Oh, boy – who would have thought that something like this would be causing this Administration so much headache? Not that there weren’t other issues that SHOULD have received this level of scrutiny, but for some reason, the MSM is finally ready to start investigating some of the shenanigans iin which Obama and his Administration have participated. And whooey, this is turning out to be some kind of investigation.

Perhaps this new interest by the MSM is because Congress is taking umbrage at this Administration shelling out over half a billion bucks to a company doomed to fail, and are they ever. Check out this discussion between Rep. Tim Murphy and Jonathan Silver, who heads up the Energy Loan Department:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And there is still more to this issue:

Click here to view the embedded video.

After giving the MSM some props, Anderson Cooper almost made me take back my words. Love how he tries to give the Obama Administration a pass on this. But here’s the thing – in two and a half years, this Administration has created a little over 3,500 jobs out of a $38 BILLION dollar budget. for loans.

To demonstrate even further Obama’s complaint tone-deafness on this issue, where did he go while n NC to try and ram his “jobs bill” down people’s throats (think: Obamacare)? To a “green energy” company WestStar Precision, which, by the way, had just shipped a boatload of jobs to Costa Rica. Way to push your jobs bill, Mr. President!

It was while he was in Raleigh, NC, that we became privy to the reason Congress should pass this bill: out of love for Obama. I am not kidding you. It isn’t because of what’s in the plan (yet another stimulus to go along with the other stimulus that didn’t work), but because people worship the Messiah:

Click here to view the embedded video.

There is something seriously wrong with this man. And Congress, if they go along with this new addition to our deficit.

What a mess this all is. What a mess Obama is making of our country with his failed, flawed policies, demands, and actions. Solyndra is only one example of many. Feel free to discuss Solyndra, the Administration’s push for this massive loan which is likely long gone, and the machinations in which it has engaged to cover this up, or any other policies (“Fast and Furious” springs to mind and Holder’s claim he knew nothing). And if you can explain to me why a “green energy” job costs $640,000 a PIECE, I would love to hear it.

Just from the title of this Sheila Marikar ABC report, you get a hint of a bias. The article doesn’t help to dispel that sensation, rather it escalates it:

There’s the stereotype of the Sarah Palin supporter, and then there’s Sonnie Johnson.

The 30-year-old African-American mother and wife is featured in “The Undefeated” as one of the many people Palin captivated when John McCain thrust her onto the national stage as his vice presidential running mate in 2008. In Pella, Iowa today for the premiere of the film, Johnson said she latched on to Palin when the former Alaska governor took the stage at the Republican National Convention.

“We were watching it on TV and my daughter was like, ‘A girl can be president?,’” Johnson recalled. “And I said, ‘Yes, baby, girls can do anything.’ That was the moment — I saw that look in my daughter’s eye, that anything in possible. The next week, I went to my very first political event, and that was to see Sarah Palin. John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

Johnson has become increasingly involved in the tea party since then, speaking at tea party events around her native Virginia. She’ll give the keynote address at an event held by the Charlottesville, VA. tea party on the Fourth of July with her young daughter by her side. [snip]

Obviously, the elephant in the room is that Hillary Clinton had run to be president, but she was not the party’s pick (and I use those words deliberately). So that Johnson’s daughter saw Palin as a potential president if McCain won is a difference. Palin was on the ticket, Clinton (unfortunately) was not.

That being said, there are so many glaring issues wrong with the entire way Marikar framed this piece that I barely know where to start. First, there is the whole “stereotype” assumption made by this “reporter.” One of the comments summed it up pretty succinctly:

VG; “stereotype” Who put the stereotype on Palin?? All you Obama loving scumbags in the corrupt MSM. You people make me sick.

I think many of us can appreciate this person’s sentiment about the circular practice of the MSM – castigate and attack, then stand back and “report” people regurgitating back the attacks launched, then explain that as the reality of the situation.

There were a few more comments I must share with you, beginning with the issue of women:

John; Unfortunately, women can’t be president. Just watching the vitriol that has been thrown at Sarah Palin makes that clear. The attacks on her family have been disgraceful. The attempts to dig through 24,000 pages of her email to try to find any dirt also makes it clear that America is not ready for a female leader. Best to tell our daughters to become teachers or mothers so they don’t become the next woman to be Palinized….

Jim (in response to Katherine); “There was a woman running in the Dem Primary, and she was pilloried by the misogynistic media… Palin got it X2, and she is still standing, and appears to be stronger than ever. Just sayin’.”

@Katherine: Couldn’t have said it better. I am an ex-Democrat and have had it with the way the democratic party takes the women constituency for granted. I am sick of how they treated Hillary. This was a woman that was many times more accomplished than Obama and after Obama’s presidency we can safely say she would have been many times more effective as a president. Now they are doing the same thing to Palin. I am just sick of the venom that has been thrown at her – just sick of it. [snip]

Amen, amen, and amen – I could not agree more. Many of you know that this has been my refrain about the Democratic Party, Obama, and the blatant, virulent misogyny they have been spewing our way.

But there is another piece to all of this:

[snip] “She’ll be on stage with me,” Johnson said. “I want to get her involved, little by little. I like to say that for the black community, nothing will change until we learn to love our children more than we love the Democratic party.”

After Stephen K. Bannon cast her in his 2010 documentary about conservative women leaders, “Fire From the Heartland,” he asked Johnson to speak about Palin’s influence on her for “The Undefeated.” Other tea party personalities have failed to capture Johnson’s attention as Palin has.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley – calling out the black community for its allegiance to the Democrats is a mighty interesting turn. No doubt, that will raise some eyebrows, along with charges of being an “Uncle Tom.” I don’t know about you, but it does seem that whenever a black person does not subscribe to a particular point of view they are, by necessity, an “Uncle Tom.” I thought this comment by Colint summer it up:

Black woman as “unlikely” supporter…. funny…. imagine that, a black who isn’t brainwashed into loving the useless Democrats. Wow… what a revelation.

Could she have figured out the lie… figured out that the Democrats are race baiters?

Good question. Of course, Ms. Johnson would not have to look far. Heck, she need look no farther than my representative, Jim Clyburn, to see numerous instances of race baiting.

I don’t know about you, but I found this to be a pretty interesting glimpse into both how the MSM tries to package information, and how more people are not buying what they are selling. Maybe there really is hope yet.

UPDATE: Speaking of the media, The Hollywood Reporter has a glimpse into the new movie, “The Undefeated”. Hold onto your hats, this is not for the faint of heart:

[snip] The movie begins with Sen. John McCain introducing his running mate, then quickly cuts to the Hollywood sign, and the music turns ominous. A TV news anchor says, “Hollywood has a new favorite pastime: taking aim at Sarah Palin.”

Then the celebrity montage begins: Damon likens Palin to a “really bad Disney movie” and says she’s “really scary”; Letterman attacks her, and the discourse descends in to the filthy from there. Maher insults her on his TV show, Madonna screams obscenities about her while on stage, and comedians use graphic, severely bleeped language to describe Palin and the intensity with which they “hate her.”

When the montage is through, the screen goes dark and a Bible verse comes into focus: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, indeed we will. And the fruits being sown by these people against a woman they have never met, using the vilest of language to describe her, and even attacking her special needs child, says it all.

You may recall during the 2008 Democratic Primary Campaign, Hillary Clinton was attacked by Barack Obama about her connections to Wal-Mart while First Lady of Arkansas. Oh, yes, he got just a tad testy as she was highlighting his constant “WORM”-ing (What Obama Really Meant). So he lashed out at her.

