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.

Boehner: “There’s Going to Be a Negotiation”

No, I won’t post a video of Obama’s obnoxious lecture, this afternoon. If you missed it, believe me – watching this absurd Community Organizer reiterate a pack of lies, bash republicans and pretend he’s some kind of expert on the economy  – is not worth your time. It’s also not worth your time to hear him answer the White House press corps’ questions because the ones he called on only threw softballsif you can believe that.

But I will post an audio of Rush Limbaugh responding to it.

I think Victor Davis Hanson articulated what Rush was trying to convey in his latest PJ Media Column: 

Amid all the charges and countercharges in Washington over the government shutdown, there is at least one common theme: Barack Obama’s various charges always lead to a dead end. They are chaos, and chaos is hard to understand, much less refute.

By that I mean when the president takes up a line of argument against his opponents, it cannot really be taken seriously — not just because it is usually not factual, but also because it always contradicts positions that Obama himself has taken earlier or things he has previously asserted. Whom to believe — Obama 1.0, Obama 2.0, or Obama 3.0?

When the president derides the idea of shutting down the government over the debt ceiling, we almost automatically assume that he himself tried to do just that when as a senator he voted against the Bush administration request in 2006, when the debt was about $6 trillion less than it is now.

When the president blasts the Republicans for trying to subvert the “settled law” of Obamacare, we trust that Obama himself had earlier done precisely that when he unilaterally subverted his own legislation — by quite illegally discarding the employer mandate provision of Obamacare. At least the Republicans tried to revise elements of Obamacare through existing legislative protocols; the president preferred executive fiat to nullify a settled law.

When the president deplores the lack of bipartisanship and the lockstep Republican effort to defund Obamacare, we remember that the president steamrolled the legislation through the Congress without a single Republican vote.

When the president laments the loss of civility and reminds the public that he uses “calm” rhetoric during the impasse, we know he has accused his opponents of being on an “ideological crusade” and of being hostage takers and blackmailers who have “a gun held to the head of the American people,” while his top media adviser Dan Pfeiffer has said that they had “a bomb strapped to their chest.”

When the president insists that the Republican effort to hold up the budget is unprecedented, we automatically deduce that, in fact, the action has many precedents, and on frequent prior occasions was a favored ploy of Democrats to gain leverage over Republican administrations.

In short, whenever the president prefaces a sweeping statement with one of his many emphatics — “make no mistake about it,” “I’m not making this up,” “in point of fact,” “let me be perfectly clear” — we know that the reverse is always true. For Obama, how something is said matters far more than what is said.

Here, via The Senate GOP Conference, is a video compilation of King Barack I The Petulant and his toadies refusing to negotiate:

Republicans have passed more than a dozen bills to open the government and provide Americans with relief from ObamaCare, but Democrats continue to just say “no.” The American people reject the Democrats’ “my way or the highway” approach. It is time for Democrats to engage congressional Republicans to solve our problems.

Speaker Boehner at his press conference today addressed President Obama’s refusal to negotiate a path forward on funding the government, raising the debt limit, and protecting all Americans from ObamaCare.

Via  his Blog the Speaker struck back at Obama’s charge that what the Republican “hostage takers” are doing is “unprecedented”:

President Obama has offered every excuse in the book to justify his refusal to negotiate with Republicans on the debt limit, but perhaps none is more absurd than his claim that doing so would be “unprecedented.”  Not only have presidents of both parties negotiated over the debt limit for decades, the president himself has done so – twice.  The first was in 2010, when Blue Dog Democrats in the House conditioned their support for a debt limit hike on passage of PAYGO legislation.  As Politico reported at that time:

“Blue Dog Democrats are threatening to derail any legislation that raises the debt ceiling if the bill does not include provisions that would constrain Congress from continuing to add to the nation’s debt. …

“Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), the Blue Dog’s policy chief, issued his most pointed threat Friday morning in a news conference with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), calling this the ‘bewitching hour’ for controlling the nation’s debt.

“‘The Blue Dogs are ready to make some very tough decisions on some legislation that’s still pending if we don’t get statutory pay-go,’ Hill said. ‘It’s time to deliver now.’”

So, what did the President & Democratic leaders have to say about this “ransom” demand?

