Original Post: CS Monitor
By Husna Haq
Associated Press reporters are not alone. One week after news broke that the Justice Department secretly obtained phone records from AP, more news has emerged about the Obama administration’s campaign to silence leaks.
Gary Pruitt, CEO of the Associated press, told CBS's "Face the Nation" this weekend that the Justice Department’s investigation is already silencing AP sources.
This time, it’s new details about a 2010 Justice Department investigation into a Fox News correspondent who reported government secrets on North Korea. The twist is that in the Fox News case, the government is suggesting that the reporter broke the law and criminal charges could result.
The news points to how the Obama administration is going to unprecedented lengths to defend secrets – prosecuting more government leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined.
Anecdotal evidence suggests the crackdown is having an effect, with AP saying some of its sources are falling silent. But that success could come at the expense of the newsgathering and investigative-reporting process that the Founding Fathers saw as a crucial check on federal power.
The Fox News case, in particular, suggests the “criminalization of investigative journalism,” writes Glenn Greenwald in The Guardian, a British newspaper.
According to a Washington Post report Sunday, Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen reported in June 2009 on a CIA analysis that suggested North Korea may respond to UN sanctions with more nuclear tests. The story was published online the same day that a confidential report on the matter was released to select officials in the intelligence community, including a State Department security adviser, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim.
Detecting a connection, FBI investigators built a case alleging Mr. Kim leaked information to Mr. Rosen. To do so, they used every tool in their arsenal: analyzing security badge access records to track Rosen’s comings and goings from the State Department, tracing the timing of his calls to Kim, even subpoenaing his personal e-mails.
Ultimately, FBI agents concluded Kim did, in fact, leak information to Rosen using a complex, if clumsy, system of communication including aliases and coded signals.
In his report, FBI investigator Reginald Reyes said evidence suggested Rosen had broken the law, “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.”
While details on the case are forthcoming, it is not a crime for journalists to report classified information, except in rare circumstances. Furthermore, government seizure of media records is tightly circumscribed under the government’s Code of Federal Regulations.
The AP and Fox News cases renew concerns about the potential stifling effect government investigations have on reporters and their sources.
“Search warrants like these have a severe chilling effect on the free flow of important information to the public,” said First Amendment lawyer Charles Tobin in the Washington Post report. “That’s a very dangerous road to go down.”
Jane Mayer of The New Yorker goes further: “It's a huge impediment to reporting, and so chilling isn't quite strong enough, it's more like freezing the whole process into a standstill,” she told the New Republic.
As a case in point, Gary Pruitt, CEO of the AP, told CBS’s "Face the Nation" this weekend that the Justice Department’s investigation is already silencing AP sources.
“Already, officials that would normally talk to us and people we talk to in the normal course of news gathering are already saying to us that they're a little reluctant to talk to us,” he said. “They fear that they – they will be monitored by the government.”
Perhaps the most serious implication, however, is that the investigations threaten to jeopardize the very practice of investigative journalism, already endangered by budget cuts and the 24/7 news cycle.
“Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information,” writes The Guardian's Mr. Greenwald. “That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ – that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for 'soliciting' the disclosure of classified information – is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself.”
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Monday, November 12, 2012
The same media that calls Occupy a peaceful demonstration demonizes peaceful protest
Original Post:The DM online
BY GRANT BEEBE, JENNIFER NASSAR
I'm citing this article because another article refered to the protest as "a riot".
Hundreds of Ole Miss students exchanged racial epithets and violent,politicized chants What is a "violent, politicized chant"? in response to the announcement of the re-election of President Barack Obama.
What began as an argument around midnight quickly spread across campus.
UPD responded to a fire alarm being pulled in Brown Hall as crowds gathered near Kincannon and Stockard.
Just as all seemed to calm down, those in disagreement moved to the Grove.
UPD cleared the Grove on the grounds that it closes at midnight. Displeased, crowds continued to grow and returned to Kincannon.
UPD responded and forcibly dispersed the crowd.
“Disperse or go to jail,” UPD officers said.
So no one was hurt, nothing was damaged and this is considered a riot? I don't even know that there were "racial epithets".
BY GRANT BEEBE, JENNIFER NASSAR
I'm citing this article because another article refered to the protest as "a riot".
Hundreds of Ole Miss students exchanged racial epithets and violent,politicized chants What is a "violent, politicized chant"? in response to the announcement of the re-election of President Barack Obama.
What began as an argument around midnight quickly spread across campus.
UPD responded to a fire alarm being pulled in Brown Hall as crowds gathered near Kincannon and Stockard.
Just as all seemed to calm down, those in disagreement moved to the Grove.
UPD cleared the Grove on the grounds that it closes at midnight. Displeased, crowds continued to grow and returned to Kincannon.
UPD responded and forcibly dispersed the crowd.
“Disperse or go to jail,” UPD officers said.
So no one was hurt, nothing was damaged and this is considered a riot? I don't even know that there were "racial epithets".
Mitt Romney literally ripped for gathering food donations
Tell me there's no media bias. Mitt Romney is gathering food for people and this is apparently a poor act. It is no possible for him to do good in the eyes of the media.
Benghazi facts still unreleased, but reporters care about Romney's victory website
Original Post: Yahoo
By Dylan Stableford
Mitt Romney told reporters aboard his plane on Tuesday afternoon that he had prepared an 1,118-word "victory speech" to give supporters on election night. And it appears the Romney campaign was preparing a website for his transition from candidate to president, too.
The site appeared online on Wednesday and was taken down—but not before Taegan Goddard, a blogger for Roll Call's Political Wire, captured screenshots, which included a "President Elect" seal, information about the inauguration, a fresh tagline ("Smaller, Simpler, Smarter") and a quote from the Republican nominee ("I'm excited about our prospects as a nation. My priority is putting people back to work in America.").
The site also included a page with information on how to join the Romney administration, as well as a section on the president-elect's process of picking a Cabinet:
President-elect Romney is working closely with his transition team to put together his administration to ensure a smooth transfer of power on January 20th, 2013 and get to work for the American people.
It's unclear how long the transition site was live or who was responsible for its content. A spokesman for the Romney campaign did not return a request for comment. According to the Huffington Post, it was produced for the Romney campaign by Blue Host, a Provo, Utah-based web-hosting company whose owner said the site was produced about 10 days before the election.
But it's not unusual for the campaign to have had one ready. As CBSNews.com noted, federal funds are provided to both presidential nominees months in advance "to build transition teams and rent office space."
Perhaps the Romney IT team was simply still in shock. A few minutes after the former Massachusetts governor gave his concession speech early Wednesday, President Barack Obama's victory speech was streamed live at the top of MittRomney.com, adjacent to the words "Stand With Mitt."
Romney ‘transition’ website briefly appears online
By Dylan Stableford
Mitt Romney told reporters aboard his plane on Tuesday afternoon that he had prepared an 1,118-word "victory speech" to give supporters on election night. And it appears the Romney campaign was preparing a website for his transition from candidate to president, too.
The site appeared online on Wednesday and was taken down—but not before Taegan Goddard, a blogger for Roll Call's Political Wire, captured screenshots, which included a "President Elect" seal, information about the inauguration, a fresh tagline ("Smaller, Simpler, Smarter") and a quote from the Republican nominee ("I'm excited about our prospects as a nation. My priority is putting people back to work in America.").
The site also included a page with information on how to join the Romney administration, as well as a section on the president-elect's process of picking a Cabinet:
President-elect Romney is working closely with his transition team to put together his administration to ensure a smooth transfer of power on January 20th, 2013 and get to work for the American people.
It's unclear how long the transition site was live or who was responsible for its content. A spokesman for the Romney campaign did not return a request for comment. According to the Huffington Post, it was produced for the Romney campaign by Blue Host, a Provo, Utah-based web-hosting company whose owner said the site was produced about 10 days before the election.
But it's not unusual for the campaign to have had one ready. As CBSNews.com noted, federal funds are provided to both presidential nominees months in advance "to build transition teams and rent office space."
Perhaps the Romney IT team was simply still in shock. A few minutes after the former Massachusetts governor gave his concession speech early Wednesday, President Barack Obama's victory speech was streamed live at the top of MittRomney.com, adjacent to the words "Stand With Mitt."
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Reporter threatened with credential removal for daring to question Joe Biden
Original Post: Daily Caller
Vice President Joe Biden’s office has asked the U.S. Senate Press Gallery to investigate conservative journalist Jason Mattera’s tactics during a recent interview, a process that could result in his press credentials being revoked, The Daily Caller has learned.
Mattera, the editor of Human Events and a widely known video ambush interviewer, caught Biden by surprise after asking if he would pose together for a joint picture. While embracing the vice president for the photo, Mattera asked Biden if he “regret[s] using a rape reference to describe Republican opposition to the president’s bill.”
After pausing for a moment during which he appears shocked, Biden attempted to defend his comments.
“I didn’t use — no, no, no,” Biden told Mattera amid a crowd of onlookers on Capitol Hill. “What I said — let’s get it straight, guy, don’t screw around with me. Let’s get it straight.”
“I said rape was up three times in Flint, [Mich.],” Biden continued. “There are the numbers. Go look at the numbers. Murder’s up, rape is up and burglary’s up. That’s exactly what I said.”
Biden, it turns out, was incorrect. The Washington Post’s fact-checker blog gave him “four Pinocchios,” the worst possible rating it can give to politicians for incorrect statements. FactCheck.org also debunked Biden’s assertions. Those fact checkers used statistics different from the ones Biden was provided.
Biden apparently got his statistics from the City of Flint, and the city stands by its statistics according to Public Safety Director Chief Alvern Lock. In an October 20 statement, Lock said there are discrepancies between different law enforcement agencies’ statistics and crime definitions — something that he said should account for the inconsistencies. “The discrepancies with the FBI and other sources reveal the differences in how crimes can be counted and categorized, based on different criteria,” Lock said.
