Archive for the ‘Media’ Category
Remember when President Obama publicly demonized Fox News as “destructive” to the nation because they wouldn’t play lapdog like the other networks? Turns out he was just laying the groundwork to isolate them from public sympathy so his vendetta against them could be justified.
Charles Krauthammer, Tucker Carlson, Kirsten Powers, Bret Baier discuss DOJ targeting Fox reporter and his parents:
View on YouTube
Newly uncovered court documents reveal the Justice Department seized records of several Fox News phone lines as part of a leak investigation — even listing a number that, according to one source, matches the home phone number of a reporter’s parents.
The seizure was ordered in addition to a court-approved search warrant for Fox News correspondent James Rosen’s personal emails. In the affidavit seeking that warrant, an FBI agent called Rosen a likely criminal “co-conspirator,” citing a wartime law called the Espionage Act.
Rosen was not charged, but his movements and conversations were tracked. A source close to the leak investigation confirmed to Fox News that the government obtained phone records for several numbers that match Fox News numbers out of the Washington bureau.
Further, the source confirmed to Fox News that one number listed matched the number for Rosen’s parents in Staten Island.
Rosen’s father, attorney Myron Rosen, told FoxNews.com he found the records seizure to be “downright ludicrous.”
“My son and his wife call us all the time, and we talk about grandchildren,” he said. “We don’t talk about nuclear proliferation.”
He continued: “The fact that they had our phone records, it shows how crazy they are, how desperate.”
The revelation has had a chilling effect on reporters’ ability to gather the information and sources they need:
Anchor Greta Van Susteran took to Twitter to express her frustration with the secret monitoring, saying friends and family won’t call or email anymore out a of a fear of being watched.
“Now that the word is out that Obama Admin seizes Fox phone records, my friends won’t call me at work and since the Obama admin also seizes personal cell and email, my friends wont’ call or email,” Van Susteran tweeted.
The news of more Fox News’ monitoring comes weeks after the Associated Press revealed the Justice Department had secretly monitored 20 personal and private phone lines used by AP reporters and editors. In addition, CBS News Investigative Reporter Sharyl Attkisson said yesterday that her work and personal computers had been compromised.
That, of course, was the intended purpose all along:
For awhile, it looked like the White House wanted just to control “the narrative.” But its seizure of AP phone records and surveillance of Fox employees now show its real aim: to control the news.
[…] The latest news that the Justice Department investigated Fox News reporter James Rosen and two other newsmen in the normal course of their investigative reporting on a national security matter — coming on the heels of their seizure of Associated Press phone records — suggests an administration obsessed with controlling the news itself with a heavy hand reminiscent of totalitarian regimes.
The AP flap has drawn a properly outraged response from the news agency, because the White House’s obsessive efforts to find leaks cast such a broad, indiscriminate net against reporters just doing their jobs.
Even the liberal “Daily Beast” wants to know “How Hope and Change Gave Way to Spying on the Press“:
First they came for Fox News, and they did not speak out—because they were not Fox News. Then they came for government whistleblowers, and they did not speak out—because they were not government whistleblowers. Then they came for the maker of a YouTube video, and—okay, we know how this story ends. But how did we get here?
Turns out it’s a fairly swift sojourn from a president pushing to “delegitimize” a news organization to threatening criminal prosecution for journalistic activity by a Fox News reporter, James Rosen, to spying on Associated Press reporters. In between, the Obama administration found time to relentlessly persecute government whistleblowers and publicly harass and condemn a private American citizen for expressing his constitutionally protected speech in the form of an anti-Islam YouTube video.
Where were the media when all this began happening? With a few exceptions, they were acting as quiet enablers.
[…] It’s instructive to go back to the dawn of Hope and Change. It was 2009, and the new administration decided it was appropriate to use the prestige of the White House to viciously attack a news organization—Fox News—and the journalists who work there. Remember, President Obama had barely been in office and had enjoyed the most laudatory press of any new president in modern history. Yet even one outlet that allowed dissent or criticism of the president was one too many. This should have been a red flag to everyone, regardless of what they thought of Fox News. The math was simple: if the administration would abuse its power to try and intimidate one media outlet, what made anyone think they weren’t next?
The dam has broken, the curtain has been lifted, and the flood of scandals coming to light this week is finally beginning to open people’s eyes.
1. Benghazi. Four Americans were abandoned to die in the middle of a terrorist attack. In the aftermath the administration changed the talking points, lied about a stupid video being to blame, and spent months trying to hide the truth as they intimidated and blocked access to witnesses.
2. The IRS admits to targeting Tea Party groups. It turns out they were also targeting pro-life groups, pro-Israel groups, religious groups, and pretty much anybody who dared to criticize Obama’s policies. They were also leaking confidential information about the opposition to their political friends.
3. The Department of Justice secretly obtained months of phone records from over 100 AP reporters and sources, including Congress. Guess the Obama administration likes to keep a jealous eye on his favorite mistress.
4. HHS Secretary shakes down companies she regulates for “donations” to implement Obamacare. It’s the Chicago way.
5. The EPA applies a double standard when dealing with conservative vs. liberal groups. If you’re “green,” you’re clean. If you oppose EPA power grabs and agenda, you’re treated as an enemy.
So how is Obama trying to squirm his way out of trouble?
