IRS Scandal Heats Up As Newly Released Emails Prove Targeting Was Directed Out of DC (Video)

Judicial Watch, the same group that recently forced the White House to release those damning email exchanges related to the Benghazi attack, just published some  newly uncovered communications regarding the IRS targeting of conservative groups. The emails, which were obtained  in response to an October 2013 Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit filed after the agency refused to respond to four FOIA requests dating back to May 2013. Reading the emails, you can see why they stonewalled. They prove without a doubt that the handling of Tea Party applications was directed out of the agency’s headquarters in Washington, DC.  and that “extensive pressure” was put on the IRS by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) to shut down conservative-leaning tax-exempt organizations. 

One key email string from July 2012 confirms that IRS Tea Party scrutiny was directed from Washington, DC. On July 6, 2010, Holly Paz (the former Director of the IRS Rulings and Agreements Division and current Manager of Exempt Organizations Guidance) asks IRS lawyer Steven Grodnitzky “to let Cindy and Sharon know how we have been handling Tea Party applications in the last few months.”  Cindy Thomas is the former director of the IRS Exempt Organizations office in Cincinnati and Sharon Camarillo was a Senior Manager in their Los Angeles office. Grodnitzky, a top lawyer in the Exempt Organization Technical unit (EOT) in Washington, DC, responds:

EOT is working the Tea party applications in coordination with Cincy. We are developing a few applications here in DC and providing copies of our development letters with the agent to use as examples in the development of their cases. Chip Hull [another lawyer in IRS headquarters] is working these cases in EOT and working with the agent in Cincy, so any communication should include him as well. Because the Tea party applications are the subject of an SCR [Sensitive Case Report], we cannot resolve any of the cases without coordinating with Rob.

The reference to Rob is believed to be Rob Choi, then-Director of Rulings and Agreements in IRS’s Washington, DC, headquarters.

The Daily Caller reported:

Levin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs’ permanent subcommittee on investigations, wrote a March 30, 2012 letter to then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman discussing the “urgency” of the issue of possible political activity by nonprofit applicants. Levin asked if the IRS was sending out additional information requests to applicant groups and citing an IRS rejection letter to a conservative group as an example of how the IRS should be conducting its business.

Bill Hemmer reported on the scandal Thursday morning on Fox News:



Senator Ted Cruz’s press release in full:

New Emails Escalate Need for Special Prosecutor

Sen Cruz: A special prosecutor with real independence should be appointed immediately

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today made the following statement regarding new emails between IRS employees and other government officials released by a watchdog group.

“After emails showed that Lois Lerner was communicating directly with the Department of Justice, I sent Attorney General Holder a letter asking him to reconsider his decision to not appoint a special prosecutor in the IRS targeting scandal. And now today more emails have surfaced, this time showing that IRS targeting of Tea Party groups was coordinated from Washington D.C.—contrary to the Administration’s initial story that this was all done by lower ranking IRS officials in Cincinnati.

“So we now know the Department of Justice was involved with the IRS targeting, and the Administration’s initial explanation about the targeting was false. This Administration has lost all credibility to investigate this partisan scandal, especially given that they have entrusted the investigation to be led by a major Democratic donor. A special prosecutor with real independence should be appointed immediately.”

MORE: 

SEE ALSO:

John Hayward, The Conversation: A new chapter in the IRS scandal begins:

Once again, I’m struck by how well Obama’s delaying tactics work to protect him from scandals that could have brought down his Administration.  He and his team of paid liars long ago hit on the tactic of living from one news cycle to the next – a deliberate reversal of the old Washington wisdom that it’s better to dump everything at once (preferably in a literal dumpster out back of the White House, on a Friday afternoon, ideally before a holiday weekend) to avoid the corrosive drip-drip-drip of scandal.  Old Washington hands thought it was dangerous to drag these things out and keep them in the news; better to muscle through a round of tough Sunday shows and get it over with, instead of seeing stories about “new revelations in Whatever-gate” on the front pages, week after week.

Newsbusters: Networks Censor Bombshell Documents Showing Top Democrat Pressed IRS to Target Conservatives

Coverage by the Big Three (ABC, NBC, CBS) networks on their Wednesday evening and Thursday morning shows? 0 seconds.

***
While the networks refused to cover the new revelations in the IRS scandal they did devote a total of 11 minutes (ABC: 4 minutes,19 seconds; CBS: 4 minutes, 19 seconds; NBC: 4 minutes, 8 seconds) to defending Hillary Clinton from Republican attacks on their Wednesday evening and Thursday morning shows.

 

Benjamin Netanyahu Schools Candy Crowley: ‘Sorry, Candy, Whoa!’ (Video)

In an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union, Sunday,  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu forcefully corrected host Candy Crowley’s misinformation. “Sorry, Candy – Whoa!” He exclaimed.

With the patience of a saint, Netanyahu went on to inform the errant host of the facts.

Enjoy the smackdown via Newsbusters:

 

CANDY CROWLEY: One of the criticisms, Mr. Prime Minister, has been that, prior to this, when you were dealing with Abbas, you had said, look, I don’t know who I’m supposed to negotiate with. There’s Hamas and then there’s Abbas and Fatah.

So, now there’s a unity government, and you still don’t want to talk to them. So, there’s criticism here that this was an excuse for you to walk away.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Sorry, Candy. Whoa.

CROWLEY: Go ahead.

NETANYAHU: No, Candy. No, no. I’m sorry.

I heard that. I hear people write that up, but, in fact, it’s the very opposite. I said right from the start, I said, look, I could wait until President Abbas recognizes — represents the entire Palestinian people. But, in this case, we will wait until eternity, and we won’t have peace.

So, I chose deliberately, openly, specifically, and explicitly to negotiate with that part of the Palestinian people that said it was willing to make peace with Israel. I said, we’re not going to try to include the other part that seeks our extermination. And that’s what I did.

