Game Changer In South Carolina Shooting?

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

SCShooting

 

Hat/Tip to I Hate The Media and The Conservative Treehouse.

A long post, but jam packed with plenty of info.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated 4/12/15 2:15pm with additional video

On the first day we saw the North Charleston, South Carolina, shooting video of Walter Scott by Officer Michael Slager we were as shocked as everyone.  However, as our research now indicates, there is much more to the story.

What we cover here in the latest update might just change the entire way the story continues…

Today, April 12th – We share alarming discoveries within the non-discussed details.

Treeper Diwataman , who previously discovered the “Three Stooges” interaction with Trayvon Martin (which became a game changer leading to the discovery of why Trayvon was at the 7-11) has done another incredible job creating a video to aid a larger understanding.

With discovery of the full radio dispatch recording of North Charleston Police, and with the Dash Cam video(s) from two vehicles, Diwataman was able to assemble a video syncing all of the data into one format easily understood.

The sync’d  video IS BRILLIANT and shows the length of time in the chase, confrontation, physical struggle between Officer Slager and Walter Scott, and the first aid administered by the responding officers.

Additionally, by adding a running clock from the moment Scott begins to run from the vehicle scene you can see the length of the struggle:

 

Walter Scott map 2

You can clearly see and hear this was not a short fight prior to Officer Slager using his firearm to shoot Walter Scott.  But that fact alone is not the most important discovery in the past 24 hours.

What is potentially a game changer occurs when you review Officer Slager stating he had lost control/custody of the x26 Taser he deployed to restrain a non compliant Scott – and recognize the Taser actually appears to have been used against him.

At least one dart appears lodged in the upper torso, chest, shirt of Officer Slager.

walter scott tazer leads

If you review the raw footage  (source New York Times) of the witness shooting video you can clearly see the wire from the Taser connected to Officer Slager.

Additionally, if you follow the wire you also recognize the cartridge from the Taser itself is being dragged behind the fleeing Walter Scott.

This is critical because the darts are on one end of the wire, and the cartridge is on the other end – usually cartridge remaining in the trigger assembly.  However, the cartridge is obviously dislodged in the struggle.

If the cartridge is dragging behind Scott -somehow tangled with his foot/shoe or leg – and the line is visibly taut (which it is) then the dart end is indeed attached to Officer Slager.

*NOTE* The civilian version of the x26 (x26C) only has 10-15? of wire, but the LEO version is 25? to 35?.  From the imaging it appears the length is at least 25?.

walter scott - taser x26 - slager

walter scott - taser s26 specs

This means when the Taser fired during the struggle, the darts actually penetrated Slager, not Scott.

Factually this aligns with the recorded statement of Slager and the reports of his initial debriefing.

It could be that one dart is in the leg of Slager and the other is in the upper torso region as evidenced below.

Walter Scott - taser lead

This would also explain the picture of Slager being debriefed after the confrontation with his left pant leg folded up as he explains events to the documenting officer.

walter scott - slager - uniform debrief

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Expanding these visuals and going back to the original source video taken by eye-witness Feidin Santana, an emerging picture comes to the surface.  Officer Slager did in fact lose custody of the Taser to Walter Scott.

walter scott tazer

This puts Slager at a serious disadvantage and obvious risk.

Eye-witness Santana describes hearing the sound of the Taser in his statement (as shared by his attorney Todd Rutherford):

[…]  After observing the two men struggle on the ground and hearing the sound of a Taser gun, I began filming the altercation with my cell phone”. (link)

Walter Scott - feidin santana statement

feidin santana

In the micro-seconds of decision-making, and having chased a fleeing suspect, and having physically struggled for almost two minutes, a scenario emerges where Slager -having lost the advantage of his Taser, and facing the risk of incapacitation from his own Taser being used against him – doesn’t realize (as they stand up – still fighting) the cartridge has dislodged from the trigger assembly.

The Taser wire is clearly still attached to Officer Slager as he draws his firearm to regain control against the risk presented by Scott.  The whereabouts of the actual trigger assembly unknown to Slager but in the video you can see it landing behind them.

If you frame by frame the video you will note the wire is still attached to the torso of Slager, and tightening by the fleeing Scott, as Slager fires the first shot.

walter scott tazer leads

Between shots 1 and 2 the wire pulls free from the officer’s upper torso as Scotts’ forward momentum dislodges it.

However, the wire is also still hung up on the foot/leg area of Scott as he runs away.  You can see the Taser cartridge bouncing along behind him.

View post on imgur.com

An argument can be made, and would be supported by factual evidence, that Officer Slager didn’t know Scott was not in possession of the trigger assembly.  Slager now focused on using his firearm – this is all happening in microseconds.

How dramatically this information changes the position or perspectives of the people who are holding opinion is most likely based on the ideology/bias of the observer.

Does the paradigm shift all the way to justification?  Not sure – that’s not our forte’.

However, weighing all of this against a charge of murder, and considering it presented before a jury…. well, at least to us, at the very least, this presents ‘very reasonable’ doubt.

south carolina 3

Walter Scott - Feidin Santana

Video eye-witness Feidin Santana with his attorney Todd Rutherford visit with the family of Walter Scott and their attorney Chris Stewart – Friday 4/10/15.

[…]  “The family’s legal team was gathering evidence for a civil federal lawsuit. “A civil lawsuit can’t bring him back to life,” Mr. Stewart said of Mr. Scott, “but it provides for the future, which would be his children”  (link)

The youngest child of Mr. Scott is 16 and the older three are in their 20’s.   That’s a fact you will see largely ignored by the MSM.  However, perhaps Mr. Scott in death will do for his children what he chose not to do in life.

[…]  “He (Feidin Santana) kept recording as the officer struck Mr. Scottand put a stun gun to Mr. Scott’s side, then as Mr. Scott slipped away”.. (link)

“Slipped away”?  “A Tussle”?  What’s next, a pillow fight? And then there is this little nugget:

[…]  “He (Feidin Santana) checked Facebook to see if he knew anyone in common with the family, and found that they shared some friends. He asked one of those friends to make an unusual introduction. He showed the video to the Scott family on Sunday and turned it over to state investigators on Monday”…. (link)

walter scott witness

 

.

.

.

Share

Former NBC Reporter: Journalists Have Taken Sides, Political Coverage Has All The Depth Of Twitter

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

lisa_myers_twitter_icon
Lisa Meyers, formally of NBC says news takes sides now, rather than report the truth

Hat/Tip to Newsmax.

Another one has left the fold…

Former NBC reporter Lisa Meyers tells The Des Moines Register the quality of television journalism is going downhill and that reporters have picked sides.

Meyers is scheduled to give a talk in Des Moines on Thursday, and told the Register, “I am going to talk about the deterioration in the quality of journalism you see on TV. There is less and less interest in network television today holding the White House or any other part of government accountable.”

Meyers said she believes newscasts are catering to an audience thought to care less about serious news.

“I think most of the political coverage these days has all the depth of Twitter,” she said.

“I also worry that journalists today appear to have chosen sides when it comes to political coverage,” Meyers added. “I think you see that in the sagging approval numbers of TV news over the last few years.”

Viewers question whether they are getting straight news or political bias, she said.

Newscasts have added celebrity news and feel-good stories, which Meyers said have a legitimate place. But she said they should not take the place of in-depth stories or investigations.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

 

Share

Top Military Brass Demand NBC Apologize On-Air For Calling Chris Kyle A “Racist” Who Went On “Killing Sprees”

Share

 photo MorningJoe-Sniper-06_00_24AM_zpsdcd45a92.jpg

Hat/Tip to Paul Bedard at The Washington Examiner.

Back in January we covered the story of how once again, NBC has lowered it’s standards and allowed one of their employees to levy charges of racism and serial murder on one of America’s finest, that of Navy SEAL Sniper, Chris Kyle.