Even so, Mattera caught Biden playing politics with sketchy numbers. And now the Vice President’s staff is looking for a fight with Mattera instead of correcting the widespread misunderstandings Biden created.
Mattera told The Daily Caller that team Biden’s attempt to discredit him this week is just an effort to distract from how the Vice President’s incorrect. “They’re suggesting that my credentials get yanked and I be investigated for asking a completely legitimate question,” Mattera said in a phone interview. “The administration is just whining and complaining like little toddlers because they’ve gotten their wrists slapped now on multiple occasions for making the suggestion that Republicans are enabling rape and violent crimes because they won’t pass another stimulus package.”
“This is a thug administration in action,” Mattera added. “This is the Chicago way and they can bring it on. Bring it on. I’m a credentialed member of the media and I have a little something-something called the First Amendment on my side.”
According to The Hill newspaper, Biden aides are asking whether any Senate rules were broken during the exchange. The chairwoman of the Gallery’s standing committee of correspondents, a group of five journalists who oversee press accreditation on Capitol Hill, told the newspaper that the group is considering the issue and that it is under review.
“We’re aware of the concerns,” standing committee chairwoman Heather Rothman said, according to The Hill. “It’s being discussed. We’re aware this occurred and the vice president’s office [has made] contact.”
Rothman hasn’t returned TheDC’s requests for more details or information. Biden wouldn’t comment on the record. The Senate Press Gallery wouldn’t comment for The Hill’s story and hasn’t returned TheDC’s requests for comment.
Because none of those parties are answering any questions, it’s unclear what specific rules Biden’s office is alleging Mattera broke. Mattera said these allegations are nothing more than a deflection tactic.
“The Obama administration got caught in a major lie,” he said. “They’re now being called out on it and they’re going after the journalist who got the ball rolling. This is another attempt to destroy their opponents, instead of correcting their facts in their previous statements.”
Proving that Mattera’s “tactics” while interviewing Biden were unethical will be difficult. Mattera never misrepresented himself, was wearing his press credential badge the entire time, and told Biden’s staffers who he was and where he worked.
Mattera adds that it’s not abnormal for journalists to pose for photos with politicians, and that asking a tough question that would normally go unanswered is par for the course.
“Journalists have always used creative ways to get politicians to answer honestly,” Mattera said. “and that’s what I do. I look for ways to get politicians to give me candid answers. I don’t want the spin, I don’t them to go and consult with their messaging team and have the talking points – I get the gut reaction. And, here, Biden’s gut reaction was undignified for the Vice President of the United States.”
As of Tuesday morning, Mattera said no one from the Senate Press Gallery has contacted him about Biden’s allegations. He predicted that the agency will promptly dismiss the accusations against him.
“I’m not worried,” Mattera said. “They’re not going to give this any type of legitimacy.”
Reporter who bugged Biden: ‘They’re suggesting that my credentials get yanked’ for ‘rape’ question
Vice President Joe Biden’s office has asked the U.S. Senate Press Gallery to investigate conservative journalist Jason Mattera’s tactics during a recent interview, a process that could result in his press credentials being revoked, The Daily Caller has learned.
Mattera, the editor of Human Events and a widely known video ambush interviewer, caught Biden by surprise after asking if he would pose together for a joint picture. While embracing the vice president for the photo, Mattera asked Biden if he “regret[s] using a rape reference to describe Republican opposition to the president’s bill.”
After pausing for a moment during which he appears shocked, Biden attempted to defend his comments.
“I didn’t use — no, no, no,” Biden told Mattera amid a crowd of onlookers on Capitol Hill. “What I said — let’s get it straight, guy, don’t screw around with me. Let’s get it straight.”
“I said rape was up three times in Flint, [Mich.],” Biden continued. “There are the numbers. Go look at the numbers. Murder’s up, rape is up and burglary’s up. That’s exactly what I said.”
Biden, it turns out, was incorrect. The Washington Post’s fact-checker blog gave him “four Pinocchios,” the worst possible rating it can give to politicians for incorrect statements. FactCheck.org also debunked Biden’s assertions. Those fact checkers used statistics different from the ones Biden was provided.
Biden apparently got his statistics from the City of Flint, and the city stands by its statistics according to Public Safety Director Chief Alvern Lock. In an October 20 statement, Lock said there are discrepancies between different law enforcement agencies’ statistics and crime definitions — something that he said should account for the inconsistencies. “The discrepancies with the FBI and other sources reveal the differences in how crimes can be counted and categorized, based on different criteria,” Lock said.
Even so, Mattera caught Biden playing politics with sketchy numbers. And now the Vice President’s staff is looking for a fight with Mattera instead of correcting the widespread misunderstandings Biden created.
Mattera told The Daily Caller that team Biden’s attempt to discredit him this week is just an effort to distract from how the Vice President’s incorrect. “They’re suggesting that my credentials get yanked and I be investigated for asking a completely legitimate question,” Mattera said in a phone interview. “The administration is just whining and complaining like little toddlers because they’ve gotten their wrists slapped now on multiple occasions for making the suggestion that Republicans are enabling rape and violent crimes because they won’t pass another stimulus package.”
“This is a thug administration in action,” Mattera added. “This is the Chicago way and they can bring it on. Bring it on. I’m a credentialed member of the media and I have a little something-something called the First Amendment on my side.”
According to The Hill newspaper, Biden aides are asking whether any Senate rules were broken during the exchange. The chairwoman of the Gallery’s standing committee of correspondents, a group of five journalists who oversee press accreditation on Capitol Hill, told the newspaper that the group is considering the issue and that it is under review.
“We’re aware of the concerns,” standing committee chairwoman Heather Rothman said, according to The Hill. “It’s being discussed. We’re aware this occurred and the vice president’s office [has made] contact.”
Rothman hasn’t returned TheDC’s requests for more details or information. Biden wouldn’t comment on the record. The Senate Press Gallery wouldn’t comment for The Hill’s story and hasn’t returned TheDC’s requests for comment.
Because none of those parties are answering any questions, it’s unclear what specific rules Biden’s office is alleging Mattera broke. Mattera said these allegations are nothing more than a deflection tactic.
“The Obama administration got caught in a major lie,” he said. “They’re now being called out on it and they’re going after the journalist who got the ball rolling. This is another attempt to destroy their opponents, instead of correcting their facts in their previous statements.”
Proving that Mattera’s “tactics” while interviewing Biden were unethical will be difficult. Mattera never misrepresented himself, was wearing his press credential badge the entire time, and told Biden’s staffers who he was and where he worked.
Mattera adds that it’s not abnormal for journalists to pose for photos with politicians, and that asking a tough question that would normally go unanswered is par for the course.
“Journalists have always used creative ways to get politicians to answer honestly,” Mattera said. “and that’s what I do. I look for ways to get politicians to give me candid answers. I don’t want the spin, I don’t them to go and consult with their messaging team and have the talking points – I get the gut reaction. And, here, Biden’s gut reaction was undignified for the Vice President of the United States.”
As of Tuesday morning, Mattera said no one from the Senate Press Gallery has contacted him about Biden’s allegations. He predicted that the agency will promptly dismiss the accusations against him.
“I’m not worried,” Mattera said. “They’re not going to give this any type of legitimacy.”
Friday, June 24, 2011
Poll: Voters think reporters are biased liberals
Original Post:Yahoo
By Joe Pompeo
It seems like reporters can't write anything about hot-button topics these days without someone on the right or left accusing them of harboring a clandestine political agenda. They're either in the tank for Obama, or not properly covering the challenges to his health-care plan. One minute they never have anything nice to say about the Tea Party, the next they're overblowing its clout. And so on.
If you think we're just being sensitive here, take a look at this new Rasmussen poll: Sixty-seven percent of likely U.S. voters believe that reporters try to bolster their preferred candidate when covering an election, while 46 percent believe that the average reporter is more liberal than they are, according to the national telephone survey.
Only 21 percent of respondents, on the other hand, have faith that journalists are fair and balanced in their coverage, and 18 percent find the fourth estate's political leanings to be more conservative than their own.
Among the other findings:
- Forty-eight percent of voters believe most reporters would "hide any damaging information they learned to help the candidate they wanted to win."
- Meanwhile, Republicans (59 percent) and unaffiliated voters (58 percent) "feel much more strongly than Democrats that most reporters ... would hold back news that might hurt a candidate they wanted to win."
- Seventy-eight percent of conservatives think the average reporter is more liberal than they are, while 38 percent of liberals think the average reporter is more conservative than they are.
- Seventy-three percent of Republican voters versus 20 percent of Democrats say the average reporter is more liberal than they are.
- Male voters are more skeptical of reporters' integrity than female voters are.
By Joe Pompeo
It seems like reporters can't write anything about hot-button topics these days without someone on the right or left accusing them of harboring a clandestine political agenda. They're either in the tank for Obama, or not properly covering the challenges to his health-care plan. One minute they never have anything nice to say about the Tea Party, the next they're overblowing its clout. And so on.
If you think we're just being sensitive here, take a look at this new Rasmussen poll: Sixty-seven percent of likely U.S. voters believe that reporters try to bolster their preferred candidate when covering an election, while 46 percent believe that the average reporter is more liberal than they are, according to the national telephone survey.
Only 21 percent of respondents, on the other hand, have faith that journalists are fair and balanced in their coverage, and 18 percent find the fourth estate's political leanings to be more conservative than their own.
Among the other findings:
- Forty-eight percent of voters believe most reporters would "hide any damaging information they learned to help the candidate they wanted to win."