I have been very consistent on this. Now that he’s joined them, I say this. Look, unity for peace is good. Unity with Hamas that seeks to exterminate Israel, the opposite of peace, is bad. I have always been consistent on this.

I negotiate with those who are willing to make peace with my country. I will not negotiate with those who seek to exterminate peace with my country, whether they sit in the front office or the back office. That’s not where I’m going to go.



Her first mistake was believing the propaganda coming out of the Obama Regime.

Her second mistake was using their baseless talking points against a moral and intellectual superior.

Her third mistake was – being left-wing hack Candy Crowley who shouldn’t even have a job after her media malpractice during the 2nd presidential debate in 2012. 

It’s outrageous that CNN still employs the woman after that. But then – unfairly railroading a Republican candidate is a feather in the cap of a member of the Democrat media complex.

Media Obsesses Over Chelsea Clinton’s Baby News – Ignores IRS/DOJ Email Bombshell

After word broke last Thursday night that Chelsea Clinton is an expectant mother, media outlets reacted with predictable over-enthusiasm for America’s new “royal” child.

Via Big Government, the video below features how media figures from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN reacted to the news:

Does anyone remember this much coverage when GW Bush’s daughter, Jenna became an expectant mother?

Now, I am as happy for the expectant couple as anyone, but the story really only warrants a brief mention in the news, and obviously well wishes – not extensive coverage at the expense of more important stories.

Newsbusters reported that ABC has fixated over the news, devoting 12 minutes and 47 seconds of coverage of the story but ignored news of the latest delay of the Keystone XL pipeline by the Obama administration which has been heavily criticized by Republicans and vulnerable Red State Democrats.

On Friday morning, ABC reporter Bianna Golodryga hyped, “Move over, Prince George, though. This morning, Americans have their own royal, or, rather, presidential baby, to look forward to.” On Sunday, This Week avoided Keystone, yet the ABC program opened with an announcer hyping, “Chelsea Clinton’s surprise announcement. Has a Clinton dynasty begun?” Host Martha Raddatz brought the baby up to her panel and fawned, “Very important question, what do you think Hillary Clinton should be called as a grandma?”

***

ABC’s Nightline, which hasn’t mentioned a serious topic like ObamaCare in 159 days, devoted two minutes and 24 seconds to the Clinton baby on Thursday night.

NBC has mostly ignored Keystone. However, its subsidiary, CNBC, at least mentioned that Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer pledged $100 million to Democratic candidates on the condition that the pipeline not be approved.

Meanwhile, the major news networks (other than Fox and to a tiny extent CNN) also ignored the latest development in the IRS scandal:  the revelation that the former IRS chief contacted the Justice Department about criminal investigations of tax-exempt groups.

Katie Pavlich of Townhall, emails obtained by  Judicial Watch through a FOIA request, show  that former IRS official Lois Lerner “was in contact with the Department of Justice in May 2013 about whether tax exempt groups could be criminally prosecuted for “lying” about political activity.”

Newsbusters reported on the lack of interest in this bombshell story:

CNN only gave two news briefs — 43 seconds in total — to the story, however, ignoring it during all the other news hours.

None of the broadcast networks reported the news on Wednesday night or Thursday morning. Earlier this week, the networks ignored another big development in the scandal, the RNC suing the IRS for “illegal stonewalling” of their requests for documents related to the scandal.

The latest omissions are only the latest in a string of developments in the scandal missed by the networks.

Also, President Obama was not asked about the story at his Thursday afternoon press conference.

Over at the Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty has a message for the MSM: Enough Puff Pieces About Chelsea Clinton Already.

He notes that Clinton is a minor celebrity “whose adult life consists mostly of stepping through doors opened by her parents’ power and meandering through the highest levels of high society without actually doing much.”

Dear friends on the Left: You can’t bemoan the death of opportunity in America, and rail against the richest one percent, and then devour puff pieces on how exceptionally talented and wonderful the offspring of our super-wealthy political leaders are, earning plaudits just by showing up with their famous last names. Paul Krugman declared that Horatio Alger was dead back in 2003. The self-made success story may not be dead, but she’s impeded by every powerful institution that sets up sweet, high-paying, low-responsibility gigs for the special children of the gilded class.

What’s really astounding is how our friends on the Left can turn their elite-status-and-wealth-resentment on and off as if it was attached to a light switch. You may recall Jim Hightower at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, sneering that George H.W. Bush was “born on third base [who] thought he had hit a triple.” (The quote is frequently attributed to Ann Richards.) Yeah, that 55-combat-mission naval aviator who got shot down over the Pacific and who lost his four-year-old daughter to leukemia sure lived a life of ease and comfort.

Because of this insidious double standard, the nation is stuck with a president and attorney general whose serial scandals and corruptions would have led to them being impeached already if they had an R after their names. Her role in the Benghazi scandal should preclude Hillary Clinton from even thinking about running for president. But then – she knows the MSM has her back.

As we are forced to deal with such blatant bias on a daily basis,  couldn’t they at least spare us these nauseating puff pieces on our Democrat “royalty?”

 

 

 

 

Sharyl Attkisson Suggests Far Left Media Matters Was Paid To Take Her Down (Video)

Former CBS  reporter Sharyl Attkisson was a rare bird in the world of MSM investigative journalism, her objective being, to hold government accountable – no matter who was in charge. In other words, she subjected Democrats to the same level of scrutiny as Republicans. This made her persona non grata when the Obama administration came into power.

In this interview with CNN’s Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter, Sunday, Attkisson revealed that the far-left, Soros funded “Media Matters for America” targeted her after she reported on stories unflattering to the Obama administration like the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal, Solyndra, and Benghazi on CBS.

