Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert Strangely Silent In Wake Of Patterico’s $100 Dollar Challenge

I can’t imagine why.

You see, if you follow Andrew Breitbart’s Twitter feed, (and if you don’t, you’re really missing out on some highly entertaining stuff), you know that Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert, and other bottom feeders on the left have been taunting Breitbart about what they think is a monumental  debunking of  James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles’ ACORN sting operation. They’re pretty sure they’ve got him on the ropes.

Eric Boehlert has written a number of Media Matters posts triumphantly exposing the massive “ACORN Pimp hoax”, based on (what he deems) the explosive revelation that James O’Keefe didn’t wear the pimp outfit you see below, during the stings , even though he wore them in the promos!!!111!:

Now, I followed and blogged about the ACORN sting operation since the very first video came out. I’m pretty sure I always knew that the theatrical pimp outfit was used for promotional purposes, and O’Keefe was not actually dressed that way in the ACORN offices. I’m not sure why I knew that, but…wait, yes I do – because it was too utterly ridiculous?—oh, and because the very first video shows him dressed in a normal button down shirt, and  trousers?

It was understood.

I’m not sure how  O’Keefe’s wardrobe invalidates what the videos make clear: that the ACORN workers in all but one of the stings were more than happy to assist a pimp and prostitute in  buying a house and in setting up a brothel filled with underage girls from El Salvador. Some of the  criminal activities the ACORN workers were cheerfully willing to facilitate: prostitution, organizing prostitution, bank fraud, filing false documents with the federal government, impairing the welfare of a minor,   immigration violations, and bringing women and minors over state lines for immoral purposes.

But, apparently because O’Keefe didn’t actually wear the outlandish outfit you see above during the stings, none of that matters? LOL.

Seriously, though…this is how Media Matters operates. They will endeavor to invalidate the larger truth of a story, based on one minor flaw, or error that they can sniff out, and then they blow it out of proportion.

Here’s is Patterico’s challenge:

I am offering Eric Boehlert of Media Matters the easiest $100 he ever made.

All he has to do to earn the $100: unequivocally state whether James O’Keefe pretended to be a pimp at ACORN offices. If Boehlert makes the statement publicly — with no weasel-words, no two-stepping, and no qualifications — I will PayPal him $100.

That’s all he has to do….but the only response, Patterico has gotten so far, is: “Leave me alone.” which is really sad, because I think Patterico is a pretty fair and reasonable guy.

I feel perfectly confident that he will never act to collect the C-note I am offering — even though it would require nothing more than typing a simple 8-10 word sentence. For example, this sentence would earn Boehlert $100:

James O’Keefe did not pose as a pimp at ACORN.

That’s $10 a word! Or Boehlert could earn himself a picture of Ben Franklin with this sentence:

James O’Keefe posed as a pimp at ACORN.

UPDATE: Patterico posts Boehlert’s latest lame  response, here.

Sheesh.  Can someone please tell the guys at Media Matters that their Alinsky tactics are old and busted?

See also, Big Fur Hat’s take on this:

Soon They’ll Be Wearing Training Bras

Share

Advertisements

David Axelrod Says The American People Want Dems To Invoke Reconciliation; The American People Say, ” No We Don’t”

Who does Axelrod think he is, speaking for the American people? Especially on a day when a poll comes out, showing a clear majority of us sees the government as a threat to our rights?

This Frank Luntz focus group was  evenly split between Obama and McCain voters.  If you’re not interested in watching the entire  clip, fast forward to their reaction to the idea of reconciliation at starting at 5:30 in:

And they’re also unanimous in their desire to scrap the bill entirely, and start from scratch.

Sorry, Axelrod. It looks like you’re out-voted.

Thanks to Weasel Zippers and Hot Air (via Johnny Dollar) for videos.

Share

Video: Boehner Confronts Obama On Abortion Funding In Health Care Proposal

At the health care summit, yesterday, Rep. John Boehner told Obama to his face that his health care proposal uses taxpayer dollars to fund abortion.

Note that Obama doesn’t deny that what Boehner says is true. He merely dismisses it as a “talking point”.

This particular “talking point” is one that Obama has been lying about for over a year, now. He has repeatedly claimed that Obamacare would not use taxpayer money to fund abortions.

He  made the claim during his speech to the joint session of congress, for example:

Obama said “One more misunderstanding I want to clear up — under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.”

This is a man who told the Pope to his face, that  “he would like to reduce the number of abortions in the United States” while promoting a plan that could create the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.

And during his “mythbusting” conference call with religious leaders last August,  he addressed what was reported at the time as “false claims”:

He also rebutted false claims that health coverage would be provided for undocumented immigrants, that there would be government funding for abortions and that there would be a “government takeover” of health care.

I have no idea if Obama’s proposal provides coverage for undocumented immigrants, but the House bill certainly does, and he denied it when it was the only bill being considered. The Reid and Obama bills provide funding for abortions. Since Obama is willing to lie about these points, why should we believe his repeated denials that the Obamacare is designed to lead to a government takeover of health care?

In ObamaCare Subterfuge Explained, I reported what a rare honest lefty who writes for the New Yorker, admitted was going on:

Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. “The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment,” he writes. “Let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind.”