- Meanwhile, Republicans (59 percent) and unaffiliated voters (58 percent) "feel much more strongly than Democrats that most reporters ... would hold back news that might hurt a candidate they wanted to win."
- Seventy-eight percent of conservatives think the average reporter is more liberal than they are, while 38 percent of liberals think the average reporter is more conservative than they are.
- Seventy-three percent of Republican voters versus 20 percent of Democrats say the average reporter is more liberal than they are.
- Male voters are more skeptical of reporters' integrity than female voters are.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
TV Executives Admit in Taped Interviews That Hollywood Pushes a Liberal Agenda
Original Post: Yahoo
By Paul Bond
Some of TV's top executives from the past four decades may have gotten more than they bargained for when they agreed to be interviewed for a politically charged book that was released Tuesday, because video of their controversial remarks will soon be hitting the Internet.
The book makes the case that TV industry executives, writers and producers use their clout to advance a liberal political agenda. The author bases his thesis on, among other things, 39 taped interviews that he'll roll out piecemeal during the next three weeks.
The Hollywood Reporter obtained several of the not-yet-released clips. Each contains a snippet of an interview, usually some historical footage of the TV shows the interviewee was responsible for and, naturally, a plea to purchase the book, "Primetime Propaganda" by Ben Shapiro and published by Broad Side, an imprint of HarperCollins.
In one video, "Friends" co-creator Marta Kauffman says that when she cast Candace Gingrich-Jones, half-sister of Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as the minister of a lesbian wedding, "There was a bit of [a middle finger] in it to the right wing."
Kauffman also acknowledges she "put together a staff of mostly liberal people," which is another major point of Shapiro's book: that conservatives aren't welcome in Hollywood.
Maybe that's because they're "idiots" and have "medieval minds." At least that's what "Soap" and "Golden Girls" creator Susan Harris thinks of TV's conservative critics.
However, the ranks of dumb right-wingers has dwindled, according to Harris, whose video has her saying: "At least, you know, we put Obama in office, and so people, I think, are getting — have gotten — a little bit smarter."
Some of the videos have executives making rather obvious revelations, like when Larry Gelbart and Gene Reynolds talk about pacifist messages in "M*A*S*H" or when "MacGyver" producer Vin Di Bona says anti-gun messages were a recurring theme in that show.
But an additional video has Di Bona, who also created "America's Funniest Home Videos," becoming remarkably blunt about his approval of a lack of political diversity in Hollywood. When Shapiro asks what he thinks of conservative critics who say everyone in Hollywood is liberal, Di Bona responds: "I think it's probably accurate, and I'm happy about it."
Another video has Leonard Goldberg — who executive produces "Blue Bloods" for CBS and a few decades ago exec produced such hits as "Fantasy Island," "Charlie's Angels" and "Starsky and Hutch" — saying that liberalism in the TV industry is "100 percent dominant, and anyone who denies it is kidding, or not telling the truth."
When Shapiro tells Fred Pierce, the president of ABC in the 1980s who was instrumental in Disney's acquisition of ESPN, that "It's very difficult for people who are politically conservative to break in" to television, he responds: "I can't argue that point." Those who don't lean left, he says, "don't promote it. It stays underground."
Another video rolling out soon has "House" creator David Shore acknowledging that "there is an assumption in this town that everybody is on the left side of the spectrum, and that the few people on the right side, I think people look at them somewhat aghast, and I'm sure it doesn't help them."
In the book, subtitled "The true Hollywood story of how the left took over your TV," Shapiro also tells anecdotes of bias against conservatives. One example is Dwight Schultz, best known for his roles as Murdock in "The A-Team" and Barclay in "Star Trek: The Next Generation."
The late Bruce Paltrow knew that Schultz was a fan of President Ronald Reagan. When Schultz showed up to audition for "St. Elsewhere," a show Paltrow produced, to read for the part of Fiscus, Paltrow told him: "There's not going to be a Reagan [expletive] on this show!" The part went to Howie Mandel.
"Most nepotism in Hollywood isn't familial, it's ideological," Shapiro writes in the book. "Friends hire friends. And those friends just happen to share their politics."
Another video Shapiro will release shortly has producer-director Nicholas Meyer being asked point-blank whether conservatives are discriminated against in Hollywood. "Well, I hope so," he answers. Meyer also admits his political agenda for "The Day After," a TV movie he directed for ABC that was seen by 100 million people when it aired in 1983.
"My private, grandiose notion was that this movie would unseat Ronald Reagan when he ran for re-election," Meyer says.
Even seemingly harmless shows like "Happy Days" and "Sesame Street" have been used to advance a progressive agenda, according to Shapiro.
For example, William Bickley, a writer on "The Partridge Family" and a producer on "Happy Days," says he infused Vietnam War protest messages into the latter. "I was into all that," he says in a soon-to-be-released video.
"Television has been perhaps the most impressive weapon in the left's political arsenal," Shapiro argues in the book.
Other upcoming videos include: "Family Ties" creator Gary David Goldberg explaining how he tried to make Republican character Alex Keaton the bad guy but that actor Michael J. Fox was too darn lovable; and president of MTV Networks Entertainment Group Doug Herzog talking about his network having "superpowers" when it comes to its influence over young people.
The advancement of a gay and lesbian political agenda is mentioned by multiple executives, including Marcy Carsey, a producer of "Soap" and "Roseanne," and "Desperate Housewives" producer Marc Cherry, who is a rarity in Hollywood: a gay Republican.
In her video, Carsey also says she insisted on portraying characters smoking marijuana in "That '70s Show." "If this is a problem for you, we certainly understand, and we just won't do the show," she told executives at Fox.
Shapiro released two videos Tuesday, one featuring "COPS" creator John Langley saying he's partial to segments where white people are the criminals, and the other has Fred Silverman, the former head of ABC and later NBC, saying "there's only one perspective, and it's a very progressive perspective" in TV comedy today.
Shapiro said the executives felt comfortable talking about politics with him because they assumed, incorrectly, that he is on the left.
"Most of them didn't Google me. If they had, they would have realized where I am politically," he said. "I played on their stereotypes. When I showed up for the interviews, I wore my Harvard Law baseball cap — my name is Ben Shapiro and I attended Harvard, so there's a 98.7 percent chance I'm a liberal. Except I happen not to be."
Shapiro said he'll time the debut of certain videos for maximum effect. One that slams Sean Hannity, for example, is reserved for his scheduled appearance on Hannity's show on the Fox News Channel.
And conservative pundit Ann Coulter has a new book out June 7. "I have two people ripping her by name, so I'll release those the day Ann's book is released," Shapiro said.
One of those slamming Coulter is George Schlatter, who directed and produced "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In" in the 1970s, using the show to knock Republicans and the Vietnam War. "The fact we [ticked] the Pentagon off, that pleased me enormously," he says before calling Coulter a vulgar word.
In his video, Schlatter also goes off on right-wing radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham.
Shapiro says he didn't disclose that he'd be releasing the tapes, but that his subjects have no reason to complain.
"I asked them for permission to tape, and there's no reasonable expectation of privacy when you're being interviewed for a book," he said.
"If they're going to be shocked at something, it should be themselves, not me," Shapiro said. "They should be shocked that opinion is so one-sided in Hollywood that it's OK to say, 'I'm fine with discrimination.'"
"My whole book is a plea for openness in the industry," he added. "Hire people from the other side of the aisle once in a while, or at least stop mocking them."
By Paul Bond
Some of TV's top executives from the past four decades may have gotten more than they bargained for when they agreed to be interviewed for a politically charged book that was released Tuesday, because video of their controversial remarks will soon be hitting the Internet.
The book makes the case that TV industry executives, writers and producers use their clout to advance a liberal political agenda. The author bases his thesis on, among other things, 39 taped interviews that he'll roll out piecemeal during the next three weeks.
The Hollywood Reporter obtained several of the not-yet-released clips. Each contains a snippet of an interview, usually some historical footage of the TV shows the interviewee was responsible for and, naturally, a plea to purchase the book, "Primetime Propaganda" by Ben Shapiro and published by Broad Side, an imprint of HarperCollins.
In one video, "Friends" co-creator Marta Kauffman says that when she cast Candace Gingrich-Jones, half-sister of Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as the minister of a lesbian wedding, "There was a bit of [a middle finger] in it to the right wing."
Kauffman also acknowledges she "put together a staff of mostly liberal people," which is another major point of Shapiro's book: that conservatives aren't welcome in Hollywood.
Maybe that's because they're "idiots" and have "medieval minds." At least that's what "Soap" and "Golden Girls" creator Susan Harris thinks of TV's conservative critics.
However, the ranks of dumb right-wingers has dwindled, according to Harris, whose video has her saying: "At least, you know, we put Obama in office, and so people, I think, are getting — have gotten — a little bit smarter."
Some of the videos have executives making rather obvious revelations, like when Larry Gelbart and Gene Reynolds talk about pacifist messages in "M*A*S*H" or when "MacGyver" producer Vin Di Bona says anti-gun messages were a recurring theme in that show.
But an additional video has Di Bona, who also created "America's Funniest Home Videos," becoming remarkably blunt about his approval of a lack of political diversity in Hollywood. When Shapiro asks what he thinks of conservative critics who say everyone in Hollywood is liberal, Di Bona responds: "I think it's probably accurate, and I'm happy about it."
Another video has Leonard Goldberg — who executive produces "Blue Bloods" for CBS and a few decades ago exec produced such hits as "Fantasy Island," "Charlie's Angels" and "Starsky and Hutch" — saying that liberalism in the TV industry is "100 percent dominant, and anyone who denies it is kidding, or not telling the truth."