One unique excuse being offered by David Axelrod is that the government is simply too big for Obama to know what’s going on. Yes, you heard that right…the liberals’ favorite argument that more government is the solution to every problem has suddenly turned into an excuse for ruling class ignorance and incompetence.
Another approach has been to claim that Obama is simply a passive and aloof leader who tends to distance himself from the nitty gritties of governing, and therefore has no clue what his underlings are up to.
Obama’s consistent claim that he always finds out about these scandals the same way that we do – when they first appear on the news – has become such a running joke that even Jon Stewart tore into him over the absurdity of it all.
Whoever created this meme summed it up beautifully:
Yep. That’s their story and they’re sticking to it.
It’s all in the family.
1973: reporters investigate All the President’s Men. 2013: reporters are All the President’s Men.
You knew the mainstream media was biased, but this is incredible. It was revealed todaythat CBS News President David Rhodes’ brother is Obama Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, who was instrumental in rewriting the Benghazi talking points. But it gets worse. It is now learned that ABC President Ben Sherwood’s sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is a Special Assistant to Barack Obama on national security affairs. But even this isn’t it! CNN’s deputy bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is the wife of Tom Nides, who until February was Hillary Clinton’s deputy.
It doesn’t stop there, either. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is married to Claire Shipman, who works for ABC News.
Could it be that Obama appointed relatives of the press to his administration in order to make the media more reluctant to damage it with accurate reporting?
Could it be that the lack of reporting on Benghazi and other scandals – especially prior to the election – had something to do with this?
Thanks to one of the bombing victims, the suspects were quickly identified, and their photos posted for a state-wide manhunt:
Minutes before the bombs blew up in Boston, Jeff Bauman looked into the eyes of the man who tried to kill him.
Just before 3 p.m. on April 15, Bauman was waiting among the crowd for his girlfriend to cross the finish line at the Boston Marathon. A man wearing a cap, sunglasses and a black jacket over a hooded sweatshirt looked at Jeff, 27, and dropped a bag at his feet, his brother, Chris Bauman, said in an interview.
Two and a half minutes later, the bag exploded, tearing Jeff’s legs apart. A picture of him in a wheelchair, bloodied and ashen, was broadcast around the world as he was rushed to Boston Medical Center. He lost both legs below the knee.
“He woke up under so much drugs, asked for a paper and pen and wrote, ‘bag, saw the guy, looked right at me,’” Chris Bauman said yesterday in an interview.
Those words may have helped crack the mystery of who perpetrated one of the highest-profile acts of terror in the U.S. since the 2001 assault on New York City and the Washington area, one that killed three people and wounded scores.
They were identified as two Muslim brothers of Chechnyan origin. Chechnya is known as a hotbed of Islamic terrorism:
[C]ongressional researchers and foreign policy analysts have long tracked a connection between the Chechnya region and Islamic extremists sympathizing with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. If the suspects are indeed Chechen, analysts told Fox News they may represent part of a jihadi network which has made its way to American soil.
“The Chechen jihadi network is very extensive,” Middle East analyst Walid Phares said Friday. “They have a huge network inside Russia and Chechnya.”
The older brother, 26, was killed in a shoot-out with police on Thursday night, after killing a police officer. The younger brother was finally taken into custody on Friday night, after the entire city of Boston and outlying areas had been on lock-down for most of the day in search of him.
She wasn’t the only media back who was openly hoping it was a white “right winger,” because that would fit the narrative they’re trying to use to smear good, decent American citizens who happen to disagree with them politically. For them, it’s not about the truth, the victims or justice. It’s all about politics, and how they can exploit any tragedy to advance their agenda and smear their opponents.
After the Chechnyan revelation, the Left finally stopped blaming right-wingers. How big of them, after baselessly smearing their fellow Americans for a week.
I learned the difference between facts and speculation in Journalism 101. It never fails to amaze me how much of the evening news is editorializing dressed up as “reporting.” But they’ve really outdone themselves the past three days.
CNN reported earlier today that a suspect for the Boston bombing was in custody and being taken to the Moakley Federal Courthouse. As word spread on social media, crowds began to gather outside the courthouse.
Trying to clear up confusion, the Boston police finally tweeted at 11:33am:
Despite reports to the contrary there has not been an arrest in the Marathon attack.
— Boston Police Dept. (@Boston_Police) April 17, 2013
Still, they reportedly HAD identified a suspect – they just hadn’t found him yet:
In what could be a major break in the Boston Marathon case, investigators are on the hunt for a man seen in a department-store surveillance video dropping off a bag at the site of the bombings, a Boston politician said Wednesday.
Separately, a law enforcement official confirmed that authorities have found an image of a potential suspect but don’t know his name.
As media and bystanders waited at the courthouse for news, someone called in a bomb threat and the building was quickly evacuated:
The Moakley Federal Courthouse in South Boston was evacuated Wednesday afternoon for a reported bomb threat.
The U.S. Attorney’s office told FOX 25 the courthouse would remain closed for the rest of the day. However, courthouse staff was allowed back into the building just after 4 p.m. The courthouse is scheduled to open Thursday at its regularly scheduled hours.
An attorney attending a pre-trial conference on the third floor of the building told FOX 25’s Erica Ricci red lights began flashing and a “frantic” voice came over the loud speaker of the courthouse and said, “code red, all evacuate the building immediately.”
In the midst of so much confusion and people desperate for answers, it’s understandable why the media is looking for any tidbit of information they can possibly report, but it’s their job to make sure that reports are factual, accurate and substantiated before going on the air.