As Washington Free Beacon notes, Media Matters made a special point of attacking Attkisson, “who ruffled many left-wing feathers when she resigned and said that her work for CBS had been stifled by liberals within the network. That is not an old charge, as former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg wrote in the best-selling book Bias, explaining how the truth was often distorted at the network because of political bias.”

Attkisson nonchalantly explained that Media Matters used to “work with” her on stories, which evoked a reaction from Stelter. “That’s interesting,” he said.

“Well, don’t they call you? They call journalists and they try to provide material and information,” she replied.

“Right, they are always emailing things, making us try to act outraged about something,” Stelter said. (And the MSM are usually happy to oblige.)

“And I was certainly friendly with them as anybody,” Attkisson said. “Good information can come from any source. But when I persisted with Fast & Furious and some of the green energy stories that I was doing, I clearly at some point became a target. I don’t know if someone paid them to do it or they just took it on their own.”

Again, Stelter acted surprised.”Do you think that’s possible that someone paid them?” He asked.

Attkisson replied,  “well they get contributions from — yes, they get contributions.”

Stelter: But specifically to target you?

Attkisson: Perhaps, sure. I think that’s what some of these groups do, absolutely.

 

The FCC Shelves Controversial Newsroom Study – For Now

In the wake of a massive conservative media outcry, the FCC is retreating from its plan to put researchers in American newsrooms  to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run.

Fox News reported:

FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said Chairman Tom Wheeler agreed with critics that some of the study’s proposed questions for reporters and news directors “overstepped the bounds of what is required.”

The agency announced that a proposed pilot study in South Carolina will now be shelved, at least until a “new study design” is finalized. But the agency made clear that this and any future studies will not involve interviews with “media owners, news directors or reporters.”

Chalk one up for the First Amendment, but stay vigilant. Totalitarians never quit.  The “new study design” may not be any better than the old one – considering who is in charge of conducting the study.

In 2009, when she was still just a nominee for the Federal Communications Commission, Mignon Clyburn, the daughter of Rep. Jim Clyburn, told the Senate Commerce Committee, “The FCC is not in the content business.”

But just over a year since she was confirmed, the FCC is marching forward with a questionnaire for newsrooms that critics have ripped as invasive – and possibly a shot across the bow in a push to reinstate the Reagan-era fairness doctrine.

***

Clyburn, whose father is a vocal proponent of the fairness doctrine, will be running the CIN study. Interestingly, a field test of the CIN will be happening in Jim Clyburn’s own home state of South Carolina within the city limits of Columbia.

Jake Tapper interviewed the author of the WSJ piece that spurred the controversy, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who was one of the staunchest critics of the proposal, on CNN earlier today during his “Buried Lede” segment, where he covers stories that he thinks aren’t getting enough attention. The news broke of the FCC’s retreat at the end of the segment.

Greta Van Susteren: Obama’s News Police Meant to Intimidate, Stifle and Chill Speech (Video)

On Wednesday night’s On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, a panel discussed the Obama Regime’s latest power grab – an FCC pilot program that would send “researchers” to newsrooms to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. Former FCC Commissioner AJIT PAI wrote about the plan in his Wall Street Journal piece, The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of “critical information” such as the “environment” and “economic opportunities,” that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their “news philosophy” and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.

Susteren is outraged. She had on The Hill’s AB Stoddard, The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty and the Washington Examiner’s Byron York to discuss the Regime’s stealth attempt to bring back the  Fairness Doctrine, and they all agreed that it was a horrible idea that no self-respecting newsroom would tolerate.

Greta named three things that she thought she’d never see happen in her own country – the NSA spying on all American citizens, the use of drones to kill American citizens, and now this. Tumulty noted the FCC was also planning to visit newspapers which they don’t even have the power to regulate.

“You ask a news organization what their news philosophy is – it’s to cover the news and make a profit out of that”, Tumulty declared.

Greta retorted, “if they asked me, you know what I’d say? None of your business.” She went on to say she hoped any other news organization would respond the same way.

Stoddard wondered why any newsroom or newspaper would feel like they would have to comply with these FCC inquisitions. “I can’t imagine even the most liberal outfit coming from this profession being willing to share their philosophy and change the way they cover anything…” She said.

Greta asserted that the whole thing is “meant to intimidate and to stifle and to chill,” and expressed shock and horror that someone thought that this was a good idea to begin with.

AB Stoddard agreed, “it seems so ludicrous – so unAmerican – that I can’t believe that it would ever become real, but the fact that someone had an idea about it and it didn’t get slapped down – is more than strange.”

One gets the uneasy feeling that Obama looks to Communist South American Dictators who take control of the news media with great admiration and envy.

SEE ALSO:

Doug Ross: NOT CREEPY AT ALL: Obama FCC Placing Government Monitors in Newsrooms to Police Media:

Every major repressive regime of the modern era has begun with an attempt to control and intimidate the press.

As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently said, “our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

The federal government has absolutely no business determining what stories should and should not be run, what is critical for the American public and what is not, whether it perceives a bias, and whose interests are and are not being served by the free press.

It’s an unconscionable assault on our free society.

Imagine a government monitor telling Fox News it needed to cover stories in the same way as MSNBC or Al Jazeera. Imagine an Obama Administration official walking in to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and telling it that the American public would be better served if it is stopped reporting on the IRS scandal or maybe that reporting on ObamaCare “glitches” is driving down enrollment.

It’s hard to imagine anything more brazenly Orwellian than government monitors in newsrooms.

Via Dick Morris: 

Surveys will be distributed to reporters, news editors, assignment editors, publishers, owners, on-air reporters, film editors and other station or newspaper staff. These are the questions they will ask:

–What is the news philosophy of the station?

–Who else in your market provides news?

–Who are your main competitors?

–Is the news produced in-house or is it provided by an outside source?