When Shapiro tells Fred Pierce, the president of ABC in the 1980s who was instrumental in Disney's acquisition of ESPN, that "It's very difficult for people who are politically conservative to break in" to television, he responds: "I can't argue that point." Those who don't lean left, he says, "don't promote it. It stays underground."
Another video rolling out soon has "House" creator David Shore acknowledging that "there is an assumption in this town that everybody is on the left side of the spectrum, and that the few people on the right side, I think people look at them somewhat aghast, and I'm sure it doesn't help them."
In the book, subtitled "The true Hollywood story of how the left took over your TV," Shapiro also tells anecdotes of bias against conservatives. One example is Dwight Schultz, best known for his roles as Murdock in "The A-Team" and Barclay in "Star Trek: The Next Generation."
The late Bruce Paltrow knew that Schultz was a fan of President Ronald Reagan. When Schultz showed up to audition for "St. Elsewhere," a show Paltrow produced, to read for the part of Fiscus, Paltrow told him: "There's not going to be a Reagan [expletive] on this show!" The part went to Howie Mandel.
"Most nepotism in Hollywood isn't familial, it's ideological," Shapiro writes in the book. "Friends hire friends. And those friends just happen to share their politics."
Another video Shapiro will release shortly has producer-director Nicholas Meyer being asked point-blank whether conservatives are discriminated against in Hollywood. "Well, I hope so," he answers. Meyer also admits his political agenda for "The Day After," a TV movie he directed for ABC that was seen by 100 million people when it aired in 1983.
"My private, grandiose notion was that this movie would unseat Ronald Reagan when he ran for re-election," Meyer says.
Even seemingly harmless shows like "Happy Days" and "Sesame Street" have been used to advance a progressive agenda, according to Shapiro.
For example, William Bickley, a writer on "The Partridge Family" and a producer on "Happy Days," says he infused Vietnam War protest messages into the latter. "I was into all that," he says in a soon-to-be-released video.
"Television has been perhaps the most impressive weapon in the left's political arsenal," Shapiro argues in the book.
Other upcoming videos include: "Family Ties" creator Gary David Goldberg explaining how he tried to make Republican character Alex Keaton the bad guy but that actor Michael J. Fox was too darn lovable; and president of MTV Networks Entertainment Group Doug Herzog talking about his network having "superpowers" when it comes to its influence over young people.
The advancement of a gay and lesbian political agenda is mentioned by multiple executives, including Marcy Carsey, a producer of "Soap" and "Roseanne," and "Desperate Housewives" producer Marc Cherry, who is a rarity in Hollywood: a gay Republican.
In her video, Carsey also says she insisted on portraying characters smoking marijuana in "That '70s Show." "If this is a problem for you, we certainly understand, and we just won't do the show," she told executives at Fox.
Shapiro released two videos Tuesday, one featuring "COPS" creator John Langley saying he's partial to segments where white people are the criminals, and the other has Fred Silverman, the former head of ABC and later NBC, saying "there's only one perspective, and it's a very progressive perspective" in TV comedy today.
Shapiro said the executives felt comfortable talking about politics with him because they assumed, incorrectly, that he is on the left.
"Most of them didn't Google me. If they had, they would have realized where I am politically," he said. "I played on their stereotypes. When I showed up for the interviews, I wore my Harvard Law baseball cap — my name is Ben Shapiro and I attended Harvard, so there's a 98.7 percent chance I'm a liberal. Except I happen not to be."
Shapiro said he'll time the debut of certain videos for maximum effect. One that slams Sean Hannity, for example, is reserved for his scheduled appearance on Hannity's show on the Fox News Channel.
And conservative pundit Ann Coulter has a new book out June 7. "I have two people ripping her by name, so I'll release those the day Ann's book is released," Shapiro said.
One of those slamming Coulter is George Schlatter, who directed and produced "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In" in the 1970s, using the show to knock Republicans and the Vietnam War. "The fact we [ticked] the Pentagon off, that pleased me enormously," he says before calling Coulter a vulgar word.
In his video, Schlatter also goes off on right-wing radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham.
Shapiro says he didn't disclose that he'd be releasing the tapes, but that his subjects have no reason to complain.
"I asked them for permission to tape, and there's no reasonable expectation of privacy when you're being interviewed for a book," he said.
"If they're going to be shocked at something, it should be themselves, not me," Shapiro said. "They should be shocked that opinion is so one-sided in Hollywood that it's OK to say, 'I'm fine with discrimination.'"
"My whole book is a plea for openness in the industry," he added. "Hire people from the other side of the aisle once in a while, or at least stop mocking them."
Friday, April 1, 2011
Obama accepts open government award in closed-door ceremony
Original Post: Washington Post
By Associated Press, Thursday, March 31, 3:55 PM
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama accepted an award for making the government more open and transparent — presented to him behind closed doors with no media coverage or public access allowed.
The discrepancy between the honor and the circumstances under which it was delivered bothered open-government advocates in attendance, they said Thursday. They were even more perturbed when they discovered later that the meeting hadn’t even been listed on Obama’s public schedule, so there was no way for anyone to know about it.
“To have such a meeting not be transparent is the height of irony. How absurd can that be?” said one participant, Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, which keeps tabs on the White House Office of Management and Budget.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that, “Given the number of pressing items on the president’s agenda, the White House didn’t carve out time for a public event on the president’s schedule for the sole purpose of accepting an award from journalists praising his commitment to government transparency.”
The award was given by Bass’s group and several others Monday to recognize Obama’s work toward government openness and encourage him to do more.
Obama took office promising the most open and transparent administration in history, and advocates have been encouraged by steps he’s taken including releasing White House visitor logs. They say more needs to be done in getting agencies to respond more thoroughly to public records requests, among other things.
Monday’s meeting was rescheduled from one set for March 16, which is National Freedom of Information Day. On that day the meeting was listed on the president’s public schedule, but it was canceled at the last minute.
Bass said he’d been assured that Monday’s meeting would be open to the media and didn’t learn it wouldn’t be until arriving at the White House.
Nonetheless he and other advocates were pleased with how the 20-minute discussion went, saying Obama expressed support for greater transparency and backed legislation to protect reporters’ confidential sources.
A couple of days later they learned from reporters that the meeting had been omitted from Obama’s public schedule altogether.
“I think the action by the White House has taken a meeting where the storyline could have been how to strengthen disclosure, and it’s become a storyline about how the meeting is a secret meeting,” Bass said.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By Associated Press, Thursday, March 31, 3:55 PM
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama accepted an award for making the government more open and transparent — presented to him behind closed doors with no media coverage or public access allowed.
The discrepancy between the honor and the circumstances under which it was delivered bothered open-government advocates in attendance, they said Thursday. They were even more perturbed when they discovered later that the meeting hadn’t even been listed on Obama’s public schedule, so there was no way for anyone to know about it.
“To have such a meeting not be transparent is the height of irony. How absurd can that be?” said one participant, Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, which keeps tabs on the White House Office of Management and Budget.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that, “Given the number of pressing items on the president’s agenda, the White House didn’t carve out time for a public event on the president’s schedule for the sole purpose of accepting an award from journalists praising his commitment to government transparency.”
The award was given by Bass’s group and several others Monday to recognize Obama’s work toward government openness and encourage him to do more.
Obama took office promising the most open and transparent administration in history, and advocates have been encouraged by steps he’s taken including releasing White House visitor logs. They say more needs to be done in getting agencies to respond more thoroughly to public records requests, among other things.
Monday’s meeting was rescheduled from one set for March 16, which is National Freedom of Information Day. On that day the meeting was listed on the president’s public schedule, but it was canceled at the last minute.
Bass said he’d been assured that Monday’s meeting would be open to the media and didn’t learn it wouldn’t be until arriving at the White House.
Nonetheless he and other advocates were pleased with how the 20-minute discussion went, saying Obama expressed support for greater transparency and backed legislation to protect reporters’ confidential sources.
A couple of days later they learned from reporters that the meeting had been omitted from Obama’s public schedule altogether.
“I think the action by the White House has taken a meeting where the storyline could have been how to strengthen disclosure, and it’s become a storyline about how the meeting is a secret meeting,” Bass said.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Joe Biden keeps the press in the closet
Freedom of the press? Not if you’re in a closet, Florida reporter notes
Original Post: NY Post
By CATHY BURKE
A Florida political reporter says he was consigned to a crowded, stuffy closet to wait out the arrival of Vice President Joe Biden at a $500-a-pop fundraiser — calling the 75-minute confinement "awkward" and a "stupid" attempt to keep him from mingling at the event.
"First off, it was a bad thing that they wouldn’t let me interact with other guests," 11-year Orlando Sentinel newspaper veteran Scott Powers, 51, told The Post today.
"It was silly and stupid and it annoyed the hell out of me. And second, it was a highly inappropriate and demeaning place to put someone.
"They told me, ‘you wait in here until the vice president comes, and every time I stuck my head out, they’d say, ‘he’s not here yet.’
"I guess they didn’t want me to get any state secrets."
The closet caper occurred last Wednesday, when Biden visited the Winter Park, Fla., home of developer and philanthropist Alan Ginsburg.
Some 150 guests were invited to the pricey function, and helped themselves to a nice buffet while Powers was stuck inside the crowded storage closet stuffed with furniture.
"It was a stupid room they picked," he scoffed.
Powers said he was offered some food while he was stuck in the closet — "I never accept food at functions," he said.
He said he also was told he was free to use the bathroom close by. "I could hear the guests go in and out, the flushing," he said. "It wasn’t like I was locked in."
When Biden showed up, Powers said he was escorted to the room for a speech and offered a chair.
"You’re not going to see much with people standing in front of you, so I stood up, held my recorder up in the air with one hand and wrote notes with the other hand," he said.
Afterward, Powers said he got an effusive apology from the home owner.