  • Then-White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: “Obviously the President and the White House Are of Course Negotiating in Good Faith.” QUESTION: “Is the White House negotiating in good faith with these White House Democrats?  Are they serious about enacting statutory PAYGO, attaching it to raising the debt limit?” … GIBBS:  “Obviously the President and the White House are of course negotiating in good faith.  We share the concerns of many in the Blue Dog caucus and many in the Democratic caucus and the Republican caucus that are concerned about the fiscal health of our country.” (Press Briefing, 12/22/09)
  • House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD): “Their Proposition Is, I Think, a Fair One.” “And the debt limit is something that, from my perspective, and responsibly, we’re going to have to pass. But we need to pass it with fiscal discipline attached to it. … I’d think it would be very difficult to raise the debt limit without support in either chamber of those people who are very concerned about fiscal discipline. Now, their proposition is, I think, a fair one.” (Press Conference, 12/11/09)

House Democrats weren’t the only ones taking a hardline against a clean debt limit hike.  Over in the Senate, several Democrats leveraged their support on the debt limit to try to force the creation of a deficit commission.   As The Washington Post reported:

“A group of Senate Democrats insists that an increase in the debt ceiling be coupled with the creation of a bipartisan task force that could push deficit-reduction measures through Congress. Separately, conservative House Democrats are demanding rules be put into law that require new spending increases or tax cuts to be offset by spending cuts or a tax hike. … Negotiations between House and Senate leaders and the White House on the conflicting proposals are expected to continue into next week.”

In fact, 10 Democratic Senators – including Sens. Begich (D-AK), Bennet (D-CO), Feinstein (D-CA), Klobuchar (D-MN), McCaskill (D-MO), Nelson (D-FL), Udall (D-CO) and Warner (D-VA) – sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) at the time stating they “strongly believe that as part of the debate to increase the debt limit, Congress needs to put in place a special process that allows  Congress and the Administration to face up to our nation’s long-term fiscal imbalances.”  Sen. Feinstein went so far as to say “I will not vote for raising the debt limit without a vehicle to handle this.” Were these the “hostage-takers” the White House refers to?

“Refusing to negotiate is an untenable position,” Speaker Boehner said today.  That position is made all the more untenable by the president’s arbitrary distinction between the demands his own party was making in 2010, and the demands House Republicans are making today, which are backed by the majority of the American people.  It’s time for the president to stop talking to the cameras, and start a conversation with Republicans on a path forward on the debt limit, government funding, and protecting all Americans from his disaster of a health care law.

Friday-Free- For All: Fox Hosts Slam MSM Media Hacks For Helping Regime Cover Up Benghazi Scandal

   Via Mediaite:  The Five Hosts Blast ‘Media Hacks’ Maddow, Stewart, Colbert For ‘Covering Up’ The Benghazi ‘Cover-Up’

One day after accusing the media of acting as President Obama’s “scandal condom” on the Benghazi story, The Five’s Greg Gutfeld was at it again, this time calling MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert “media hacks” for their highly critical commentary on Fox News’ coverage.
“People died, but what difference does it make?” Gutfeld said sarcastically, echoing Hillary Clinton’s infamous Benghazi hearing question. “The story will probably die, like the four in Benghazi with the lapdog media standing down, making these so-called journalists co-conspirators in the Benghazi cover-up, and that’s comedy when you’re winning.” He summed up the position of Maddow, Stewart and Colbert like this: “They refuse to actually cover the story. Instead, they want to cover people who care about the story, because then that kind of absolves them from having to deal with the ugliness.”

Via Mediaite: O’Reilly And Bernie Goldberg Tear Into Benghazi Media Bias: MSNBC Is White House’s ‘Public Relations Firm’:

Bill O’Reilly brought on Bernard Goldberg tonight to analyze how much the media has covered Benghazi in the aftermath of yesterday’s big hearing. O’Reilly noted how Fox News gave it the most coverage, the nightly newscasts gave it a few minutes of coverage, and MSNBC pretty much ignored it. Goldberg said that MSNBC ignoring the story basically makes the network no more than a “public relations firm” in the employ of President Obama and the Democratic party.

O’Reilly cited statistics showing that Fox News covered the hearing live for almost two hours, CNN for roughly fifteen minutes, and MSNBC for absolutely no time at all. He pointed out that all of the network newscasts led with the big news story from Cleveland, but the CBS Evening News had the most coverage, clocking in at almost five minutes. The morning shows had similarly minimal coverage.