–Do you employ news people?

–How many reporters and editors do you employ?

–Do you have any reporters or editors assigned to topic “beats”? If so how many and what are the beats?

–Who decides which stories are covered?

–How much influence do reporters and anchors have in deciding which stories to cover? –How much does community input influence news coverage decisions?

–How do you define critical information that the community needs?

–How do you ensure the community gets this critical information? On-Air Staff? Reporters? Anchors?

–How much news does your station air every day?

–Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management? If so, can you give an example? What was the reason given for the decision? Why do you disagree?

These intrusive questions, prying into station politics and policies, can only send a chilling message to radio and television outlets.

Fox News: ‘The Kelly File’ looks at the FCC’s proposal to study newsrooms:

A Federal Communications Commission proposal to “study” how the news media operates by placing researchers in newsrooms, “The Kelly File” reported on Wednesday.

“It’s very reminiscent of the kinds of questions that were asked of my clients in the IRS matter that is currently in federal court,” said Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice. “Same kind of questioning process of content, determination on point of view, and I think this government, this administration is bent on aiming and targeting those they don’t like.”

Katie Pavlich, the news editor of Townhall.com, wondered why the Obama administration didn’t learn following the fallout over the Justice Department’s wiretapping of Associated Press journalists.

“Now, they want to send investigators into newsrooms all over the country,” she said. “This is about controlling what people say, and this is about intimidating the news.”

Pavlich agreed with host Megyn Kelly’s assertion that the proposal provides a window into “how the FCC is thinking” when it comes to an independent press.

I emboldened what Sekulow said because I was thinking the same thing and I think it is key.

Do a Google search on this story, and you’ll quickly notice which media outfits are the most concerned about this – the WSJ, which broke the story, Fox News, the ACLJ, Mediaite, and lots of conservative blogs.

Why do you suppose ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC,  CNN, the Washington Post and NYTs (the Democrat media complex as Andrew Breitbart used to call them) are mum? Why is this not a big story for them? Could it be because they are already voluntarily complying with the Regime’s PC requirements? Are they not already simpatico with the Regime’s Statist worldview? In 2016, can we fully expect them to run interference  for the Democrat candidate  like they did so shamelessly for Obama in 2008 and 2012? Of course they will. They pretend to be impartial, but when it counts – they will sting the Republican. It is their nature.

So who do you think is being “targeted” here? As usual, it’s the disfavored conservative leaning rabble-rousers who don’t tow the Regime’s Statist line. And the Democrat media complex is once again, looking away from a scandal,  giving the Regime their tacit approval.

Greta Van Susteren has every reason to be horrified.

Andrew Klavan, Truth Revolt: KLAVAN: A Sick Media #BOWDOWN To Their Own Oppressors:

…we don’t need a thuggish FCC to know this administration wants the media choir to sing the White House song castrato. Reporters Without Borders has already downgraded the U.S. fourteen spots to number 46 on the World Press Freedom Index this year alone. The president’s men have tapped reporters’ phones and email. And even Jill Abramson, editor of the leftist New York Times, says, “This is the most secretive White House… I have ever dealt with.”

And yet the Times and the news networks continue to play down presidential malfeasance — including that which threatens their own freedom!

It was unbelievably childish of journalists to believe, as Barbara Walters put it, that Obama was “the next messiah.” It is venal of them to turn a near-sighted eye to his IRS abuse, Benghazi cover-up and unconstitutional non-enforcement of law. But for American news people to #BOWDOWN before an administration that shows open hostility to the First Amendment — that’s just hashtag-pathological.

Ben Shapiro, Big Government: OBAMA CRACKDOWN ON PRESS FREEDOM ESCALATES:

Last week, Reporters Without Borders dropped America in the World Press Freedom Index 2014 from 33rd to 46th. James Risen of The New York Times rightly explained, “I think 2013 will go down in history as the worst year for press freedom in the United States’ modern history.” And he’s right. The violation of press freedoms has been egregious under this administration, even as the press fetes President Obama as an honest and effective commander-in-chief.

Selective Access. President Obama has regularly granted special access to reporters who give him preferential coverage. CBS’ Steve Kroft admitted as much after a late-2012 interview with the President during which CBS clipped Obama’s explicit refusal to label Benghazi an act of terror: “(Obama) knows that we’re not going to play ‘gotcha’ with him, that we’re not going to go out of our way to make him look bad or stupid.”

Michael Lewis, author of Moneyball, got special access for a profile of Obama for Vanity Fair – but Obama insisted on redlining his quotes. Lewis explained that “the White House insisted on signing off on the quotes that would appear.” A reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle was threatened for covering an anti-Obama protest. As early as 2008, candidate Obama was kicking dissenters off planes after their outlets endorsed John McCain.

Targeting Reporters. In May 2013, the Associated Press dropped the bombshell that the Department of Justice had grabbed phone records for its reporters and editors of the course of two months. Records for 20 telephone lines belonging to the AP and reporters for it were seized between April and May of 2012. Those seizures affected over 100 journalists.

The AP’s President and CEO Gary Pruitt stated, “There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters.” Fox News’ James Rosen was also targeted by the DOJ after running a story about North Korea nuclear development. His State Department visits were tracked and his movements were followed. His parents’ phone records were even grabbed.

CNN: Some People Are Demanding That Host Melissa Harris-Perry Be Fired (Video)

Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher is not at all amused that CNN has taken the lead in fanning the flames of the media firestorm that erupted in the wake of MSNBC’s stupid and offensive segment in which Melissa Harris Perry and her panelists made fun of the Romney’s for having a black grandchild. He accuses CNN of “concocting pressure” on MSNBC to fire MHP.