MSNBC Does It Again: Reporter Calls Chris Kyle “Racist” Who Went On “Killing Sprees”

In that article, we reported that Middle East field reporter, Ayman Mohyeldin said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program that Chris Kyle was a “racist” that went on “killing sprees.”

It has come to light that Mr. Mohyeldin’s own views of American soldiers and sailors may have been tinged a tad bit on the, shall we say “racist” side because of where he worked before coming to NBC?

Yes, it seems that Mr. Mohyeldin worked for Al Jazeera TV, so it is small wonder that he would call what a sniper does to protect American, Iraqi and Afghanistan lives, “killing sprees” performed by a “racist.”

Now, in the wake of the “Lyin'” Brian Williams scandal, top military brass has had enough and they’ve banded together and sent a letter to NBC, demanding an apology.

Already under fire from Iraq War veterans for making up events, NBC is taking new flak today from former military brass over a correspondent’s claim that sniper hero Chris Kyle was a “racist” on “killing sprees” while protecting troops in Iraq.

Some 22 retired generals and admirals, including a former deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, joined with dozens of other officers and the press watchdog Media Research Center in a letter to demand an apology from NBC parent Comcast after the network refused to acknowledge the comments.

Kyle, the subject of the hit movie “American Sniper,” said a letter to Comcast provided to Secrets, “is a hero, not a talking point for a smug journalist.”

As a reminder of what Mohyeldin said…

The comment came from Middle East reporter Ayman Mohyeldin January 29 on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program. Ayman, formerly with Al Jazeera, said of Kyle:

“Some of what people have described as his racist tendencies towards Iraqis and Muslims when he was going on some of these, you know, killing sprees in Iraq on assignment.”

Mohyeldin’s comments seemed to bother “Morning Joe” host, Joe Scarborough who made a lame (at best) defense of Kyle. However Conservative Hideout 2.0 has got to hand it to NBC’s Willie Geist for putting Mohyeldin in his place by pushing back with the truth about who Kyle referred to as savages and that what he was doing was saving American lives, not going on killing sprees.

The letter by military brass to NBC demanding an on-air apology about this says, in part:

“Mohyeldin’s statements were an inexcusable slap in the face to the widow of Chris Kyle and to all those in the armed forces who continue to serve our country in harm’s way. Such rants do not add anything to a thoughtful discussion of public policy regarding Iraq.”

NBC seems to still be reeling over the whole “Lyin'” Brian Williams debacle and as such, the patience of the military is wearing thin on this. This has prompted them to go to NBC’s owners, Comcast.

“We understand that as members of the board of Comcast, the parent company of NBC, you may not be privy to how NBC News responds to such situations. However, your stockholders, advertisers, NBC News viewers, and the public have a right to know: Is it the policy of NBC News to allow its own reporters to make inaccurate and insulting editorial comments on its airwaves, aimed at our soldiers who gave their lives for their country? Is it the policy of NBC News to ignore the scandal and hope it goes away?” asked the letter.

“NBC News’ continued refusal to acknowledge and apologize for Mohyeldin’s malicious remarks about Chris Kyle is as disappointing as it is shocking. Chris Kyle’s family, veterans everywhere, and the public at large deserve from NBC News a strong, unequivocal public statement condemning Mohyeldin’s vile hate speech,” added the letter.

Once again, here is the video of the “Morning Joe” show in which the former Al Jazeera reporter slanders the legacy of American Hero, Chris Kyle.


Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

MSNBC Does It Again: Reporter Calls Chris Kyle “Racist” Who Went On “Killing Sprees”

Share

msnbc 002

Hat/Tip to John Nolte at Breitbart.com.

The same network who brought you, on Memorial Day weekend, Chris Hayes saying he was troubled by the term “fallen heroes” when speaking about US military personnel killed in the line of duty.

Now we’ve got a reporter named Ayman Mohyeldin who decided to take it upon himself to label Chris Kyle a racist who, instead of serving his country, went on “killing sprees.”

Editor’s Note: What a tool.

Ayman Mohyeldin

Transcript via Newsbusters:

MOHYELDIN: A lot of his stories when he was back home in Texas, a lot of his own personal opinions about what he was doing in Iraq, how he viewed Iraqis. Some of what people have described as his racist tendencies towards Iraqis and Muslims when he was going on some of these, you know, killing sprees in Iraq on assignment. So I think there are issues –

SCARBOROUGH: Wait, wait. Killing sprees? Chris Kyle was going on killing sprees?

MOHYELDIN: When he was involved in his — on assignments in terms of what he was doing. A lot of the description that has come out from his book and some of the terminology that he has used, people have described as racist. . . .

GEIST: It wasn’t a commentary about the war. It wasn’t about the politics of the war. It was a character study of what this guy went through. And you don’t have to like him and all the comments about him calling Iraqis savages. He was calling the people he was shooting savages. He was calling people who he thought had IEDs, who he thought were going to kill his buddies savages. He didn’t — some people have seized on that term that he thought all Iraqis or everyone in the Middle East is a savage. That’s just not what he said. It’s not what he said. He was talking about the people he was fighting in the theater, calling them savages.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, when we come back, Ayman is going to kick around Santa Claus.


.
.
.

Share

Surprise! The Media Has Spent More Time On GOP Staffer Comments Than On The Gruber Scandal…

Share

gruber comic book 001

 

Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

Let’s see. The architect of ObamaCare lies to the American people – Nah! That’s not news!

Some unknown GOP staffer makes stupid statements on her Facebook page – Now THAT’S news!!!

Via Newsbusters:

On Sunday and Monday, the broadcast networks seized on the personal Facebook comments of mid-level congressional staffer Elizabeth Lauten criticizing the Obama daughters – devoting over 14 minutes of national news air time to the controversy in the period of two days. However, it took those same networks several days to even notice the video comments of ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber crediting “the stupidity of the American voter” for passage of the law – providing only 8 minutes of coverage to the much larger scandal.

NBC’s Today and Nightly News gave the Lauten story 6 minutes 13 seconds, nearly three times what they gave to the Gruber story (2 minutes 23 seconds). ABC’s Good Morning America and World News Tonight offered 2 minutes 37 seconds, double the 1 minute 6 seconds they allocated to the Gruber video.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Where Was The Media When Jonathan Gruber Was Bragging About ObamaCare?

Share

Liberal MediaI have watched the ongoing revelations about Jonathan Gruber and his role in lying to the American people about ObamaCare with no small amount of interest. The reality of the situation is simple for me. We have known all along the liberals who shoved that monstrous piece of legislation down our throats were lying. Many of us tried to warn the country what was going down, what the legislation was intended to do, but we were shouted down. It wasn’t just the liberal politicians and policy wonks who raised their voices against our protests. The media establishment has done everything they could to make sure ObamaCare was passed and its failures hidden from sight.

In the interview Jonathan Gruber granted to PBS’ Frontline, he continually pointed out how he was just a “numbers guy”. This was the case when he helped Mitt Romney’s team set up their new health care plan in Massachusetts. He continued that mantra when he talked about his time with President Obama, before and after he became President. He is an economist and a liberal and with his proven proclivity to lie about what he is doing to the American people, just to make sure the desired result is achieved, it makes me trust economists and liberals even less than I already do.

My fellow Americans, we have been lied to from the beginning. The liberals in charge of creating ObamaCare and ramming it through Congress knew what their plans were all along. They manipulated the numbers, even bragging about it among themselves. With hardly any effort on my part, I can find several videos of Jonathan Gruber doing just that. While I can not argue with him that many American voters are less than astute in their knowledge of what goes on in their country, especially outside of their own tunnel vision, it doesn’t excuse his role in the lie that has been perpetrated.