Here’s Goldberg’s oped: Jodi Arias, Cable TV, and a Nation Fascinated by Shiny Objects:

There are times, not many thankfully, when I get depressed, brought down by the sorry evidence that we live in a country fixated on shiny objects.  This is one of those times.

A jury in Phoenix has found Jodi Arias guilty of first-degree murder.  That’s not what gets me down.  What I find so depressing is our collective fascination with trivia, with anything that we can follow without having to actually think.

Media Mash Mainstream Media Spin – The Propaganda Networks – Hannity – Ted Cruz:

Jack Cashill wonders Has Hillary Told One Lie Too Many? Or will the MSM help drag her over the finish line in 2016?

By 2012, the major media had become so comfortable with Clinton lies that not a single one among them pointed out the grotesque irony of having an unrepentant sexual predator keynote a Democratic Convention whose theme was the “Republican war on women.”

So accustomed had Hillary grown to having her lies glossed over that she grew increasingly indignant even at the timid questions Congress threw her way at the January 2013 Benghazi hearing.

When asked by Senator Ron Johnson about her version of events, Hillary exploded in an outburst destined to be at least as famous as her “vast right wing conspiracy” jeremiad.

Said Hillary, summing up the state of public integrity in 2013, “What difference at this point does it make?” Say what you will, but as recently as January that was a legitimate question.

To be sure, Benghazi will damage Hillary, at least in the short run. But come the Iowa Caucus in 2016, look for the media to champion version 2.0 of the “Comeback Kid.” They have too much emotional equity invested in Hillary to do otherwise.

NRO: Krauthammer called the State Department response to the Benghazi hearing, “pathetic”:

Charles Krauthammer called State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell’s response to the Benghazi Hearing “pathetic.” Ventrell told reporters earlier today, ”We don’t believe that new information was necessarily presented that hadn’t been already either entered into the public record through congressional testimony or investigated by the ARB or otherwise looked at.”

Thursdays With Michelle Malkin – Benghazi Whistleblowers Speak Out – Fox & Friends – 5-9-13:

The Right Scoop: “A disgrace!” – Mark Levin says Hillary Clinton was NOT sworn in at House testimony in January:

Mark Levin says that Hillary Clinton was NOT made to take the oath back in January when she appeared before a House committee to testify on Benghazi and he says it’s a disgrace and a crying shame.

Ted Cruz: Benghazi Eight Months Later:

“What difference at this point does it make?” Secretary Clinton responded in January to questions about the nature of the Benghazi attack. “Let’s put this behind us,” Secretary of State John Kerry complained last month. Last week, White House spokesman Jay Carney dismissed press inquiries about the attack by saying, “Benghazi was a long time ago.”

But many more questions remain. Here are a dozen:

  • Why was the State Department unwilling to provide the requested level of security to Benghazi?
  • Were there really no military assets available to provide relief during the seven hours of the attacks? If so, why not? During the attacks, were any military assets ordered to stand down?
  • If the secretary of defense thought there was “no question” this was a coordinated terrorist attack, why did Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary Clinton, and President Obama all tell the American people that the cause was a “spontaneous demonstration” about an Internet video?
  • Why did the State Department edit the intelligence talking points to delete the references to “Islamic extremists” and “al Qa’ida”?
  • Why did the FBI release pictures of militants taken the day of the attack only eight months after the fact? Why not immediately, as proved so effective in the Boston bombing?
  • Why have none of the survivors testified to Congress?
  • Why is the administration apparently unaware of the whistle-blowers who have been attempting to tell their stories? Is it true that these career civil servants have been threatened with retaliation?
  • Did President Obama sleep the night of September 11, 2012? Did Secretary Clinton?
  • When was President Obama told about the murder of our ambassador? About the murder of all four Americans? What did he do in response?
  • What role, if any, did the State Department’s own counterterrorism office play during the attacks and in their immediate aftermath?
  • Why was Secretary Clinton not interviewed for the ARB report?
  • And why, if all relevant questions were answered in the ARB report, has the State Department’s own inspector-general office opened a probe into the methods of that very report?