The FBI got so frustrated with the erroneous reports that the media kept leaking that it warned them about the “unintended consequences” of their irresponsible reporting:
The FBI chided media outlets for wrongly reporting Wednesday afternoon that an arrest had been made in the Boston Marathon bombing, saying “these stories often have unintended consequences.”
[…] “Over the past day and a half, there have been a number of press reports based on information from unofficial sources that has been inaccurate,” Comcowich said.
Added the agent: “Since these stories often have unintended consequences, we ask the media, particularly at this early stage of the investigation, to exercise caution and attempt to verify information through appropriate official channels before reporting.”
If a suspect potentially got away because the media revealed law enforcement’s cards on this one, they should be fined or charged for interfering in an investigation.
It’s embarrassing that the supposedly “professional” media can’t get their act together, and even jeopardize an investigation with their incompetence.
Obama sent an envoy to Venezuela dictator Hugo Chavez’s funeral, but refuses to send anyone from his administration to honor Thatcher.
Why? Because a Socialist dictator like Chavez is an ideological ally, while a liberty-loving conservative like Thatcher is political enemy. That should tell you all you need to know about dark and dangerous Obama’s personal ideology truly is.
This is a deliberate, public slap in the face in front of the entire international community. Obama is a small, petty, dangerous man.
President Obama declined to send a high-level delegation to Wednesday’s funeral of Britain’s Margaret Thatcher. It’s a measure of how little he values the special relationship — and a sign of his own smallness.
Back in more gracious times, vice presidents routinely attended funerals of foreign dignitaries. As such, the presence of Vice President Joe Biden — if not Obama himself — would seem fitting for as significant a U.S. ally as the late Prime Minister Thatcher, if not out of warmth of feeling, then simply to represent the U.S.’ gratitude. Thatcher’s uncompromising friendship with the U.S. helped to set off a free-market revolution, end the Cold War, and left the U.S. and U.K. the standard-bearers for freedom in the world — the very basis of the power Obama now enjoys.
But appallingly, not even Biden could be spared for the funeral of the most consequential British prime minister since Winston Churchill.
[…] This snub shows Obama places partisan politics above leadership or statecraft.
Obama isn’t the only one deliberately insulting the memory of this great woman. The media is taking this opportunity to verbally burn her memory in effigy:
In the days leading up to Margaret Thatcher’s funeral on Wednesday, the three networks repeatedly hyped hateful, ugly attacks on the former Prime Minister of Britain, describing her as a “polarizing,” “divisive” figure. On Rock Center, his low-rated Friday night show, Brian Williams explained that it was “sad, but necessary to report” that, while Americans may like Thatcher, “It’s been a harsh couple of days …Tonight, the number one song on iTunes in Great Britain is the Wizard of Oz classic [Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead], in this case celebrating the death of the Iron Lady.”
On Sunday’s Today, Lester Holt began by insisting, “Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is proving to be as polarizing in death as she was in life.” He, too, highlighted angry liberals in Britain gleefully playing the mocking song. Leftist journalist Martin Bashir appeared on the program to bemoan the “controversial” Thatcher. He touted, “An online campaign has pushed the song Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead up towards the top of the British music charts.”
Bashir made sure to play a clip of a protester complaining, “I’m here to remember the victims, the victims of Margaret Thatcher and her society– her type of government.”
On Wednesday, CBS This Morning reporter Mark Phillips lectured, “Well, this funeral was going to be a tense and controversial affair even before [the Boston bombing.]” It was going to be “controversial’ to bury Thatcher, the woman elected three times in massive landslides?
On the April 17 Today, Keir Simmons reported live from the funeral route and deemed Thatcher a “divisive figure for many people in Britain.” He did allow that there were “many people here in the streets to pay their last respects.”
This last point, the massive outpouring of people who actually admired Thatcher, hasn’t received as much attention from the network reports.
Explosions at the Boston Marathon
View on YouTube
With thousands of runners still on the course, two bombs exploded near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on Monday, killing three people, injuring at least 113 and turning the city’s most celebrated event into a grisly spectacle of shattered glass, blood and screams.
President Barack Obama said authorities did not know who carried out the attack but vowed to render “the full weight of justice” against those responsible. Minutes later, law enforcement officials said that an 8-year-old child was one of the dead.
Video from the scene showed two blasts about 20 seconds apart just off the course at the finish. White smoke rose, barriers flew, and throngs of people who had gathered to cheer the runners turned and fled in terror. They later reported seeing horrific injuries that included blown-off limbs and bodies thrown to the asphalt.
However, the Left isn’t necessarily opposed to jumping to conclusions, so long as the people they wish to target are being blamed. The bodies weren’t even cold before Leftists began exploiting tragedy to attack political opponents.
Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce noted that today was “Patriots Day” in Massachusetts, and suggested it might be the work of the Tea Party, whom he compares to Timothy McVey.
Wolf Blitzer speculated the same, live on the air.
CNN’s Peter Bergen claimed it must have been “right wing extremists.”
Nicholas Kristof at The New York Times blamed Republicans, claiming their blocking Obama’s radical ATF nominee was the culprit.
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews posed the question of whether or not the bombing was motivated by the fact that April 15th was tax day.
“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” ~ Rahm Emanuel
After all that’s happened today, it can be difficult to remember that there are still good people in this world. For that reason, Business Insider has made a list of “People Being Awesome After The Attack On The Boston Marathon.”