Going back to Gruber’s interview with Frontline, let me point out the obvious. That interview was taped on June 13, 2012. By my calculations, that is 146 days before the presidential election took place on November 6, 2012. Plenty of time for the interview to be dissected by the media and the American public, but nary a word until 2014. This is just the latest evidence that shows just how culpable the media is, when it comes to Barack Obama. They said nothing about his failures, when it would have profited the American people to know of those failures. They said nothing about Jonathan Gruber’s manipulation of the legislation to make sure the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored it the way the Obama team wanted it scored.

This is not the only time the media played coverup for the Obama administration and ObamaCare.America’s Watchtower has a post about how CNBC helped lay a wet blanket over the criticism of ObamaCare. Melissa Francis, currently of Fox Business, had this to say about her time at CNBC.

“When I was at CNBC, I pointed out to my viewers that the math of Obamacare simply didn’t work. Not the politics by the way, just the basic math. And when I did that, I was silenced. I said on the air, that you couldn’t add millions of people to the system and force insurance companies to cover their preexisting conditions without raising the price on everyone else. I pointed out that it couldn’t possibly be true that if you like your plan you can keep it. That was a lie, and in fact, millions of people had their insurance canceled. As a result of what I said at CNBC, I was called into management where I was told, that I was quote, ‘disrespecting the office of the president’ by telling, what turned out to be the absolute truth” she stated.

When you look at the dates of Ms. Francis’ employment at CNBC, one thing stands out. She joined Fox Business in the second week of January 2012. That means her former employer was actively involved in covering up the truth about ObamaCare, well before the presidential election of 2012. That is another nail in the coffin holding the last vestiges of a responsible media establishment.

Even now, the mainstream media refuses to cover the video evidence of how Jonathan Gruber and the rest of the liberals involved in creating ObamaCare lied to the American people. As it was with Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS, and other scandals perpetrated by the Obama administration, they act as if not even a smidgin of corruption exists. They pretend it isn’t really a legitimate news story, just dreamed up by conservatives to make their pet President look bad. Remember what I said about not trusting another liberal economist? The same applies to the liberal media. They have proven one thing, once and for all. They can not be trusted to do the right thing.

.

.

.

Share

Full Interview: Sharyl Attkisson, Former CBS Reporter Says Obama Has An Enemies’ List

Share

 photo SharylAttkisson001_zpsd268ec6c.jpg

Hat/Tip to Paul Bond at The Hollywood Reporter.

Investigative Journalist, Sharyl Attkisson left CBS after her bosses lost their appetite for any story that would hurt, or even show the Obama Administration in a bad light. In this interview, she talks about an unknown government agency hacking into her computer, her bosses choice to bury her stories, their penchant for labeling any analyst they didn’t agree with as Conservative Analysts and all others as just Analysts, the trend from the MSM’s desire to air stories negative to Republican administrations to their fear of doing so to the Obama administration, and finally of the fact that Barack Obama does indeed have an Enemies’ List.

Here is her full interview with THR.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THR reached out for a response from CBS News, but the organization declined to comment.

Who did you tell at CBS that your computers were hacked?

The first person I spoke to was Washington bureau chief Chris Isham.

Did he believe you?

He appeared to.

Did CBS care? Did they do anything about it?

God, you know, there’s a lot of people there. He seemed to care. He hired a separate computer forensics firm to look at the computers. They, too, agreed that there had been highly sophisticated remote intrusion of my computers. They decided to dig deeper and embark upon a process that spanned a number of months, during which time the situation with the Associated Press and the government spying on Fox News reporter James Rosen was disclosed, as well as Edward Snowden’s NSA information.

Did they ever find out who hacked your computers and spied on you?

I don’t believe their computer forensics team concluded who spied on me.

Did they ask anybody in the Obama administration if they were the culprits?

Not to my knowledge. Executives discussed with me that they assumed that was the case. And we discussed how to proceed with that information and what we could do about it.

So what did you do about it?

It seemed to fall off the radar after the forensics report was delivered to CBS. And so I hired a — I have a legal and forensics team that began work.

Did they conclude anything yet?

Yes. Her work is still very much active, but they have told me they have evidence of highly sophisticated remote intrusions into my personal and work computers by someone using software proprietary to a government agency.

CBS executives suspect that the government hacked your computer, and CBS computers, but there’s been no accountability? CBS just dropped the matter?

As far as I know, although what they told me was they wanted to heavily pursue it and find out who was responsible. I discovered on my own they have a computer security specialist working for CBS. … But nobody ever questioned me, came to my house, checked the security of my system, asked me for more information, or followed up with me.

Do you believe that people working for the president of the United States hacked your computer and spied on you?

The way you phrase the question makes me want to couch it a little bit. I have been told by two computer forensics experts that a highly sophisticated entity using abilities outside non-government resources, using software proprietary either to the DIA, CIA, FBI or NSA made repeat remote intrusions into both my computers over a period of time. And we have evidence of a government computer connection into my computer system.

And why do you think they would target you as opposed to more partisan voices, like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck?

The question carries the assumption that they haven’t targeted others. I kind of assume I’m on a list. I don’t think I’m the only one, along with James Rosen and the Associated Press, that garnered special attention. There’s probably a list of people.

So an enemies list, like in the Nixon administration?

I’ve been told there is such a list, yes.

And who do you suspect is on that list?

Well, there’s an internal email that indicated reporters who were working with leakers in government agencies or perceived as enemies of the White House are being targeted. So I think that’s probably accurate — anybody that they perceive as harmful to their agenda or working with leakers and whistle-blowers, which I did a lot of.

Do you have sources who told you the names on that list? Is Rush Limbaugh on that list, for example?

Another reporter told me — I can’t remember who — that they thought he was on some sort of target list, but I don’t know that to be the case. I have someone who told me the existence of a list but not the names on it.

You’re being accused of being a partisan right-winger. Have you reported negative stories about conservatives?

Most of my reporting has not been political in nature. Some of the stories that were politicized, I don’t consider political stories, but they were made out to be by people who obviously didn’t want them reported, and I would put Fast and Furious and Benghazi in that category. But other stories include the one I won an investigative Emmy Award for last year, which was a series of stories from the time I went undercover to investigate freshmen Republican fundraising. I also did a story that MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow complimented in a seven-minute-long segment, exposing Congressman Steven Buyer, a Republican from Indiana, and his possible and allegedly fraudulent charity, which was followed shortly thereafter by his resignation from Congress.

Did your colleagues give you grief about your negative stories on Obama?

Not my reporter colleagues.

But you have said your bosses kind of shut down a lot of your reporting?

Some of them did. It was very complicated. All of them encouraged my reporting initially, and then as time went on some of them encouraged it and some of them discouraged it.

Who were the ones discouraging it?

Nobody ever discouraged it to my face, they just would not run the stories or would have other stories they wanted to put on every time the stories were offered. That was CBS News with Scott Pelley and his executive producer Pat Shevlin primarily, but there may have been others.

You’ve said they did this because of liberal bias?

I’m not sure I’ve ever said that. But I think there was a complex list of reasons why a lot of stories did and didn’t make it on the air the last couple of years. But in a general sense, I noticed a tendency to avoid stories that would draw pushback form people they didn’t want to have pushback from, whether it’s corporations, advertisers or politicians.

Has CBS ever cared about pushback from politicians before, or only under this administration?

I don’t know how these same people would have acted under a different administration. They came in shortly after the Obama administration [began].

Do you think CBS was unlikely to run negative stories about President George W. Bush for fear of pushback?

They might have been just as likely to be fearful of stories that drew controversy or pushback from corporate entities, charities, politicians, whatever the special interest might be.

Since when has CBS ever been afraid to air controversial political stories? It ran those memos claiming Bush was trying to avoid the Vietnam War. That wasn’t controversial?