The All American Blogger: New Video: The Truth About Benghazi Matters:

On to other subjects…

The Other McCain: Hope and Chains: #WarOnWomen Kidnapper Is Cuyahoga County Democrat:

“If any of the brothers were a Republican, this news would have been trumpeted by the mainstream media as tangible proof of the Republican War on Women — a narrative invented by Democrat strategists and maintained by the media in a successful effort to defeat Republican candidates in the 2012 election cycle.
“However, when a real act of war on women is perpetrated by a Democrat voter in the manner that even the most zealous Democrat strategist couldn’t have dreamed up in their worst nightmares — involving abduction, imprisonment, rape, torture, malnutrition, beatings while pregnant, and killing babies — the media doesn’t think the party affiliation is relevant.”
– Oleg Atbashian, American Thinker, “Ariel Castro, Cleveland Kidnapper, Is a Registered Democrat”

Let’s be clear: The fact that Cleveland “house of horrors” suspect Ariel Castro is a registered Democrat does not mean either:

  1. That all Democrats have rape dungeons in their basements;
    or
  2. That every resident of Cuyahoga County is a sexual predator.

These are illogical inferences, and quite possibly harmful stereotypes. Some violent sex offenders might sue you for libel if you accuse them of being Cuyahoga County Democrats.

Fox News: Missouri lawmakers pass bill to nullify federal gun control laws:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. –  The Missouri Legislature sent the governor a bill Wednesday that would expand gun rights and declare all federal gun regulations unenforceable, in a response to President Obama’s push for gun control legislation.

The Republican-led Legislature passed the measure hoping to shield the state from federal proposals that would ban assault weapons and expand background checks. But the U.S. Senate’s defeat of a background check expansion three weeks ago did nothing to assuage the fears of Missouri Republicans who pressed forward with their legislation.

The Missouri House voted 118-36 Wednesday to send the bill to Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon. The Senate passed the measure earlier this month.

The Right Scoop: MUST LISTEN: ICE Union president exposes Obama admin LIES on immigration enforcement:

This is huge. ICE Union president Chris Crane was invited on the Mark Levin Show tonight to explain how the Obama administration is cooking the books on immigration enforcement. What he said was pretty shocking.

According to Crane, ICE agents can no longer make street arrests of people they suspect to be an illegal aliens, illegal alien gang members or illegal alien criminals, despite having the authority to do so by laws enacted by Congress. He says they are under orders to wait until the illegal alien commits a crime, gets arrested by law enforcement and booked into a jail before they can even intercede.

Then they must wait until the illegal alien is convicted of 3 or more criminal offenses before they can put them in deportation process.

When it comes to cooking the immigration books, Crane says the record number of deportations that the Obama administration touts is a complete fraud. He calls it a shell game, saying what really happens is illegal aliens caught crossing the border by the Border Patrol and then sent back across are now added to ICE’s numbers of deportations, thus inflating the numbers immensely. Crane said last year over 50% of the deportations in ICE’s numbers were from those the border patrol agents caught and sent back across.

In reality, Crane says they now have the numbers to show that since 2008, the actual number of ICE deportations has plummeted since 2008.

Brit Hume: “The President Seems Prepared To Let The Public Suffer Almost As Much As Possible As Long As He Can Blame Somebody Else”

FOX News senior political analyst Brit Hume has been making this crucial and very disturbing point for over a week: Obama is prepared to let Americans suffer needlessly as long as he can blame the GOP and and score propaganda points for Democrats.

Appearing on The O’Reilly Factor, last night, he called  Obama’s lack of leadership during the fights over the sequestration cuts,  “very unusual” which is putting it mildly.

Video via Charlie Spiering of the DC Examiner: Brit Hume: President Obama needs to ‘put his big boy pants on’:

Over at Big Journalism, John Nolte sayss that Obama’s blame game has backfired:

Thirty-eight percent of Americans place more blame on the Republicans in Congress for the failure, while 33 percent blame President Obama and the Democrats in Congress more. Nineteen percent volunteer that they blame both sides.

When you add up those numbers, you discover that 52% of Americans blame Obama for sequester, while 57% blame the GOP. In other words, all that campaigning and water-carrying by the media did next to nothing to help Obama. More than half the country blames Obama, and he’s only polling a measly 5% better than the GOP.

That’s what you call a backfire.

I would frankly need to see more Americans blaming  Obama than Republicans before I would call it a backfire, but given the fact that most of the MSM aided and abetted Obama in his hyper, weeks long, sequester blame game campaign, I would  agree that it was a narrative fail. It was certainly not everything the Regime had hoped for, thanks to a few brave journalists – Bob Woodward – first and foremost among them, who dared to speak the truth.