In case you forgot that little window into how quick Obama is to hurl accusations , here it is:

And the media, already well into Obama’s pocket, did this “expose” on Hillary Clinton’s connection to WalMart:

Gee – if they could actually do some investigative reporting on HER, and send a legion of AP reporters to Wasilla, how is it they could not be bothered to do anything of the kind to Obama? Oh, right – I forgot – the JournoListers who were protecting him from any hard writing on his unsavory connections. Silly me.

Had the media actually bothered to do their jobs, instead of reacting with glee when Obama reacts so defensively, perhaps they could have taken a little look see at what Obama’s wife’s connection was to WalMart. But, no. Why would they do anything to impede their narrative of Obama’s holiness, or in any way shift his blame off of Hillary Clinton.

So, let’s just see how the media deals with this new announcement, as reported by the Washington Post, “Michelle Obama, Wal-Mart Announce Healthy Food Campaign.” Now, on the face of it, that looks like a great thing. Except for the arrogant, condescending way Barack Obama talked to Hillary Clinton for having had ANYTHING to do with this company, and Arkansas based company, while her husband was governor. Yet, here is ol’ Michelle, teaming up with that very same company. As far as I have heard, not a whole lot has changed with Wal-Mart, how it treats women, how it treats its workers in general, or any of the other general complaints about this company.

Now to the article:

First lady Michelle Obama joined Wal-Mart executives at a Southeast Washington community center Thursday morning to announce a campaign by the low-priced retail giant to offer more healthful foods and push its suppliers to do the same.

Obama has made fighting childhood obesity and increasing nutritious food options in poor neighborhoods a top priority. She will join Wal-Mart, which recently announced plans to open its first stores in the District, to announce “a major initiative to provide its customers with healthier and more affordable food choices,” Wal-Mart said.

[...]

Wal-Mart said it will make thousands of the packaged food items that it sells more healthful over the next four years, make healthful food choices more affordable and more clearly labeled, build more stores in underserved areas and increase its charitable donations to nutrition programs.

[...]

Wal-Mart praised Obama’s “spirit of collaboration,” and called her a “catalyst that helped make today’s announcement a reality.”

Wal-Mart has drawn criticism from advocacy groups in the District and elsewhere because of its anti-union policies.

Obama resigned from the board of a Wal-Mart vendor in 2007, days after her husband – then vying for the Democratic presidential nomination – said he would not shop at the store. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

If you needed any more proof of Michelle’s connection to WalMart during the campaign, that last line should suffice. If her board position was NOT closely aligned, there would be no need for her to retire, would there?

Yes, it is amazing what just a couple of years will do. Now the once hated, despised, union busting, women hating Chinese-product selling behemoth is now the shining light for the First Lady’s pet project (not that there is anything wrong with healthy eating – I am all for it – it is the hypocrisy that bugs me).

I cannot WAIT to see how Obama’s supporters are going to spin this one. Any guesses? Feel free to talk about that, or anything else on your minds today!

NOTE: Friends, my partner and I are embarking on a major construction project at our home starting Monday, Jan. 24th. I am not sure how much this will impact my writing, but I am assuming it may affect the regularity of my posts. That is to say, I will write when I can, but no promises about how often. And, I will certainly keep checking in to see what’s going on with the awesome readers here at NQ.

Once again, revising history, and having their baseless meme become the theme of the week. That would be the Left, beginning with “Heckuva Job” Sheriff Dupnik, who kicked off the “report” of the shootout in Tucson as being the result of rhetoric.

Oh, yes, you may not know this, but President Obama called Sheriff Dupnik to thank him. I just bet he did, since Sheriff Dupnik got the ball rolling blaming Gov. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other Conservatives, for this heinous crime. There continues to be no evidence whatsoever that rhetoric had anything to do with this – in fact, quite the opposite.

Surprisingly, though, some of the bigger media outfits refuse to correct the original unsubstantiated claims against Palin, et. al. I am not kidding. People like George Stephanopoulos refuses to issue a correction. Sadly, pathetically, he is not alone. How about this one:

[snip] CNN’s Piers Morgan, who takes over longtime television newsman Larry King’s timeslot next week, tweeted, “This now deleted image from Sarah Palin website will be reason this terrible shooting has huge political ramifications,” linking the map Palin made of targeted congressional districts for the 2010 midterm elections. [snip}

Or this from Candy Crowley to Dick Durbin:

[snip] CNN’s State of the Union anchor Candy Crowley asked Senator Majority Whip Dick Durbin, Illinois Democrat, “I guess that the undertow — and certainly it’s not an undertow on the Internet — but the undertow with politicians now speaking publicly is, well, the Republicans and the Tea Party and Sarah Palin have gone way too far in their rhetoric; it’s been violent rhetoric, and therefore this sort of thing happens. Are you making that direct connection?”

She asked Durbin that in response to Durbin saying, “we live in a world of violent images and violent words, but those of us in public life and the journalists who cover us should be thoughtful in response to this and try to bring down the rhetoric, which I’m afraid has become pervasive in our discussion of political issues. The phrase ‘don’t retreat, reload,’ putting crosshairs on congressional districts as targets, these sorts of things, I think, invite the kind of toxic rhetoric that can lead unstable people to believe this is an acceptable response. And I think that we all have an obligation, both political parties — and let me salute the senior senator from Arizona, John McCain, whose statement yesterday was clear and unequivocal that we are not accepting this kind of conduct as being anywhere near the mainstream.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah. Way to walk back this fallacious meme there, George, Candy, and Piers.

Yet now, “Civility” has become the catch phrase of the week, used by Obama in the so-called “Memorial Service” on Wednesday night. Yes, it is being used as a way not to encourage civil debate, but to stifle any debate at all.

This is quite a coup. Especially as the House is getting ready to begin a new session, with their first order of business being the repeal of Obamacare. Now the discussion by the pundits is how the Republicans are going to handle this, will everyone be separated at the State of the Union, or will they break with tradition and sit all together, and on, and on, and on.

I am not opposed to civility in the least. I am a Southerner, after all, and many of us do still have manners down here. We know it is better to bite our tongues sometimes instead of giving a tongue lashing. But that is done out of respect, not out of a desire to censor. It seems to me that what is going on post-Tucson is more of the latter, than the former, especially given the way the entire discussion (if one can call baseless, horrendous allegations a “discussion”). For some reason, it only seems to apply to one side. Guess which one? Again, that is not being civil, that is silencing – there is a world of difference.

Speaking of Obama’s campaign speech in Tucson, I have to say this. I am beyond disgusted that the whole event has been framed as being about HIM, about what he will say, will this bump up his approval numbers, etc., etc. This service was SUPPOSED to be in honor of those whose lives were senselessly taken from them. Not about President Obama and if he could take yet another shot at “defining” his presidency. Because you know Fort Hood didn’t count.

And not that it should – I don’t think ANY funeral/memorial service should be used for this kind of political gain. It is disturbing how so many are comparing this speech to Clinton’s Oklahoma City bombing speech, a clear ideological attack on our government. Or Bush’s speech after 9/11, a clear, orchestrated, attack on our country. This heinous crime was neither of those things. Rather, it was the actions of one deranged man, who, by all accounts, had no ideological gripe.