The trial of the century is underway, but the media seating looks like this:
Why? Because the man on trial is an abortionist.
Kermit Gosnell is a monster.
He drugged patients that came to him for late term abortions and would leave them for hours, waiting for their babies to be born so he could kill them by snipping their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.
He killed at least one woman, but did absolutely nothing to try to save her and abandoned her after the paramedics picked her up.
A former worker at the clinic testified that Gosnell’s gruesome practice of snipping babies’ necks “gave me the creeps.” She knew the babies were still alive because she witnessed one baby “jump” when he was stabbed in the neck, and other who’s chest was still moving even after his spine had been severed.
Gosnell told one teenage assistant, “That’s what you call a chicken with its head cut off.”
Another former employee recalled a baby who screamed after surviving an abortion, only to be killed later.
Gosnell kept the remains of at least 47 babies in cat food containers and other receptacles around his office. He kept their severed feet in jars. Some of the babies were disposed of down the toilets, which would frequently back up from body parts.
The Pennsylvania Health Department deliberately ignored complaints and refused to investigate them for years.
His clinic went 17 years without a health inspection, until an FBI raid in 2010 revealed a gruesome sight:
They found moaning women covered in blood-stained blankets and jars with severed fetus feet, according to the 281-page grand jury report.
The grand jury report that lays out allegations against Gosnell has an entire section called “How did this go on so long?” The simple answer is politics.
Pennsylvania’s health department stopped routine inspections of abortion facilities in the state after Tom Ridge, a pro-choice Republican, became governor in 1995.
Health department lawyers “changed their legal opinions and advice to suit the policy preferences of different governors,” health department official Janet Staloski said in grand jury testimony. In this case, she said the state didn’t want to be “putting a barrier up to women” who wanted abortions.
The reason they avoided inspecting abortion clinics is the same reason the media avoids reporting on their atrocities: they want to protect abortion-on-demand, no matter how many people get hurt or killed.
Because Gosnell was an abortionist whose victims were premature babies, the media covers up his atrocities as if they never happened. His crimes don’t serve their political agenda. His tortured victims are brushed under the rug.
Even Connor Friedersdorf from The Atlantic argues that this story should be front-page news:
The grand jury report in the case of Kermit Gosnell, 72, is among the most horrifying I’ve read. “This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors,” it states. “The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths.”
Charged with seven counts of first-degree murder, Gosnell is now standing trial in a Philadelphia courtroom. An NBC affiliate’s coverage includes testimony as grisly as you’d expect. “An unlicensed medical school graduate delivered graphic testimony about the chaos at a Philadelphia clinic where he helped perform late-term abortions,” the channel reports. “Stephen Massof described how he snipped the spinal cords of babies, calling it, ‘literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body.’ He testified that at times, when women were given medicine to speed up their deliveries, ‘it would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.'”
[…] One woman “was left lying in place for hours after Gosnell tore her cervix and colon while trying, unsuccessfully, to extract the fetus,” the report states. Another patient, 19, “was held for several hours after Gosnell punctured her uterus. As a result of the delay, she fell into shock from blood loss, and had to undergo a hysterectomy.” A third patient “went into convulsions during an abortion, fell off the procedure table, and hit her head on the floor. Gosnell wouldn’t call an ambulance, and wouldn’t let the woman’s companion leave the building so that he could call an ambulance.”
[…] Inducing live births and subsequently severing the heads of the babies is indeed a horrific story that merits significant attention. Strange as it seems to say it, however, that understates the case.
For this isn’t solely a story about babies having their heads severed, though it is that. It is also a story about a place where, according to the grand jury, women were sent to give birth into toilets; where a doctor casually spread gonorrhea and chlamydiae to unsuspecting women through the reuse of cheap, disposable instruments; an office where a 15-year-old administered anesthesia; an office where former workers admit to playing games when giving patients powerful narcotics; an office where white women were attended to by a doctor and black women were pawned off on clueless untrained staffers. Any single one of those things would itself make for a blockbuster news story. Is it even conceivable that an optometrist who attended to his white patients in a clean office while an intern took care of the black patients in a filthy room wouldn’t make national headlines?
But it isn’t even solely a story of a rogue clinic that’s awful in all sorts of sensational ways either. Multiple local and state agencies are implicated in an oversight failure that is epic in proportions! If I were a city editor for any Philadelphia newspaper the grand jury report would suggest a dozen major investigative projects I could undertake if I had the staff to support them. And I probably wouldn’t have the staff. But there is so much fodder for additional reporting.
One pro-abortion blogger was unusually candid about why she and her fellow leftists wouldn’t cover the story:
[T]hose of us who are pro-choice must worry that this will restrict access to abortion: that a crackdown on abortion clinics will follow, with onerous white-glove inspections; that a revolted public will demand more restrictions on late-term abortions; or that women will be too afraid of Gosnell-style crimes to seek a medically necessary abortion.
What if Dr. Kermit Gosnell had snipped the spinal cords of puppies whose owners and brought them to him to be put down? What if he had murdered teenage girls whose parents didn’t want them anymore, and stored their severed feet as trophies in jars? What if he had used a gun as a murder weapon? Would the media have ignored him then?