CBS is hundreds of people, and they’ve changed over the years. It’s not a monolithic organization that has one viewpoint, and that’s why for everything you try to put into a box there are exceptions. For example, they assigned me to cover Benghazi, that wasn’t my idea. And they were very enthusiastic about the story for a period of time. Why they changed on that, I tried to figure out many times and I can’t say; I can only say what my experiences were.

You must have a theory as to why, right?

They simply didn’t want stories on any controversies, whether that involved corporations, advertisers, charities or other special interests. They were not impossible to get on the air, but very difficult. So we just concluded that there was not the same appetite as there had been in the past.

You’re acting like it was a monetary decision on the part of CBS, like it didn’t want to risk its advertising. But these were government stories we’re talking about.

No, I’m trying to explain to you it wasn’t just government stories, although that’s what the media tended to focus on.

OK then, name the corporations that wanted to kill your stories.

I don’t think any corporations killed my stories. I said CBS had a tendency, in the last couple years especially, to appear to want to avoid controversies or stories that they felt would get pushback from certain corporations and politicians and special interests and charities.

Can you tell me the names of these corporations, charities and politicians?

I hate to tick them off because I feel like the story should be told in some context for legal reasons, but I think that you can pull some ideas from the book.

Does CBS go after liberal policies that are failing with as much gusto as they do conservative policies that are failing?

Well, whether something’s failing is a matter of somebody’s opinion. But I would say, as Lisa Myers has observed, as USA Today has observed, the media in general has been less enthusiastic about government accountability under the Obama administration. And I concur with those observations.

Why is that the case?

In my view, trying to avoid the pushback, and the fallout, and the headaches that come with doing stories on whatever the topic may be that the powers-that-be don’t like.

So, in journalism today, it works to bully the reporters and they’ll lay off? “Speak truth to power” — that saying from the 1960s — that doesn’t apply to journalism anymore?

Reporters want to, as you say, “speak truth to power,” but it’s harder to get those types of stories past the gatekeepers.

So what good is CBS News if it’s just going to bow down to the bullies who tell them to shut up?

Those were your words, but I think they do a great job on some controversies and investigations. 60 Minutes still does some great work. So I’m not saying there aren’t very good journalists and work being done, but on the whole, as many other journalists have observed recently and publicly, the media is not as good at holding the powers that be accountable, for whatever reason.

And that reason has nothing to do with political bias?

It’s a complex set of factors involving politics, relationships with corporations and advertisers and, at times, just the idea that they’d rather not have the headache of doing a story that they have to defend.

You seem to be going way out of your way not to label the media biased. But in your book you talk about how one of your bosses insisted on labeling conservative analysts but not labeling the liberal ones, and if they really didn’t like an analyst, they’d label him or her “right-wing.” So if that’s not bias, what is it?

I didn’t say that nobody is ever biased. I’m not trying to be cagey. It’s not one factor at play … I never told CBS when I wanted to leave that I thought anybody was liberally biased. I never argued that point. People kind of drew that conclusion because it served a certain narrative on both sides. It served the narrative of conservatives who were happy to feel like someone was spilling the family secret and it served the narrative of liberals who didn’t like some of my reporting and thought it could be explained away if I were a right-wing conservative. So everybody sort of adopted that line, and that’s something that I never said.

So whose rule was it at CBS that analysts who were conservative be labeled as such and analysts who are liberal not be labeled?

I’m not going to name her. And it was some time ago, but she did say after I brought it up, she’d think about it, and she agreed that what I brought up was a good point and she changed — at least with me — what she’d been doing.

And who at CBS got mad at you for going on Laura Ingraham’s radio show because Ingraham is right wing?

I don’t want to say her name, either.

It sounds like you criticize Obama officials by name but you won’t say names when you’re criticizing CBS. Why the double standard?

I said a lot of names in the book, and I have my reasons why. … I described it in the book as I wished to describe it.

Did anybody at CBS get mad when reporters went on liberal outlets, like MSNBC?

I can only speak for myself. I saw other reporters go on conservative and liberal outlets and I never heard that they received blowback. So I don’t know if it was just me. But in my experience, they did tell me to not go on the Laura Ingraham Show.

Just the Laura Ingraham Show or all conservative shows?

That’s a good question. At the time it was just, “Don’t ever go on her show again.” And then they denied other interview requests on both liberal and conservative outlets after that — a lot, but not all the time.

Are there any celebrities mentioned in your book?

Sheryl Crow and Sinbad. I traveled with them on a trip to Bosnia with Hillary Clinton. They were entertaining the troops. But first lady Hillary Clinton and her daughter were on a work trip and I was there covering it. I mention them briefly in light of the fact that I did the story that exposed that Mrs. Clinton’s account that we’d been fired at by snipers was not true. I mentioned that Sinbad and Sheryl Crow were on the plane with us.

Was there any pushback on your Hillary-Bosnia report?

No. That sort of highlights the changes that had occurred because that was a different executive producer who, as far as I know, is actually friendly with the Clintons but nonetheless was very gung-ho on the story because he was — like most journalists — able to get outside of his own friendships and belief systems and just be a newsman.

Who at CBS did you tender your resignation to?

The first time I tried to leave, a year before I left, I had my agent call CBS president David Rhodes.

What was your interaction with David Rhodes like?

Well, for most of my tenure at CBS he was very supportive. We met privately a lot about how he wanted my stories to get exposure.

When did that change?

As I tried to leave, there were some tense times. But it ended up cordial.

Why did you want to leave?

The bottom line is, the last couple of years it was clear for me that there was nothing meaningful left for me to do at CBS, and I just wanted to move on. They had plenty of talented reporters but, for what I did, investigative and original reporting, there was no appetite for that.

What are your politics personally?

I don’t talk about my politics, but I would say I’m like a lot of Americans. I’m mixed. I can honestly see two valid sides of a debate. That’s not to say I don’t have positions and thoughts on things, of course I do, but I don’t let those things get in the way of my work.

The primary issues in your book are Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the alleged green energy scandals and Obamacare. Which of those four needs further reporting?

Wow. There’s a great deal of reporting to be done on all of them. I can’t pick one. At CBS, I would have continued on all of them, if I was able to.

It sounds like you’ve been telling me that journalists at CBS who don’t toe a certain line have something to fear there. Is that the case at other networks, too?

I’m not sure we have anything to fear. It’s just that if you want to keep working there, you may not be doing what you want to do. In my case it was not being willing to do what they wanted me to do, or disagreeing with it so much that I just would rather move on. I don’t think reporters are fearful, per se, but I think they will tell you at the other networks that it’s getting more difficult to get original and hard-nosed stories on, especially if they don’t fit with the narrative that the gatekeepers in New York are trying to portray.

You were accused by some at CBS of agenda-driven news stories against Obama. Has anyone at CBS ever accused a reporter of agenda-driven stories against Sarah Palin, or George W. Bush, or anyone prominent on the right?

When I did stories that clearly were not positive toward Republicans, I was never accused of being a crazy liberal or having an agenda. That only happened when I did stories that were perceived as being negative toward Democrats.

Did your executive producer, Patricia Shevlin, accuse you of not being supportive enough of green energy because of your stories about taxpayer money given to Solyndra before it went bankrupt?

She never told me that — that was her answer to another executive who raised the question: “Shouldn’t we be doing these stories on evening news?”

Why is that anecdote about Shevlin significant?

She is a well-known liberal ideologue who let that get in the way of her decisions and judgment. Whether people will say that to you or not, that was the consensus. That was discussed sometimes daily at CBS.

You also said somebody hacked your TV. How would you know? Why would someone want to hack someone’s TV?

I didn’t say that. What I said was the anomalies that were occurring in my house all seemed to be associated with my FiOS line. … I think that the work that they were doing to get into my computer system may have interfered with the other systems in the house.

The progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America is leading the charge against you, it seems.

Media Matters has acknowledged targeting me, yes. Not with a computer intrusion, just with trying to discredit the stories I did as much as possible.

Do you think they were paid to do so?

They said they weren’t, but the question has certainly crossed my mind.

Do you know of any occasions where Media Matters was given money earmarked to targeting somebody?

David Folkenflik of NPR told me they were paid to target Rush Limbaugh. He may have misspoken on that, because someone told me it may have been Glenn Beck. He gave me two instances in which they were paid to target. He also said that they were paid to target Fox News. I’m not sure if that’s correct. It was just another reporter relaying that information to me.

(David Folkenflik did not respond to a request for comment. Media Matters president Bradley Beychok told THR: “Media Matters has never taken a dime to target Sharyl Attkisson.”).

Do you think Media Matters has libeled you?

That’s a good question. I haven’t had a legal review of what they’ve said. I actually read little to zero of what they write. They have definitely said many, many, false things. But I’m not sure it qualifies as libel under the law.

They’re a media watchdog. They tell the truth about what the media is reporting, right?

I don’t think they have an obligation to, no. Anyone can say they’re a media watchdog and then give their opinions … most people understand it’s a propaganda blog. They are very close to the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton and Democratic interests.

What does the press think of Media Matters?

Like anybody that reaches out to us, we may take under consideration an idea that they propose. But I never get asked about their conservative counterparts, such as Media Research Center or Accuracy in Media. In my experience, no one ever takes their criticism as if it is something legitimate to be answered, but when Media Matters says something, many people in the media almost treat them as a neutral journalism organization.

Is that biased?

That probably is the result of an unintentional bias.

As we’re talking, I got an email from Media Matters that says a video you released of your computer being hacked is probably just a stuck backspace key.

It’s what I would call a video anecdote, something that happened along the way. It has nothing to do with the forensic evidence and the analysis. It’s just something interesting, a punctuation mark of things that were happening. And, certainly, I expect Media Matters to say that the backspace key was held down.

What story were you working on when your backspace key started operating by itself?

I was preparing questions for my interview with Ambassador Thomas Pickering about Benghazi and the Accountability Review Board.

So of all the stories you did that were seen as negative against Obama, Benghazi was the one that really irritated them?

I think green energy got under their skin first, and the remote intrusions into my computer predated Benghazi.

From what you told me thus far, it sounds like you’re accusing CBS of cowardice more than liberal bias. Is that correct?

I haven’t used that word, ever. CBS is hundreds of people. It’s not a monolithic organization. That’s the hard part about trying to make a statement or draw conclusions. I would use the word “fearful,” rather than “cowardice.” Some people in the decision-making process, not necessarily reporters at the ground level, but some of those deciding what goes on television have become very fearful of the sponsors and would just prefer to avoid conflict and controversy, which means you’re not going to do a lot of original investigative reporting.

You mentioned your former boss David Rhodes. His brother is Ben Rhodes, a security adviser to the president. Is there at least an appearance of a conflict of interest there when he’s telling you to lay off Benghazi while his brother works for the president?

David didn’t tell me to lay off Benghazi, and I don’t really have an opinion of his relationship with his brother, and how that might have affected things.

Did anyone tell you to lay off Benghazi, or did they just stop using your stories on TV?

They started not using my stories. I don’t know what goes on in the decision-making process, but in general the shows’ producers and managing editors and so on would be the ones that decide what goes on the broadcasts and what doesn’t. I certainly had people joining me at CBS and pushing for stories to get on television that didn’t get on. And they were stopped, as far as I was concerned, somewhere in New York.

What reasons did they give you for not airing your stories?

They would just say — and they didn’t talk to me personally, this was to senior producers — they would just say things like, “There is no time on the show for it tonight,” “That’s a great story but maybe we’ll get to it tomorrow,” “Not today, but tell us when there are other developments, we’ll consider it again.”

Why would the administration blame the murders in Benghazi on a YouTube video if that was untrue?

Some of the information the administration is withholding from public release involves a meeting or meetings that occurred in which this was presumably discussed. So we can only wonder, but the body of evidence that’s come out in the two years since would lead a reasonable person to conclude they wanted to steer the public’s direction away from the idea that this was definitely an act of terror, technically on U.S. soil if it was U.S. property overseas. It occurred on the president’s watch, very close to an election, at a time when he had claimed Al Qaeda was on the run.

But that reason sounds fairly pathetic and unworthy of such a huge lie. Doesn’t it?

From whose viewpoint? I mean, it’s apparently important enough for them to deflect opinion, and I’m not sure if that is indeed why they did it, that’s just the best reason most of us can come up with, looking at the evidence that has come out since. Maybe there is a better reason why they did it, I don’t know. I have a feeling we won’t ever have the full story.

What news network do you think you’ll land with next?

I certainly haven’t decided I’ll ever work at another network or even necessarily work full-time again. When I decided to leave CBS, the discussion I had with my husband was, I have to be prepared to walk out and not work anywhere ever again, and we were fine with that.

Have you had offers?

Yes, but I don’t want to discuss them.

Media Matters and others say that you’re pushing a media-is-biased narrative to curry favor with conservatives.

Anyone who knows much of anything about me knows that I don’t curry favor with people. Period.

Being targeted, allegedly, by the Obama administration, and your stories allegedly being shunned at CBS — were those ultimately good things for you?

I don’t think those were pleasant things, but where I sit today I would say, “Fine, I’m exactly where I ought to be.” And I will tell you, before all this stuff happened, I did hope to, and thought I would, work the rest of my career at CBS doing as much as I had been doing over most of the last 20 years. It didn’t work out that way, but I’m not sorrowful over it. … I think there is a cultural change in journalism that’s going on — a turn away from the kind of reporting that just holds the powers-that-be accountable. It’s not just a CBS thing.

The major news networks are just afraid of the powerful all of a sudden?

Well, when you put it that way, it makes it sound silly, and that’s what I’ve written about in the book. I don’t think there was a sudden switch.

Nobody was saying that the media was afraid of George W. Bush, now all of a sudden they are afraid of Barack Obama?

There were times when people said that — inside CBS, after Rathergate.

Were there some depressing days for you at CBS toward the end?

I was very disheartened when my producer and I would have great stories, and in some cases, whistleblowers we convinced to go out on a limb and tell their story, only to then have to go back to them and say nobody’s interested. So, we’ve had to do that more times in the past few years than I’ve had to do in the previous 30.

An Obama spokesman called you “unreasonable.” Are you?

I’m probably one of the most reasonable reporters out there. But their definition of unreasonable is when they answer a question, if it doesn’t make sense or if it contradicts other facts, I don’t just accept it and go away.

What haven’t I asked you about that you think is important to mention?

A couple people have told me that CBS News has started a whisper campaign to say that I’m paranoid, crazy and a liar?

Are you paranoid?

I’d like to think not. It’s just a good word they use to discredit and “controversialize” reporters and stories they don’t like.

Assuming this whisper campaign against you is true, who is orchestrating it?

I was told that Chris Isham, the bureau chief in Washington, was a part of it.

.

.

.

Share

Ex-CBS Reporter’s Book Reveals How Liberal Media Protects Obama

Share

Sharyl Attkisson Stonewalled book

Hat/Tip to Kyle Smith at New York Post.

For over 6 years now most Americans have come to understand that the MSM (Main Stream Media) have been more than arbiters of the truth. They have been, in many cases complete shills for the current administration.

From giving Barack Obama softball questions, to gushing at his “greatness”, to actually ditching stories that they thought would hurt him, the MSM has been complicit in the degradation and, yes, socialization of this country.