Obama is getting praise heaped upon him for taking advantage of this horrible shooting by giving a campaign speech. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, the primary target of Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, DailyKos, and too many other personalities and blogs to list here., is getting nothing but scathing attacks for her attempt to defend herself from these scurrilous attacks. She is not supposed to speak out, she is not supposed to respond, she is supposed to shut up and go away. That was the point of these baseless assertions in the first place, to so discredit her, to claim, as Michael Daly did, that she had “Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ blood on her hands…”

Ah, yes – so civil this discourse from the Left.

This is so disturbing to see how this tragedy has been shaped. My ridiculous “representative,” Jim Clyburn, had the audacity to play the race card in putting down Sarah Palin’s response. Oh, yes he did, and he was sexist to boot:

[snip] “You know, Sarah Palin just can’t seem to get it, on any front. I think she’s an attractive person, she is articulate,” Clyburn said on the Bill Press radio show. “But I think intellectually, she seems not to be able to understand what’s going on here.”

“I have some experiences that maybe she does not have,” he said. “When I see and hear things today that are reminiscent of that period of time, I am very, very concerned about it, because I know what it led to back then, and I know what it can lead to again.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Wow. Let me just say, Clyburn is by far NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer, so for him, of all people, to make that assertion about Palin is just laughable. Clyburn continues to stoke the flames that the Tucson shooting had anything to do with Palin at all. That is not just wrong-headed, it is plain wrong to incite people against someone based on lies, rumor, and innuendo. Clyburn is the worst kind of “offender,” too, attacking her for her rhetoric while not minding his own. What a piece of work he is.

But Clyburn got what he wanted, with Obama’s willing assistance – to transform this tragedy to essentially be a put down of Sarah Palin, and conservatives in general. The media is their willing accomplice, from Fox to MSNBC (not surprisingly, the viewers of MSNBC are far more likely to believe Palin, et. al, ARE responsible for what happened to Rep. Giffords and the other victims. And they claim Fox is biased? Spare me.).

To think this all started by an unprofessional sheriff placing blame where it didn’t belong, and a bunch of opportunists jumping on the bandwagon. Wow. And no amount of facts to the contrary will alter THEIR rhetoric. That is unethical, immoral, cruel, offensive, and hypocritical. But they got their way, so what do they care?

At least the majority of Americans see through this political ploy, yet it continues to be played up to the hilt by the media, and the politicians. Unfortunately, they are the ones with the loudest voices, and they won’t leave this alone until we all accept their lie as the truth…

You may have heard that Barbara Walters included Sarah Palin as one of the “Top 10 Most Fascinating People.” And after the taping, Walters made condescending comments about Palin to Robin Roberts on Good Morning America after Palin had the grace to sit down with her. If I was Gov. Palin, I would add Walters to the list with Katie Couric. But that’s just me.

Now Richard Wolffe, the MSNBC toady, I mean, analyst, has had some smack to say about Palin from that very interview. About what does he make fun of her for saying? That she reads C.S. Lewis.

Huh?

You may recall back during the 2008 election, liberals were upset with Palin for her conservative faith. Heck, even the Washington Post was writing about her “pastor problem.” Palin’s pastor problem – because, well, you know, Obama didn’t have one. Ahem (and the JournoListers made damn sure many people didn’t know he had one).

Yes, Richard Wolffe made fun of Palin for saying she reads C.S. Lewis for “divine inspiration.” Oh, yes he did:

[snip] Appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball” with Chris Matthews, Wolffe expressed incredulity, noting that Lewis wrote “a series of kids’ books.”

Matthews interrupted Wolffe: “I wouldn’t put down C.S. Lewis.”

“I’m not putting him down,” Wollfe responded. “But you know divine inspiration? There are things she could’ve said to divine inspiration. Choosing C.S. Lewis is an interesting one.”

Aside from authoring popular children’s books like the “Chronicles of Narnia,” Lewis was known as a Christian apologist who authored a number of books on religion, like “Mere Christianity.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Okay, you know it is bad when even Tweety jumps in there at Wolffe’s statement. But Matthews has a point. C.S. Lewis was a well-regarded scholar, erudite, intelligent, and a prolific writer of books on Christianity. One would think after criticizing her for being too conservative that her choice of this scholar, contemporary of, and friends with, J.R.R. Tolkien would have gotten her a bit of a break. But no.

Wolffe, in his PDS state can only make fun of her, apparently assuming she was referring to the “Chronicles of Narnia,” the children’s series. That is but one part of the numerous books Lewis wrote about Christianity. Perhaps, since Wolffe is apparently unfamiliar with the author, he doesn’t even have to look it up. He can watch “Shadowlands” and learn all about the life and works of C.S. Lewis. That will only take him a couple of hours. Shoot, I bet he can stream it from NetFlix.

No, it is just so much more fun to put Palin down for ANYTHING she says. I swear to the goddess, if she lived during the time Jesus walked the earth, she could say she
sat down and talked with him for divine inspiration. No doubt, Wolffe would find a way to put her down for that. He might say something like she hung out with blue collar carpenter whose friends were a bunch of fishermen, and – GASP – women! What a joke!

This is the same crap they did to Hillary time and time again. It is so, so tiresome to see this “damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t” mentality ever present with those in the media. I’m sick of it.

And I am sick of the constant “gotcha” mentality of the media toward Palin (and Clinton) ever present. Why did Palin even mention reading C.S. Lewis? Because Barbara Walters, a la Couric, asked her what she read. I kid you not. Oh, and she also said to Palin, “Many find the idea of you as president ‘scary.’” Wow. I’m sorry, but that’s just rude.

Unfortunately, I am sure this is far from over, especially as 2012 approaches. I mean, really – when reading C.S. Lewis becomes fodder for put downs, well, that says it all, doesn’t it?

YES!!!! By a vote of 7-3, the Peace and Justice Commission of Berkeley passed a resolution claiming Manning should be freed, and is a hero. The resolution now goes to the City Council:

An Army private jailed for allegedly leaking sensitive military data is a hero and should be freed, according to a resolution under consideration by the Berkeley City Council.

The council is expected to vote Tuesday on whether to declare its support for Pfc. Bradley Manning, who’s suspected of providing WikiLeaks with classified military documents and a video depicting an Army helicopter attack in Baghdad in which 11 civilians were killed. [snip]

Oh, boy. But wait, it gets better:

“If he did what he’s accused of doing, he’s a patriot and should get a medal,” said Bob Meola, the Berkeley peace and justice commissioner who authored the resolution. “I think the war criminals should be the ones prosecuted, not the whistle-blowers.”

The proposed resolution originated from the same commission that declared the Marine Corps “unwanted intruders” in Berkeley in 2008. The council’s ensuing approval – and reversal – ignited some of the city’s most raucous protest in years and prompted more than 25,000 e-mails to City Hall.

Now that should tell you all you need to know. I don’t know about you, but when my back is against the wall, if I had to choose between one of these yahoos and a Marine, I’d take a Marine any day of the week. But that’s just me.

Okay, now I know that there can be times when the release of sensitive information, whistle blowing, has resulted in positive changes. I get that. But to declare this soldier who stole classified information, information that is putting lives at stake (according to our Secretary of State, the director of the DOJ, and former President Clinton), does not a hero make. IMHO, that is.

So, how about those “no” votes? This is what one of them had to say:

[snip] Commissioner Thyme Siegel was one of the three “no” votes.