Consider how the media praised Dr. Tiller, a late-term abortionist who was murdered. The only difference between Dr. Tiller and Dr. Gosnell was the location of the baby and the method of execution. Dr. Tiller made sure the babies’ head stayed inside the birth canal as he punctured their skulls and vacuumed out their brain matter. Dr. Gosnell delivered them live, and then severed their spinal cords with a pair of scissors. What difference does it make? Both inflicted excruciating pain and death on innocent, helpless infants.
Planned Parenthood, which pretends to condemn Gosnells’ actions, has already admitted that they support killing infants who survive abortion. President Obama voted multiple times as a senator to deny medical care to babies who were born alive after a botched abortion attempt.
All of them deny a baby’s humanity and unalienable right to life. The only difference is that Dr. Gosnell found an especially gruesome way to speed up the process.
The Left and the media (but I repeat myself) support infanticide both inside and outside the womb, at any and every stage of pregnancy and immediately after birth. That is why they are trying to ignore the Gosnell story. They secretly support him. They consider him a warrior for the sacred cause of a “woman’s choice” to kill her own child.
They’ll throw him under the bus when it becomes politically necessary to do so, but make no mistake: they honestly see nothing wrong with what he’s done. Their view of human life is no different than his…and that’s a very scary thought.
Oregon Sen. Ginny Burdick, one of the top Democrats leading the charge on the massive anti-gun legislation HB 3200, originally scheduled a town hall to meet with her constituents and Portland State University on March 4th at 7 p.m. When citizens concerned about her bill found out, they passed out fliers encouraging anybody who cared about gun rights to attend and make their voices heard:
When Burdick found out that the townhall was going to attract more than her usual sycophant crowd, she promptly canceled the event, citing a “scheduling conflict.” Having spared herself the inconvenience of having to listen to constituent concerns over her gun-grabbing agenda, she thought the controversy was over. It was just beginning.
A citizen journalist decided to borrow a “60 Minutes” tactic and sit outside Burdick’s house with a camera to see if she actually had a “scheduling conflict,” or if she had lied about it to avoid her constituents. The result speaks for itself:
View on YouTube
The video clearly shows Burdick was home at the time she claimed she couldn’t make it to her own townhall due to a “scheduling conflict.” So naturally, the questions becomes, “conflict with what?” Her favorite show? Hasn’t she ever heard of DVR?
After seeing the video, blogger Jeff Reynolds contacted the Senator’s office to ask what the scheduling conflict had been, and was given the run-around. His blog post quickly got people talking about why Burdick had lied to her constituents and hidden out at home instead of meeting with them.
Realizing she had been caught lying, Burdick immediately fell back on an old Alinsky tactic of playing the victim, and the Zero was all too happy to try and spin the narrative that citizen journalists who try to hold their elected officials accountable are “mentally unstable or threatening“:
“It was clearly an attempt to intimidate me,” Burdick said Tuesday morning. “It’s a sad time when people feel they can intimidate people like that.”
[…] “I think it’s a concern because these people are very angry and they’re carrying guns,” Burdick said. “It’s not a good combination.”
The clip showed the need for “reasonable gun laws so people who are mentally unstable or threatening” do not have access to guns, she said.
But in playing the victim card, Burdick inadvertently admitted that she HAD lied to her constituents about a “scheduling conflict,” and her real reason for canceling had been to avoid gun rights supporters:
Burdick said she canceled her town hall because she feared gun owners would storm the event and be rude and disruptive. That has happened before, she said, and she wanted to ensure it didn’t occur at the PSU town hall.
Got that? If you care about your 2nd Amendment rights and have the audacity to challenge your elected officials or catch them lying, the ruling class will try to smear you as unstable, threatening, rude and disruptive.
When her first excuse was questioned, Burdick changed her story again, claiming that she had canceled the event because of some threatening e-mails she’d received.
So which is it, Ginny? Scheduling conflict? Unwillingness to meet with your pro-gun rights constituents? Or fear for your life?
Why does your story keep changing? Why should anyone believe you now, when you’ve been caught on tape lying to your constituents?
And why does it take a citizen journalist to expose the facts? Is the media asleep at the wheel, or just in your back pocket?
Bonus: Republicans at PSU didn’t let the cancellation go to waste, organizing a pro-gun event in it’s place:
Meanwhile, back at Portland State University, where Burdick was originally scheduled to speak, the campus College Republicans student group was able to book the room on short notice and bring in Oregon Firearms Federation‘s Kevin Starrett, effectively turning what would have been a gun control town hall into a pro gun presentation.
Liberal reporters are finally coming forward to reveal the White House’s threatening behavior towards journalists who dare to question him.
It started with veteran journalist Bob Woodard (of Watergate fame) making these statements:
The Washington Post‘s Bob Woodward ripped into President Barack Obama on “Morning Joe” today, saying he’s exhibiting a “kind of madness I haven’t seen in a long time” for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.
“Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?'” Woodward said.
“Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need?'” Or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ … because of some budget document?”
The Defense Department said in early February that it would not deploy the U.S.S. Harry Truman to the Persian Gulf, citing budget concerns relating to the looming cuts known as the sequester.
“Under the Constitution, the President is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the President going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement. ‘I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country,'” Woodward said.
It wasn’t long before the White House responded with threats:
Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a “very senior person” at the White House warned him in an email that he would “regret doing this,” the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.