You can think back to the editor of Newsweek, Evan Thomas calling Obama a “God” – “Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”

And lest we forget, it was Chris “Tingles” Matthews on CNN, after listening to an Obama speech, famously said of Obama, “The feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama speech, my. I felt this thrill going up my leg. I don’t have that too often.”

Well one reporter is not taking that messianic, worshiping path that presides over the dogma that Barack Hussein Obama can do no wrong.

Sharyl Attkisson was a long time reporter for CBS and she was a damned good one, at that. Not afraid to take on the big boys, step on a few toes or shed any partisan ideology to get to the truth of the story.

The trouble is, her bosses at CBS wouldn’t let her tell the entire scope of the stories, or they’d bury them on their website if they hurt the Obama administration.

Sharyl Attkisson is an unreasonable woman. Important people have told her so.

When the longtime CBS reporter asked for details about reinforcements sent to the Benghazi compound during the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack, White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor replied, “I give up, Sharyl . . . I’ll work with more reasonable folks that follow up, I guess.”

Another White House flack, Eric Schultz, didn’t like being pressed for answers about the Fast and Furious scandal in which American agents directed guns into the arms of Mexican drug lords. “Goddammit, Sharyl!” he screamed at her. “The Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable. You’re the only one who’s not reasonable!”

Two of her former bosses, CBS Evening News executive producers Jim Murphy and Rick Kaplan, called her a “pit bull.”

That was when Sharyl was being nice.

Now that she’s no longer on the CBS payroll, this pit bull is off the leash and tearing flesh off the behinds of senior media and government officials. In her new memoir/exposé “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington” (Harper), Attkisson unloads on her colleagues in big-time TV news for their cowardice and cheerleading for the Obama administration while unmasking the corruption, misdirection and outright lying of today’s Washington political machine.

And when ideology isn’t the problem, most of the big network news folks are afraid to upset the people who buy advertising on those networks.

In nearly 20 years at CBS News, she has done many stories attacking Republicans and corporate America, and she points out that TV news, being reluctant to offend its advertisers, has become more and more skittish about, for instance, stories questioning pharmaceutical companies or car manufacturers.

Working on a piece that raised questions about the American Red Cross disaster response, she says a boss told her, “We must do nothing to upset our corporate partners . . . until the stock splits.” (Parent company Viacom and CBS split in 2006).

And despite how bad the image of the MSM is, especially in the minds of those of us on the Right, Attkisson says that the reporters themselves aren’t the problem.

Reporters on the ground aren’t necessarily ideological, Attkisson says, but the major network news decisions get made by a handful of New York execs who read the same papers and think the same thoughts.

Often they dream up stories beforehand and turn the reporters into “casting agents,” told “we need to find someone who will say . . .” that a given policy is good or bad. “We’re asked to create a reality that fits their New York image of what they believe,” she writes.

Does anyone remember Solyndra? Obama wanted to be the “Green Energy” President so bad, he squandered billions in hard-earned taxpayer money for what turned out to be a few measly photo ops and public speaking events.

Reporting on the many green-energy firms such as Solyndra that went belly-up after burning through hundreds of millions in Washington handouts, Attkisson ran into increasing difficulty getting her stories on the air. A colleague told her about the following exchange: “[The stories] are pretty significant,” said a news exec. “Maybe we should be airing some of them on the ‘Evening News?’?” Replied the program’s chief Pat Shevlin, “What’s the matter, don’t you support green energy?”

Says Attkisson: That’s like saying you’re anti-medicine if you point out pharmaceutical company fraud.

A piece she did about how subsidies ended up at a Korean green-energy firm — your tax dollars sent to Korea! — at first had her bosses excited but then was kept off the air and buried on the CBS News Web site. Producer Laura Strickler told her Shevlin “hated the whole thing.”

On ObamaCare, Attkisson says that she’s not the only one who wants to tell the truth about that horrid law.

Attkisson continued her dogged reporting through the launch of ObamaCare: She’s the reporter who brought the public’s attention to the absurdly small number — six — who managed to sign up for it on day one.

“Many in the media,” she writes, “are wrestling with their own souls: They know that ObamaCare is in serious trouble, but they’re conflicted about reporting that. Some worry that the news coverage will hurt a cause that they personally believe in. They’re all too eager to dismiss damaging documentary evidence while embracing, sometimes unquestioningly, the Obama administration’s ever-evolving and unproven explanations.”

Once again, she says the problem is at the top of the networks – AND – at the top of the Obama White House.

One of her bosses had a rule that conservative analysts must always be labeled conservatives, but liberal analysts were simply “analysts.” “And if a conservative analyst’s opinion really rubbed the supervisor the wrong way,” says Attkisson, “she might rewrite the script to label him a ‘right-wing’ analyst.”

When the White House didn’t like her reporting, it would make clear where the real power lay. A flack would send a blistering e-mail to her boss, David Rhodes, CBS News’ president — and Rhodes’ brother Ben, a top national security advisor to President Obama.

You would think that the black eye CBS News got with Dan Rather’s pushing of poorly forged documents that tried to paint a picture of President George W. Bush as some sort of playboy, AWOL fighter pilot, they might learn a lesson and get back to hard news coverage. But, no.

Attkisson left CBS News in frustration earlier this year. In the book she cites the complete loss of interest in investigative stories at “CBS Evening News” under new host Scott Pelley and new executive producer Shevlin.

She notes that the program, which under previous hosts Dan Rather, Katie Couric and Bob Schieffer largely gave her free rein, became so hostile to real reporting that investigative journalist Armen Keteyian and his producer Keith Summa asked for their unit to be taken off the program’s budget (so they could pitch stories to other CBS News programs), then Summa left the network entirely.

And speaking of those forged documents dredged up by Dan Rather…

Ignoring Attkisson proved damaging to CBS in other ways. When a senior producer she doesn’t identify came to her in 2004 bubbling about documents that supposedly showed then-President George W. Bush shirked his duties during the Vietnam War, she took one look at the documents and said, “They looked like they were typed by my daughter on a computer yesterday.”

Asked to do a followup story on the documents, she flatly refused, citing an ethics clause in her contract. “And if you make me, I’ll have to call my lawyer,” she said. “Nobody ever said another word” to her about reporting on the documents…

One of her co-workers tried to warn her that she’d better look out for her own career.

After Pelley and Shevlin aired a report that wrongly tarnished reports by Attkisson (and Jonathan Karl of ABC News) on how the administration scrubbed its talking points of references to terrorism after Benghazi, and did so without mentioning that the author of some of the talking points, Ben Rhodes, was the brother of the president of CBS News, she says a colleague told her, “[CBS] is selling you down the river. They’ll gladly sacrifice your reputation to save their own. If you don’t stand up for yourself, nobody will.”

After reading the book, you won’t question whether CBS News or Attkisson is more trustworthy.

Read the full story here.

.

.

Share

Obama Is Using Border ‘Crisis’ to Build One Party Nation

Share

dreamers homeless illegals 001

Hat/Tip to Newsmax.

Dick Morris: Obama Using Border Crisis to Build a Democrat Nation

Dick Morris appeared on Newsmax TV and during his interview, he said that President Obama is letting all those Illegal Alien Children cross the border in order to build a one party, (Democrat, of course) country.

President Barack Obama, who as a candidate in 2008 said voters’ choice of him would be “fundamentally transforming” for America, plans to deliver on that promise by turning millions of illegal immigrants into lifelong Democratic voters, political analyst Dick Morris told Newsmax TV on Friday.

Amplifying themes in his forthcoming book, “Power Grab: Obama’s Dangerous Plan for a One-Party Nation,” Morris told “MidPoint” host Ed Berliner that the ongoing flood of undocumented Central American migrants is key to the president’s transformational aims.

“His goal is to get these kids in the United States and let them stay here,” said Morris, citing a recent wave of illegal immigrants, including more than 57,000 children said to be fleeing drug gang violence in their home countries.