“We’re just sitting here in Berkeley – we don’t know that Afghani informants aren’t being murdered because of these leaks,” she said. “Bradley Manning sounds like a very sincere person, but I’m sorry, we really do have enemies, and it’s not clear at all what the effects of these WikiLeaks are.” [snip]

You’re damn skippy, Ms. Siegel. That’s my point. Not just for the Afghani informants, but for intelligence assets and US personnel around the globe.

In case you were wanted to know more about the resolution, it continues:

Berkeley’s proposed resolution thanks Manning “for his courage in bringing the truth to the American people and the people of the world.”

Army officials had no comment on Berkeley’s resolution, but said that leaking classified data can endanger the lives of informants, provide useful information to the enemy and undermine the trust of those working with the military, according to Department of Defense spokesman Bob Mehal. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Holy moley. Ah, yes – “courage.” Is that what we are calling treason these days? Providing classified information to a foreign national? Give me a break already. Manning isn’t exactly Karen Silkwood. He stole classified information, is cocky as hell about it all, and does not appear to be doing it in a “whistle blowing” kind of way, but more of a, “hey, look what I did!” kind of way. Big, big difference.

Not too long after I picked my jaw up off the floor from reading this article, I received the following email from Voters for Peace, with this in the Subject line: “ON BEHALF OF JULIAN ASSANGE AND WIKILEAKS.” Wow. You know I had to open it. The email reads:

Challenging U.S. Empire and its illegal and unjust wars are at the heart of our work at VotersForPeace.US.

This mission calls us to the active defense of journalist Julian Assange, WikiLeaks.org and the courageous whisteblower(s) who are dealing the most powerful blow to U.S. Empire in recent memory with the continuous massive release of documents now rocking world capitals and dominating the global media.

In an attempt to intimidate and silence others, there is serious concern that the U.S. government will try to make Assange an example by manipulation of existing law or the creation of new laws retroactively applied charging him with crimes in the United States and pressuring other governments to extradite him to the USA.

We must create a culture where it is safe and supported to tell the truth about our government’s activities. We must encourage more people to have the courage to reveal what they know about the murder, torture and corruption committed in our name.

We must stand up to protect all whisteblowers and truth tellers in the face of a U.S. government which is increasingly unaccountable to citizens, to domestic or international laws, or to our Constitution.

Recall that The New York Times has admitted it checked every document it published with the government beforehand. We must say to the Empire, “We draw the line HERE. Step back. We will not sit silently while you make this journalist and good government activist into a criminal to drive fear into the hearts of any other who would oppose you. We will resist.”

Please consider signing this petition as an expression of your support for peace, justice, and democracy, www.WikileaksIsDemocracy.org.

Sincerely,

Linda Schade
Co-founder, Voters for Peace

WTH? The “U.S. Empire”?? Are these some of the same people involved in “Hacktivism,” trying to disrupt Visa, Mastercard, and the Palins own personal credit cards,a long with Palin’s PAC to support what they consider to be WikiLeaks free speech rights? (Ironically, they have a narrow view of free speech. It only applies to them, and not to those who, like Palin, oppose what Julian Assange has done. Perhaps they can look up the term “hypocrite” in Wikipedia to see if their picture appears there. Just a suggestion.)

Meanwhile, looks like the DOJ is finally getting its act together (seriously – how long have they had to look into possible wrong-doing?). According to the UK Independent, “Assange Could Face Espionage Trial In The U.S.” What a concept.

Now – about Bradley Manning – will he face additional charges? A court-martial, perhaps? Huh – I wonder what the people in Berkeley would do then? I shudder to think. How about you?

But I’m not talking about any of that. Nope, I have some interesting little news tidbits for you.

First up, Rep. Maxine Water’s attorneys are irritated that she is still being investigated. Yes, they want the Ethics Committee to “Leave Maxine ALOONNNEEE!” They assert that since the formal probe is over, the Ethics Committee should knock it off. But as The Hill article indicates, they aren’t the boss of the Ethics Committee:

[snip] Unlike criminal proceedings, however, the ethics committee itself, not a judge, determines whether Waters’s legal arguments are accepted or dismissed. For that reason, it’s unlikely the panel will halt its activities after receiving the letter from Brand and Herman. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

So, there’s that. Perhaps it didn’t occur to them that Rep. Waters might have committed additional ethics violations. Just a thought.

Second up, and you’re going to love this, is Ed Schultz, of MSNBO and Air America fame, had himself a little “Mel Gibson” moment, as this NY Post article, “MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Goes Bonkers.” Just wait until you read why:

MSNBC talk show screamer Ed Schultz had a meltdown in the network’s 30 Rock newsroom, shouting at staff, “I’m going to torch this [bleep]ing place.”

The hot-tempered anchor of “The Ed Show” lost it during a phone call in the packed studio and slammed down the phone before exploding.

As astonished MSNBC staff members fell silent, Schultz glared around the room and yelled, “[Bleep]ers!”

A witness told us, “Ed was furious the network was running election-night promos and he wasn’t in them. He’d been arguing on the phone with marketing, then he slammed down the phone and exploded. It was like Mel Gibson had entered the newsroom.” [snip]

But wait – there’s more:

[snip] Our source added, “Schultz was told: ‘If you do that again, you are fired.’ He broke down crying.”

Sources say the hothead was pushed over the edge by MSNBC’s catering to bullying fellow anchor Keith Olbermann and its focus on golden girl Rachel Maddow. [snip]
(Click HERE to read the rest.)

Poor Ed – not feeling the love. Just breaks your heart for him that the MSNBO Execs love Keith and Rachel more, doesn’t it? Oh yeah, my heart bleeds for him.

Finally, did you know that the other name by which the Tea Party should be known is the KKK? Oh, yes, indeedy. Check out this OBC, I mean, ABC, report:

Did you catch that quote at the end? Apparently, Rev. Fauntroy didn’t since he justified his remarks with this explanation:

[snip]Fauntroy attempted to explain the comparison to white supremacists by saying that organizers behind the “Restoring Honor” rally are the same people who cut audio cables from a sound system the night before the historic March on Washington and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Well, that certainly makes it all better: Tea Party = White Supremacists. I mean, c’mon, who could possibly take offense at that connection? Never mind that it is completely false, but hey – you know, that’s all he meant by it. No big deal or anything.

Good grief. All because the Tea Party dared to hold a rally around the same time they are being compared to KKK members? I have to say it – Rev, Fauntroy completely missed the message Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was trying to impart. His son said it all – his father “would not want to limit voices.” So, why is Rev. Fauntroy attempting to do so with this incendiary speech? That’s what I would like to know.

I am sure there are more stories out there that we may have missed. Let’s have them!

No doubt working with and around politicians is a risky business. Consider the tawdry, never-ending saga of John Edwards and his merry band of enablers, chief among whom is former Edwards aide Andrew Young, now out baying for blood.

Young and his wife appeared on ABC’s 20/20 recently to empty the X-rated clown car. To hear them tell the story, working for the Edwardses was a mixture of dark and light, Gaslight-meets-Almost Famous, a traveling ego and sex parade financed by eccentric heiress Bunny Mellon, who had held a grudge against Hillary Clinton ever since the then-First Lady allegedly refused to take Mellon’s advice pertaining to changes to a White House garden.

Given the fact that this story has been dragging its way in and out of the news for the better part of a year and a half, it’s fair to ask why it remains newsworthy. Why Young and his wife are so forthcoming now is no coincidence. As of this writing, the only people who will not have to worry about finances from now on are the Edwardses. Rielle Hunter and the Youngs will probably never be able to work again. Hunter will receive support payments from Edwards. The Youngs are finished in politics. All parties will rack up heavy legal bills while under investigation by the FEC and the IRS – but only the Edwardses can afford to shoulder this financial burden.