Meanwhile, Obama’s enablers apparently consider themselves Marvel comics superheroes when they rush to their boyfriend’s defense every time he’s criticized….

John Sexton at The Conversation introduces us to  The Progressive Left’s Marvel Team-Up Act:

Over the weekend, Bill Keller had the temerity to assign some blame for the sequester to President Obama. Within a day, the left’s commentariat had settled the issue in Obama’s favor, each linking to the other and repeating the claim that Keller was all wrong. Over at the Huffington Post, Jason Linkins summarized this group effort as a “Marvel team-up”:

It takes a Marvel team-up of three different reporters, from three different news organizations, to perform this elementary act of real-keeping. Meanwhile, Bill Keller can, in one column, undo the work of Harwood, his New York Times colleague.

Linkins actually mentions four reporters at three different news organizations, though three of the four–Klein, Sargent and Chait–are progressives who can reliably be counted on to side with the President. As far as a takedowns go, “Three Like-Minded Progressives Defend Obama” isn’t exactly red letter stuff, even if you throw in a tweet from a NY times reporter.

My response to that, here.

UPDATE:

Confirmation:

The Conversation: USDA Email: Don’t Contradict Us on Sequester’s Impact

Push-back:

The Conversation: Gohmert: No Federal Funds to Transport Obama to/from Golf Courses Until WH Tours Resume

 

 

MSNBC Busted AGAIN For Deceptively Editing Video To Make Conservatives Look Bad (Video)

What slimeballs. The projecting hypocrites at Obama’s media arm constantly do what they accuse others of doing.

Jim Treacher of the DC Trawler explained what happened:

Here’s footage that MSNBC has just released of Neil Heslin, whose son was murdered in Newtown, speaking at a public meeting on gun control. It’s presented with the headline, “Emotional father of Sandy Hook victim heckled by gun nuts”:

You can watch the MSNBC  video at the Caller. YouTube has many other examples of ObamaMedia wannabes posting  similarly  edited videos.  Here’s one of the sloppier ones.

Telegraph TV got into the act, as well.

Neil Heslin, whose six-year-old son Jesse was killed in the Sandy Hook massacre is heckled by gun activists as he begs for tighter firearms restrictions.

The unedited clip tells a completely different story – one that is actually of no use to the gun grabbing community.

Video via Say Anything

He wasn’t heckled AT ALL, as Treacher and everyone else on the planet who has seen the complete video, can see:

He asked the question and demanded an answer. There was complete silence. And only then, when he said that not one person could answer it — rather than remaining quiet out of respect for his feelings — did a few people answer it. You might not like their answer if you don’t like the Second Amendment, but that answer wasn’t unprompted. They were not heckling him.

How stupid do they think people are? Stupid enough to reelect Obama.

I guess I can see why they try this crap.

Previous MSNBC Hack Jobs:

MSNBC’s “Supermarket Scanner Moment”

How desperate are the ObaMedia to get their fubar candidate reelected?

How about this. They resurrect a tired old meme about rich Republican candidates being “out of touch” with the average American because the modern supermarket electronic technology befuddle and “amaze” them. Andrea Mitchell wants us all to remember poppy Bush’s “supermarket scanners moment”…Now all these years later, we find that Mitt too, is “confused and frightened” by modern technology because these “out of touch” Republicans are just like SNL’s Caveman Lawyer or something.

But MSNBC “selectively edited” the tape to make it look like Romney was bringing up Wawa’s touchtone ordering system for no other reason than to express surprise.

NBC Deliberately Skewed Travyvon Martin Story with Selective Editing

Reacting angrily to selective editing by NBC that suggested racial animus by George Zimmerman, NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell complained to Fox News’s Sean Hannity last night that NBC News was engaged in an “all-out falsehood.” The story in question was a March 27 Ron Allen report on NBC’s ‘Today’ in which 911 audio was edited to make it sound like George Zimmerman said “he looks black” immediately after saying “this guy looks like he’s up to no good.”