"He said he had no idea that the VP’s team put me in his closet," Powers said. "It was a nice apology, gracious."
But Biden’s press secretary’s email later "was something less than heartfelt," Powers said.
"It was one or two sentences, like, sorry it happened to you," he said.
Powers said he took a picture of his confines while he waited out the Biden speech, and his editor posted the picture with the comment about the "life of the reporter is not always easy."
"The following morning we ran that blog post picture in our paper," he said. "Am I suing? No. Frankly I’ve been treated badly at other events. I’m over it."
A spokeswoman for Biden said it was standard policy to provide "hold rooms" for pool reporters covering events, though such rooms "should not be a storage room. This was the unfortunate mistake of an inexperienced staffer and the Vice President's office has made sure it will never happen again."
The spokeswoman, Elizabeth Alexander, also said she "made an unequivocal apology to the reporter after I was made aware of the situation on Wednesday afternoon ... The reporter thanked me for the apology and said that it was accepted."
Original Post: NY Post
By CATHY BURKE
A Florida political reporter says he was consigned to a crowded, stuffy closet to wait out the arrival of Vice President Joe Biden at a $500-a-pop fundraiser — calling the 75-minute confinement "awkward" and a "stupid" attempt to keep him from mingling at the event.
"First off, it was a bad thing that they wouldn’t let me interact with other guests," 11-year Orlando Sentinel newspaper veteran Scott Powers, 51, told The Post today.
"It was silly and stupid and it annoyed the hell out of me. And second, it was a highly inappropriate and demeaning place to put someone.
"They told me, ‘you wait in here until the vice president comes, and every time I stuck my head out, they’d say, ‘he’s not here yet.’
"I guess they didn’t want me to get any state secrets."
The closet caper occurred last Wednesday, when Biden visited the Winter Park, Fla., home of developer and philanthropist Alan Ginsburg.
Some 150 guests were invited to the pricey function, and helped themselves to a nice buffet while Powers was stuck inside the crowded storage closet stuffed with furniture.
"It was a stupid room they picked," he scoffed.
Powers said he was offered some food while he was stuck in the closet — "I never accept food at functions," he said.
He said he also was told he was free to use the bathroom close by. "I could hear the guests go in and out, the flushing," he said. "It wasn’t like I was locked in."
When Biden showed up, Powers said he was escorted to the room for a speech and offered a chair.
"You’re not going to see much with people standing in front of you, so I stood up, held my recorder up in the air with one hand and wrote notes with the other hand," he said.
Afterward, Powers said he got an effusive apology from the home owner.
"He said he had no idea that the VP’s team put me in his closet," Powers said. "It was a nice apology, gracious."
But Biden’s press secretary’s email later "was something less than heartfelt," Powers said.
"It was one or two sentences, like, sorry it happened to you," he said.
Powers said he took a picture of his confines while he waited out the Biden speech, and his editor posted the picture with the comment about the "life of the reporter is not always easy."
"The following morning we ran that blog post picture in our paper," he said. "Am I suing? No. Frankly I’ve been treated badly at other events. I’m over it."
A spokeswoman for Biden said it was standard policy to provide "hold rooms" for pool reporters covering events, though such rooms "should not be a storage room. This was the unfortunate mistake of an inexperienced staffer and the Vice President's office has made sure it will never happen again."
The spokeswoman, Elizabeth Alexander, also said she "made an unequivocal apology to the reporter after I was made aware of the situation on Wednesday afternoon ... The reporter thanked me for the apology and said that it was accepted."
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Fired NPR analyst Juan Williams responds to NPR video: They are the ‘anti-intellectual’
Original Post: Daily Caller
By Jeff Poor - The Daily Caller
The fallout from the video conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe released Tuesday morning has been devastating for NPR. However, Juan Williams, a former NPR analyst who was fired unjustly even according to NPR President Vivian Schiller, finally had his turn to sound off about the video, which apparently showed an NPR senior executive, Ron Schiller, making some disparaging remarks about the Tea Party, the Jewish people and Williams himself.
In an appearance on “America’s Nightly Scoreboard” on the Fox Business Network, Williams described the video as an inside look at how the power structure inside of NPR really thinks.
“I think it is a look inside what NPR executives really think, and for me this is a revelation in the sense that here they are saying exactly how they view the world,” Williams said. “And what’s incredible to me is here they are doing business with people who identify themselves as members of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Reflecting upon his firing at the embattled taxpayer-subsidized radio network, Williams, now a full-time Fox News contributor, had some harsh words to describe his former colleagues.
“To me, this is so bitter,” he said. “These are people who are saying they are intellectuals. They are elitist and they understand the rest of us, especially somehow if you’re in the Tea Party, you’re a racist and me sitting here, David, I’m a bigot. Remember that? He says in another part of the tape they were right to get rid of me because I have no credibility.”
Williams added this was par for the course at NPR, a place where different views are frowned upon.
“I’m just saying, you listen to this guy and the way everybody who has a non-liberal orthodox point of view is somehow a bad person and you say, you know what, these are people who are anti-intellectual. They do not want to hear and engage in an honest debate.”
The bigotry in the video directed towards Jews seemed to alarm Williams the most.
“This is unbelievable,” Williams said. “I mean, it is just so awful. Imagine he is sitting there having dinner or lunch and he is saying this to a man who says he is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and on the website wanting to the advance Sharia law and buying into libel against Jewish people who have had success in the newspaper business but nothing illegitimate, nothing wrong about it, and he buys into the stereotyping and bigotry and then points the finger at others to say people like me are bigots. This is unbelievable.”
According to Williams, both Ron Schiller and Vivian Schiller (no relation) need to leave NPR. (According to Slate’s Dave Weigel, Ron Schiller was let go by NPR earlier today.)
“Look, this guy Schiller, this guy Ron Schiller, you know the president of NPR is Vivian Schiller [and they] are not related, but in my book, they got one too many Schillers remaining,” he said. “Because what you see here is — I think this is a window inside the way they really think. When it came to public funding, federal funding for NPR, just yesterday Vivian Schiller is at the National Press Club saying, ‘Oh, NPR desperately needs this federal funding.’ In this luncheon he’s saying we don’t need federal funding.”
And this latest revelation is the reason why NPR should no longer be a priority when it comes to federal money, he explained.
“This comes down to my opinion, but to me, there is no way that you would say NPR is a priority given our financial struggles in this country in terms of poor, in terms of any of the needs, health care or anything you want to put on the table,” Williams said. “It’s hard to make it out that NPR is a priority. What we can say is you know, if we look at The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Fox News Channel — these are institutions that gather news and rely on advertising to support a product that the consumer says is worthwhile.”
By Jeff Poor - The Daily Caller
The fallout from the video conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe released Tuesday morning has been devastating for NPR. However, Juan Williams, a former NPR analyst who was fired unjustly even according to NPR President Vivian Schiller, finally had his turn to sound off about the video, which apparently showed an NPR senior executive, Ron Schiller, making some disparaging remarks about the Tea Party, the Jewish people and Williams himself.
In an appearance on “America’s Nightly Scoreboard” on the Fox Business Network, Williams described the video as an inside look at how the power structure inside of NPR really thinks.
“I think it is a look inside what NPR executives really think, and for me this is a revelation in the sense that here they are saying exactly how they view the world,” Williams said. “And what’s incredible to me is here they are doing business with people who identify themselves as members of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Reflecting upon his firing at the embattled taxpayer-subsidized radio network, Williams, now a full-time Fox News contributor, had some harsh words to describe his former colleagues.
“To me, this is so bitter,” he said. “These are people who are saying they are intellectuals. They are elitist and they understand the rest of us, especially somehow if you’re in the Tea Party, you’re a racist and me sitting here, David, I’m a bigot. Remember that? He says in another part of the tape they were right to get rid of me because I have no credibility.”
Williams added this was par for the course at NPR, a place where different views are frowned upon.
“I’m just saying, you listen to this guy and the way everybody who has a non-liberal orthodox point of view is somehow a bad person and you say, you know what, these are people who are anti-intellectual. They do not want to hear and engage in an honest debate.”
The bigotry in the video directed towards Jews seemed to alarm Williams the most.
“This is unbelievable,” Williams said. “I mean, it is just so awful. Imagine he is sitting there having dinner or lunch and he is saying this to a man who says he is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and on the website wanting to the advance Sharia law and buying into libel against Jewish people who have had success in the newspaper business but nothing illegitimate, nothing wrong about it, and he buys into the stereotyping and bigotry and then points the finger at others to say people like me are bigots. This is unbelievable.”
According to Williams, both Ron Schiller and Vivian Schiller (no relation) need to leave NPR. (According to Slate’s Dave Weigel, Ron Schiller was let go by NPR earlier today.)
“Look, this guy Schiller, this guy Ron Schiller, you know the president of NPR is Vivian Schiller [and they] are not related, but in my book, they got one too many Schillers remaining,” he said. “Because what you see here is — I think this is a window inside the way they really think. When it came to public funding, federal funding for NPR, just yesterday Vivian Schiller is at the National Press Club saying, ‘Oh, NPR desperately needs this federal funding.’ In this luncheon he’s saying we don’t need federal funding.”
And this latest revelation is the reason why NPR should no longer be a priority when it comes to federal money, he explained.
“This comes down to my opinion, but to me, there is no way that you would say NPR is a priority given our financial struggles in this country in terms of poor, in terms of any of the needs, health care or anything you want to put on the table,” Williams said. “It’s hard to make it out that NPR is a priority. What we can say is you know, if we look at The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Fox News Channel — these are institutions that gather news and rely on advertising to support a product that the consumer says is worthwhile.”
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Deathwatch Press Corp.
"...Plus, if something amiss were to happen, there are no members of the press in the motorcade to report on any mishap.