What began as online criticism of a ham-handed cable news segment has now morphed into a full-blown public cable news flogging of Dean ObeidallahPia Glenn, and MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry, who participated in said segment on Sunday’s episode of Harris-Perry’s show. MSNBC competitors Fox News and CNN each filled the desolate holiday weekend with multiple segments attacking the segment, while Harris-Perry and her panelists offered a round of apologies on Twitter, and elsewhere.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Zoraida Sambolin teased a report on the uproar by telling viewers “Some people demanding MSNBC fire one host after she mocked Mitt Romney’s black grandson,” (Harris-Perry’s comment on the photo had to do with imagining a Mitt Romney/Kanye West-sponsored wedding in the future) and introduced the report, by Lisa Desjardins, by repeating that claim, and grouping Harris-Perry with recently-ousted MSNBC hosts Alec Baldwin and Martin Bashir.

Desjardin’s report, however, presents little evidence of such a groundswell. giving just one example of a person on Twitter who wants Harris-Perry fired. Even with more examples, a raft of tweets is an awfully low bar for a national news network to claim as a newsworthy movement to have someone fired. To this point, Harris-Perry’s critics from competing cable news outlets have not suggested she be fired, nor has anyone else in Desjardin’s report.

A hard news report like this, though, could certainly help start such a movement. This is exactly the fuel that a mob of people who already didn’t like Harris-Perry needs to light their torches. “CNN reports pressure to fire Melissa Harris-Perry” is a fine tune for conservative media outlets to echo, and legitimate enough to appear on other cable networks.

Christopher protests too much. CNN didn’t say there is a “groundswell” – only that “some people are demanding” – which would seem to me, is somewhat less than a groundswell. But, he’s right that they just might be trying to create such a groundswell with their reporting.

It’s a great segment. I love the fact that they tied the “ham-handed”incident in with other MSNBC debacles that resulted in firings. And then they got a great quote from a woman from the National Council on Adoption: “They intended to make jokes about politics, and instead they made jokes that would offend adoptive families,” she said. Nice touch.

CNN really is flogging this story…

In another segment, Don Lemon and one of his guests tore into MSNBC for being “smug” and “mean.” Marc Lamont Hill, on the other hand found himself quite alone in excusing the behavior of his friends at MSNBC – calling what they did “not inappropriate.” I don’t know who Ana Navarro is – but she’s pretty awesome, here:

CNN anchor Don Lemon had some tough words for his competitors at MSNBC Monday night during a discussion about Melissa Harris-Perry and her panel poking fun at a crowded Mitt Romney family photo with his young black grandson. Lemon used the opportunity to vent about the liberal network, calling it “smug” and unwilling to entertain actual diversity of opinion.

Republican Ana Navarro agreed with Lemon that it was in bad taste to use the child to mock the Romneys, but Marc Lamont Hill argued that they didn’t actually make fun of the baby itself, just used it to make a point about diversity in the Romney family and the GOP.

Lemon wondered if Hill would react the same way if the same segment aired on Fox. Navarro predicted, “By now, Jesse Jackson would be protesting and tied to a tree somewhere.”

Lemon then took on the “crowd” at MSNBC that’s given him lots of flak for comments he’s made on issues of race specifically. Lemon explained he’s never bothered responding because “dogs are supposed to howl at the moon, the moon doesn’t howl back.” He called MSNBC a “smug” club where despite touting diversity, there is “no diversity of opinion” on the network.

Despite CNN’s efforts, I suspect Melissa Harris Perry and her friends will be able to retain their jobs at MSNBC. It takes a lot more than the garden variety race-baiting that goes on over there every single damn day, (even when it involves people’s babies) for anyone there to get fired.

Video: Trey Gowdy Congratulates The NY Times – ‘It Only Took Them 15 Months To Figure Out How To Spell Benghazi’

I was hoping that Congressman Trey Gowdy would be asked to weigh in on the NY Times’ now widely panned Benghazi report. The South Carolina spitfire was a guest on Fox’s On the Record with fill-in host, Dana Perino, and he did not disappoint.

Asked to comment on the report, Gowdy professed, “I want to congratulate the New York Times.  It only took them 15 months to figure out how to spell Benghazi – so maybe in the next 15 months, their reporting will catch up with the truth.”

Continuing, he said, “I’ll tell you two things they got wrong. Number one – the video was translated into Arabic in early September of 2012….What in the world explains the violence in Benghazi prior to the video being translated and released? Our consulate was attacked way before the video was released. The British Ambassador was almost assassinated way before the video was released…the international Red Cross was attacked twice in Benghazi – well before this video was ever released. So if the video was really the impetus for the violence, what in the world explains the violence prior to the release of the video?

In respect to al Qaeda, he noted that “whether it was al Qaeda or a subsidiary, or a holding company, or a limited partnership – to quote Hillary Clinton - what difference does it make?! Who cares whether it was al Qaeda proper or a subsidiary? Four Americans are dead, and it wasn’t a spontaneous reaction to a video - it was planned.”

Gowdy also asked the question many House Republicans have been wondering in light of the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi prior to the attack, “why were we even there? Why was Chris Stevens in Benghazi, that night?”

He told Perino that he’s read the NY Times report six times. “I want you to read it six times and tell me if you can tell who the Secretary of State was when Benghazi happened. Because her name wasn’t mentioned a single. solitary. time. in this exhaustive NY Times piece – not once.”

When Perino noted that lots of people are assuming that the article was meant to “clear the decks” for Hillary so she won’t have to deal with Benghazi as a campaign issue, Gowdy reacted with mock consternation, “oh heavens no – that couldn’t possibly have been their motivation – could it be?!”

Bonus video:

On Monday night’s Special Report, Charles Krauthammer said  the NY Times Benghazi report was undeniably about protecting Dems, and Hillary – “obviously a political move.”