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of “making the United States a more equitable country” and furthering the Democrats’ “political calculus.” In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

In other words, they want to enslave as many of us as possible so we will be beholden to them for future “entitlements”, or as Obama calls them,  “positive liberties”. This is how they meet their ultimate goal of one party rule. Remember, the radical left is all about power. They look at everything within the framework of “power”; how to get it..how to keep it.

Hat tip: Weasel Zippers

Share

Silly Season talk: Crist Says He’s not Switching Parties

Thank God for small favors:

Crist said any talk about party-switching “probably comes from my opponents. It’s the silly season.”

When asked about whether he plans to switch parties, he replied: “I sure don’t. I’m happy where I am and how things are going.”

Of course, all of this will be moot very very shortly. Under Florida law – 99.021 – someone has to switch parties 6 months in advance of the general election in order to run on the ballot with a different party affiliation. That date would be May 2.

Hat tip: The Corner.

Share

Dems vs The CIA (Again)

Remember a few days ago, when White House Chief Technology Officer, Andrew McLaughlin challenged Republicans and tea party activists to push the administration to make its policies more open?:

White House Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin said Republicans and conservative Tea Party activists should strive to push the administration to make its policies more open.

He also suggested Tea Party activists, who have called for broad changes to the government, could push the GOP to be more aggressive on the issue.

“I would be thrilled to make this a type of political competition … to see who can be more radical in their openness, in their data distribution models … trying to prove to the citizens they can run a better government,” said McLaughlin, a former executive at Google.

Well, we had a little situation, earlier today, that involved a profoundly wrong headed provision that was sneaked into the annual intelligence bill – a provision that would have weakened national security. It was added to the bill, in the dead of night, without the Republicans’ knowledge.

Hows that for transparency?

Andrew McCarthy reports tonight:

The Obama Democrats have outdone themselves.

While the country and the Congress have their eyes on today’s dog-and-pony show on socialized medicine, House Democrats last night stashed a new provision in the intelligence bill which is to be voted on today. It is an attack on the CIA: the enactment of a criminal statute that would ban “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”

The provision is impossibly vague — who knows what “degrading” means? Proponents will say that they have itemized conduct that would trigger the statute (I’ll get to that in a second), but it is not true. The proposal says the conduct reached by the statute “includes but is not limited to” the itemized conduct. (My italics.) That means any interrogation tactic that a prosecutor subjectively believes is “degrading” (e.g., subjecting a Muslim detainee to interrogation by a female CIA officer) could be the basis for indicting a CIA interrogator.

Democrats can not be trusted with national security. It’s that simple.

The act goes on to make it a crime to use tactics that have been shown to be effective in obtaining life saving information and that are far removed from torture.

Democrats also offer “findings” that the tactics they aim to prohibit cause terrorism by fueling recruitment (we are never supposed to discuss the Islamist ideology that actually causes terrorist recruitment, only the terrible things America does to provide pretexts for those spurred by that ideology). These “findings” repeat the canards that these tactics don’t work; that they place our captured forces in greater danger (the truth is our forces captured by terrorists will be abused and probably killed no matter what we do, while our enemies captured in a conventional war will be bound to adhere to their Geneva Convention commitments — and will have the incentive to do so because they will want us to do the same); and that “their use runs counter to our identity and values as a nation.”Unmentioned by the Obama Democrats is that officers of the executive branch have a solemn moral duty to honor their commitment to protect the American people from attack by America’s enemies. If there are non-torture tactics that can get a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to give us information that saves American lives, how is the use of them inconsistent with our values?

Here is the fact: Democrats are saying they would prefer to see tens of thousands of Americans die than to see a KSM subjected to sleep-deprivation or to have his “phobias exploited.” I doubt that this reflects the values of most Americans.

Thank God the Republicans were able to catch the provision, and stopped the bill cold:

A controversial bill that would have levied criminal punishments on intelligence officers for harsh interrogations was pulled Thursday evening.

House Republicans charged Democrats with trying to sneak a provision into the intelligence authorization bill that would establish criminal punishment for CIA agents and other intelligence officials who engage in “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” during interrogations.

Democrats inserted an 11-page addition into the bill late Wednesday night as the House Rules Committee considered the legislation.

***

Republicans criticized the language and the way it was introduced.

“This will fundamentally change the nature of the intelligence community by creating a criminal statute governing interrogations,” said Rep. Pete Hoesktra (R-Mich.).

Rep Peter Hoesktra issued this statement:

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R., Mich.) issued a statement following the successful defeat of a Democratic provision in the annual intelligence bill that would have criminalized an ill-defined range of “degrading” behavior by CIA interrogators:

“That Democrats would try to bury this provision deep in the bill, late at night, when they thought everyone’s attention would be focused on the health care summit is a testament to the shameful nature of what they were attempting,” Hoekstra said.

“Republicans brought this to the attention of the American people, who were rightly outraged that Democrats would try to target those we ask to serve in harm’s way and with a unified push we were successful in getting them to pull the bill.”

So….I would like to take Andrew McLaughlin up on his idea for tea partiers to push Dems to be more open. Hey, I’m a tea partier.

I hereby challenge the Obama Democrats to be more  transparent in their deliberations and policies.

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

Previously:

Obama Puts Politics Before National Security

Does The President Hate His Own Country?

Movie Magic: Nancy Pelosi vs The CIA

Video: What Did The Speaker Know And When Did She Know It?

The Truth Comes Out: Nancy Pelosi Knew about The Waterboarding

Now We’re Talkin’

Dem Leaders Briefed 30 Times On Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

Share