Wright scandal that threatened to derail then-Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, according to documents obtained by The Daily Caller, an online publication founded by Tucker Carlson, a conservative contributor for Fox News.

The documents offer evidence to conservative critics who have long held that the mainstream media were in the tank for Obama, and bolsters the argument that reporters with major news outlets are biased in their coverage.

Journalists working for Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic expressed outrage over the tough questioning Obama received from ABC anchors Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos at a debate and some of them plotted to protect Obama from the swirling controversy, according to the Daily Caller.

Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent pressed his fellow journalists to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by shifting topics to one of Obama's conservative critics, the Daily Caller reported.

"Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists," Ackerman wrote.

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, urged his fellow members of Journolist, a private listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, to do "what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have."

"This isn't about defending Obama," he wrote.  "This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people."

The Journolist members went as far as issuing a statement -- one that was shaped with the help of Jared Bernstein who went on to become Vice President Biden's top economist -- calling the debate "a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world."

Journolist was shut down last month after leaks exposing member Dave Wiegel's scornful remarks of conservatives led to his resignation at the Washington Post as a blogger covering the conservative movement.

Click here to read the full article . . .

More Journolist emails here . . .

Conspiracy -- an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons.

There is absolutely no doubt that Obama supporters in the media, academia, and the civil-rights movement are actively conspiring to slander and libel patriotic Americans to stir up voters of color in this off-year election.

This stuff is pure evil.  It tells you a lot about Obama and his supporters.
The Lies That Refuse To Die
Here is a transcript of a KSAL radio interview of Tracey Mann, a Republican candidate for Congress.

The interviewer, Bryan Jennings, makes several false statements that have been repeated over, and over by supporters of Obama, and/or critics of Birthers.

In the third paragraph of the transcript, Jennings says:
    

"So, the short certificate that was shown by the state of Hawaii and the secretary of state of that state is not sufficient for you, correct?"

    
That statement is false.  Obama's Certification of Live Birth (COLB), the short form birth certificate, was never, ever "shown," either by the State of Hawaii or its secretary of state.  It first turned up on the Daily Kos, where it was almost immediately identified as bogus.  It later appeared on FactCheck.org where it was "certified" by these two Obots.

No independent, qualified forensic document examiner has ever been allowed to examine the document that Barack Obama has presented as evidence of his eligibility to serve as our president.


As a matter of fact, the Politifact blog actually has Communications Officer, Janice Okubo on the record denying that the electronic COLB image provided by the Obama campaign can be authenticated by her or by anyone at DHOH!  Politifact quotes Okubo as saying:
      

 "I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site (FactCheck.org) represents."

    
In the sixth paragraph, Jennings states:
    

"...but also the state of Hawaii had confirmed that they did have the original copy; not only that, but a newspaper article in Hawaii back in 1961 had the birth announcement..."

    
And concludes:
    

"So in order for the conspiracy to be true -- that the president is not a legal president -- not only would the federal government and the state of Hawaii have to be conspiring, but also an editorial board in a newspaper back in 1961 would have to be conspiring."

    
There was no "newspaper article" in 1961.  Two birth announcements were "discovered" during the campaign (2008), but no one has ever seen the actual birth announcements in the actual newspapers (there were two, not one, Mr. Jennings).  The two birth announcements that Obama is using to justify his eligibility were found in microfilm/fiche in the public library.

Oddly, the librarian just happened to have these microfilm/fiche documents on her desk when investigators came looking for documentation about Obama's eligibility -- pretty convenient, huh?


Newspaper editorial boards don't have a damned thing to do with birth announcements, wedding announcements, death announcement, etc.  Those items are submitted by families to newspapers all over the country, not the hospital.  Contact your own local newspaper and ask them about the process.

Some of these Obots are just ignorant of the issue.  Some know they are lying.  The result is the same -- disinformation.
ObamaMedia Busted
The "Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll" for Wednesday shows that forty-six percent (46%) of the nation's voters "Strongly Disapprove" of Obama's performance, giving him a "Presidential Approval Index" rating of -22.  This number ties the previous record.

Only 24% of the nation's voters "Strongly Approve" of the way that Barack Obama is performing.

And a new "Rasmussen Reports National Telephone Survey" finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters think the agenda of Democrats in Congress is extreme.

Yet the "Rasmussen Reports Media Meter" shows that the media coverage of Obama has been 55% positive over the past week.
Stimulus Website Is Propaganda
Gautham Nagesh is reporting that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) accused the White House of using the stimulus tracking website Recovery.gov to disseminate propaganda.

Issa released a 37-page report documenting alleged misconduct by the Obama administration in several of its new-media projects.  The report documents several instances in which government agencies allegedly promoted administration policies using federal resources.

Issa called on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the allegations and determine if the administration violated federal law by using taxpayers' dollars for political purposes.

Specifically, the report points to websites it claims contain false or misleading information, such as Recovery.gov and HealthReform.gov, as well as to a conference call during which a White House staff member urged artists and entertainers to support Obama's agenda.

Rather than serve as a tool for strong oversight and transparency, "Recovery.gov became a taxpayer-funded tool to promote false and misleading propaganda to support the Democrat-backed stimulus," the report states.  "The manifest inaccuracies in the data the White House used to justify its economic policies constitutes the dissemination of false propaganda by the federal government."

Recovery Board Chairman Earl Devaney published a blog post Monday arguing the site has accomplished its objective by providing transparency of stimulus investments.

"Although this new level of transparency may not be obvious to casual observers, it is inspiring real transformation in the federal government," Devaney wrote.

The report also accuses Obama and Joe Biden of leveraging their White House platform "to promote websites designed to disseminate propaganda."  It argues the claims made on Recovery.gov about jobs saved or created by the stimulus are fictitious and misleading, citing news reports and individual instances in which the displayed figures appeared to be incorrect.