Sadly, the leftist media are more inclined to eat their own than allow their Obamessiah to be criticized, and the quickly tried to smear Woodward – the man who helped bring down Nixon – as an overly sensitive, attention-seeking has-been who didn’t know a real threat from an innocent misunderstanding:
This is an incredible case of the White House attempting to bully the most iconic reporter of the 20th century – the reporter who, along with Carl Bernstein, took down a president of the United States. So you might expect the rest of the media to stand with Woodward. You’d be wrong. They’re too busy spending time playing defense for the White House.
It began with Politico itself, which downplayed the entire incident, even as it acknowledged that Woodward’s “play-by-play is basically spot on” with regard to reporting the sequestration. “White House officials are certainly within their rights to yell at any journalist, including Bob Woodward,” said official Obama buddies Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei. Allen and VandeHei merely suggested that the battle with Woodward was “a major distraction at a pivotal moment for the president.” They added, “Watching and now having interviewed Woodward, it is easy to see why White House officials get worked about him.” Poor Obama, having to deal with such issues.
Next, the White House went to its favorite outlet, Buzzfeed, and their favorite BenSmithing reporter, Ben Smith, to leak the source of the Woodward “regret” email. It’s clear why they did it – Smith spun the entire incident for the White House. […]
The gall of this is astounding. All of these reporters combined might equal one tenth a Bob Woodward in the journalistic pantheon; the notion that their treatment at the hands of press flacks in any way reflects the general or appropriate treatment of someone like Woodward is absurd on its face. But the junior varsity is all too happy to gang tackle a reportorial Hall of Famer on behalf of their beloved President.
Imagine if one of George W. Bush’s deputees had dealt with Woodward this way. The left would have gone insane. Now they just call up the White House for a pat on the head and a nice scoop in return.
[…] That madness has now infected the mainstream media. They’re too busy defending President Obama to defend the American people – or even their fellow members of the press – from Obama’s thug White House.
Despite the Leftist media attempt to minimize the damage for Obama and destroy one of their own, the released e-mails confirm Woodward’s claim. Now other renowned liberal journalists are stepping forward to confirm that they, too, have received similar treatment from this White House:
Lanny Davis, who served under President Bill Clinton as special counsel to the White House, told Washington, D.C.’s WMAL this morning that the Obama White House had threatened the Washington Times over his column, warning that the Times would suffer limited access to White House officials and might have its White House credentials revoked. Davis, a centrist Democrat, is sometimes critical of the Obama administration’s policies.
Davis was speaking with Breitbart News editor Larry O’Connor, who co-hosts a morning show on WMAL. Davis said he had never spoken publicly about the threats before, but they seemed relevant after the White House told legendary reporter Bob Woodward that he would “regret” insisting that the White House had come up with the idea of the budget sequester, which President Barack Obama is now urging Congress urgently to revoke.
As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Woodward called a veiled threat. “You will regret staking out that claim,” The Washington Post reporter was told.Once I moved back to daily reporting this year, the badgering intensified. I wrote Saturday night, asking the official to stop e-mailing me. The official wrote, challenging Woodward and my tweet. “Get off your high horse and assess the facts, Ron,” the official wrote.
I wrote back:
“I asked you to stop e-mailing me. All future e-mails from you will be on the record — publishable at my discretion and directly attributed to you. My cell-phone number is … . If you should decide you have anything constructive to share, you can try to reach me by phone. All of our conversations will also be on the record, publishable at my discretion and directly attributed to you.” I haven’t heard back from the official. It was a step not taken lightly because the note essentially ended our working relationship.
Given that Woodward is now being called old and brokedown by David Pflouffe, and the Juicebox Mafia has picked up the “senile” message they’re putting out there… I would in fact say efforts are being made to insure Woodward “regrets” having correctly reported Obama’s ownership of the sequester.
Let’s hope more liberal reporters recognize the threat to their profession, rally around him and speak up.
Move over Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, there’s a new “war on women,” courtesy of the party that loves to claim it represents women. Colorado Democrat state Rep. Joe Salazar made these shocking statements on the state house floor:
Here’s the direct quote:
“There are some gender inequities on college campuses… that’s why we have call boxes. That’s why we have safe zones. That’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, then you pop out that gun and you pop, pop around at somebody.”
Yes, you heard that right. Potential rape victims shouldn’t be armed because they might just start randomly shooting people based on a hunch.
The University of Colorado, Colorado Springs offers these “safety” tips for defenseless women:
Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.
Apparently, if these tactics don’t work on a 200-lb misogynist rapist whose motivation is power, control, and hating women, the problem is that you’ve made yourself too “attractive” a target.
Sadly, this is par for the course of liberal logic. At a recent D.C. rally against “violence against women,” protesters were asked whether or not carrying a concealed weapon was a good way for women to defend themselves against violence:
View on YouTube
It’s very revealing that not one would support women defending themselves with lethal force. Liberals have a long history of preferring to protect criminals over their victims. Just goes to show how much they REALLY care about the REAL “war on women”!
Last month, New York passed sweeping gun restrictions, which were rammed through the legislature so quickly that they didn’t even notice that law enforcement would be hamstrung by it.
Other states are rapidly following suit.
In Missouri, Democrats have introduced a bill that would require law-abiding citizens to give up their semi-automatic weapons:
Missouri Democrat state Rep. Rory Ellinger has put forth H.B. 545, which would ban “assault weapons” and many semi-automatic pistols. It would give owners of said weapons 90 days to either turn them in or get them out of the state.