That's the reason the press insists on being with the president wherever he goes at any time of day or night. Among ourselves, the duty is called the "deathwatch," a macabre appellation for an assignment more akin to babysitting than high-powered journalism. But imagine if there had been no press in the motorcade in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. Our knowledge of the JFK assassination would be less than it is. It's from that incident that the moniker "deathwatch" is derived...."
My CommentsI'm going to get a away from the politics for a bit. I know you're asking yourself, if you're posting a story about the president leaving with out the press knowing, how can this not be about politics? That's a good question. And I'll answer it.
The press that follow the president is called Deathwatch, Deathwatch That's f'ing awesome! Deathwatch is a Space Marine unit assigned to Ordo Xenos...and the President. That's clearly irrefutable proof that we are the best country in the world.
That's the reason the press insists on being with the president wherever he goes at any time of day or night. Among ourselves, the duty is called the "deathwatch," a macabre appellation for an assignment more akin to babysitting than high-powered journalism. But imagine if there had been no press in the motorcade in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. Our knowledge of the JFK assassination would be less than it is. It's from that incident that the moniker "deathwatch" is derived...."
My CommentsI'm going to get a away from the politics for a bit. I know you're asking yourself, if you're posting a story about the president leaving with out the press knowing, how can this not be about politics? That's a good question. And I'll answer it.
The press that follow the president is called Deathwatch, Deathwatch That's f'ing awesome! Deathwatch is a Space Marine unit assigned to Ordo Xenos...and the President. That's clearly irrefutable proof that we are the best country in the world.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Indictment: Hutaree militia planned to kill law officer, attack the funeral procession
First of all good job on finding out these terrorists. I'm trying not to be cynical in that we can call Christians extremest terrorist, but we can't Muslim. But seriously good on them for catching this radial group. I saw a phrase in this story that really shot out at me. Let's see if you can find it.
Original Post: Detroit News
By: Paul Egan and Mike Wilkinson
Detroit -- Nine members of a Lenawee County-based militia group were planning to "levy war" against the United States and "oppose by force" the nation's government, according to an indictment unsealed this morning in U.S. District Court in Detroit.
Seven of the defendants of the "Hutaree" militia appeared briefly this morning in U.S. District Court in Detroit and were ordered held without bond until Wednesday, when bond hearings will be held. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Waterstreet said he wants all the defendants held pending trial.
The five-count indictment alleges that between August 2008 and the present, the defendants were trying to use bombs and other weapons to oppose the U.S. government.
They had plans to kill a local law enforcement official and, once officers from across the country came to the funeral, to attack the funeral procession, the indictment alleges.
"This is an example of radical and extremist fringe groups which can be found throughout our society," said Andrew Arena, FBI special agent in charge. "The FBI takes such extremist groups seriously, especially those who would target innocent citizens and the law enforcement officers who protect the citizens of the United States."
The eight men and one woman are members of the Hutaree, identified as an "anti-government extremist organization" in the indictment, and each faces three to five charges, including sedition, attempts to use weapons of mass destruction, teaching/demonstrating use of explosive materials and two counts of carrying weapons in relation to a crime of violence.
The Adrian-based group has said it is training in modern combat techniques for a prophesized battle with the anti-Christ.
Accused are: David Brian Stone, 45; his wife, Tina Stone, 44; his son, Joshua Matthew Stone, 21, all three of Clayton; and his other son, David Brian Stone Jr., 19, of Adrian. Also accused are Joshua Clough, 28, of Blissfield; Michael Meeks, 40 of Manchester; Thomas Piatek, 46, of Whiting, Ind.; Kristopher Sickles, 27, of Sandusky, Ohio; and Jacob Ward, 33, of Huron, Ohio.
Federal authorities say they acted as a Lenawee County militia group called the Hutaree and viewed local, state, and federal law enforcement as the "brotherhood," their enemy, and have been preparing to engage them in armed conflict.
If convicted, the suspects could face up to life in prison, the maximum penalty on the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. The seditious conspiracy charge carries a maximum prison term of 20 years, as does the teaching the use of explosives charge. The possession of a firearm charge carries a minimum penalty of five years in prison.
According to federal authorities, the group had identified a Michigan law enforcement officer as a potential target. Their idea was to kill that officer and when law enforcement officials from around the country came to the area for the funeral, they would attack the procession with improvised explosive devices and "explosively formed projectiles." They hoped the attack would serve as a "catalyst for a more wide-spread uprising against the government."
A scouting mission was planned for April and, if someone had stumbled upon the mission, the Hutaree decided they could be killed, according to the indictment.
It was this mission that prompted the raids, said Barbara McQuade, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.
"Because the Hutaree had planned a covert reconnaissance operation for April which had the potential of placing an unsuspecting member of the public at risk, the safety of the public and of the law enforcement community demanded intervention at this time," she said in a prepared statement.
In February, the elder David Brian Stone had tried to go to Kentucky for a so-called summit of militia groups convened by Stone. He intended to develop better communications, cooperation and coordination with the groups. However, poor weather precluded him from attending.
Before going, however, Stone solicited a person he felt could develop four anti-personnel IEDs to take with him to the summit.
Later in February, the group conducted training operations in Lenawee County to plan for the reconnaissance mission.
The indictment also says Stone had identified a law enforcement unit near his residence as a potential target, although the indictment does not say who.
Their goal was to "intimidate and demoralize law enforcement, diminishing their ranks and rendering them ineffective," according to the indictment. The group then intended to use the incident to spark a "war" against law enforcement, using bombs, ambushes and prepared fighting positions.
Donna Stone, the ex-wife of David Stone Sr., said her husband's growing radicalism was a factor in their breakup. She said the couple was married about 10 years ago and divorced about three years ago. David Stone Jr. is her son by another man and is not David Stone Sr.'s natural son, she said. Joshua Stone, who is still at large, is David Stone Sr.'s son with another woman, Donna Stone said.
"You pray as a family, you stay together as a family," Stone said. "When he got carried away, when he went from handguns to big guns, it's like, now I'm done."
Members of the self-described Christian militia were arrested in weekend raids in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.
The suspects are expected to appear in Detroit in front of U.S. Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer; one may appear in court this morning in Indiana.
Mike Lackomar of Michigan-Militia.com said he heard from other militia members that the FBI targeted the Hutaree after its members made threats against Islamic organizations.
Although there had been reports the Hutaree may have targeted Muslims, there is no mention in the indictment of any threats against them.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a statement Sunday asking federal law enforcement officials to release more information about possible threats against Muslims.
"Given the recent sharp spike CAIR offices nationwide have observed in anti-Islam rhetoric, it would not be surprising that an extremist group would seek to turn that bigoted rhetoric into violent actions," said Nihad Awad, CAIR national executive director in Washington.
[Me] Did you catch it? That's right. weapons of mass destruction So apparently a bomb is a weapon of mass destruction when a group of Christian radicals possesses it, but not when Iraq does. Isn't that interesting. I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying....
Original Post: Detroit News
By: Paul Egan and Mike Wilkinson
Detroit -- Nine members of a Lenawee County-based militia group were planning to "levy war" against the United States and "oppose by force" the nation's government, according to an indictment unsealed this morning in U.S. District Court in Detroit.
Seven of the defendants of the "Hutaree" militia appeared briefly this morning in U.S. District Court in Detroit and were ordered held without bond until Wednesday, when bond hearings will be held. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Waterstreet said he wants all the defendants held pending trial.
The five-count indictment alleges that between August 2008 and the present, the defendants were trying to use bombs and other weapons to oppose the U.S. government.
They had plans to kill a local law enforcement official and, once officers from across the country came to the funeral, to attack the funeral procession, the indictment alleges.
"This is an example of radical and extremist fringe groups which can be found throughout our society," said Andrew Arena, FBI special agent in charge. "The FBI takes such extremist groups seriously, especially those who would target innocent citizens and the law enforcement officers who protect the citizens of the United States."
The eight men and one woman are members of the Hutaree, identified as an "anti-government extremist organization" in the indictment, and each faces three to five charges, including sedition, attempts to use weapons of mass destruction, teaching/demonstrating use of explosive materials and two counts of carrying weapons in relation to a crime of violence.
The Adrian-based group has said it is training in modern combat techniques for a prophesized battle with the anti-Christ.
Accused are: David Brian Stone, 45; his wife, Tina Stone, 44; his son, Joshua Matthew Stone, 21, all three of Clayton; and his other son, David Brian Stone Jr., 19, of Adrian. Also accused are Joshua Clough, 28, of Blissfield; Michael Meeks, 40 of Manchester; Thomas Piatek, 46, of Whiting, Ind.; Kristopher Sickles, 27, of Sandusky, Ohio; and Jacob Ward, 33, of Huron, Ohio.
Federal authorities say they acted as a Lenawee County militia group called the Hutaree and viewed local, state, and federal law enforcement as the "brotherhood," their enemy, and have been preparing to engage them in armed conflict.
If convicted, the suspects could face up to life in prison, the maximum penalty on the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. The seditious conspiracy charge carries a maximum prison term of 20 years, as does the teaching the use of explosives charge. The possession of a firearm charge carries a minimum penalty of five years in prison.
According to federal authorities, the group had identified a Michigan law enforcement officer as a potential target. Their idea was to kill that officer and when law enforcement officials from around the country came to the area for the funeral, they would attack the procession with improvised explosive devices and "explosively formed projectiles." They hoped the attack would serve as a "catalyst for a more wide-spread uprising against the government."
A scouting mission was planned for April and, if someone had stumbled upon the mission, the Hutaree decided they could be killed, according to the indictment.
It was this mission that prompted the raids, said Barbara McQuade, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.