The report notes the White House responded to critical reports by changing the displayed metric from "Jobs Created/Saved" to "Recovery Funded Jobs Reported by Recipients" but says there is no evidence the reported figures are any more accurate.

"Using new technologies and the remnants of the most expensive presidential campaign in history, the Obama administration’s use of taxpayer dollars to engage in covert propaganda is disconcerting," Issa said in a statement.  "This new report and a GAO investigation are needed to help shed light on how taxpayer dollars are being spent to illegally further a political agenda."
Memo To The ObamaMedia
We don't believe him -- or you -- C. Edmund Wright says in a memo to the ruling class media.

We are not ignorant or stupid.  We've not forgotten Jeremiah Wright.  It's not that we don't "know" what faith Obama subscribes to -- it's more that we don't believe him.  Or you.  Sorry.  Not buying.

Besides, sometimes we just like to tweak you with our poll answers -- and use any poll as an excuse to "vote against Obama" in any way, shape or form.

Frankly, it has been equal parts comedy and insult to watch the ruling class media haplessly wrestle with the reality that millions of Americans believe Obama to be a Muslim.  They are so clueless.

As if we needed any more proof-- this is simply another positive dose that the ruling class media and the country are divided by a huge gulf of philosophy, reality and experiences.  And they are just beside themselves that a country that was concerned that Obama's (Christian?) pastor is a crazy nut in the spring and summer of 2008 can totally forget about all that in the summer of 2010 and call Obama a Muslim.

They so miss the point.  We have forgotten none of that.  In fact, apparently now more Americans are deciding to look into all of this, and process it in light of Obama's actions.

So allow me to help the media out on this thorny confusing issue:

We know you claim him to be a Christian.  We know Obama has at times claimed to be a Christian.  We know Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Church claims to be some kind of Christian denomination.  We simply doubt it.  And the more we watch all of you, the less we are inclined to believe any of it.

(And by "we," I mean folks who would respond "Muslim" or "not sure" to your poll questions).

We also know his father was a Muslim.  We know his stepfather was a Muslim.  We know that under Sharia Law, he is a Muslim, and that much of the Muslim World regards him as a Muslim.  We know his mother was an atheist.  We know Obama sent a bureaucrat out to claim that NASA's top mission was Muslim outreach.  We know he skipped the Boy Scout's 100th Anniversary bash.  We know he's had a couple Freudian slips pertaining to his faith.  We know he has publicly recited the shahada. We know he has called the Islamic call to prayer the most beautiful sound on earth.

We know that in light of all of this, some sycophantic White House spokesperson has the gall to say how "obvious" Obama's Christianity is.  Depends on what the meaning of "obvious" is, I guess.

There's more.  So much more here . . .
Obama Tells The U.N. How Great He Is
The Washington Examiner says Obama's administration recently submitted a report to the United Nations on human rights in America.  The 29-page report shows the nation badly flawed but fortunate to have a Nobel Prize winner as its leader.  The report is billed as "a partial snapshot of the current human rights situation in the United States, including some of the areas where problems persist in our society."  Among the nation's shortcomings listed in the report:
    

•  Arizona has dared to try to enforce immigration laws that the federal government will not.  But don't worry, Obama is suing them.

•  We incarcerate dangerous terrorists at a military prison in Guantanamo Bay. But don't worry -- Obama has signed three executive orders to protect them from the last administration's rough handling, and he "remains committed to closure of the Guantanamo detention facility."

•  It's too hard to form a union, the document says -- either that or unions have just become less relevant.  But don't worry, "there are several bills in our Congress that seek to strengthen workers' rights" -- bills like "card check," which will help institutionalize union intimidation and coercion by taking away a worker's right to a secret ballot.

    
The report also notes that as bad as our human rights situation is, help is on the way -- all thanks to Obama:
    

• America made "great strides" in human rights when "President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law."  That's better known as ObamaCare, the law that 60 percent of us want repealed.

• Obama is trying to repeal "Don't ask, don't tell" in the Department of Defense, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects states' right to define marriage legislatively.

• The report mentions that in recent months, "the Department of Justice has worked to strengthen enforcement of federal voting rights laws."  (So, just pretend, at least for a moment, that the New Black Panther case never happened.)

    
You get the picture: This is a self-serving political document that portrays Obama policies as great leaps forward, and things he opposes as steps backward.  In the Bush years, America ignored the UN High Commission on Human Rights because the panel too often gave voice and sometimes positions of leadership to such human rights beacons as Cuba and China.  Now, under Obama, our government is producing propaganda for world consumption at the expense of the American people.  In other words, Obama has not merely joined Cuba and China on the commission, he is imitating their leaders' tactics, too.
There's No Business Like Show Business
Arlen Williams is reporting that Barack Obama is casting actors for a town hall audience on Nielsen’s Back Stage website -- "The Actor's Resource."

So, what are you doing, October 14th?  Would you like to "act" in a "town hall meeting" for Barack Obama?  According to this official casting notice in Nielsen’s Back Stage site, you still have time to apply and/or audition.
    
    
After the hammerings that Obama took in the last couple of town hall meetings he held, who could be surprised that Obama's handlers have decided to be more careful, for the next one.

For background, we see on Back Stage's "About Us" page, that "For nearly 50 years, Back Stage has been the most trusted place for actors to find performing arts and casting information."  Nothing but the best for the Obamamessiah, after all.

And as for the talent Obama may tap, "Back Stage is a place where actors, singers and dancers can connect with the greater performing arts community."  It is appropriate that Obama is considered part of the "greater" and not, say, any lesser performing arts community -- American exceptionalism after all, Obama style.