In the actual 911 audio, Zimmerman only described Martin’s race after the dispatcher asked, “And this guy: is he white, black, or Hispanic?” “To edit that out is so distorting,” Hannity complained. “Sean, it’s not distorting, it’s advancing a falsehood, it’s worse,” Bozell corrected the Fox News anchor. [see video below page break]

MSNBC: ObamaCare Protesters ‘Racist,’ Including Black Gun-Owner

On Tuesday, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer fretted over health care reform protesters legally carrying guns: “A man at a pro-health care reform rally…wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip….there are questions about whether this has racial overtones….white people showing up with guns.” Brewer failed to mention the man she described was black.

Following Brewer’s report, which occurred on the Morning Meeting program, host Dylan Ratigan and MSNBC pop culture analyst Toure discussed the supposed racism involved in the protests. Toure argued: “…there is tremendous anger in this country about government, the way government seems to be taking over the country, anger about a black person being president….we see these hate groups rising up and this is definitely part of that.” Ratigan agreed: “…then they get the variable of a black president on top of all these other things and that’s the move – the cherry on top, if you will, to the accumulated frustration for folks.”

Not only did Brewer, Ratigan, and Toure fail to point out the fact that the gun-toting protester that sparked the discussion was black, but the video footage shown of that protester was so edited, that it was impossible to see that he was black. The man appeared at a health care rally outside of President Obama’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix, Arizona.

GOP Presidential candidate Rick Perry calls President Obama a black cloud over our economy. MSNBC’s Ed Schultz edits the clip to make it look like Perry is calling Obama a “black cloud.”
SEE ALSO:
UPDATE:
Folks, I just finished reading some of the Twitchy posts, and I highly recommend you do too, so you completely understand just what it is we’re dealing with.
-
It’s confounding how many libs are peddling obvious lies. The video was debunked this morning, yet some news outlets are continuing with the BS. Piers Morgan will interview the Sandyhook dad on his show, tonight. Time will tell if he plays along with the left-wing narrative, or do the honorable thing and tell the truth.
-
See, these progs come in two types – 1. the ringleading committed lefty hacks like Eric Boehlert and Piers Morgan who dupe people for a living and are proud of it because the ends justify the means. Every lie they tell takes us one step closer to their Socialist Utopia in their minds.  And 2. the mindless drones who follow them. They have been conditioned to think what their betters tell them to think, not to think things out on their own. The truth to them is like garlic to a vampire. It’s not easy accepting that you’re entire worldview is based on left-wing agitprop.
-
Twitchy is doing God’s work tracking the organized left’s antics and exposing their lies and hypocrisy on Twitter. Little by little, we’re chipping away at their effectiveness by shining the light of truth on their putrid BS.
UPDATE II:
-
Linked by Maggie’s Farm, and iOWNTHEWORLD,  thanks!

MSM: Go Away Conservative Media – We Have it Covered

482520740_DEM_MSM_Media_Bias_Lapdoggies_answer_2_xlarge

Well they WOULD have it covered if conservatives weren’t constantly jumping in, politicizing stuff, making mountains out of molehills, and generally mucking things up with their silly, obnoxious conservative spin.

 Washington Post blogger, Erik Wemple explains why the media was justified in embargoing the Steven Crowder story:

… if folks are truly scandalized by the lack of generalized media outrage about Crowder’s treatment, they should take a second look at Crowder’s actions. Though he appears to have carried himself nobly while under attack, he’s gone buffoonish since then. He said on Twitter yesterday that this is “getting fun.” He challenged his assailant to a Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fight. And he has generally sounded as if he’s enjoying this boost to his career prospects, in a way that his Halloween-candy-exposes-the-fraud-of-income-redistribution stunt did not.Given how Crowder has carried on, I, too, may well pass on the story of his beating, were I a network executive producer.

Of course, this is a standard applied only to conservatives – as Ace notes, Sandra Fluke also “engaged in a great deal of partisan political agitation with a strong component of self-promotion (hiring a PR firm, for example!)”

The media offered the same excuse for not covering Benghazi– Oh, we wanted to cover Benghazi, and would have covered it, but then Mitt Romney tried to raise it as an issue for us to cover, so we couldn’t of course cover it.

It’s important to note, here, that the conservative media did jump in right away and vigorously covered the Benghazi story, which had all the earmarks of a scandal, right from the beginning. The MSM used to be good at sniffing out scandals. But when there’s a hotly contested presidential race to win, and their Precious could be hurt by their reportage – not so much…

Ace continues…

Liberal sort of logic here, eh? If a conservative wants a genuinely newsworthy story covered (as Wemple admits this is, before these defend-the-media paragraphs), then the liberal media is required to shut that conservative out. The story becomes non-coverable simply because an important actor in it — a conservative — wishes it to be covered.