Video: John Bolton Calls NY Times Benghazi Report ‘An Editorial Opinion Piece Masquerading as Journalism’

John Bolton was invited on Fox News, Sunday, to respond to the NY Times’ “bombshell” Benghazi report which purports that there was no al Qaeda connection to the attack – which was largely spurred on by the fabled YouTube video. The ‘Stache’s reaction to the report was derisive laughter at first. And then came the scathing rebuke.

“Look, this is not journalism – this is an editorial opinion piece masquerading as journalism, Bolton declared. “I thought it was both unsophisticated, and internally contradictory.”


SEE ALSO:

Kerry Picket Big Journalism: NEW YORK TIMES CONTRADICTS OWN REPORTING ON BENGHAZI

Thomas Joscelyn, The Weekly Standard: The New York Times Whitewashes Benghazi

Does The GOP Have A Strategy To Combat the Mediacracy in 2016?

bias_media

As  should be obvious, the NY Times’s revisionist “bombshell” on Benghazi, is a preview of the Benghazi cover story the MSM will mount in defense of Hillary for the next couple of years. The question is – will the American public fall for it? Will the alternative media and more importantly – the GOP – be able to combat what Daniel Greenfield calls the “mediacracy”?

Media bias was over decades ago. The media isn’t biased anymore, it’s a player, its goal is turn its Fourth Estate into a fourth branch of government, the one that squats below the three branches and blocks their access to the people and blocks the people’s access to them. Under the Mediacracy there will still be elections, they will even be mostly free, they just won’t matter so long as its upper ranks determine the dialogue on both sides of the media wall.
The Mediacracy isn’t playing for peanuts anymore. It’s not out to skew a few stories, it’s out to take control of the country. In military empires, the military can act as a Praetorian Guard. In political empires, it’s the people who control the political conversation who also control the succession.

In 2008, the Mediacracy elevated an Illinois State Senator who had briefly showed up in the Federal Senate to the highest office in the land. They did it even though he had no skills for the job and no serious plan for fixing any of the country’s problems. They did it to show that they could. They did it because they wanted to tell a compelling story and inflict radical change on a country that would have never voted for it, if it had not been lied and guilted into making the single worst decision in its entire history.

The mediacracy’s preferred candidate for 2016 is Hillary Clinton, a woman who rose to prominence on her impeached and disbarred corruptocrat husband’s coattails. Her tenure as Secretary of State is notable for two things – She is the most traveled Sec. of State in US history, and she presided over a four-year string of diplomatic disasters. But the coronation of Queen Hillary began almost immediately after she stepped down. ABC has dubbed 2013, “the year everyone gave Hillary Clinton an award” because she has been showered with at least 19 awards, already.

Republicans better get ready. The mediacracy is not about to turn over any leaves after the disaster of the Obama presidency. And neither is Hillary. And demographics are increasingly – not in our favor. The GOP needs to be wargaming right now on how to deal with this situation, but unfortunately, it looks like  their strategy for 2016 is geared more toward weeding out tea party favorites than dealing with the two candidates who most deserve their attention –  Hillary Clinton and the Mediacracy.

Caddell Slams Media Coverage of ObamaCare Meltdown: They’re “Rolling Over With Their Paws Up In The Air” (Video)

Fox News’ Political Insiders, Pat Caddell, Doug Schoen, John LeBoutillier joined Harris Faulkner, Sunday afternoon, to talk about Democrat desperation while the  ObamaCare mess continues to melt down.

Favorite Caddell line from the segment, “if the media wasn’t just rolling over with their paws up in the air….” to which Harris Faulkner took issue, being on the sole network that has been asking tough questions and taking issue with the Regime’s lies. “We’re talking about main stream media!” The guys assured her. “That’s quite a visual..on their back with their paws up,” Faulkner laughed. “But that’s what they do!”  Caddell exclaimed. They’re lap dogs and they’re waiting for him to rub their stomachs. If they were covering him… the way they would cover any other president, he would be destroyed!”

Schoen added, “have you noticed that the scandals disappeared?” Caddell answered, “that’s the Republicans fault, too.”

Moving on to the nuke deal with the Iranians, Faulkner asked Caddell what his greatest concern was going forward. He said, “what we have done is basically assure they will enrich when they’re ready. They will have nuclear weapons. And we have now created a monster when that happens because we have taken our influence off the table.” He continued, “this president, who is desperate for a deal for anything – can’t wait to go over there. We watch what the Chinese are doing…when  the US can’t stand up to what they’re doing in the South China Sea — everywhere — I never thought I’d be this afraid.”

“He extends himself more for the Iranians than he does to the Republicans,” Schoen said. “Good point!” Caddell agreed. “And (extends himself) more to the Iranians and radical Islamists than our own allies.”

LeBoutillier reiterated his distrust of John Kerry. “I don’t think this agreement is an honest agreement,” he said. “Tehran decided what sites gets inspected!”

“Why would they even agree with this?” Faulkner asked. All the men responded at the same time, “because they’re desperate for a deal – an agreement.” Caddell noted that some of the same braniacs behind the disastrous Nork deal have been working on this.  “They will sell the country out no matter what” to get a deal,” he said.

Video via Johnny Dollar:

 


Tingles: ‘He came to us today, He came amongst us!’ (Video)

“In the beginning was the narrative, and the narrative was with Alinsky and the narrative was Alinsky. The narrative was in the beginning with Alinsky. All things were made through government, and without government was nothing made. In Him were taxes and the taxes were the light to the takers. And the light shined across America, and America did not comprehend it. And the narrative was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of Alinsky, full of tactics and rules.”

Thus  sayeth the Tingly One – after he beheld the Incarnation of the Messiah on MSNBC on the night of  December 5,  2013 in the year of our Lord (Obama.)

“He came to us today! He came amongst us! “

Sick freaks.