The issue is not how could John Edwards have been so reckless (because he thought he wouldn’t get caught) or whether it’s been decided who the victim is (hands down: the child. The rest of the adults, even the candidate’s cancer-stricken wife, all played along for the cameras. At least for a while).

The issue that continues to matter is image and illusion. Campaigns are like performances – how you interpret the action depends on whether you’re watching the actors on stage or backstage observing the crew frantically pulling the ropes and running around moving the backdrops. The repercussions of the great Shame of 2008 continues to play on the stage even though the Edwardses have been relegated to the sidelines for the most part.

Pulling off the John and Elizabeth 2008 Tour would have stretched the patience and imagination of even the most hardened rock and roll road manager. Imagine your boss ordering you and your spouse to make room for his pregnant mistress in your home. And then move you, your family and the woman from home to home. And expect you to claim paternity. And ask you to help fake a paternity test. And all during a presidential campaign, not while touring as the opening act for Van Halen. It would appear that Young finally decided to spill the beans because the job Edwards had promised him running a foundation for the poor (!) and financed by Mellon didn’t materialize.

While the Youngs justify their actions by saying they were caught up in the thrill of working for a man who could be president — you know, For The Good Of The Country — surely even they knew that Edwards’ candidacy was the proverbial pinless grenade. They also never articulate WHY they thought Edwards should be elected to the nation’s highest office – apart from their own person gain of course. Why else would two seemingly sane adults agree to have their lives taken over and turned upside down to benefit the career of a selfish, egotistical man?

The press is largely to blame for this fiasco. They missed a huge story that they chose to ignore despite the National Enquirer’s dogged coverage – including pictures – and the candidate’s grotesquely indiscreet behavior. They created the campaign’s archetypes – Son of a Mill Worker with Cancer-Stricken Wife Defying the Odds, First Lady-Turned-Senator Who Overcame Betrayal and Her Lothario Husband, Scrappy Surprise Pick Republican Vice Presidential Candidate and Her Colorfully-Named Family, Flinty Patriot and Vietnam War Hero Political Maverick (here’s an alternate view)….the problem was that once the script was written it didn’t change. The Clintons are racists? If you say so we’ll run with it. Elizabeth Edwards selflessly and bravely persuaded her husband to continue his campaign despite her grim cancer diagnosis? Great story. Let the presses role. Barack Obama’s value as a symbol of How Far We’ve Come is more important than determining whether he’s got what it takes to fix the wreckage left behind by 8 years of Bush-Cheney? Give that man a Nobel Prize. No wonder the media don’t know what to do now. The templates they created during the campaign are significantly at odds with the reality that played out afterwards. Crafting these narratives is easy and ultimately serves to drive conventional wisdom for good or ill. But if the traveling press corps – especially the media assigned to the Edwards campaign – could have missed a story so obvious that it may as well have jumped up and down waving its arms yelling “look over here! I’m a story!”, who knows what other facts the voters were kept in the dark about?

One inevitable result of press missteps of this nature is the creation of a ripe atmosphere for conspiracy theory, which only serves to disinform and encourage cynicism and irrational fear.

As the fallout resulting from the media’s carelessness is surveyed, here’s one thing you’re unlikely to see from the reporters and editors responsible for the coverage: An apology.

Back to the lion tamer. He managed to escape relatively unscathed. The lion is back in its cage and will probably be sent to the lion equivalent of the glue factory. The crowd watching the show narrowly avoided being eaten. And no refunds will be granted at the door.

–
Cross Post from The Pakistan Update

Congressman – Senator – Vice President – 37th President of the United States Lyndon Baines Johnson was a crude, tactless man. Bobby Kennedy loathed him. The photograph of Johnson taking the oath of office on Air Force One standing next to a shocked, blood-spattered Jacqueline Kennedy is one of the most tragic and iconic images of the 1960s. Conspiracy theorists driven by hatred of Johnson’s Vietnam policies – including filmmaker Oliver Stone – believe Johnson had a hand in Kennedy’s death, a theory that despite lack of proof is stubbornly resilient.

Mystery shrouds Johnson’s election to the Senate in 1948, which many believe Johnson stole with a little help from his friends. In one infamous precinct, 202 ballots were cast alphabetically – all by “voters” who were dead at the time the election was held.

Johnson was a flagrant womanizer. He was ill-mannered, foulmouthed, crooked, stubborn and dead wrong on Vietnam. His tactic for getting his way, known as “the Johnson Treatment,” consisted of a little carrot and, when necessary, abundant stick. When charm didn’t work blackmail and brute force did the trick.

He didn’t like to lose and threw more than a few elbows to win. The “Daisy Girl” ad, which ran only once during his campaign for President against Barry Goldwater in 1964, is still considered one of the most effective attack ads ever made. Accusing your opponent of being a lunatic may not adhere to the Marquess of Queensbery rules but it wins elections.

So why remember this bully and lout?

Because when it came to doing the right thing for the little guy, Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat with a capital “D,” a politician who defied all expectations by being far ahead of his time. As President, he was responsible for designing the “Great Society” legislation that included laws that upheld civil rights, Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and helping the disadvantaged in his “War on Poverty.” All while fighting dyed-in-the-wool racist Congressmen, Senators and Governors and a public that had not yet reached a higher state of enlightenment on race relations. And all this without a White House Chief of Staff.

Does Lyndon Johnson sound like the sort of President who would have allowed members of his party to defy him and not feel the sharp end of the stick? Would Senators like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson have been able grind the legislative process to a halt with no repercussions? Punishment would have been swift and severe. Committee assignments – gone. Funding for re-election – gone. You want to be a maverick? Political Siberia awaits.

Consider the new President’s conversation with Martin Luther King three days into Johnson’s term following the Kennedy assassination (and consider that he regarded civil rights an important enough issue that he spoke to MLK while the country was still in mourning). Consider his record on civil rights. Going after the Ku Klux Klan. Appointing the first black Supreme Court justice.

LBJ was no fool. He knew the risks of pushing a progressive agenda. “We have lost the South for a generation” Johnson said about the fate of the Democratic party after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But sign it he did.

His presidency has largely been defined by the debacle of Vietnam, by anti-war protesters chanting “hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” He was not a well-loved man when he left office.

But his amazing legacy of social reform brought about by sheer grit and determination remains.

When can the U.S. expect Obama to learn from his predecessor? When will he understand that allowing Congress to squabble like spoiled children and set the President’s agenda is allowing the tail to wag to the dog and makes the party – particularly the President – appear weak and indecisive? Or that the seating of one more Republican Senator doesn’t nullify the results of the 2008 election? That voters want a president who backs up his oratorical skills with action? That “change” wasn’t a focus group-approved slogan for voters, but an actual promise? That just because you inherit a mess of a war from your predecessor doesn’t mean you continue along the same path into quagmire – a dilemma that dogged Johnson’s presidency?

Obama is not Lyndon Johnson. He does not possess Johnson’s remarkable political skills or experience or his cutthroat approach to getting his way. Obama is an outstanding orator. But is he capable of gutsy leadership? Can he get his party in line?

The jury’s still out. During an ABC News interview following Scott Brown’s victory in Massacusetts, Obama warned Democrats in Congress not to “jam” a health care reform bill through now that they’ve lost their commanding majority in the Senate, and said they must wait for newly elected Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown to be sworn into office.