“His goal is to fudge the border between refugees fleeing a war and kids coming in,” Morris said. “His goal is to make those who live here illegally look like citizens, act like citizens, have IDs like citizens, drive like citizens, and eventually vote like citizens.

“He wants to create a one-party country in the United States by taking 11 or 12 million Latinos — immigrants — gluing them to the Democratic Party and sending the message to Central America and Mexico, ‘Come on in, we’ll never throw you out,'” said Morris.

Read the full story here.

Share

Cliven Bundy’s remarks, what his black bodyguard thinks and the dishonesty over at Media Matters

Share

As you can tell by the long title of this Op-Ed, I have a lot of ground to cover and since I don’t want this to become a 1,000 word essay, here goes!

Cliven Bundy’s recliven bundymarks about Black people have got the left turning themselves into a pretzel to try and justify the BLM’s heavy handed tactics.

But what did he say, exactly?

In short, he said that he wondered if the Negroes (his choice of word) were better off post slavery. He cited their poor socioeconomic status, high incarceration rate, lack of family structure and high abortion rates.

What Mr. Bundy so inelegantly pointed out was that liberal policies just fail the Black community. This is not shocking, it is simply the truth, and this man had enough stones to voice it out loud.

Could he have used a better choice of words? Hell yes, but when you stop and think about it, being a cattle rancher doesn’t always require a lot of tact, and pert near zero time in front of a camera, so to say that he is a little out of practice in this area is an understatement.

However, here is the video that Media Matters posted on their site:

 

Now here are his FULL remarks, where he goes on to speak about Spanish (his word choice, also) people. Basically he cites their strong work ethic, rigid family structure and the fact that they pay taxes.

Here is the UNEDITED video Media Matters did not post:

So, in this author’s humble opinion, we have yet another example of the left getting all upset over a manufactured event.

And lastly, what does one of Mr. Bundy’s own bodyguards think about his remarks? Now keep in mind, this bodyguard just happens to be a black man.

The first thing I noticed about this interview, was that despite the CNN reporter’s best efforts, he could not get that bodyguard to say Mr. Bundy was a racist. The bodyguard even went so far as to proclaim, “I would take a bullet for that man, if need be. I look up to him just like my own grandfather.”

Share

NY Times Reporter Admits Main Stream Media Bias on National TV during Jeopardy Gameshow!

Share

It’s no surprise to the many loyal readers of CH2.0 that there is main stream media bias by the liberals. What is surprising is when a member of the “elite” media admits publicly that he treats politicians differently, depending on what letter follows their name.

“I’ll take ‘Explicit Media Bias” for $500, Alex.” On the April 23 “Jeopardy,” a reporter for The New York Times actually admitted that it was part of his job to “annoy” Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

The admission came as a question under the category “Man of the House” about House Representatives. In the video question, New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau introduces himself and asks:

“This California Republican who chairs the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee has been called Obama’s Annoyer-In-Chief, & it seems I provide the same service for him.”

This “journalist” has a long history of purposely attacking Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA):

Lichtblau, a Pulitzer Prize-winner who worked for “The Los Angeles Times” previously, has been writing hit pieces on Issa since as far back as 1998, according to Politico. In 2011, a Lichtblau article accused Issa of

fraudulent business activity. Issa fired back against Lichtblau’s article, demanding a retraction for the article he accused of being riddled with inaccuracies that had tarnished his reputation.

Remember, Lichtblau works for the New York Slimes – er, Times; the same paper who viciously went after the Bush administration, even going so far as to publish stories harmful to Bush’s national security policies. However, when it comes to Obama, the NYT bends over backwards to give the man cover by withholding information about his drone programs.

 

Read the full story here.

Share

Dispatches From The Deep Freeze

Share

Rev Al Explains All“Just because it snows in winter, doesn’t mean the planet isn’t getting warmer.” – Al Sharpton

“Progressives,” besides being some of the world’s nastiest people, are some of the dumbest — to be expected in a group where ideological psychopathy will assassinate common sense the first chance it gets.  And leading the ever-shrieking Reality Deniers are the Agenda-Driven Liars, serial prevaricators like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, every other elected Democrat, and assorted “community” loudmouths like the “Reverend” Al Sharpton, the aging agitator from the Big Apple who’s parlayed a lengthy career as a professional race hustler into a lucrative gig spinning liberal old wive’s tales on MSNBC.  That’s one mangy hyena who’s laughing all the way to the bank.

MSNBC’s Politics Nation on Friday featured a lab coat-wearing Al Sharpton pontificating about global warming. Instead of using real facts, the racial-agitator turned faux-scientist tried to exploit the “everybody believes it’s real” argument to attack those who disagree with the anthropogenic global warming theory … Perhaps Mr. Sharpton would be better off putting away the white coat and concentrating on what he does best: dividing the American people. (Truth Revolt)

After witnessing Al’s act for lo, these many years, I’m beginning to think that the “Reverend” honorific is awarded in New York in much the same way as “Colonel” in Kentucky; that is, after a few stiff toots of bourbon and a generous campaign donation to the Governor.  

Tweet of the Day

Tweet of the Day

PTG

Original Post:  Be Sure You’re Right, Then Go Ahead

Share

Obama, Reid, Shut Down Government: Media Set to Lie

Share

No, that’s not a typo.  It’s certainly NOT what the MSM is going to tell you but last night the Democrats refused to negotiate with the GOP controlled House, and is therefore shutting down the government.  Let me stress the following….

The GOP controlled House offered three continuing resolutions that would have keep the doors at government open.  Harry Reid refused to allow votes on two, and the Democrat controlled Senate voted down another.  The Democrats refused to negotiate.  Larry Jackson, for Political Realities, sums it up nicely…

The Republicans are not being unreasonable in trying to pass a Continuing Resolution that lessens and/or delays the burden of Obamacare on the average American citizen. They are trying to negotiate with the Democrats, but Harry Reid refuses to play ball. He is doing so with the blessings of President Obama and the other leaders of the Democratic Party. Stop and think about this for a moment. Harry Reid will not negotiate a Continuing Resolution with the Republicans, unless it starts out with the premise he wants. In other words, unless the Republicans make the concessions demanded by the Democrats, their proposal is dead in the water. The Democrats refuse to even make a counter offer and they are following the lead of President Obama, who has flatly said he will not negotiate with the Republicans.

Tell me again how the Republicans are the ones at fault for shutting down the government?

He’s exactly right.

So then, why do this?  I think the reasoning is simple.  The Obama Administration knows that the MSM will lie for them.  They can set the Republicans up, and the talking heads will repeat their talking points and bam!  The low information crowd will eat it up, hook, line, and excrement.

Share

Racial Violence Update: 70 Year old Executed by Teen

Share

In our Daily Racial Violence Update, we have a horrific crime, where a 71 year old man was, for all intents and purposes, executed by a 17 year old black teen.  SooperMexican, at The Independent Journal Review has the sad details…

The video speaks volumes. The man did nothing, and was shot dead, in cold blood.

And, of course, this will never be seen on the national media.  The racism industry will not get involved.   There will be no marches-only silence from the racists that encourage this violence.

Share

Janet Napolitano Caught Lying to Congress: Media Silent

Share

One thing that you can always count on is that the mainstream media will cover for the Obama Administration. It occurred again today when Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, went to Congress, and lied her carcass off.  Conservative Daily News has more…

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) inquired about Abdul Rahman Ali al Harbi, about whom Napolitano refused to answer questions at a previous hearing. “Before the [Tsarnaev] brothers became the focus of the investigation, authorities questioned a Saudi student who reportedly was on a terror watchlist,” said Grassley, “…if so, how did he obtain a student visa?”

Napolitano’s response contradicts itself in just a few short sentences.