Nielsen takes pains to point out their own exceptional attention to screening those who place such casting notices: "Actors are, unfortunately, highly vulnerable to all kinds of sleazy operators and scam artists.  Back Stage takes particular pride in trying to prevent that."  Well, not even Nielsen is perfect.  But they go on to explain:

We offer every actor our unique Back Stage Casting Pledge: We check out all casting notices before we publish them.

We never simply publish a casting notice as submitted.  We ask questions, check references, and refuse to publish calls that seem less than reputable.  No other publication takes the steps we do to protect actors.

For instance, we ask production companies to indicate if roles are paid or not; if any roles require nudity; are they seeking union or nonunion actors (and if it’s union, under which contract); and so forth…

No mention of nudity is to be seen in the Obama casting call, thankfully. However (and this may be very difficult to accept, among his chief supporters), no union scale will be paid.

And, still noting the "About Us" page, we have the following warning to taxpaying American Citizens: "You should never go into an audition wondering if the person behind that door will try to take your money -- or worse."  Thank you, Back Stage, but it is too late for that to be a mystery.

All this being the case, they conclude with with the following confession: "Despite our best efforts, con artists and creeps occasionally fool us."

Now they tell us!
MTV Denies That Obama Telecast Is Political

Emily Miller says that the Viacom networks MTV, BET and CMT are giving an hour of free air time to Obama less than three weeks before the midterm elections. 

 

The so-called "A Conversation with President Obama" will be live and commercial-free on six Viacom networks at 4 p.m. on Thursday.  The networks will not give equal time to a Republican before the election, according to a spokeswoman.  MTV denies that the Obama hour of TV is political, despite the timing, weeks before the midterm elections.

 

"We’re not giving an hour of free time to the president to freely express his views.  We’re hosting a town hall with 250 young people to ask questions of the president," Viacom spokeswoman Kelly McAndrew said to HUMAN EVENTS.  "This is not a campaign appearance.  This is a town hall discussion."

 

The White House conceived of the concept and asked for the commercial-free TV time, according to Viacom.

"MTV and BET had 'asked' the White House to do something with the president," explained McAndrew.  She said that the White House "came back to both networks and said, ‘Hey we could do something.  Would you consider doing something together?’"  "We said, ‘Great!  Let’s see if we can get some more networks who would like to join in.’  And not only did BET, we have CENTRIC, Tr3s, mtvU, that will all be airing this particular town hall live," said McAndrew.

 

Viacom is adamant that the across-the-board network airing of the Obama hour is not political, and therefore does not demand equal time for a Republican.  "We are not giving a full hour of free air time.  We are hosting a town hall for 250 individuals to ask questions of the president of the United States," the spokeswoman said repeatedly.

 

MTV asserts that the show will be balanced by the questions that may be asked by the audience of young people who "provide some very different perspectives.  We think that our audience is interested in a lot of different topics and hold varying viewpoints on all of these different topics.  And this is the forum to provide an opportunity for young people to express those thoughts," said McAndrew.

 

Asked if the audience questions are submitted in advance, McAndrew said "absolutely not."  However, when asked if the audience is being pre-screened, McAndrew said yes, but to achieve their version of diversity. "We’re talking to the individuals to be sure that we have an extremely diverse audience because we don’t want a single view audience," explained McAndrew of the vetting process.

 

Does Viacom and its networks have any intention of holding a town hall for a Republican?  "There’s nothing on our current schedule," McAndrew responded.  She added that, "we’ve hosted plenty of town halls and debates in the past."  When questioned for specifics, she said, "I know we hosted the one with John McCain on the most recent presidential election.  That was in 2007.  That’s what I know right off the top of my head."

 

Asked if MTV or other Viacom networks had given an hour to any Republicans in the past three years, McAndrew responded, "You know, sittin’ here right now, I’d have to go back and look at the history.  We have been doing this a very long time across many of our network.  Comedy Central has a very well-known program that they host around lots of elections."

 

So, what’s the name of the "well known program" on Comedy Central around the elections?  "The… uh…ohh …what is it called?  … I’ll have to get you the name," stuttered Viacom’s spokeswoman.  "We have 'Choose or Lose'... gosh... I don’t know the year that started.  We’ve had a lot of different things.  I mean gosh, just Google that and figure that out."

 

This is the Obama faux town hall whose participants, umm "actors," are being cast by Nielsen’s Back Stage website -- "The Actor's Resource."

Oprah to the Rescue
Oprah Winfrey has offered s to fly Jon Stewart entire audience to DC for the Stewart's socialist rally.

Jom Hoft says that the leftists sure are dumping a lot of their own money into this Astroturfed rally.

First Arianna Huffington is spending $250,000 to bus supporters to the rally.  Now Oprah announced she will fly Jon Stewart’s audience to DC and put them up in a hotel -- per Just Jared, via Free Republic:
    

An audience member tells JustJared.com that Oprah surprised the entire Daily Show audience today (October 14) with a promise to fly the audience out to Washington, D.C. for the Rally to Restore Sanity and put them all up in hotels!

Oprah appeared before the live studio audience via satellite.

JustJared.com will be at the rally at the end of the month -- for more information on the event, visit RallyToRestoreSanity.com!

Last month, Oprah showed support for the rally on her twitter. "I think Jon Stewart’s on to something.  Rally to Restore Sanity," she tweeted.  "Would you consider going?  Oct 30, 2010?"

   
These leftists want to make sure that Barack Obama’s socialist platform of no jobs and historic debt continues.
Stay the Course And Know It Will Get Better
An Obama-friendly Mary C. Curtis says Valerie Jarrett has stayed as others in the Obama administration have planned their departures to places such as Chicago or Harvard.  None of the others have Jarrett's job history with Barack Obama.  Now, with a tough mid-term election closing in, what advice does this senior White House adviser and assistant to Obama have for the person she has been a friend to for 19 years, since before he was elected state senator in Illinois?