"Because the Hutaree had planned a covert reconnaissance operation for April which had the potential of placing an unsuspecting member of the public at risk, the safety of the public and of the law enforcement community demanded intervention at this time," she said in a prepared statement.
In February, the elder David Brian Stone had tried to go to Kentucky for a so-called summit of militia groups convened by Stone. He intended to develop better communications, cooperation and coordination with the groups. However, poor weather precluded him from attending.
Before going, however, Stone solicited a person he felt could develop four anti-personnel IEDs to take with him to the summit.
Later in February, the group conducted training operations in Lenawee County to plan for the reconnaissance mission.
The indictment also says Stone had identified a law enforcement unit near his residence as a potential target, although the indictment does not say who.
Their goal was to "intimidate and demoralize law enforcement, diminishing their ranks and rendering them ineffective," according to the indictment. The group then intended to use the incident to spark a "war" against law enforcement, using bombs, ambushes and prepared fighting positions.
Donna Stone, the ex-wife of David Stone Sr., said her husband's growing radicalism was a factor in their breakup. She said the couple was married about 10 years ago and divorced about three years ago. David Stone Jr. is her son by another man and is not David Stone Sr.'s natural son, she said. Joshua Stone, who is still at large, is David Stone Sr.'s son with another woman, Donna Stone said.
"You pray as a family, you stay together as a family," Stone said. "When he got carried away, when he went from handguns to big guns, it's like, now I'm done."
Members of the self-described Christian militia were arrested in weekend raids in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.
The suspects are expected to appear in Detroit in front of U.S. Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer; one may appear in court this morning in Indiana.
Mike Lackomar of Michigan-Militia.com said he heard from other militia members that the FBI targeted the Hutaree after its members made threats against Islamic organizations.
Although there had been reports the Hutaree may have targeted Muslims, there is no mention in the indictment of any threats against them.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a statement Sunday asking federal law enforcement officials to release more information about possible threats against Muslims.
"Given the recent sharp spike CAIR offices nationwide have observed in anti-Islam rhetoric, it would not be surprising that an extremist group would seek to turn that bigoted rhetoric into violent actions," said Nihad Awad, CAIR national executive director in Washington.
[Me] Did you catch it? That's right. weapons of mass destruction So apparently a bomb is a weapon of mass destruction when a group of Christian radicals possesses it, but not when Iraq does. Isn't that interesting. I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying....
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Ed Schultz supports communism and restriction of free speech
I'd like to submit a bit of information I think Ed Schultz may be unaware of.
"First Amendment - Religion and Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " The first amendment. Source
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I missed the part where it says Congress is supposed to "even out the audience". I was blinded by the part about not abridging freedom of speech. Crazy me.
"If we're going to be socialists, let's be socialists across the board." - Ed Schultz.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Before Gore
Original Post: Washington Times
D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."
The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."
"This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."
Worth pondering
Reacting yesterday to word that certain European governments and officials are suddenly trying to abandon their costly "global warming" policies, Royal Astronomical Society fellow Benny Peiser, of the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University in Great Britain, recalls the teachings of Marcus Aurelius: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."
The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."
"This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."
Worth pondering
Reacting yesterday to word that certain European governments and officials are suddenly trying to abandon their costly "global warming" policies, Royal Astronomical Society fellow Benny Peiser, of the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University in Great Britain, recalls the teachings of Marcus Aurelius: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Anita Dunn admits they control the media
So the medias' source is the White House, which is a clearly biased source when it comes to the White House. Anita is also proud of the way that they are allowed to craft the message.
This reminds me of a term. I can't recall what it is at the moment. When one party controls every aspect of the government as well as the media. If there was only a way of describing such a situation.
to·tal·i·tar·i·an
/toʊˌtælɪˈtɛəriən/ Show Spelled[toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uhn] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2.
exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
Source: dictionary.com
Ed Schultz: I'd cheat to keep Brown from winning
Original Post: washington times
By: Kerry Picket
By: Kerry Picket
Radio Equalizer's Brian Maloney captured MSNBC's Ed Schultz making a startling remark on his radio show yesterday about supporting voter fraud in Massachusetts, so Scott Brown would lose. The audio is below along with the transcript.
SCHULTZ (23:02): I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.
Have we died of global cooling yet?
A lot of the same scientists involved in this scare are involved in the current global warming craze. I'm not sure why anyone thinks we can dramatically alter our environment by the absolutely minuscule effect we have on a negligible percentage of the gasses in our atmosphere. I suspect hubris though.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Al Gore believes our planet is currently a moten ball of slag
Is anyone still paying attention to Al Gore? He apparently thinks we're a race of fire people living on a planet so hot it puts the Sun to shame.
Earth's Core Temperature
Sun's Temperature
Let's do some math. For several million we'll estimate he meant 6. And the Sun is roughly 10,000 degrees on it's surface. Dat dat dah, carry the one...Al Gore thinks the Earth is 600 times hotter than the surface of the Sun.
Now I'm not a biologist, but it's my understanding that human life has a maximum temperature in which it can survive. It's just a guess, but I'd suspect that human flesh would burst into flames a temperatures far less than 600 times that of the surface of the Sun. And since I live on Earth, am made of flesh and have not burst in flames, I can only conclude that Al Gore is full of crap.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
UPDATED: 94,341 jobs 'not really created or saved' by the stimulus (and counting)
Original Post: washington examiner
By: David Freddoso and Mark Hemingway
12/22/09
With the revelation that CalTrans dramatically over-reported the number of jobs created or saved with stimulus money, we've added hundreds more to our job count.
12/15/09
We've added hundreds more jobs that weren't really created or saved from new media reports and further analysis of Recovery.gov data.
12/1/09 UPDATE:
Roughly 2,000 new imaginary stimulus jobs have been added to the map, including hundreds of reported Head Start jobs that were actually just pay raises.
11/26/09 UPDATE:
We've added more than 100 jobs that were "created or saved" with impossibly small amounts of money.
11/24/09 UPDATE:
California's stimulus audit has found a massive overcount of more than 13,000 corrections jobs supposedly "saved."
11/19 UPDATE:
We've added thousands more jobs in several dozen cities to our not really "created or saved" stimulus jobs map. The total number of jobs we have found to be "not really created or saved" now approaches 80,000. Several new states and the Territory of Guam have new entries. We will continue updating the map in the coming weeks.
Most of the new pins on our interactive map represent such un-started, un-funded contracts, according to data taken from Recovery.gov. Because the Obama administration has been using its inflated claim of 640,000 jobs "created or saved" to make projections for future stimulus job creation, these un-started, un-funded projects really should not be part of the total. Moreover, the administration itself has asked contractors not to make "projections" but to report jobs as they are "created or saved," according to news reports.
More than ten percent of the jobs the Obama administration has claimed were "created or saved" by the $787 billion stimulus package are doubtful or imaginary, according to reports compiled from eleven major newspapers and the Associated Press.
Based only on our analysis of stimulus media coverage in the last two weeks, The Examiner has created this interactive map to document exaggerated stimulus claims. The map, which will be updated as new revelations appear, currently reflects an exaggeration by the Obama administration of about 75,000 jobs, out of the 640,000 jobs supposedly "created or saved."
The map reflects reports from The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe, the Sacramento Bee, The New York Times, USA Today, the Las Vegas Sun, the Detroit Free Press, the New York Post, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the Associated Press, the Chicago Tribune, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. It remains a work in progress because relatively few newspapers have scrutinized stimulus spending so far.
The Obama administration has claimed that the $787 billion economic stimulus package "saved or created" some 650,000 jobs. But almost as soon as the White House trotted out this figure, news organizations found huge exaggerations in the reported data. Many of the jobs reportedly created do not exist or cannot be accounted for.
UPDATE: Today's report from ABC News tells us that prior to releasing its jobs report, the administration cut out 60,000 additional jobs from unreliable reports, none of which appear to overlap with the ones we've highlighted here. Had those jobs been included in the original count, the number of jobs "created or saved" by the stimulus would have exceeded 700,000, and the number of imaginary or doubtful jobs would have approached 20 percent.
By: David Freddoso and Mark Hemingway
12/22/09
With the revelation that CalTrans dramatically over-reported the number of jobs created or saved with stimulus money, we've added hundreds more to our job count.
12/15/09
We've added hundreds more jobs that weren't really created or saved from new media reports and further analysis of Recovery.gov data.
12/1/09 UPDATE:
Roughly 2,000 new imaginary stimulus jobs have been added to the map, including hundreds of reported Head Start jobs that were actually just pay raises.
11/26/09 UPDATE:
We've added more than 100 jobs that were "created or saved" with impossibly small amounts of money.
11/24/09 UPDATE:
California's stimulus audit has found a massive overcount of more than 13,000 corrections jobs supposedly "saved."
11/19 UPDATE:
We've added thousands more jobs in several dozen cities to our not really "created or saved" stimulus jobs map. The total number of jobs we have found to be "not really created or saved" now approaches 80,000. Several new states and the Territory of Guam have new entries. We will continue updating the map in the coming weeks.
Most of the new pins on our interactive map represent such un-started, un-funded contracts, according to data taken from Recovery.gov. Because the Obama administration has been using its inflated claim of 640,000 jobs "created or saved" to make projections for future stimulus job creation, these un-started, un-funded projects really should not be part of the total. Moreover, the administration itself has asked contractors not to make "projections" but to report jobs as they are "created or saved," according to news reports.
More than ten percent of the jobs the Obama administration has claimed were "created or saved" by the $787 billion stimulus package are doubtful or imaginary, according to reports compiled from eleven major newspapers and the Associated Press.
Based only on our analysis of stimulus media coverage in the last two weeks, The Examiner has created this interactive map to document exaggerated stimulus claims. The map, which will be updated as new revelations appear, currently reflects an exaggeration by the Obama administration of about 75,000 jobs, out of the 640,000 jobs supposedly "created or saved."