“He was not on a watchlist. What happened is — this student was, really when you back it out, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was never a subject. He was never even really a person of interest. Because he was being interviewed, he was at that point put on a watchlist, and then when it was quickly determined he had nothing to do with the bombing, the watch listing status was removed.”

So which is it? Was he on a watchlist or not? If he wasn’t a “person of interest,” why was he being interviewed? If he was never a “subject,” why was he issued an event file designated 212 3B by federal authorities?

Just imagine if the President had an “R” after their name.  this would have been on the nightly news of all the alphabet networks, adding to the refrain the blame the POTUS that would have began 15 seconds after the bombing.  however, since the POTUS is Obama, they will instead cover for him, and make sure that no political harm comes to him.


You vn support the CH 2.0 with your Amazon purchases!

Share

Team Obama Finally Admits That They Created Sequester

Share

It’s  increasingly amazing just how much this administration is willing to lie to smear their opponents.  That, and its even more amazing that they are getting away with it.  Take, for example, the sequester.  Obama and the leftists have been blaming the GOP for the sequester, even though it was their idea. At any rate, here is the video evidence…

Then, as shown at the Weekly Standard, an Obama official, Gene Sperling, admitted that they created the thing. 

After all, Obama threatened to veto any agreement that did not include the sequester.  In other words, Obama and team created the sequester to blame the GOP.  The MSM bleats compliantly (or gets threatened, like Bob Woodward).  Of course, did the GOP have to go along with it, no.  But then, they’d be blamed for not acting.  That shows the rigged game that the Democrats are running.  At any phase, the opposition is smeared-even if they have to be blamed for something that the administration did.  After all, isn’t everything still Bush’s fault?

Share

Happy Year 2013! We’re in Trouble!

Share

I’d like to take the moment to wish everyone a Happy New Year.  However, I might want to add that my wish is by no means a guarantee.  I fear that 2013 is going to be a terrible year, and it will result in hardships of all sorts.  Here are some of my reasons…

1.  Fiscal Cliff jumping:  It appears that we are going to go off  the “fiscal cliff.”  What does that mean?  It means that Obama’s negotiating position was “give me exactly what I want, and nothing less.”  The members of the stupid party, however, made many concessions, and proved themselves to be RINO’s.  They even went as far to offer one of Nancy Pelosi’s former proposals.  But Obama would have none of it.  However, the MSM will not report it this way.  They will portray “dear leader” as the great statesman, willing to debate and deal, but it was the Evil Republicans that caused all the problems.  This is what will happen…

  • You’re taxes, everyone’s taxes, will go back to Clinton era levels.  The MSM will blame the GOP.
  • Medicare and Social Security will be cut.  The MSM will blame the GOP.
  • Military cuts will be made.  The MSM will blame the GOP.
  • The payroll tax cut (which takes money from Social Security) will be revoked.  The MSM will blame the GOP.

Get the idea?  The GOP will be blamed for the whole thing.  The MSM will bleat the narrative like sheep, and there will be enough people stupid enough to believe it.  Then, the cowards in the GOP Stupid Party establishment will, feel the imaginary pressure, and  fold like a bad poker hand.  After that, Obama declares victory, and the MSM hails him as the man that lowered taxes for the middle class!

2.  Financial Collapse?  It’s possible.  I will not consider myself a economist by any stretch of the imagination. I do know that if there is a ton of something, that it becomes less valuable. And, given that our money is funny in the first place, it is becoming more funny all the time.  And, the US dollar is the kind of funny that most people would not find at all amusing.  In other words, it isn’t worth the paper it is printed on, and it’s only a matter of time before reality catches up with the ability of the Federal Reserve’s ability to hide that uncomfortable fact.  So, am I saying the hyperinflation, mega unemployment, and economic activity creeping to a halt is a possibility this year?  Yes, I think it is.  I don’t know enough to say more, but it strikes me as being a possibility.

3.  Religious persecution accelerates.  I can see it becoming more and more like open season on Jesus.  Oh, the Muslims will be given preferential treatment, but Christians and Jews are going to have a tougher  time of it in 2013. ObamaCare is going to force Christians to fund abortion and birth control, and companies and organizations will be targeted for refusing to comply.  Now, this can easily be seen as intentional.  If Christian business people close or sell their businesses to avoid violating the conscience, the Christian influence is weakened in society.  Also, it marginalizes Christians in the business world, meaning that less will go into business in the first place.

The second area to look at are Catholic Hospitals.  They too, are going to asked to violate their conscience to provide for murder.  However, if Obama can get them to go along with the murder plan, the Catholics are hypocrites, and their standing takes a shot.  In other words, they lose influence due to not following their own beliefs.  Better yet for liberals, if the Catholics close their hospitals. or are  shut down by the government, a crisis will be created.  That crisis will give the government greater justification to take even more control of the medical system.  Since single payer is the long term goal, shutting down religious run hospitals is a logical course.

Evil people have always hated Jews.  There are more evil people, therefore more anti-Semitism.  It really is that simple.  With the growth and influence of islam here in the US and abroad, it will become increasingly unsafe for Jews.

Emboldened by Obama’s victory, potential  victories via ObamaCare, and protected by a compliant DOJ, persecution of all kinds might accelerate.  After all, the dad of that Jesus guy doesn’t like  what a lot the liberals do, so even though they claim not to believe in him, they sure do try to silence his followers, don’t they?

4.  Hey, I voted for Obama, and ObamaCare took my job!  Yes it did, and it’ll take a ton more before it’s done.  Of the many problems facing businesses, besides tax increases, is the fact that Obama increases their expenses so much that a ton of people are going to lose their jobs.  The estimates run from the hundreds of thousands, to over 1,000,000.  But, if yours is one of those jobs, you’re going to feel the pain.  Millions more may have their hours cut, lose their own benefits, or be forced to accept decreased  benefits.  Oh, and those premiums? Costs have already gone up around 50%.  they are likely to rise even more.

Elections have consequences.

 5.  Gun Control:  For years, the Democrats hid the fact that they were gun grabbers-at least from the under-informed.  The rest of us have always known that the Democrats wanted the guns, but needed a justification.  So, when the opportunity to use dead children to make a political point came, the masks came off , and the reaching has begun.  Having no shame, only lust for power, our leftist friends will keep on trying until either they are defeated by reality, or they do manage to pass something that make no one safer, but interfere with the ability of the average American to protect themselves.  The problem is this; if the gun grabbers go too far, they might find themselves subject to real armed resistance. While this site does not recommend violence, there are many that will no allow themselves to be disarmed.  The question will then be  how many people are the Democrats willing to kill to enforce their law? Hopefully, they will not resort to such a totalitarian plan, but you never know.

6.  Control of information:  If 2012 taught us anything, it taught that the MSM, though weakened, is still the primary means of news for millions of Americans.  Sadly, even though the alphabet networks are essentially propaganda arms of the regressives, they still have enough of an audience to swing the national conversation, and obviously cover for a failed POTUS.  There will be more and more lies, and as long as the uninformed remain blissfully ignorant of what really is happening.  Look for this to expand, as there is going to be a lot of blame to place on others, stories to omit, and facts to ignore if the MSM is to cover for Obama.

I’m sure that there is more, but I think that anyone with a brain will recognize that 2013 is not going to be a good year.  The economy is going to falter, and there is nothing we can do to change it.  People are going to suffer, and the media will either ignore it, or blame it on the usual suspects-namely us.  It’s going to be an interesting year, and not in many good ways.  The “fundamental transformation of the United States will reach a point at which it will be increasingly difficult to hide.  But, that wont stop people from trying.

Note:  I have tried to delay posting this until more was available on the fiscal cliff. However, the Senate did pass a bill, and is gone to the House at the time of this writing. I will cover that more in another post.

Happy New Year, but I doubt that will hold for long.

Share