"To stay the course and to know that it will get better," she said in an interview Friday.  "He's a student of history, so he knows that it's in times of great challenges when our country has been the most innovative and creative, and we look for new solutions and new opportunity.  That's who we are; that's our international reputation as a country."

Jarrett joined Obama on a trip to Wilmington, Del. Friday to campaign for Democratic Senate candidate Chris Coons -- and for the administration's agenda.  "I think that momentum is building," she said.  In Delaware, Obama called the Nov. 2 elections a "choice between our fears and our hopes."  Later in the day, while sitting in her West Wing office, Jarrett echoed Obama's message.  "Elections are about choices," she said, adding that Republicans have, in this respect, "made the contrast easy for us."

That's a fair point, as even in state races, many GOP challengers -- along with some in his own party -- have taken issue with Obama's policies on health care, the economy, and even Obama's personality.  According to the polls, that tactic is finding some success.  And it's not clear at this stage in the campaign that Obama has been able to renew the bond he had with voters two years ago.

Jarrett has a different view of those policies, not to mention the man behind them, which is why she took time Friday to make the case for him -- and why Obama is in campaign mode, traveling across the country to try to energize the voters who elected him in 2008.  "It's very important to go out and remind people just how much progress we've made," Jarrett said.  "That's challenging because we still have a long way to go."

"I think he is not a slick politician," Jarrett said.  "He doesn't have the shtick, you know, the way a lot of politicians do.  He's completely sincere and true and I think people are not used to seeing that in their politicians.  So it's taking people a while to realize that he's actually a real person and he's not just trying to pretend and fool them and trick them into thinking he's something else.  He's exactly who he is," she said.  "He doesn't do the theater."  (In 2008, his aides liked to call him "no drama, Obama.")

Jarrett also blamed some of Obama's perceived problems on "the fact that there's a kind of toxicity in the language."  She said Obama "always keeps an even tone and ... he always looks for the better angels in people."  That is not the general case in campaign 2010, she said. "The 24-hour news cycle and the reality TV that we all live with" adds to that toxic conversation.  "It's always easier to scare people than to inform them."

There's more here . . .

That's a true-believer speaking.  Describing Obama as, "completely sincere and true," is insane.  He is as insincere and false as any politician -- ever!
It's Hard Out Here For A Messiah
Scott at PowerLine blog writes:  Yesterday I got around to reading Peter Baker's New York Times Magazine article "The education of a president" in hard copy.  One comes away from the article with the uncomfortable feeling that Obama thinks he's just too damned good for us.

Baker's article made news in the middle of last week as a result of Obama's acknowledgment that he didn't know "shovel-ready from a hole in the ground (to borrow the formulation of Mickey Kaus).  In other words, he wasn't lying to us when he sold us his trillion-dollar "stimulus" bill of goods.  He just didn't know what he was talking about.

I found a couple things of interest in the article beyond the "shovel-ready" quote that Baker puts near the top.  Baker asked Obama about his messianic pretensions (my words, not his).  Here is the passage:
    

When Obama secured the Democratic nomination in June 2008, he told an admiring crowd that someday "we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth."

I read that line to Obama and asked how his high-flying rhetoric sounded in these days of low-flying governance.  "It sounds ambitious," he agreed.  "But you know what?  We've made progress on each of those fronts."  He quoted Mario Cuomo's line about campaigning in poetry and governing in prose.  "But the prose and the poetry match up," he said.  "It would be very hard for people to look back and say, You know what, Obama didn't do what he's promised.  I think they could say, On a bunch of fronts he still has an incomplete.  But I keep a checklist of what we committed to doing, and we've probably accomplished 70 percent of the things that we talked about during the campaign.  And I hope as long as I'm president, I've got a chance to work on the other 30 percent."

    
Baker takes another whack at Obama's promise of deliverance:
    

But save the planet?  If you promise to save the planet, might people think you would, you know, actually save the planet?  He laughed, before shifting back to hope and inspiration.  "I make no apologies for having set high expectations for myself and for the country, because I think we can meet those expectations," he said.  "Now, the one thing that I will say -- which I anticipated and can be tough -- is the fact that in a big, messy democracy like this, everything takes time.  And we're not a culture that's built on patience."

    
Yeah, it's hard out here for a messiah.

And then there is this:
    

To better understand history, and his role in it, Obama invited a group of presidential scholars to dinner in May in the living quarters of the White House.  Obama was curious about, among other things, the Tea Party movement.  Were there precedents for this sort of backlash against the establishment?  What sparked them and how did they shape American politics?  The historians recalled the Know-Nothings in the 1850s, the Populists in the 1890s and Father Charles Coughlin in the 1930s.  "He listened," the historian H. W. Brands told me.  "What he concluded, I don't know."

    
C'mon, man, who are those "presidential scholars"?  Good grief.  If the best they can do is to liken a movement devoted to the restoration of limited government to the Know-Nothings, the Populists, and Father Coughlin, they really should have tried harder.  I doubt they got any resistance from Obama, whose knowledge even of relatively recent American history is pitiful.
Barack Obama And The Pitfalls Of Fraudulent Branding
Kyle-Anne Shiver says that forty years ago, the real life Mad Men knew how badly a brand could be destroyed if they made impossible claims about a product, a lesson that the creators of Barack Obama's image are relearning the hard way.

If Barack Obama had been a commercial product instead of a political candidate, then he and his brand creators -- Axelrod et al -- would be facing one of the most massive class action suits ever to hit any American business.

Branded as the superhero of smarts, Barack Obama would be to American government what Einstein was to science.

Branded as an epochal Lightworker, Barack Obama would be a president whose very life formed a dividing line of history.  All things would henceforth be measured in before-Barack and after-Barack metaphors.