What liberals really want is for us to go back to the days before talk radio, and cable news, when their monopoly on the news business was complete. The  choice for conservatives apparently is to either shut up and wait for them to cover important stories (like Benghazi, or Fast and Furious) on their own (which presumably they’d do with the conservative media out of the way) – or we continue to shine a light on the stories we know they would embargo no matter what we did.

Because it’s not about us, at all. It’s about THEM and their need to spin stories that are helpful to their side, and ignore the ones that aren’t.

So cut the crap, Wemple.

Linked by Doug Ross, thanks!

Video: Obama Defends Susan Rice: “She’s Done Exemplary Work”

In case you missed it, Obama’s press conference went off just as predicted –  the lapdog media threw mostly softballs and didn’t challenge the president who gave his usual long winded answers.

This noteworthy exchange on Benghazi gave him a neat opportunity to demonstrate righteous anger at the way his loyal underling, Susan Rice is being treated by mean ol’ Republicans, transcript via NY Times Politics:

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham both said today that they want to have Watergate-style hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and said that if you nominate Susan Rice to be secretary of state, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination. As Senator Graham said, he simply doesn’t trust Ambassador Rice after what she said about Benghazi. I’d like your reaction to that. And would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that?

Video via Weasel Zippers

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I’m not going to comment at this point on various nominations that I’ll put forward to fill out my Cabinet for the second term. Those are things that are still being discussed.

But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work. She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.

You know what’s outrageous? No one followed up with the question; “okay then, who in your administration supplied her with the bogus intelligence?”

Oh, because that’s still “under investigation.”

They’re looking at the guy, for God’s sake.

And you know, we’re after an election now.

Nice – the same pissy thing he told John McCain during the ObamaCare summit in Feb, 2010, “the election is over, John.” Whenever someone questions this corrupt regime’s maneuvers, you see, it’s “politics.”  Pissant.

I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi, and I’m happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants. We have provided every bit of information that we have, and we will continue to provide information. And we’ve got a full-blown investigation, and all that information will be disgorged to Congress.

Here’s some questions he could answer right now, but none of the lapdogs dared ask it: What did you, Panetta, and Biden talk about during your 5:00 meeting on 9/11? What were you doing on the night of 9/11? Did you watch any of the attack as it was being livestreamed in the situation room? Those answers might be interesting. But instead we get to hear twaddle like this:

And I don’t think there’s any debate in this country that when you have four Americans killed, that’s a problem. And we’ve got to get to the bottom of it, and there needs to be accountability. We’ve got to bring those who carried it out to justice. They won’t get any debate from me on that.

But when they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me. And should I choose — if I think that she would be the best person to serve America in the capacity — the State Department, then I will nominate her. That’s not a determination that I’ve made yet.

I’ve got a problem with liars, and thus I have a problem with this entire regime.

And so does Lindsey Graham:

BOOM. And that’s what one of our biggest RINOs is saying.

SEE ALSO:

Ace: “Come After Me:” Obama Offers Rehearsed Tough-Guy Message on Benghazi, But Avoids Actual Answers:

Also: “the intelligence she received.” Passive voice. Why does he avoid saying who gave her the intelligence? It’s a shifty construction. If there was nothing amiss, he should have no problems specifying who gave her this “intelligence.”

You avoid naming names when you have something to hide.

He calls the exchange, “sick-making.” Everything about this President is sick-making.

Gateway Pundit: OBAMA CONFRONTED ON BENGHAZI – Says He “Gave Order” to Keep Our People Safe – But Dodges Specifics (Video):

WOW! Obama was confronted today by Ed Henry from FOX News if he “made an order” to save the heroes in Benghazi. —
He says he gave the order to “keep our people safe.”

** But he WOULD NOT ANSWER if he gave a direct order to save our men in Benghazi!!

It was the only meaningful question from the whole press conference.
The lapdog media was particularly timid this afternoon.

John Nolte, Big Journalism: Obama Presser: Chuck Todd Wins, Jessica Yellin and America Lose:

You would think that after eight months, the media would be loaded for bear when the opportunity finally arose to ask President Obama serious questions about something other than a campaign — especially in the wake of Libya, an anemic economic recovery, and the oncoming fiscal cliff.