Lyndon Johnson is rolling in his grave.

–
This piece was first published at: ThePakistanUpdate.com

Many of you may know that I spent a few years in the Boston area. And no, this isn’t about baseball, though I can say – it is hard being a Fan of the Pinstripes in Red Sox Nation. Clearly, though, I survived.

No, this is about some of the legal cases that have Martha Coakley’s name on them. Recently, Bronwyn’s Harbor made mention of one case, the Fells Acres Case, with which I am very familiar. Why? Because I knew Cheryl LaFave and her mother, Violet Amirault. They, along with their brother, were falsely accused of child abuse at the daycare center they ran. They are now all out of prison. John Stossel did an investigative report for ABC News on the Fells Acres case, and the imprisonment of the Amirault family (h/t to Brownyn’s Harbor):

Three lives were destroyed by false allegations – three. People, GOOD people, who never deserved the horrible stigma that became attached to them. And Martha Coakley was hellbent on keeping Gerald Amirault in prison, even after the glaring lack of evidence, and the glaring coercion of testimony from the children.

There was another big case with which Coakley was connected (h/t to Nazareth Priest for this article). That was the “Pedophile Priest” case,t he second in a three-part series of “Martha’s Greatest Hits: The Things The Democrats Would Like You To Forget About Martha Coakley.” Click HERE for Part Three.

Back to the case at hand. This one is a doozy:

The “Pedophile Priest” Case, 1995-2002: Coakley cut secret deal in 1995 that allowed Father Geoghan to molest again.

Martha Coakley is running for the U.S. Senate in part on her track record of keeping children safe from predators. The actual facts, however, are somewhat at odds with her campaign biography.

One of the most notorious cases of homosexual child abuse in the “pedophile priests” scandal that rocked the American Catholic Church in general and the Archdiocese of Boston in particular over the past twenty years involved Father John Geoghan, who came to symbolize the cancer in the church.

Here’s a brief introduction to the late, defrocked Father Geoghan by Denise Noe in Crime Magazine. Be sure to read the whole story, then come back.

The unofficial poster boy for priest pedophilia was a Boston priest named Father John Geoghan. He became a symbol for everything the church had done wrong in handling this problem when, on Jan. 6, 2002, The Boston Globe broke the story about how Boston’s archbishop, Cardinal Bernard Law, had moved the abusive Geoghan from parish to parish over the years. The article also discussed the $10 million dollar settlement the church had already made with families of his victims. After the article ran, an embarrassed Law apologized – and turned over to law enforcement the names of dozens of Boston priests who had been similarly accused.

The Geoghan scandal rocked Boston, and eventually resulted in Cardinal Law’s removal as Archbishop. In part to shield him from possible prosecution, the late Pope John Paul II summoned Law to Rome, where he was ensconced as the Archpriest of the historic Basilica of St. Mary Major, and replaced him in Boston with Archbishop Sean O’Malley.

And what was Ms. Coakley’s role in all this? At first, she was applauded for her role in the successful prosecution of Father Geoghan in 2002. But then it was discovered that she had plea-bargained away molestation charges against him in 1995, letting him off with probation in a deal that was kept secret from the public.

What?

One possible explanation for her actions is that she had lost a high-profile case against a priest in suburban Woburn, Father Paul Manning; Manning’s parishioners reportedly cheered when he was acquitted of molesting an 11-year-old altar boy at his 1994 trial.

Still, as David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, noted at the time: “Charging Geoghan with something and exposing him publicly might well have brought forward victims, witnesses, whistle-blowers, and evidence that could have resulted in a conviction and a tougher sentence.’’

Sigh. I don’t even know what to say about this. But here is what Martha Coakley has to say in defending this decision:

Wow. I am no attorney, but I have worked with and for attorneys. I cannot imagine them not pursuing every lead they could in a case. I cannot imagine them pushing to get the records from the Roman Catholic Diocese, even if they were freakin’ deacons in the church. Holy smokes.

The article continues:

And here’s the Boston Globe story, recounting the whole sordid mess:

When Martha Coakley was the Middlesex district attorney, her office prosecuted the Rev. John J. Geoghan based on an allegation that he squeezed the buttocks of a 10-year-old boy a single time at a public swimming pool. The highly publicized 2002 conviction won Coakley widespread praise for bringing the first successful criminal case against the widely accused pedophile, a priest many had called “Father Jack.’’

But seven years earlier, Coakley, then the head of the Middlesex child abuse unit, had Geoghan in her sights and took a dramatically different approach. Back then, three grade-school brothers told investigators that Geoghan had inappropriately touched them during numerous visits to their Waltham home, and had made lewd telephone calls to them. Rather than prosecute, Coakley agreed to grant Geoghan a year of probation in a closed-door proceeding that received no media attention at all.

Because of the deal, Geoghan faced no formal charges and no criminal record.

In sanctioning the 1995 probation agreement, Coakley, now the front-runner in a special election for the United States Senate, never pressed the Boston Archdiocese for any prior complaints against Geoghan.

That’s one way to make a name for yourself: let a pedophile off the hook privately so that he can molest more children, and then make a big, public conviction to take credit for your amazing work keeping children safe from……the pedophile priest you secretly let go seven years earlier.

And as for Father Geoghan, he was strangled and killed by a fellow inmate in February, 2004.

That is quite a sordid tale indeed. I encourage you to read the other two parts of this series (I’ll give you a hint about Part Three – it has to do with unreported assets). It is eye opening.

Now, I know some people are surprised I am not supporting the woman in this case (though since I live in SC, I don’t exactly have a vote – oh wait, maybe if I worked for ACORN I could…Ahem.). And I did like Coakley when I first heard about her. I was excited at the prospect of a woman taking over Teddy’s seat, an irony considering his way with women. But, as Scott Brown has reminded us, it isn’t Teddy’s Seat:

As I have stated all along, it is the RECORD of the candidates that needs to be considered. The decisions Coakley made as Attorney General are indicative of the decisions she will make as a US Senator, and those DO affect all of us. This is exactly for what I was calling during the 2008 Primary Season – look at the records of the candidates, and vote for the one who stands above.

That means, when the Massachusetts Democrats send out a four page mailer with the claim that Scott Brown wants to turn away ALL rape victims from hospitals, they sure as hell better be able to back that up with his RECORD. This is to what they are referring:

Brown is a state senator, and in 2005 he filed an amendment that would have allowed workers at religious hospitals or with firmly held religious beliefs to avoid giving emergency contraception to rape victims. The amendment failed, and Brown voted in favor of a bill allowing the contraception. He also voted to override a veto issued by his fellow Republican, then-Gov. Mitt Romney.

This is casting aspersions plain and simple. Stick to the facts, stick to the records, let the people decide based on that. Don’t take (yet another)page out of the Obama playbook a la the “Harry and Louise” ads. If the party believes she is the best candidate, they shouldn’t have to resort to flat-out lies about her opponent’s record.

So we need more women in Congress? Hells yeah. But that doesn’t mean we should want any woman, regardless of her record or the (stupid) things she says. In this particular case, Scott Brown appears to be the better candidate. He is pro-choice, a lieutenant colonel (30 years) in the National Guard JAG Corps, and supports civil unions for LGB people, like (too) many Democrats. As far as I can tell, Brown knows Curt Schilling is NOT a Yankees fan, so there’s that…

The people will decide who will fill the people’s seat. Until then, it is sure to be an interesting ride.