Branded as a peacemaker of unprecedented prowess, Barack Obama would usher in the era of worldwide kumbaya, while catching the elusive butterfly of civilization’s perfection in his outstretched hand -- all without so much as breaking a fingernail.

Sold to the American public as "sort of God," marketed as a political savior of such extraordinary intelligence and giftedness that there had simply never been anyone like him, Barack Obama so misrepresented himself that hundreds of pundits are still trying to make sense of what went wrong.

When reality met branding-myth, the whole thing fell apart -- truth happened, you nitwits.

So, imagine that corporate laws against fraudulent branding applied to political advertising.  Well, if they did, then Barack Obama would prove the quintessential false branding case.  There wouldn’t be a law school in the country without a case study of the Barack Obama swindle.

I imagine the lawsuit would be akin to a tobacco liability suit on steroids.

Continue reading here . . .
Large, Loud Crowds Cheer Obama At Campaign Rallies
The following report from the Daily Caller is pure propaganda.
    

Focused on turning out base voters, President Barack Obama is being cheered at raucous rallies and spreading this message: Don’t turn your back on the change happening in Washington.

    
What nonsense!

90% Of those people are coming for the band.

September 28 -- Obama enlists rock band the National along with singer-songwriter Ben Harper at Madison campus rally.

October 9 -- Biden to join Obama at Sunday's rally in Germantown featuring the hip-hop band The Roots.

October 22 -- The band, Ozomatli, and Jamie Foxx are scheduled to perform at Obama's rally for Barbara Boxer at USC.

Listening to Obama's bullsh!t is the price of admission.
Architect Of Government Takeover Of The News
Tara Servatius says that last week, National Public Radio CEO Vivian Schiller took a break from her crusade for a government takeover of the media to swat a fly.  With now-former NPR analyst Juan Williams suitably splattered across the evening news after politically incorrect comments he made on Fox News, Schiller can return to her real passion -- the creation of a national network to ensure that in the future, you get your news from the government in general and NPR in particular.

Schiller could barely contain her rage at Fox News and at Williams last week, saying he should discuss his fear of boarding a plane with Muslim passengers with "his psychiatrist."  Those who understand what is at stake saw the Williams/Schiller dust up for what it really was -- a declaration of war by one of the most powerful women in journalism against for-profit, non-liberal media. If Schiller and her liberal friends have their way, Fox and its viewers will pay the bill for her new government news network.

As Schiller explained in a speech to the NPR board of directors in 2009, it is public radio’s responsibility to fill the gap in journalism left by dying local television stations and newspapers.

Schiller, a former New York Times executive, is one of a few dozen power players working with the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and a leftist group called Free Press to "reinvent journalism."  That’s how the FTC describes it.  The FCC calls what they are doing the "Future of Journalism."  Free Press, a think tank funded by leftist billionaire George Soros, among others, calls it "the new public media."

It’s all the same thing, a plan to take over local news coverage from for-profit television, radio and print media, which Schiller and her friends claim is in danger of extinction.  These "friends" get together regularly with the heads of the FCC and FTC to brainstorm the details in government and congressional meetings.  These meetings include the leaders of all the country’s public broadcasting outlets, including PBS, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and American Public Media.

They are beefing up their staffs in local news markets with herds of public news reporters to "take over" coverage as commercial media fails.  Nationwide, this will cost $40 billion to $60 billion over a decade, they believe.  Their plans, according to the FCC’s Future of Media report, are to raise this money by taxing for-profit news organizations -- the ones whose reporting Schiller is supposedly trying to "save."  They want to charge "spectrum fees" of five percent of broadcast station revenues for use of the public spectrum and airwaves, which the government controls.  They figure that could bring in $1.8 billion a year.  A one percent tax on all electronic devices like cell phones, televisions and laptops could bring in billions more.  So would a monthly fee on internet subscriptions.

Continue reading here . . .
Obama Joins Jon Stewart On "The Daily Show"
"Daily Show" host Jon Stewart devoted the entire 22-minutes of his show (video) to interviewing Obama in the main theater at the Harman Center for the Arts.  Stewart gently pressed Obama to account for campaign promises that have not been delivered upon and to explain why Democrats are struggling to convince the American public that they’ve effectively used their majorities in Congress.

"You’re two years into your administration," Stewart said in his opening volley, "and the question that arises in my mind is: 'Are we the people we were waiting for, or does it turn out those people are still out there and we don’t have their number?'  How are you feeling about that?"

Obama relied, "I'm feeling great at where the American people are, considering what they've gone through."

Related:  On the Daily Show, Obama is the last laugh

You mean what you've put the American people through, don't you, Barry?

You know, Obama's good at this talk show stuff.  He is even able to do it without teleprompters.  Maybe he can build a career for himself at Comedy Central after the American People throw his Marxist butt out in 2012.

Heaven knows, his play-acting as president has been a colossal joke -- a cruel and deadly joke, no question -- but still a joke.
Obama Has Really Lost His Mojo
Ed Morrissey says Tom Junod’s eulogy for Barack Obama’s mystique in Esquire indulges in overwrought excuse-seeking and ultimately misses the obvious conclusion, but it’s notable for recognition of one central fact:  Obama has been the Incredible Shrinking Man, and in more than one way.  Not only does Obama seem incapable of offering soaring rhetoric that engages and inspires millions now -- as Junod puts it, he no longer seems born to fill stadiums like a rock star -- but the rhetoric Obama does offer makes it seem that Obama can’t even engage himself.  As the Anointed Obama vanishes, all that’s left is a politician who looks very much like he’s in over his head:
    