You would think the media would want some — no — would demand some answers as to why for two whole weeks we were told Libya was the result of a video as opposed to a premeditated terror attack.

But if you think that, you don’t understand our media.

A few questions were asked about Libya — but really only two. One Libya question was really about the President’s willingness to stand by and support U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice after Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham’s said today they would oppose her being nominated for Secretary of State. Many, including myself, believe Rice was willingly trotted out on all the Sunday shows a week after the September 11 anniversary attack to lie about Libya not being premeditated.

To this question, Obama replied forcefully, challenging McCain and Graham to come after him instead of Rice. In other words, like he did during the debates, Obama used faux indignation as a defense against his dishonest mishandling of Libya, because this is something he knows his media pals will eat up. And eat it up they have.

Ben Shapiro, Big Government:  Obama Press Conference: Stonewalls on Benghazi, Petraeus, Pushes Tax Hikes:

Today, President Obama held his first press conference in five months. It was a bizarre mix of softball questions from his press sycophants, false righteous indignation from the president over his administration’s Benghazi failures and lies, and an oddly blustery position shift on tax hikes as opposed to tax loopholes.

Obama opened his press conference with his usual patter about class warfare and the fiscal cliff, insisting on raising taxes first and foremost. Then a reporter asked him about whether he knew about the Petraeus investigation – or whether he should have known. “I have no evidence at this point that classified information was disclosed … there’s an ongoing investigation, and I don’t want to comment on the specifics of that investigation.” Obama then threw the ball to FBI Director Robert Mueller.  Obama did say that “by his own assessment, he did not meet the standards” he needed to as director of the CIA. “It’s on that basis that I accepted [his resignation],” Obama added.

“We’re not supposed to meddle in criminal investigations, and that’s been our practice,” said Obama, ignoring his long history of meddling in criminal investigations including Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Trayvon Martin.

Washington Free Beacon: BEASTMODE: McCain: ‘That’s one of the dumbest questions I’ve ever heard’:

Sen. John McCain was asked Wednesday if there was a greater national security threat in the classified documents uncovered in the Petraeus scandal than in the Benghazi terrorist attack that killed four Americans.

Bear. not. happy.

RCP: Krauthammer: If Susan Rice Didn’t Know Anything About Benghazi, “Why The Hell Are You Sending Her Out?”

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: AYou called at it a show of passion, I would say it was his usual show of indignation, which is his default response whenever he feels defensive or backed into a corner. ‘How dare you attack my U.N. ambassador?’ And then he gives the strangest defense by saying she didn’t have anything to do with the Benghazi [attack]. Then why the hell are you sending her out there? Why didn’t you send out the Secretary of State, or the CIA Director, or [Secretary of Defense] Panetta or somebody, who did know?

And then he does play the sort of Lancelot defending the mistress in distress? It made Mitt Romney and the binders with women look positively feminist in comparison, this kind of patronizing attack on the two male Senators who would dare attack the girl, which what was intended in his tone. This is all the usual — you know, if you attack the pride, he’ll strike you on that. It was clearly defensive, and it was also a stonewall. I mean, after all, what she said was absolutely and completely misleading. Either inadvertently, in which case it’s complete incompetence or on purpose, in which case it’s deception. Then he basically, he took the bait on that and said, ‘Look, that wasn’t her speaking, that was me speaking. If you want to pick on somebody, pick on me.’

How can anybody pick on him or even question him, if he hadn’t had a press conference in eight months? You know, he clearly hasn’t been out there. He’s been hiding behind inquiries, behind investigations, and now behind Susan Rice. But now I think he’s out there, and he is vulnerable on this. I think he may regret having said that.

Video at link.

America Live with Megyn Kelly: Obama sends confusing message with Susan Rice comments:

President reveals White House sent out UN ambassador to address Benghazi attacks, but says she had ‘nothing to do’ with Libya probe

With Kirsten Powers who makes many of the same points Charles Krauthammer did-  video at link.

Powers  seems to have turned on this president over the Benghazi issue.

And you know….go back and read that statement from Lindsey Graham. Obama’s not getting any kind of honeymoon this time around. (Outside of his biggest fans – the MSM, that is.)

Linked by Michelle Malkin, and The Lonely Conservative, and Lady Liberty,  thanks!