What you may NOT have heard was the connection between this same man and Hillary Clinton:

The Politiken newspaper reported Sunday that Danish intelligence knew the 28-year-old Somali man was held in Kenya in September for allegedly plotting an attack against U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Citing unnamed sources, the newspaper said he was later released due to lack of evidence.

But Denmark’s ambassador to Kenya, Bo Jensen, told the news agency Ritzau the man was arrested in Kenya for incomplete travel documents. He said Kenyan authorities never told the embassy he was suspected in any terror plot.

I don’t remember hearing word ONE about an attempted assassination on Secretary Clinton’s life. It wasn’t all that recent, either. It was on August 5th of 2009. If you do a search, the first date you’ll find for any mention of this attempt (or at least the first one I found) was from September 8th, 2009. In a blog, I might add, but even it backed off from the assertion:

A plot by al Qaeda-linked Islamist militants to bomb the hotel where Secretary Clinton was staying during her visit to Nairobi, Kenya, last month (shown above) was foiled at the last minute, The Australian reports. Very scary.

[Update (Sept. 10): This story might not be true -- see stacyx's comment below. FP regrets any error; at the time of posting, the story seemed credible.]

Here is “Stacyx’s” comment:

I covered this story on my blog and was initially concerned that there was no MSM coverage. Then I spoke to someone at ABC news and they said the reason the US and British media were not covering the alleged terror plot story was because all their inside sources said there was no truth to the story.

Except there was some truth to it, apparently, and the newssource that claimed otherwise, was, well, lying. What a big surprise. And what a HUGE surprise that the US and British MSM didn’t bother to cover this story.

We find out a full five months after the fact only because one of the Al Qaeda members who tried to blow our Secretary of State to smithereens in Nairobi, was caught in another country trying to kill someone else.

Holy freakin’ cow. (Clinton in Nairobi, AFP photo)

Not for nothing, but someone else almost died because the authorities did not pass along the information about this terrorist and his attempts.

Not to be a complete and total cynic about this, but I cannot help but wonder why the media decided this was not newsworthy. I have my suspicions, including that Obama’s poll numbers were already tanking then, and Clinton’s were rising. Take a look at Obama’s numbers in August:

Or could it be that if we were told about this attempt on Secretary Clinton’s life by an Al Qaeda operative, Obama would have to admit that there were actually honest-to-goodness terrorists out there, trying to do us harm? That attempted terrorist attacks were not attempted “man-made disasters“?

Uh, yeah. There is that. And then there is the total incompetence of our media, or the attempt to cover up by the media, either one of which is completely unacceptable.

And to think, we found out about this attempt on our beloved Hillary Clinton’s life because of an attempt on a cartoonist. Feel free to craft the next line to THAT set-up…

Isn’t that great?? Well, it would be if it was actually true. But it is not. For instance, did you know that Puerto Rico has 99 districts? Nope, me, either. Because they don’t. They have 1 (one). How about Arizona? Heck, they’ve got at least 38 (thirty-eight), right? Oh, wait, no they don’t – they have 8 (eight). The alleged “recovered jobs” bragged about by Biden and how our stimulus money is being spent don’t quite match up. I know, big surprise (almost as much as the following report being on ABCNews):

Wow that’s some “state of the art system” you got going on there, Joe. And I am SOOOOO sure that all of the problems are the result of people not knowing in which district they live. Oh, sure. Because it is so difficult to access that information. I mean, really, you might need to make a PHONE CALL or something. Or look it up on “the internets,” if it isn’t in the area in which you live. Because then, you could just take a little look-see at your voter registration card! Gosh, I am just stunned that they would not be getting these numbers right!

Speaking of jobs, check out these headlines:

This is exactly why so many of us are concerned about the Government running our health care system. Can you say fraud? If they cannot even get this right, how are they going to adequately address issues of life and death?? I don’t think even an abacus could help out there …

With Fox News against the White House attempt to censor the cable network. Check that, to shut DOWN the network. I am assuming that, by now, you have heard of the concentrated attacks on the Fox News Network by Administration officials, and the president himself. Larry Johnson had a great piece on this earlier in the week, “Fox Is Not A News Station?,” if you need to catch up.

Well, the strangest thing has started to happen as the White House has continued its unprecedented attack on a major network, not just freezing out a reporter here or there as other administrations have done, but a flat out drive to shut down this network. I can scarcely believe it myself, but what has happened recently is that reporters from other networks, even the Washington Bureau chiefs of the main news outlets, have started to stand WITH Fox News.

It all began with one of my favorite reporters, Jake Tapper of ABC News. He is one of the very few national reporters from a major network to consistently challenge the Obama campaign, and now the Obama Administration. And he did so again just the other day as his post entry indicates:

“Today’s Qs For O’s WH – 10/20/09”
From this morning’s gaggle in White House press secretary Robert Gibbs’ office:

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

Let’s just stop right there. Jake Tapper referred to Fox News as a “sister organization.” That is HUGE, people. His use of that phrase speaks volumes, as he indicates a solidarity with Fox News (good post on that very topic at Commentary Magazine here). Perhaps it is even a bit of a warning shot across the bow that the White House needs to back the hell off from this attack on a major press outlet.

The Q&A continued:

(Crosstalk) Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion. -jpt

You know I can’t stand Gibbs anyway, that mealy mouthed worm. But Tapper demonstrates what a stand up guy he is by pursuing this line of questioning, and not letting Gibbs, or the White House, off the hook.

I mentioned above that the White House is doing its darndest to completely shut down Fox News. The following video is a good summation of what has happened thus far, the latest attack by the White House, and what the other networks did:

I know, right? They know, I gather, that this time around, it may be Fox News, but next time, it could be CNN, or MSNBC. I would love to think that the solidarity of the major networks was the result of it simply being the right thing to do.

The All Star Panel on Fox News takes this on, too, with a bonus clip of Obama’s discussing Fox News:

Uh huh. Sure, he’s not losing sleep over it. If he isn’t, why are he and his minions going out of their way to ATTACK Fox News? It most certainly IS “breath-taking in its pettiness” as Mr. Barnes put it.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

“I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.”

And, when he said this:

“Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.”

Finally, Thomas Jefferson said this about the importance of a free press and our responsibility to it:

“To preserve the freedom of the human mind… and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will and speak as we think, the condition of man (sic) will proceed in improvement.”

Hopefully, that is exactly why the networks are standing shoulder to shoulder on this issue. They know, as we do, that our liberty is at risk when the press is under attack from its government.

Like Jefferson, like the Washington Bureau, like Jake Tapper, like many of you reading this, I stand on the side of a free press, and on the side of our liberty. It is our duty, it is our call, it is our very democracy.

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe reports: President Obama, like any other President, has his fair share of critics. Even fourth-graders have noticed.

“Why do people hate you?”, a fourth-grade boy asked Obama at a town hall event in New Orleans today. “They’re supposed to love you. And God is love.”

“That’s what I’m talking about,” replied the President.

Here’s the video of the exchange, though the transcript is below if you’d prefer:

Um, what the hell was he talking about BEFORE the little boy asked his question? Wasn’t he saying, “It’s a man’s turn. Isn’t it? It’s a guy’s turn.” That’s what it sounded like to me, anyway…So, just what came BEFORE that?? Curious.

Obama continued his response to the child:

“First of all, I did get elected president, so not everybody hates me,” Obama noted, before adding, “What is true is if you were watching TV lately, it seems like everybody’s just getting mad all the time. And I — you know, I think that you’ve got to take it with a grain of salt. Some of it is just what’s called politics where, you know, once one party wins, then the other party kind of gets — feels like it needs to poke you a little bit to keep you on your toes.”