Now his gift has all but deserted him, and all that prevents the story from becoming tragic is his own apparent refusal to be affected by it.  There are many explanations for why he seems diminished by the power of his own office, from the vestigial racism of the American public to his misreading of his own mandate.  But those are political explanations of a predicament that demands musical metaphors.  Imagine Miles Davis losing not just his ability to blow but also his mystique; he might get his chops back, but the aura would be more difficult to restore, along with his ability to captivate audiences by turning his back on them.  Of course, Obama has never turned his back on us, but so many Americans have turned their backs on him that it amounts to The Anointed One, as he is sometimes referred, being stripped of something that can never return: his anointment.  And without it -- without his air of destiny, without the idea of Obama augmenting his actuality -- the rooms he used to occupy so effortlessly have changed dimensions on him, until at times he might as well be speaking from the bottom of a well.  Does anyone remember the speech he gave at West Point, when he escalated the war in Afghanistan after six weeks of slow-ketchup decision making?  He was all alone on that stage, and he looked all alone and somehow outnumbered by the space that surrounded him.  It was the first time he was betrayed by his own stagecraft.  It was the first time the enormity of his decision dwarfed the eloquence he found to express it, and he has never again looked like a man born to fill stadiums.

All this was in play on Wednesday, at the press conference he gave after the bloodletting of the mid-term elections.  Could anyone have ever imagined that Barack Obama would be made to look inauthentic by the sloppy last-call tears of someone like John Boehner?  Could anyone have ever imagined that he’d be in a room of reporters who wanted something from him -- that he wouldn’t be able to deliver?  The man acclaimed as the most gifted communicator of our age had to be prodded into admitting "it feels bad," and after nearly an hour of prolix boilerplate offered but one takeaway line, "The Slurpee is a delicious drink," before warming up and saying that he was going to invite Boehner to a Slurpee Summit.  Indeed, the press conference was so painfully incommensurate to its historical moment that one had to wonder if he knew it -- if he knew that even on this observance of loss he was losing his audience; if he knew that that he had lost not only the House of Representatives and a broad swath of the American electorate but his ability to talk his way into or out of anything; if the great singer knew that he had lost his voice. …

In less than two years he had gone from sounding like a man who could always count on his ability to strum the mystic chords of memory to a man who, no matter what he said, sounded like a politician, and one in over his head at that.  Now he sounded like a man who had already realized that he had lost more than he imagined he could but was just starting to understand that he was never going to get it back.  He wasn’t going to cry about it -- leave that to the Republicans -- but he was going to take stock, and that may have represented a beginning of sorts, even if it was also clearly an end.

    
Ah, yes, the "vestigial racism" excuse, which shows that Junod watches his share of MSNBC and its curiously monochromatic lineup.  No one who offers this threadbare rationalization seems to explain how Obama got elected by a majority in 2008 by attracting the same people who apparently are afflicted with this "vestigial racism" now.  This excuse has been used to explain voter dissatisfaction with Democrats ever since Scott Brown won in Massachusetts, offered usually in the casual, off-hand manner used here by Junod with absolutely no substantiation whatsoever.  It’s the elbow nudge to the ribs among the Left that says, "You know that all those people are racists," which is a form of bigotry in and of itself.

Junod comes close to one of the reasons why Obama is in over his head, which is his misreading of the mandate from the 2008 election, but whiffs completely on the underlying problem.  Obama got elected by saying that change was more important than competence, and he has proven himself massively wrong.  Obama is in over his head, and it shows.  It showed on the campaign trail for those who bothered to look for it rather than cheerlead Obama’s narrative.  Why should anyone be surprised when a man with no executive, economic, military, or diplomatic experience who had only three years in the Senate starts flailing when elected President?

If the media had vetted him as a politician rather than a rock star, perhaps people like Junod might be a little less surprised to find an emperor with no clothes instead of an Anointed One.
Corrupt ObamaMedia Will Reap What It Has Sown
Bill McIntyre says John Ziegler’s film Media Malpractice -- How Obama Got Elected -- is finally getting the attention it deserves, mainly through the Internet blogosphere.  The film exposes the morally bankrupt ObamaMedia for the shameful role it played in having Barack Obama elected.

Many of the contributors to Canada Free Press have been warning for several years that the ObamaMedia in both the United States and Canada have abandoned any pretence of unbiased reporting in favor of political activism and propaganda.

What Media Malpractice does is tie it all together in a neat package using the Obamamedia’s own words and images to expose them for what they are, namely liars, duplicitous cowards and ridicule to destroy their victims, ostensibly under the guise of news coverage.  If I still worked in that industry I would be profoundly ashamed and embarrassed to call myself a journalist at any level.

The strange thing is it was obvious to me and many others that the public should have been aware of the blatant attack campaign against Sarah Palin and candidates not anointed by them.  Most chose to ignore the abuse or dismiss it as inconsequential or even justified.  The result?  They got the government they deserved.

I have only seen what happened at the national level.  There are several layers of media below them at the state, regional and local level whose misdeeds do not attract much attention.  I suspect the bandwagon journalism ran much deeper than the film depicts.

Naturally the ObamaMedia are studiously ignoring the release of Ziegler’s film (surprise, surprise) although he did appear on CNN’s Parker/Spitzer show on Nov. 11.

Co-host Kathleen Parker spent most of the segment defending herself from Ziegler’s contention that she had been duped by Obama.  She claimed in response that she actually led the media assassination of Sarah Palin during the 2008 election campaign.

Now that’s something of which to brag by someone wearing the mantle of a journalist.  It doesn’t get much more pathetic than that.  And what does that say about CNN as a whole?

Meanwhile if you want to see the shallowest newscasts in the world by the cheesiest bobble-heads on TV just go the CNN’s sister network HLN.  A word of warning.  Don’t go there if you dislike being yelled at by over-emoting hosts and news readers.

Fortunately Ziegler’s film does not have to rely on the likes of CNN and the rest of the ObamaMedia for exposure.  Social networking sites like YouTube and Facebook are more than picking up the slack along with blogs such as Small Dead Animals and other posts over the Internet.