After 90 days, those in possession of such weapons would face class “C” felony charges.
The legislation defines an “assault weapon” as a rifle with a detachable magazine and any “one or more of the following: a pistol grip or thumbhole stock… protruding grip that can be held by nontrigger hand, a folding or telescoping stock, [or] a shroud attached to the barrel” that protects the shooter from being burned from the heat of barrel.
The legislation also bans semi-automatic pistols with a fixed magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds or a detachable magazine and “one or more of the following” features: “a protruding grip,” “a folding stock,” or “a shroud attached to the barrel” that protects the shooter from being burned from the heat of the barrel.
In Michigan, reporters are decrying an “alarming trend” of “street justice” after two law-abiding citizens defended themselves against armed robbers by firing their legal weapons:
In California, a police chief actually claims that the “idea that a gun is a defensive weapon” is a “myth”:
“A gun is not a defensive weapon.”
James is the Police Chief of Emeryville, California and the Police Chief Association’s Firearms Committee Chairman.
“A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power,” he asserted, explaining to the audience that police officers don’t carry weapons to defend themselves, but to do their job in a “safe and effective manner.”
Anybody who asserts that “a gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power,” needs to have his badge pulled. The purpose of a police force is to SERVE and PROTECT the people, not INTIMIDATE and SHOW POWER. The purpose of their guns is to defend their lives and that of the innocent from violent criminals. If he doesn’t understand that, he needs to step down RIGHT NOW!
The media try to make rank-and-file Americans feel guilty about buying a gun. The enemies of freedom demonize gun buyers and portray us as social lepers. But we know the truth. We know that responsible gun ownership exemplifies what is good and right about America.
Responsible Americans realize that the world as we know it has changed. We, the American people, clearly see the daunting forces we will undoubtedly face: terrorists, crime, drug gangs, the possibility of Euro-style debt riots, civil unrest or natural disaster.
Gun owners are not buying firearms because they anticipate a confrontation with the government. Rather, we anticipate confrontations where the government isn’t there—or simply doesn’t show up in time.
To preserve the inalienable, individual human right to keep and bear arms—to withstand the siege that is coming—the NRA is building a four-year communications and resistance movement. The enemies of the Second Amendment will be met with unprecedented defiance, commitment and determination. We will Stand And Fight.
Bloomberg’s Armed Guards Hassle Reporter For Challenging Him On Gun Control: ‘Why Can YOU Defend Yourself But Not The Majority of Americans?’
Hypocrisy in liberal standards between the ruling class and the “little people”? Say it ain’t so!
Reporter Jason Mattera got a first-hand look at the double standard when he challenged gun-grabbing New York Mayor Bloomberg to disarm his security in consistency with his anti-gun rhetoric:
In the video, Bloomberg is seen surrounded by security. Mattera approaches Bloomberg and asks, “In the spirit of gun control, will you disarm your entire security team?”
Bloomberg’s reply: “Uh, you, we’ll get right back to you.”
“Why can you defend yourself but not the majority of Americans?” Mattera asks as the mayor walks away. “Look at the team of security you’ve got. And you’re an advocate for gun control?”
Of course, as Charles Hurt explains at the Washington Times, “Gun-free zones are only for the ‘little people‘”:
There is a good lesson here these days with so many politicians making political hay out of 20 young children and six educators gunned down in an elementary school last month. They want to use that horror to advance their own political agenda of disarming law-abiding citizens.
But it is important to remember that while they are talking about disarming you and me, they are not talking about disarming themselves. They will still be coddled in their fortresses. The closer you get to the Capitol, the more armed guards there are. Up close, there are bombproof guard shacks, literally, on every street corner. Squads of machine-gun carrying guards dot the magnificent marble buildingscape at all times.
Leaders in Congress ride around with escorts of huge armed men. Is that because what they do every day is more dangerous than what you and I do every day? Is that because their safety is more important than our safety? Or is it because they have figured out a way for suckers like you and me to pay for their security and so they don’t much care anymore about ours?
Obama Attacks Fox News, Limbaugh For Holding Republicans Accountable When They Cave To Leftist Agenda
Demonize and blame. That’s all this president knows how to do. Nothing is ever his fault, and his political opponents are mortal enemies who must be attacked, marginalized, and destroyed.
This is a sick, SICK man.
In a sit-down interview with The New Republic released today, President Barack Obama cast blame on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for shaping compromise as a “dirty word.”
[…] Obama said the same thing happens with the far left — but that “left-leaning media outlets” are more willing to accept compromise.
Lying is a natural to him as breathing. Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters points out:
Really? “Left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word?”
Do the folks at MSNBC want Obama to compromise with Republicans? Or the people at the New York Times?
How about CBS News where its political director recently advocated Obama destroy the Republican Party in his second term.
No, there’s no push for compromise from the liberal media.
As for Reid and Pelosi, they’ve done everything but try to work with Republicans since they took over both chambers of Congress in 2007.
In fact, their first budget attained not one single Republican vote in the Senate or the House. Ditto 2009’s stimulus bill and 2010’s healthcare reform.
The same is true for Obama himself who days after his first inauguration told Republican leaders interested in assisting in the crafting of stimulus legislation, “I won.”
It’s truly laughable that a Democratic President of the United States would be blaming members of the media for his inability to reach across the aisle and convince members of the opposition to work with him.
Ronald Reagan had a far more hostile media and seemed capable of doing it. Ditto George W. Bush during his first term.