“And so you shouldn’t take it too seriously,” Obama told the boy. “And then, sometimes, as I said before, people just — I think they’re worried about their own lives. A lot of people are losing their jobs right now. A lot of people are losing their health care or they’ve lost their homes to foreclosure, and they’re feeling frustrated. And when you’re president of the United States, you know, you’ve got to deal with all of that.”

So, um, not to quibble or anything, but just when do you think you are going to get around to dealing with job loss, home loss, and losing health care? Hey, just asking:

“You get some of the credit when things go good. And when things are going tough, then, you know, you’re going to get some of the blame, and that’s part of the job,” he continued. “But, you know, I’m a pretty tough guy.”

“You’ve just got to keep on going, even when folks are criticizing you, because — as long as you know that you’re doing it for other people, all right?” Obama concluded.

The boy’s question was the last one the President fielded at his event at the University of New Orleans, his first trip to the city since being elected to the Oval Office.

Well, there is a good reason the child asked that question. While Obama did get elected, the latest Fox Poll shows that he wouldn’t if the election was held today, as this article highlights, Fox News Poll: 43 Percent Would Vote To Re-Elect President Obama:If the election were held today, 43 percent of American voters would back Barack Obama for president, according to a new Fox News poll.

Oh dear. I guess that’s some of the “blame” Obama is getting for not fulfilling his campaign promises, for starters, not to mention his continued constant campaigning instead of working thing he’s got going on. Here are the results of this poll:

In what may be the ultimate job rating, 43 percent of voters say that they would vote to re-elect President Obama if the 2012 election were held today, down from 52 percent six months ago, from April 22-23, 2009.

Obama’s job approval rating comes in at 49 percent this week. (Emphasis mine.) That’s down just one percentage point from late September, but it marks a new low approval for the president — and the first time the Fox News poll has measured his approval below 50 percent.

Moreover, the number of Americans saying they would vote to re-elect President Obama has dropped. If the election were held today the poll finds more voters say they would back someone else in the 2012 election than would back the president.

Despite winning the Nobel Peace Prize last Friday, the latest Fox News poll finds the president’s ratings on foreign issues are lower than his overall job ratings. All in all, 49 percent of Americans say they approve of the job President Obama is doing and 45 percent disapprove. His average approval for the term so far is 58 percent.

Yep, Obama’s approval numbers are below 50% for the first time at 49%. How about on some of the issues:

On Afghanistan, 41 percent of Americans say they approve of the job Obama is doing and 43 percent disapprove. For his handling of Iran, 44 percent approve and 43 percent disapprove.

On the president’s handling of the economy, voters are almost equally split: 48 percent approve and 49 percent disapprove. On health care, some 42 percent approve of the president’s performance and half disapprove, 50 percent.

Among Democrats, 78 percent say they would vote to re-elect President Obama, down from 87 percent in April. For 2008 Obama voters, 81 percent say they would vote to re-elect him — that’s a slight up tick from the 79 percent who said so previously.

Six in 10 Americans — 60 percent — think Obama is a strong and decisive leader.
And while 38 percent think President Obama is getting good advice from his advisors, a larger number — 45 percent — think he is “listening to the wrong people.” (Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from October 13 to October 14. The poll has a 3-point error margin.)

Like Rahm Emmanuel, or David Axelrod, or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid? Yeah, I’d say he’s listening to the wrong people.

And about that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing:

Did He Deserve It?

Upon winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama said, “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformational figures.” Most Americans agree with the president — 65 percent say he did not deserve to win, while 29 percent say he did.

Furthermore, a slim 54 percent majority of Democrats think Obama did deserve to win, while 38 percent disagree. For independents, 19 percent think he deserved it, while nearly three-quarters, 74 percent, say he did not. Among Republicans, almost all — 91 percent — say he did not deserve it.

When asked why the Nobel Committee gave the president the prize, about a third of Americans, 32 percent, say because he deserved it, while the largest number — 44 percent — think the committee hoped the prize would make Obama “think twice before using military force in the future.”

About that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing. Remember how we were all told the Committee Was unanimous in their decision to give it to Obama? Turns out that 3 out of 5 of them did NOT want to give it to him. Golly gee, I guess truth really DOES will out! Evidently, their reaction was the same as many of ours – he hasn’t DONE anything yet but speechify, for cryin’ out loud!

The poll also address how Congress was doing:

Most Americans are unhappy with Congress these days — 66 percent disapprove, including 45 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of independents and 84 percent of Republicans. Overall, less than one of four Americans, 24 percent, approve of the job Congress is doing.

Looking ahead to the 2010 Congressional election, for the first time this year the Republicans have the advantage: 42 percent of voters say they are more likely to back the Republicans to provide a check on President Obama’s power, while 38 percent say they would vote for the Democrat to help the president pass his policies.

Finally, in a rare example of bipartisan agreement, majorities of Democrats, 53 percent, Republicans, 78 percent, and Independents, 61 percent, agree the country is more divided these days. All in all, 64 percent of Americans think the country is more politically divided today — that’s more than twice the number who say it is not more divided, 31 percent.

Click here for the raw data.

What a bang-up job Obama has done in uniting us, just like he said he would. Blech. Can’t believe people fell for THAT line again, can you? Great – so glad there is one area that is truly bipartisan. Ahem.

And while President Obama is still feeling the love, the numbers of those who love him seem to be decreasing the more they open their eyes to see and their ears to hear. Such a shame they couldn’t muster that BEFORE the election, isn’t it? Now, his daily tracking poll continues to go down; Secretary Clinton’s approval numbers are higher than his (no big surprise to ME there); and his overall rating is at 49%. COngress doesn’t fare much better. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving guy, or more deserving Congress, could it?

Remember that “3:00AM” ad? Who would we want answering the phone? This woman, that’s who.

Instead we have President Obama, who has gotten his early morning call, particularly regarding Afghanistan. He’s letting it go to voice-mail. Hey, he has more important things to do, like go to Copenhagen to push for Chicago to get the Olympic Games in 2016. Yep – it’s true. He’s making a “personal” appeal – presumably on OUR dime. Oh, he can’t be bothered with what’s going on with ACORN, mind you, but he can press for Chicago to get the Olympics. So, General McChrystal, and our troops, can just wait, dammit, until Obama can get to them. (By the way, General McChrystal is holding firm on wanting those troops, despite the pressure he is under to shut up.)

Oh, and a little side note on that, the whole Chicago Olympics bid. Turns out that Fox TV in Chicago has been warned – as only they can do in Chicago – to NOT air a program they did on people in Chicago OPPOSED to having the Olympics there again. Oh, I just love this Free Speech, don’t you?

Every time I hear Secretary Clinton speak, and then President Obama, every time, I am reminded of who would have been the better choice to have at the other end of the phone line in difficult times. And it sure isn’t Obama, no matter how much he loves to hear himself talk (though largely about himself, as THIS article highlights. Almost 1,200 times in just 41 speeches, NOT including all of the speechifying he did last week. Holy SMOKES – narcissistic much?). He’s not the one I would trust to deal with the big issues. Seems like some other folks are figuring that out now, too. Too late, though, for dealing with some major issues, like Afghanistan.

If only it wasn’t our soldiers who were going to bear the brunt of that call going to voice-mail…