The ObamaMedia believe their audiences are illiterate, gullible and stupid.  This explains why they choose to ignore this blot on their once respected reputation.  They think Ziegler and others like him will go away so they can get back to business as usual.  They will be disappointed as this story has legs and it will not stop here.

The ObamaMedia will not escape the consequences from its audiences for its fraudulent reporting.  A growing number of viewers and readers now know they were misled, lied to and duped into thinking Obama was the Messiah.

It is they who will write the last words in the ObamaMedia’s obituary.
The Lapdog Media
WLNS.com reports the following:

When you’re in the Far East talking to a colleague from Down Under, if you’re not careful, it can be a case of thanks, but no thanks.  Obama found that out on Saturday, as he met with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard on the margins of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

After a picture-taking session with the two, as photographers and reporters were being ushered out, an Australian journalist turned to Obama and said, "Thank you, Mr. President."

It didn’t take long for Obama to understand who’d piped up.  "I knew it must have been an Australian because my folks never say thank you."

Which, being Americans, the U.S. contingent took as a challenge.  In unison, they, too, pronounced, "Thank you, Mr. President."

snip...

"Thank you, Mr. President," threatened to become a theme of the day.

As reporters and photographers were ushered from the summit’s opening meeting with Obama and other leaders, a White House reporter and photographer leaned in to thank the U.S. president.

"We’re trying to be more polite," the reporter said, drawing on the earlier exchange from the Obama-Gillard meeting.  Then, from a distance, came another photographer’s shout: "Thank You, Mr. President."

To which Obama replied: "Now, don’t overdo it."
Newsweak Cover:  Obama As "God Of All Things"
    
    
Newsweak should have done their homework.  The image is modeled from Shiva, "The Destroyer." That's not only Shiva the Destroyer, that's Shiva depicted as Nataraja, in the act of destruction of the universe, which is appropriate, considering the way Obama is destroying America.

However, the Newsweak image gives Obama two extra arms and hands, so he can be 50% more destructive, I guess.  Allah knows, he's trying.

Check out the small print, "Why the modern presidency may be too much for one person to handle."

The modern presidency is only too much for one person to handle, when that person was demonstrably not qualified for the job in the first place, and it was the ObamaMedia, including Newsweak, that committed journalistic malpractice by acting as a cheerleader for the socialist, instead of vetting him.

I don't recall any alleged news sources complaining the job was too much when Dubya served.

Now you know why Newsweak was recently sold for $1.00.  That's exactly what it is worth.
He’s So Brilliant
Jonathan Strong says the vice president is a talker, and then some.  But in a new interview with GQ, he managed some gems, even for Joe Biden.

For instance, reporter Lisa DePaulo pressed Biden repeatedly on why Obama isn’t connecting with the American public and is instead viewed as professorial and aloof.  "So what is it?" asked DePaulo.

"I think what it is, is he’s so brilliant.  He is an intellectual," Biden said.

Also, Obama has a "blind faith" in the American public’s ability to understand the benefits of his policies.  "[He says] 'No.  The American people get this.  Just tell them.  Just go out there and do the right thing'," Biden said.

Biden went on to explain how Obama’s childhood shows he does, in fact, deeply understand the American public.  "Look, think about the guy.  This is an African American who had a Caucasian mother, raised in a Caucasian neighborhood by Caucasian grandparents.  Talk about a guy who knows what it’s like.  This is a guy who gets it," Biden said.

Continue reading this crap here . . .

Related:  Who says Obama's smart (besides dumber-than-dirt Joe Biden)?

"..who had a Caucasian mother" -- Maybe?  Probably?

"...Caucasian grandparents" -- who Obama referred to as "
white folks" and "typical white people."

Barack Obama understands the American public like the average 5th grader understands quantum physics.
20/20?  Not Hardly
Fox News is reporting that Obama says that praying and reading the Bible are part of his everyday life.

In a wide-ranging interview broadcast Friday night, Barack and Michelle Obama were interviewed on ABC's 20/20 by Barbara Walters, in one of the most staged and scripted interviews ever.

When asked if he prays himself, Obama said: "I do.  Every night."  [not likely]

"Michelle and I have not only benefited from our prayer life, but I think the girls have too," Obama told Walters.  "We say grace before we eat dinner every night. We take turns."

"In the end, we always say we hope we live long and strong," the first lady said.

"Long and strong.  And that we give back."  [ha! these people are takers, not givers]

Obama has been dogged by criticism about his faith since he took office.  A poll released in late August showed that a growing number of Americans -- one in five, up from one in ten in March -- say he is a Muslim.

On this question, Obama blames the Internet for why people think he is a Muslim.  [he should blame his own words and deeds]

Obama asserted, once again, that the rumors are untrue and that both he and his family benefit from their lives as Christians.
Opening with a question about the impact of his faith on his life, Walters asked point-blank why Obama thought the rumor of his religious background had any staying power. 

"The internet has a powerful effect these ways," he told Walters, "so the way rumors can take up a life of their own ends up being very powerful."

And Walters allowed Barack and Michelle to advance the myth that presidents always lose Congress during midterm elections.  [false]
    

MICHELLE OBAMA:  It's a tough time.  I mean, my understanding is that, number one, every president in history has lost Congress at the midterms.  Maybe that's overstating it, but it's happened for every president in my lifetime.

BARACK OBAMA:  It's the norm.

MICHELLE OBAMA:  It's the norm.

    
Walters didn't contradict Obama nor the wife.  After all, presidents losing Congress during the midterms has not been at all "the norm" since Mrs. Obama was born in 1964.

Here are the facts that contradict the Obamas' unchallenged assertion.