The map reflects reports from The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe, the Sacramento Bee, The New York Times, USA Today, the Las Vegas Sun, the Detroit Free Press, the New York Post, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the Associated Press, the Chicago Tribune, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. It remains a work in progress because relatively few newspapers have scrutinized stimulus spending so far.
The Obama administration has claimed that the $787 billion economic stimulus package "saved or created" some 650,000 jobs. But almost as soon as the White House trotted out this figure, news organizations found huge exaggerations in the reported data. Many of the jobs reportedly created do not exist or cannot be accounted for.
UPDATE: Today's report from ABC News tells us that prior to releasing its jobs report, the administration cut out 60,000 additional jobs from unreliable reports, none of which appear to overlap with the ones we've highlighted here. Had those jobs been included in the original count, the number of jobs "created or saved" by the stimulus would have exceeded 700,000, and the number of imaginary or doubtful jobs would have approached 20 percent.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’
Original Post: newsbusters
By: Kyle Drennen
Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Thomas, appearing on Hardball with Chris Matthews, was reacting to a preceding monologue in which Matthews praised Obama’s speech: "I think the President's speech yesterday was the reason we Americans elected him. It was grand. It was positive. Hopeful...But what I liked about the President's speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility...The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world."
Matthews discussed Obama’s upcoming speech marking the 65th anniversary of D-Day and compared it to that of Ronald Reagan. He then turned to Thomas and asked: "Reagan and World War II and the sense of us as the good guys in the world, how are we doing?" Thomas replied: "Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial."
Thomas elaborated on Obama as God, patronizingly explaining: "He's going to bring all different sides together...Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn't even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He's all about let us reason together...He's the teacher. He is going to say, ‘now, children, stop fighting and quarreling with each other.’ And he has a kind of a moral authority that he – he can – he can do that." In response, Matthews wondered: "If there's a world election between him and Osama Bin Laden, he's running a good campaign." Thomas agreed: "Yes, he is."
Here is a transcript of the relevant portion of the exchange:
5:15PM SEGMENT:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Tomorrow on the 65th anniversary of D-day, President Obama has a tough pair of acts to follow. His own speech yesterday and one given a quarter century ago. I remember getting up that morning in 1984 to catch President Reagan at Normandy. It was a real ‘Morning in America’ speech. I believe that Reagan’s ability to connect to World War II was a reason for his enormous popularity in this country. Here he was on the bluffs of France saying something very good about America, how we liberated Europe. That's the heart of it, really. The reason Reagan was popular, Roosevelt was popular, Jack Kennedy was popular, and Barack Obama is popular. Don't tear us down. Don't make us feel like victims or the angry guys or the worried guys. Make us feel American. I think the President's speech yesterday was the reason we Americans elected him. It was grand. It was positive. Hopeful. It said to the world, if you're a good guy, you've got nothing to fear from us. If you’ve got national aspirations, if you want to be respected as a people, if you want to be treated as an equal people in the world, we're on your side. If you're an aggressor, if you want to hold down other people, if you're driven by a predatory ideology, if you're out to hurt this country, look out. We Americans are that rattlesnake on that first flag, ‘Don't tread on me.’ But what I liked about the President's speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility. What he did was rob from the enemy, those who want to destroy us, their main case, the belief that only by extremism can the East reach equality of dignity with the West. The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world. If he can, he'll be honoring what happened on D-day 65 years ago tomorrow. He will be delivering the world once again from evil. Evan Thomas is editor at large for Newsweek magazine. Evan, you remember '84. It wasn't 100 years ago. Reagan and World War II and the sense of us as the good guys in the world, how are we doing?
EVAN THOMAS: Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God. He’s-
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
THOMAS: He's going to bring all different sides together. It's a very different-
MATTHEWS: Can he – well, here’s Ronald Reagan. Let's take a look, a little Friday night nostalgia. Here he is speaking about peace and reconciliation at Normandy back 25 years ago. Let's listen.
RONALD REAGAN: But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and, yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation. In truth, there is no reconciliation we would welcome more than a reconciliation with the Soviet Union so together we can lessen the risks of war now and forever.
MATTHEWS: Let's talk about the difference. He was talking about the evil empire, trying to reconcile with the people of Russia and the Soviet Union, but not the country. Barack Obama the other day was saying, yesterday, that we don't have an enemy out there per se. We have people who choose extremism, but Islam’s not our enemy. That's not the evil empire.
THOMAS: But Reagan did it with a very – for the first term it was a clenched fist. I mean, we ramped up the cold war before we ramped it down. We built up our military. We – all of this D-day stuff was about war. That was about fighting.
MATTHEWS: Right.
THOMAS: Reconciliation only after the fighting. That's not – Obama’s not doing that. Obama – we've had our fighting. Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn't even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He's all about let us reason together. I think he has a much tougher job, frankly, because-
MATTHEWS: What's his shtick? Reagan had the United States arms race, winning the arms race. And we had the threat of high frontier, we were going to beat the Soviets at technology.
THOMAS: I don't think he has – his shtick is he's the teacher. He's the teacher. He is going to say, ‘now, children, stop fighting and quarreling with each other.’ And he has a kind of a moral authority that he – he can – he can do that-
MATTHEWS: If there's a world election between him and Osama Bin Laden, he's running a good campaign.
THOMAS: Yes, he is.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
By: Kyle Drennen
Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Thomas, appearing on Hardball with Chris Matthews, was reacting to a preceding monologue in which Matthews praised Obama’s speech: "I think the President's speech yesterday was the reason we Americans elected him. It was grand. It was positive. Hopeful...But what I liked about the President's speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility...The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world."
Matthews discussed Obama’s upcoming speech marking the 65th anniversary of D-Day and compared it to that of Ronald Reagan. He then turned to Thomas and asked: "Reagan and World War II and the sense of us as the good guys in the world, how are we doing?" Thomas replied: "Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial."
Thomas elaborated on Obama as God, patronizingly explaining: "He's going to bring all different sides together...Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn't even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He's all about let us reason together...He's the teacher. He is going to say, ‘now, children, stop fighting and quarreling with each other.’ And he has a kind of a moral authority that he – he can – he can do that." In response, Matthews wondered: "If there's a world election between him and Osama Bin Laden, he's running a good campaign." Thomas agreed: "Yes, he is."
Here is a transcript of the relevant portion of the exchange:
5:15PM SEGMENT:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Tomorrow on the 65th anniversary of D-day, President Obama has a tough pair of acts to follow. His own speech yesterday and one given a quarter century ago. I remember getting up that morning in 1984 to catch President Reagan at Normandy. It was a real ‘Morning in America’ speech. I believe that Reagan’s ability to connect to World War II was a reason for his enormous popularity in this country. Here he was on the bluffs of France saying something very good about America, how we liberated Europe. That's the heart of it, really. The reason Reagan was popular, Roosevelt was popular, Jack Kennedy was popular, and Barack Obama is popular. Don't tear us down. Don't make us feel like victims or the angry guys or the worried guys. Make us feel American. I think the President's speech yesterday was the reason we Americans elected him. It was grand. It was positive. Hopeful. It said to the world, if you're a good guy, you've got nothing to fear from us. If you’ve got national aspirations, if you want to be respected as a people, if you want to be treated as an equal people in the world, we're on your side. If you're an aggressor, if you want to hold down other people, if you're driven by a predatory ideology, if you're out to hurt this country, look out. We Americans are that rattlesnake on that first flag, ‘Don't tread on me.’ But what I liked about the President's speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility. What he did was rob from the enemy, those who want to destroy us, their main case, the belief that only by extremism can the East reach equality of dignity with the West. The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world. If he can, he'll be honoring what happened on D-day 65 years ago tomorrow. He will be delivering the world once again from evil. Evan Thomas is editor at large for Newsweek magazine. Evan, you remember '84. It wasn't 100 years ago. Reagan and World War II and the sense of us as the good guys in the world, how are we doing?
EVAN THOMAS: Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God. He’s-
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
THOMAS: He's going to bring all different sides together. It's a very different-
MATTHEWS: Can he – well, here’s Ronald Reagan. Let's take a look, a little Friday night nostalgia. Here he is speaking about peace and reconciliation at Normandy back 25 years ago. Let's listen.
RONALD REAGAN: But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and, yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation. In truth, there is no reconciliation we would welcome more than a reconciliation with the Soviet Union so together we can lessen the risks of war now and forever.
MATTHEWS: Let's talk about the difference. He was talking about the evil empire, trying to reconcile with the people of Russia and the Soviet Union, but not the country. Barack Obama the other day was saying, yesterday, that we don't have an enemy out there per se. We have people who choose extremism, but Islam’s not our enemy. That's not the evil empire.
THOMAS: But Reagan did it with a very – for the first term it was a clenched fist. I mean, we ramped up the cold war before we ramped it down. We built up our military. We – all of this D-day stuff was about war. That was about fighting.
MATTHEWS: Right.
THOMAS: Reconciliation only after the fighting. That's not – Obama’s not doing that. Obama – we've had our fighting. Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn't even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He's all about let us reason together. I think he has a much tougher job, frankly, because-
MATTHEWS: What's his shtick? Reagan had the United States arms race, winning the arms race. And we had the threat of high frontier, we were going to beat the Soviets at technology.
THOMAS: I don't think he has – his shtick is he's the teacher. He's the teacher. He is going to say, ‘now, children, stop fighting and quarreling with each other.’ And he has a kind of a moral authority that he – he can – he can do that-
MATTHEWS: If there's a world election between him and Osama Bin Laden, he's running a good campaign.
THOMAS: Yes, he is.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)