With the Media’s help, Obama Continues To Perpetrate Fraud On The American People

dfc7c9ec0f2938c0dcf25a749e9f527b

Andrew McCarthy explains the Regime’s game at NRO: The Scheme behind the Obamacare Fraud:

In 2003, when he was an ambitious Illinois state senator from a hyper-statist district, Obama declared:

I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health-care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. . . . Everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately.

That is the Obamacare scheme.

It is a Fabian plan to move an unwilling nation, rooted in free enterprise, into Washington-controlled, fully socialized medicine. As its tentacles spread over time, the scheme (a) pushes all Americans into government markets (a metastasizing blend of Medicare, Medicaid, and “exchanges” run by state and federal agencies); (b) dictates the content of the “private” insurance product; (c) sets the price; (d) micromanages the patient access, business practices, and fees of doctors; and (e) rations medical care. Concurrently, the scheme purposely sows a financing crisis into the system, designed to explode after Leviathan has so enveloped health care, and so decimated the private medical sector, that a British- or Canadian-style “free” system — formerly unthinkable for the United States — becomes the inexorable solution.

Once you grasp that this is the scheme, the imperative to lull the public with lies makes sense. Like all swindles, Obamacare cannot work if its targeted victims figure out the endgame before it is a fait accompli.

The president is a community organizer in the Saul Alinsky tradition. He is trained to adopt the language and co-opt the sensibilities of the masses in order to become politically viable; then, once raw power is acquired, the Alinskyite uses every component of it to thwart opposition in patient but remorseless pursuit of the given “social justice” goal. Consequently, in pursuit of health-care statism, Obama moderated his rhetoric over the years, but not his ideological goals. He stressed pragmatism: a gradual campaign that kept the ultimate prize in sight. “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately,” he told his hard-Left base at a 2007 SEIU health-care forum. “There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years or 20 years out.”

There’s that word: transition. It’s the route “change” takes to reach its final destination: “fundamental transformation.” If you’re paying attention, you’ll hear the word transition a lot in Obama’s health-care speeches.

Read it all – Bottom line – unless Republicans get their act together, (to paraphrase McCarthy): if you like your private medical system, you won’t be keeping your private medical system, period.

ObamaCare was always about “transitioning” an unwilling nation into Socialized medicine and it took a lot of fraud and deceit to do that.

Oh, and the fraud and deceit continues with the MSM’s help, to this day. Oh sure, some are sheepishly admitting that, gosh – maybe the media should have vetted some of Obama’s promises a little better, huh? Gosh, who would ever have  guessed that the idea we could  cover more people for less money, and everyone would be able to keep their plans and doctors was utter BS? (Except everyone who could do basic math?)

But now that those lies are no longer operative, we have a new set of lies.

Yesterday, CNBC    was caught peddling this on Twitter: Study: ‘Tiny fraction’ will lose health coverage, pay more.

AoSHQ’s Andy called them out: @CNBC seriously, you should retract this. It’s a paid-for partisan “study” and we’ll mutilate you tomorrow for fluffing it.

I caught wind of this “study”, last week when many media outlets covered the story like it was a legitimate deal.

Families USA is a left Wing health-care lobbying organization that partnered with the White House to run a PR campaign for Obama’s fraudulent health care scheme.. Sister Simone Campbell of the dreadful  “nuns on the bus tour” sits on the board. (These days, Sister Simone Campbell can be found sitting on panels focusing on “poverty, prosperity and economic justice.”)

Well thanks to Sister Simone, there will be far less of the second one due to the “economic justice” of O-Care. Even after being repeatedly promised that they could keep their plans,  millions of people lost their health care plans so the “truly needy” could have theirs. And Sister Simone’s group Families USA will continue to lie about the numbers because lies and deceit in furtherance of “social justice” is not a sin, right Sister? God will understand….

 Families USA recently got $1 million from a liberal foundation to prop ObamaFail up.

Families USA has received a $1 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which it will use to collect and distribute to the media personal stories of those who have benefited from the new health insurance exchange rolled out by the Obama Administration October 1. The announcement is good news for the President, who has been widely criticized for the horrible launch of the online marketplace healthcare.gov.

The old lie was, “if you like you plan you can keep your plan.” Now it has been replaced with, “ok fine,  but only a teeny tiny fraction will lose their plan and pay more.” But what’s going to happen when the Employer Mandate drops, next year, Sister Simone? Is 50 to 100 million people considered “a tiny fraction.”

What about the many, many Americans out there who don’t want Medicaid or government subsidies? What if they were happy with what they had and don’t want to be part of some massive government program? Too bad for  them, huh Sister? You have to crack a few eggs to make that Social Justice Omelette.

Another lie being peddled by the Regime and its media allies:  “the law is helping to bring down overall health spending.”

Via Yuval Levin at The Corner, Charles Blahous of the Mercatus Center and the Hoover Institution  takes on that claim:

Public confidence in the ACA took a beating when it was revealed that millions would lose health coverage that they had been told they could keep. Now the public is being told that the ACA is responsible for government actuaries’ improved health spending projections, when an examination of those projections clearly shows that not to be so. If the supporters of the ACA want to win back public support and confidence, they will need to find a stronger case for the virtues of the law.

Back to CNBC and other “news” outlets uncritically peddling the new lies: Newsflash: We’re on to you. No one believes the Regime’s BS anymore. The American people are not going to allow themselves to be herded like helpless sheep into a  Single Payer, universal, socialized  health care system.

To reporters who continue to help the Regime disseminate lies: Good luck keeping your integrity and self respect as more and more Americans are awakened to the  massive, ongoing fraud and deceit of Obama’s health care plan.

More:

Ace hammers the New York Times for only now discovering that redistribution is central to ObamaCare:

And now the press says, “Sorry, brah. M’ bad.”