Denying reality, Obama added, "The fact is, that we stabilized the financial system…we turned an economy that was contracting to one that was growing.  We have added a million jobs over the last year to the economy."  [delusion]

However, as it turned out, the Obama-Walters love-fest tanked in the ratings.  He got a shellacking there, too, to follow the one in the midterm elections.

His conversation with Barbara Walters placed second in total viewers to a rerun of CBS’ "Blue Bloods" and third in the 10 p.m. time slot in the 18-to-49 age group.  On that count, Obama was behind Tom Selleck and NBC’s broadcast of the fantasy film "Enchanted."

The Walters interview averaged 5.7 million viewers for ABC.  The "Blue Bloods" repeat, the second of two Friday night, pulled in 7.6 million for CBS.

I don't know why, but I have this strong suspicion that Walters' questions were written by someone in the White House.
"No Labels" Tries To Redefine Obama Into The Center

Ben Johnson has reported extensively on the new faux centrist organization "No Labels" and its organizers' efforts to form a new, national third party in time for the 2012 presidential elections.  After its kickoff event yesterday in New York City, it is clear the group is rendering yet another service to Obama.  It attempts to portray Barack Obama as a centrist.

     

In a story today, Politico surmizes that No Labels "may inadvertently serve a stalking horse for President Barack Obama."   However, it does not seem so very inadvertent.  Democratic donor Jim Torrey, who attended the event, admitted, "Of all the people in the audience, if you drilled down you wouldn't find that many Republicans."  The few who showed up were either "former" Democrats (Mark McKinnon, Michael Bloomberg) or RINOs run herd out of the GOP by the Tea Party movement (Mike Castle, Bob Inglis).

    

Torrey added that Obama "aligned with the values of this organization." He was right -- and that seems to be the group's current raison d'etre, to pretend its views are the political "center," and coincidentally Barack Obama shares them all.  Thus, whoever opposes his agenda is an extremist who must be read out of polite political society.

     

The attempt to demonize the flyover country booboisie began on schedule.  One participant told the gathering, "You just have to look to Arizona to see extremists who are trying to divide us."  Upon hearing this, Jim Geraghty of National Review wrote, "I thought the point of the group was to stop labeling people; but I guess it's okay to label the overwhelming majority of Arizonans 'extremists'".

     

On the contrary, that is its purpose -- to beat back the Tea Party, revive the spirit of Bob Michel, and keep the country moving steadily to the Left.

     

As I have noted, the Left center's target is not just Arizonans.  The majority of Americans support Arizona's immigration law, and 68 percent of Americans support building a border fence.  But the intelligentsia gain votes, cheap labor, or inexpensive house servants from our Open Borders immigration policy, so they portray the vast majority of Americans as victims of "nativism" and "racism."

     

Enforcing our immigration laws was but one front of the No Labels labeling effort.  Its neutered RINOs took relish in lambasting their former party.  Former Congressman Bob Inglis of South Carolina, who lost his primary to a more conservative challenger, hailed Obama's willingness to "compromise" on taxes, saying, "I'm willing to believe that that's what Obama's really been always been [sic.] about."  (It is not, in fact, what Obama's really been always been about.)  He blamed the GOP for telling Obama, "we can't cooperate -- we've got to call him a socialist, we've got to call him a secret Muslim."

     

Now the game is clear.  "No Labels," representing the make-believe middle, decrees that only extremists believe Obama -- who has long expressed his desire to take wealth from those who earned it and redistribute it to others who have not -- is a socialist.  Sober-minded people such as -- well, such as themselves -- "cooperate" with the Great One.

     

The new assault on non-compliant politicians recalls Obama's year-long attempt to delegitimize Fox News.  Obama's surrogates said it had "a perspective" and unbiased media should not follow its example.  Failing at that, he moved on to belittling John Boehner.

     

This reporter has noted Obama's attempt to redefine the political spectrum to place himself in the center.  Former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers recently endorsed Jon Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity" -- essentially a day-long Hate Glenn Beckfest -- at about the same time Barack Obama did. Funny, that.

     

At the same time, Barack Obama is attempting to move the Left further leftward.  This author reported that the Obamas' and Valerie Jarrett's radical friend Marilyn Katz has called for a new Popular Front to give the extreme Left a mainstream voice.  Her effort is the "bottom-up" component of the Left's pincer movement to radicalize America.  They hope it will soon be impossible to express mainstream conservative thought without being branded a hatemonger or troglodyte.

     

In recent weeks, Obama and his minions have redoubled their efforts.  Obama has likened Republicans to "hostage-takers" and Boehner to a "bomb-thrower."  The Southern Poverty Law Center has branded traditional Christian ministries like Coral Ridge Ministries, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and Concerned Women for America as "hate groups."  The FBI now spies on pro-life organizations, and the Department of Homeland Security considers Christian conservatives likely domestic terrorists.

     

No Labels seems happy to do its part.  However, some of its organizers cannot bring themselves to pretend they actually represent any constituency.  No less a titan than Michael Bloomberg admitted, "It's not clear that the average voter wants what we are all advocating."  The event's kickoff panels were hosted by media figures that spanned the political spectrum from MSNBC to…the New York Times.  Politico reported that a few more than 500 people showed up from around the country for yesterday's gala.  (In characteristic hyperbole, its website estimated attendance at "more than 1,000 people.")  The group sold a whopping 88 t-shirts, or 113 if you count online sales.  (Incidentally, No Labels plagiarized its logos, although it initially lied about it.)

     

Nonetheless, its organizers still talk a big game.  Nancy Jacobson said No Labels plans to have one million members within the next year.  Fellow organizer John Avlon hoped No Labels will begin a political action committee to "go on the offense."

      

Slow down, John. Your work seems offensive enough.

 

©  Copyright  Beckwith  2010
All right reserved