But Obama can’t, and that’s Fox News and Limbaugh’s fault?
It’s the solution that Obama proposes that is truly frightening. From Ben Shapiro:
But what of his Republican opposition? That opposition, said Obama, has to be forced to embrace his positions:
And I think if you talk privately to Democrats and Republicans, particularly those who have been around for a while, they long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation and feel productive. So I don’t think the issue is whether or not there are people of goodwill in either party that want to get something done. I think what we really have to do is change some of the incentive structures so that people feel liberated to pursue some common ground. One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.
How, exactly, will Obama achieve changing that incentive structure, exactly? Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are a free press. But according to Obama, that media must apparently be curbed. The media on the left, however, need not be curbed, because “more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word.”
This is nothing new from a thuggish administration that has vocally derided Rush Limbaugh repeatedly, pushed secondary boycotts of Limbaugh through its extragovernmental allies, and targeted Fox News as illegitimate for daring to question The One’s agenda. But with Obama’s re-election, he obviously feels that his cross-hairs can be safely placed on his media opposition.
There is no war on terror for the Obama White House, but there is one on Fox News.
[…] Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him. What other motive could a journalist have in holding a president accountable? Why oh why do Ed Henry and Chris Wallace insist on asking hard questions? Make them stop!
The president seems more comfortable talking to “real journalists” such as Chris Hughes, who asked the question in the TNR interview that elicited Obama’s reflexive Fox hatred. Hughes is the new owner of TNR and is a former major Obama campaign donor and organizer who was featured on the cover of Fast Company, with the headline, “The Kid Who Made Obama President.” You can’t make this stuff up.
This latest volley from the president is just one in a long line of comments from his White House as part of their campaign to silence any dissent they detect in the press corps.
Recently, the White House has kept Fox News off of conference calls dealing with the Benghazi attack, despite Fox News being the only outlet that was regularly reporting on it and despite Fox having top notch foreign policy reporters.
They have left Chris Wallace’s “Fox News Sunday” out of a round of interviews that included CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS for not being part of a “legitimate” news network. In October 2009, as part of an Obama administration onslaught against Fox News,White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week” that the Fox News Channel is “not really a news station” and that much of the programming is “not really news.”
Whether you are liberal or conservative, libertarian, moderate or politically agnostic, everyone should be concerned when leaders of our government believe they can intentionally try to delegitimize a news organization they don’t like.
In fact, if you are a liberal – as I am – you should be the most offended, as liberalism is founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.
[…] Can someone explain to me how it’s “liberal” to try and shut down a media organization? What the Obama administration is doing, and what liberals are funding at MMFA is beyond chilling – it’s a deep freeze.
Can you imagine the uproar that would have ensued if the oil companies got together to “train” journalists how to report on energy stories “the right way?”
Earlier this month, FreedomWorks covered a suspect symposium being sponsored by a pro-Obamacare organization, designed to provide journalists with “specialized education in health care reporting”.
The anticipation of media bias was palpable.
The symposium, sponsored by the Commonwealth Fund, hosted by the Society of American Business Editors and Writers (SABEW), held at Reuters headquarters in New York City, and with a featured student body of 17 mainstream reporters – including the Dallas Morning News, Reuters, and Money Magazine – has since come to pass, and the concerns of blatant media bias should be even more heightened in the aftermath.
The SABEW has posted a recap of events at their ‘Business of Health Care Symposium’ on their web site, and the emphasis is clearly directed at the positive aspects of Obamacare.
For example, in a section titled ‘Spreading the Word to America’, speaker Rachel Klein explains to the reporters that “a key challenge” in messaging lies in “informing consumers of how the ACA (Affordable Care Act) will benefit them“.
Klein adds that, “The majority of uninsured Americans don’t know the health reform law will help them.”
Benefit. Help. The positive tone has been set.
Klein’s presentation was accompanied by a slideshow presentation that provided reporters with “targeting messages”.
In another section covering the effects of the ACA on small business, speaker Ben Geyerhahn explains how reporters “can alleviate the fear that small business owners have” in regards to the ACA.
Geyerhahn tells reporters that “The simplest thing is to say … There’s no negative here for you.”
“There’s only upside,” he surmises.
Shouldn’t a fair and balanced media be reporting on both the upside and the downside? Shouldn’t they be reporting on both the benefits and the detriments?
Not with the Commonwealth Fund financing this event apparently.
This Obamacare propaganda campaign seriously blurs the line between government and “journalism” and seems to be a blatant attempt by team Obama to write the media’s Obamacare stories for them.
Rusty Weiss recently discussed a series of large donations made to the Society of American Business Editors and Writers (SABEW), the latest of which was donated expressly for the purpose of relaying the left-wing agenda on Obamacare.
The donation, a $15,000 grant, was made by the Commonwealth Fund, a group now headed by former Obama operative David Blumenthal, who served as the national coordinator for Obama’s Health Information Technology effort.
The Commonwealth Fund has long been a backer of Obamacare and is staffed by Obama operatives. The organization has been cited for repeatedly downplaying any ills that Obama’s healthcare proposals might cause and playing up only the positive aspects of the law.
Despite its complete obeisance to Obama’s policies, we see a “journalist” organization taking money from the group in order to push the group’s Obamacare propaganda.
Next time you see a news story on Obamacare, ask yourself where the reporter got his/her talking points.