Mr. Obama survived that episode and other instances when Republicans deployed old recordings of him using the word “redistribution” as evidence that he was a closet socialist. But Mr. Obama had learned a lesson.

The Times does not say this, but that lesson was “lie about everything.”

***

As with Obama himself, there are only two possible explanations:

1, the press is ignorant and incompetent and simply not up to the job of doing anything more difficult than straight stenography. And what does this say about their alleged status as the cognitive elite?

or,

2, the press is institutionally, conspiratorially dishonest, and chose not only to notreport this for four long years, but even more, chose to actively join in a lie. Because they are fundamentally political actors, and they behave as if they are an extension of Obama’s communications shop, pushing false Narratives and pushing back against honest, accurate criticism.

And what does that say about their status as the nation’s fact-finders?

At some point, we will get them to confront this, and give us a straight answer as to why they lied to the country, more frequently than Obama himself , about Obama and his pet redistributive Trojan Horse.

Ed Schultz Is Nuts (Video)

Yesterday on his MSNBC show, a delusional and manic Ed Schultz channeled former Democratic Governor Howard Dean, screeching a supportive “yeah!” after  showing a clip of Obama out on the  permanent campaign trail defending ObamaCare.

Via Newsbusters:

Schultz wondered aloud, “Am I asking too much as an Obama supporter to want that?” The liberal host then mocked Obama’s performance at a news conference as ” Well, we haven’t been very good. I’m not happy.” An increasingly manic Schultz began shrieking, “…The next time you go into the press room in Washington, you give it to them! You let them have it! This is good! This is great for America!”

Had to share this – it’s just too funny watching pro-Obama dead-enders melt down in comic fashion as their hero’s “signature achievement” crashes and burns.
Newsbusters reports that on Wednesday, Schultz actually justified the President lying to Americans about the health care law. What else are they going to do at this point? They denied the lies for years – when the lies could no longer be denied – they had to be justified, somehow. Hey, the American people don’t know what’s good for them. They can’t handle the truth. We must place our faith and trust in our Lord and Savior King Obama.

What was Obama even doing in Cleveland yesterday, you might be wondering. I was.
According to Cleveland.com, “Obama returned to feed off a friendly vibe while attempting to move his administration beyond the maelstrom of his signature health care program’s debut.”
In other words – ObamaCrash is making DC a huge bummer for him. He needed to return to a union strong Democrat stronghold to bask in the glow of his adoring drones. How pathetic is that?
I don’t know who I feel more scornful of – Obama or the dead-enders who still support him.

NBC Get’s A Bad Case Of The Glitches On Bombshell ObamaCare Story

nbc-delete-article

Last night at The Conversation, I reported that NBC had disappeared their devastating ObamaCare story, Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance, (after being linked by Drudge and practically every conservative new outlet in the blogosphere),  and updated before I went to bed to report that the story had reappeared at a different web address.

This morning it was discovered that stealth edits had also taken place, particularly with the removal of a key paragraph:

Then, late at night, the story was pulled, the link was changed thereby breaking the Drudge link, and stealth edits were made to the piece. In particular, one key paragraph met the cutting room floor:

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date — the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example — the policy would not be grandfathered.

That paragraph has since mysteriously reappeared, with NBC blaming the issues on a “publishing glitch”. This  prompted one Twitter user to quip, “ I looked at my birth certificate. I was right, I wasn’t born yesterday.”

It’s more like Lisa Myers had made the capital mistake of publishing the story without letting the White House press office, proofread it first. After the stealth edits were (easily) discovered, NBC had no choice but to put the paragraph back in the story.

But that’s not all folks, there’s more:

When NBC News changed the url for the first story, it killed more than 3,000 mostly adversarial comments. It appears that NBC has purged the comments again; after Drudge changed the link back, there were another 3,000 comments. At the time of this update, there are 1,156 comments.

As John Hayward dryly noted, tis the “season of the glitch.”

Which is entirely appropriate in the “Democratic People’s Republic of Glitchistan”, formerly known as the USA.

SEE ALSO:

AoSHQ: Under Pressure From The White House, NBC Throws Its Reporter Under the Bus and Censors News That Obama Wrote Regs to Disqualify and Terminate Health Insurance Policies:

But why was it deleted in the first place? Why did NBC decide to trust the Obama Administration on this — obviously a party that stinks of self-interest and potential deceit — over its own reporter, who got it right?

I really want to stress this to everybody, because no one seems to get this yet:

These regulations, being a creature of the Executive branch, can be rewritten by the executive branch at any time. We don’t need a law for this (though one would be useful, to force Obama to do the right thing).

Obama has it within his power to call up the HHS reg-writers and instruct them to honor the promise he made time and again for two years. And he doesn’t want people to know this, because he is determined to break that promise.

That promise was always a lie, and not a meaningless lie at the periphery, but a central lie propping up the political campaign for ObamaCare. Had he told Americans that they would be losing their current health care in order to be dumped into what is effectively a high-risk pool, so that they could subsidize high-risk clients, the public would have rejected the law even more strongly than he did.

So he lied. And lied. And lied. And lied some more.

And even at this late date, he could still choose to honor his promise.

But he won’t, because he can’t — he always intended to take people’s insurance away from them. Always. And he’s not going to undo, short of a veto-proof act of Congress.

Obama would like to tell the American people that he must do this, or that he didn’t do it at all. That the law requires it (it doesn’t), that he can’t instruct his employees to give a more generous reading of the law in their regulations (he can), that his hands are tied (they’re not), that it’s the GOP’s fault (what?) or perhaps a fall-guy’s like Kathleen Sebelius.

But Sebelius, the HHS, and all executive employees answer to Barack Obama. He is in fact their boss.

They are executing his will.

 

 

  • Blog Stats

    • 4,592,610 hits
  • free counters
  • Is your cat plotting to kill you?
  • Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 509 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: