We Will Call You Out!

President Obama's very big, incredibly important, game changing speech-to-end-all-speeches on health care cam across as panicky, too high pitched, and schoolyard bullyish. The president's theme was obvious early on: Nothing that was said against his plan in August had merit and certainly nothing that came up at the townhalls was legitimate.

"Misinformation," "bogus claims," "scare tactics," "such a charge would be laughable,' "it is a lie plain and simple" --welcome to the civil discourse of the hope and change era.

The speech really ought not to have gone on as long as it did. The short form:

There is nothing to worry about seniors.

The plan will not cost a dime in increased deficits.

No one will be inconvenienced much less deeply disappointed much less on the receiving end of a rationing scheme.

Tort reform? We've got demonstration projects.

The public option? Necessary because of the situation in Alabama.

A few details remain to be worked out --but pay no attention to the nervous laughter in the chambers.

We can do this because I say we must. It is in our character to vastly expand the size and cost of government.

The problem with the president's speech, and it is a very, very big problem, is that to be believed it would require a huge amount of trust in the president. The sort of trust that could only have been earned by a fair accounting of the critics' many and serious objections.

And that accounting was exactly what wasn't in the president's speech.

President Obama took a predictable whack at "death panels," but in so doing he dismissed every other objection raised by every other critic.

We know our own minds. We know why we are objecting to the plan. We know how the Post Office works, how Amtrack works, how reliable are pledges from Democrats about cost controls.

We know the president cannot guarantee that we get to keep our insurance and our doctors because most of us get our insurance from our employers, and they will decide what we get after they consider what the new law dictates and demands.

We know what the Congressional Budget Office has said about the price tag, and we know what Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi really really want and what the president himself has endorsed in the past, which is a single payer system

And seniors know that you cannot drain $500 or more billion dollars from medicare and deliver the same benefits as are delivered today. You cannot make deep cuts in Medicare Advantage and not lower the standard of living for many seniors.

Seniors are afraid, and they are right to be afraid, and nothing the president said in his speech will make them less afraid because he did not discuss their fears --he dismissed them.

The president can promise that illegal aliens won't be covered, but how exactly are hospitals going to stop providing the care they are presently providing and which only heartless robots could deny? It simply isn't believable for the president to tell the country that illegal aliens won't be covered --and did you notice the stress among the Democrats on that point-- but not address one of the great unfunded current costs of the system which is the provision of health care to illegal immigrants via emergency room care.

The president can assure the audience that abortion won't be a covered procedure under his "reforms," but the country knows where his party is on that issue and there isn't the bold print guarantee pro-lifers want in any of the draft bills, nor will one be forthcoming.

Again and again the president trotted out the tired old talking points in defense of the tired old arguments. The usual cast of straw men made their appearance, and the president dispatched them all.

And we've all been warned, we radio and cable talkers, that the president will call us out.

And not a minb was changed, not a new argument advanced, not a single compromise put forward.

The only thing bipartisan about this debate is the opposition to much of the president's plan. That's the way it was on Wednesday morning.

And that's still the way it is late on Wednesday night.

by Hugh Hewitt - townhall.com

Unruly moment, manufactured outrage

GOP Rep. Joe Wilson apologized for his outburst last night when he called out one of President Obama’s many lies.

I’ve never seen Nancy Pelosi’s face show so much emotion in my adult lifetime.

The Left is in high dudgeon — never letting a moment of manufactured outrage go to waste.

Sure, members of Congress should leave the heckling to town hall protesters.

But it was Obama who said himself in the speech: “If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out.”

That’s what Joe Wilson was doing, wasn’t it?

And that’s what Democrats would undoubtedly tell you they were doing during George W. Bush’s 2005 State of the Union Speech when they booed and shouted down his remarks about the need for Social Security reform. Omri Ceren remembers:

Allahpundit, via Twitter: “Joe Wilson’s big mistake: Not saving the ‘liar’ catcall for when The One was pushing his moronic ‘deficit-neutral’ mega-lie.”

Also:

More hard-hitting news about Michelle Obama


Yes, it’s time for another hard-hitting Michelle Obama media moment.

Nope, no one decided to shed light last night on Michelle Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Susan Sher, and David Axelrod’s role in creating a patient-dumping scheme
at the University of Chicago Medical Center — and what it might portend under Obamacare.

But the Huffington Post did enlighten readers about Mrs. Obama’s important decision to wear a “pink full-sleeve skirt suit.”

All the fashion slavering fit to print.

michellemalkin.com

Obamacare: The primetime pitch

Five minutes to speech time… my first mistake was turning on MSNBC to start off with. According to Keith Olbermann, who’s always grimacing as if he just got a colonoscopy with a rose bush, we have what amounts to a third world health care system that can only be saved by a government that has demonstrated nothing but third world aspirations.

Fox News: “Obama’s running late.” Cabinet introduced — if you want to make half of them scatter, yell “Freeze! IRS!”

What, no parade of czars?

Does it seem odd that the president is so late to something that he says time is of the essence? Guns n Roses was more punctual.

By the way, if you aren’t near a TV you can watch the carnage online here.

Here he is… TOTUS stands at the ready:

“I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.” So at least we do agree on something.

“We are the only Democracy on earth that allows such hardship for its people.” Does Obama think he’s speaking in the Middle East again?

Michelle O. looks like she’s missing her favorite television show or something. Don’t worry, it’ll be over soon.

One reason people oppose Obamacare is not because the current system is grand, but because Obama’s “reformers” have done nothing but screwed up everything they’ve touched for the past several years, and the frequency and scope of the incompetence, idiocy, theft, Marxist leanings, lies and desperation is increasing exponentially. In other words, just because we don’t want a deaf, dumb and blind thief to take the wheel of the school bus doesn’t necessarily mean we’re thrilled with the current driver.

You can almost see the dollar signs in Pelosi’s freshly lifted eyes, can’t you?

Great, I’m reminded yet again why I didn’t want to vote for McCain.

“All Americans will be required to carry health insurance just like they’re required to carry auto insurance.” Sure, but I can choose not to have a car.

Pardon me for being cynical about not completely believing Obama’s “death panel” denial when the people writing the health care bill(s) will fight to the last for the glorious right to kill babies. Given that, why would offing a geezer here and there be considered so incredibly immoral?

Are politicians clapping at the prospect of keeping private industry honest? It’s the other way around or nothing at all.

Hey, where’s the UPS/FedEx vs. UPS example?

“But wait, there’s more! If you’re one of the next one million callers….”

As it concerns the health care bill(s), we can believe Obama, or our lying eyes.

Throwing a bone on tort reform, then reeling it back in. The trial lawyers in Congress got shrinkage there for a second, but they’re okay now.

“More businesses will close” if government doesn’t spend another trillion dollars minimum?

If you had “46 minutes in” before Obama mentioned Ted Kennedy, you win the pool.

“Our self reliance. Our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government.” Did I walk in on the wrong speaker?

Speech ends. Feel better about America now?

Rep. Charles Boustany, a doctor, with the GOP response. Not bad, but still lacking enough punch — it needed something like “If you want the health care of your family in the hands of a bunch of people who couldn’t even properly budget a friggin’ car sale, be my guest.”

By Doug Powers

Breaking: Barack Obama Scares Nation Into Nationalizing Health Care ...Update: Obama Plays the Teddycare Card

Fear-Mongerer in Chief Barack Obama addressed a joint session of Congress tonight on his intent to nationalize health care.
He continued to push the same plan that is rejected by a majority of Americans.

Obama is pulling out the lipstick tonight...
He's gonna doll up that pig:



Barack Obama warned that more Americans will die if Washington again does nothing to expand care and cut the costs of health care insurance.

He also said that no one will have to change plans under his plan.
Untrue.

* * * * *
Here we go........

Michelle Obama looks pi$$ed.

Obama takes credit for the current economic disaster!

He says he pulled it back from the brinK.
How's that?
The economy has not been such a wreck for decades but Obama wants you to trust him with your health care.

Barack says he is "determined to be the last president" to bring up the health care challenges. --He wants to be the one to nationalize it once and for all.
Obama points out a woman died after she did not declare her acne to her insurance company?
Hmm.

Obama says there is agreement on about 80% of what needs to be done?

We've seen the same partisan bickering and scare tactics and too many scored short term political points.
Now is the season for action.
We must bring the best ideas of both parties together.
(Obama hasn't met with GOP leaders on health care since April.)

Lie- Obama says nothing in the plan will require you to change what you have.
Not true.

Obama says he will fine individuals who do not purchase a health care plan.
Individuals will be required to carry health insurance and businesses will be required to offer insurance or "chip in."

The teleprompter is rockin.

Misinformation--
Bugus claims by those whose only agenda is to kill the plan.

Obama takes on Palin and death panels.
"It is a lie plain and simple."

Illegal immigrants--
They will not be covered.
Someone just screamed "liar."
** Here's the video.

Abortion will not be covered.
This is not true.

gatewaypundit.blogspot.com

Obama pushes the public option but says he doesn't want to take over insurance industry.
Not true.

Of course, Obama plays the Teddycare card.
Talks about letter he got from Teddy from his deathbed.

---------------------------------------------------------

Audience Member Yells "Liar" as Obama Spews Talking Points to Congress



--------------------------------------------------------

Related:

78% Say They Deserve Same Insurance Plan As Congress-- Congress Disagrees

Nearly 80% of Americans say that they should be allowed to purchase the same health insurance plan that members of Congress use.
Rasmussen reported:

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of U.S. voters say every American should be allowed to purchase the same health insurance plan that members of Congress use.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only seven percent (7%) of voters disagree and 15% are not sure.

Unlike many issues related to the contentious debate over so-called health care reform, there is little disagreement on this question across all demographic categories. In its question, Rasmussen Reports did not describe the congressional health plan in any way, merely identifying it as the “health insurance plan that members of Congress use.”

But, Congress disagrees.
The democrats in Congress don't want the same plan as the American public.
They unanimously rejected in committee the same public plan they are pushing on ordinary Americans.
Mark Tapscott reported at The Examiner:

In this video Robert Moffit points to an amendment offered by Rep. Dean Heller, R-NV, during a House Ways and Means Committee meeting just before the recess began that would have required Members to be covered by the Public Option plan if they approve it for private citizens.

Predictably, however, the Heller amendment was defeated, with all 21 committee Democrats voting against it. That vote is indicative of the reality that any bill requiring Congress to be covered by the same health care as the public has the proverbial snow ball in Hades' chances of being enacted.

Also, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is pushing legislation that will give ordinary Americans the same health care plan as Congress.
This will likely go over like a lead balloon in the Democratic House, too.

gatewaypundit.blogspot.com

Unmentionable: Best-Selling Conservative Books and the Networks that Ignore Them

Research reveals a glaring imbalance in network coverage of liberal best-sellers and comparable conservative titles.

The most coveted real estate in the publishing industry is a space on The New York Times Best-Seller List. The list, compiled in a survey of thousands of book retailers, is a weekly reflection of what the American public is interested in reading. Since the 1940s, authors whose works make the list have been assured of even more books sales and a shower of publicity.

But not when those authors or their books are conservative. In such cases, the three broadcast networks greeted them with silence at worst and skepticism at best.

During the first six months of 2009, 25 books that can be described as “liberal” or “conservative” appeared on the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction Best-Seller List. More of those books (14) were liberal, but conservative authors enjoyed a combined total of 95 weeks on the List. Liberals had 80. At this writing Michelle Malkin’s “Culture of Corruption” had been on the list for four weeks, and was currently at No.1.

But no matter how commercially successful conservative books and authors have been, they were slighted by the three broadcast networks. The most glaring evidence of bias against conservative books was the networks’ complete neglect of the single most successful book on the list, radio host Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto.” Levin’s book spent 12 weeks at No.1, and as of this writing had yet to fall out of the top 10.

The Culture and Media Institute analyzed how ABC, CBS and NBC covered those 25 hardcover nonfiction best-sellers, and found that the networks gave liberal books and authors dramatically more (and more favorable) coverage than their conservative counterparts. Of the 11 conservative authors on the list, just four received any coverage on the networks.

On the other hand, the networks covered 11 out of 14 liberal authors. Of the three not covered, one was not an author in the conventional sense – it was President Obama, and the “book” was his January 20 inauguration speech.

When authors appeared on the networks for interviews, conservatives received markedly different treatment than liberals. From Matt Lauer calling Elizabeth Edwards’ book “stirring,” to Harry Smith telling Ann Coulter, “You have this kind of sophomoric sort of simplistic kind of view of so many things,” hosts made it clear where their ideological sympathies lay.


Liberty, Tyranny and Silence

Reaching No. 1 on the Nonfiction Hardcover List is a notable achievement. To maintain that spot for more than a single week is truly impressive.

Two liberal authors reached the No.1 spot on the List in 2009. Elizabeth Edwards’ “Resilience” was No.1 for just one week and Thomas Friedman’s “Hot, Flat, and Crowded” held that spot for two weeks.

They received media coverage befitting No.1 best-sellers, garnering nine instances of coverage on the networks between the two.

But there was another book that hit No.1. In fact, it held the No.1 spot for 12 of 18 weeks, and has yet to fall under the No. 4 spot. (Also, at this writing, it ranked No. 24 on Amazon.com, and has enjoyed 186 days in Amazon’s Top 100.)

That book, “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto,” by conservative political commentator and nationally syndicated radio-host Mark Levin, was by far the most successful book on the list – nothing even came close.

What makes the success of Levin’s book more impressive is its subject. It’s a work of political philosophy, a serious, scholarly exploration of conservative first principles. As CNSNews.com recently reported, “‘Liberty and Tyranny’ draws on thinking, and points to the influence, of the 17th century English philosopher John Locke, the 18th century Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith, and the 18th century Irish-English statesman and writer Edmund Burke.”


And as Levin himself wrote on the first page of “Liberty and Tyranny,” “… what follows are my own opinions and conclusions of fundamental truths, based on decades of observation, exploration, and experience, about conservatism and, conversely, non-conservatism – that is, liberty and tyranny in modern America.”

So “Liberty and Tyranny” is an improbable best-seller. And that makes it all the more newsworthy.

Yet Levin's book received zero coverage from any of the networks since its release on March 29. Nor did his name appear on any of the news programs since the release.

Contrast that with Edwards’ and Friedman’s nine instances of coverage for books that spent one and two weeks respectively at the top of the list. Equivalent coverage for Levin would require 36 mentions on the networks.

And the media blackout of “Liberty and Tyranny” extended beyond the networks and has been nearly complete.

Levin confirmed to CMI that “we have not heard from any of the major networks, and the only major newspaper that has interviewed me is Philadelphia Enquirer, and that’s because I’m from Philadelphia.”

The lack of mainstream media attention made “Liberty and Tyranny’s” success the more stunning. “The book is selling by word of mouth,” Levin said. “I’ve done very little media, and its chugging along.”

And the author, whose radio show just celebrated its sixth anniversary, said he wasn’t “stressed about” being ignored. “I don’t need Matt Lauer’s imprimatur to believe what I believe and to speak to my audience,” Levin told CMI.

But he did have thoughts about why Lauer and the networks withheld coverage.

“Maybe the book’s too darned complicated for these people,” Levin said. “It’s not your typical book – not even your typical conservative book, with a laundry list of what’s wrong. It’s a deeper look at the roots of conservatism, of our God-given liberties, of society and civil order and at why conservatism is humane. It’s also a look at the roots of statism and why it’s a threat.”

The morning shows, which Levin said have their talking points and hosts with a clear political bias may have other conservatives on. But they do so if they believe they can marginalize those guests. “But in my case, I think they fear I would marginalize them. They fear me, they fear the message of the book.”


The Author They Love to Hate

There is one conservative author popular with the networks. And it’s small wonder: she doesn’t pull punches or shrink from controversy. Ann Coulter makes great TV appearances.

Coulter accounted for almost half of all conservative author and book coverage by the networks. But whereas liberal authors were met with praise and hosts said things like she “great book,” “always a pleasure,” and “I read it,” Coulter typically met adversarial questioning, if not outright hostility.

In early January 2009, Coulter was scheduled to appear on NBC’s “Today” twice in the same broadcast to discuss her best-seller, “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America.” NBC cancelled the appearance the afternoon before it was to occur. The Drudge Report investigated the story and reported that Coulter had been banned from the show. NBC denied the story and booked Coulter a couple of days later.

When she did finally appear, Matt Lauer spent the first half of the interview accusing Coulter of helping to "fan the fire here a little bit to make a controversy to sell the book," and their conversation included this exchange:

COULTER: The point is I was cancelled twice and it wasn't until the Drudge Report ran a headline, on its own reporting, and the Drudge Report has never had to retract a report …

LAUER: You know …

COULTER: … the way NBC News has.

When they finally reached the topic of the book Lauer claimed Coulter's words were “outrageous” and went as far to ask “when you make outrageous comments and you use that kind of venomous tone, in some ways do you cut your own credibility off and take away from the real viable points you make in some of this?”

Later on the program Coulter’s “tone” was once again called into question by interviewer Hoda Kotb: “I think the point’s valid, but I think it’s when you – when you read through it, it’s all about tone. I feel like it’s dripping with venom. So when you read it you go, ‘ugh!’ and you just roll your eyes and flip through …”

Things weren’t any better at CBS. On January 6, “Early Show” host Harry Smith greeted Coulter with, “You want to be taken seriously, I think. I sense that, right?” He went on to say, “Because you try to be funny, because you have this kind of sophomoric sort of simplistic kind of view of so many things…” any serious issues Coulter raised were lost.

Coulter wasn’t the only conservative that got a less-than-enthusiastic reception on the set. In introducing Dick Morris on “Today” July 2, Meredith Vieira read the full title of his book, “Catastrophe: How Obama, Congress and the Special Interests are Transforming a Slump Into a crash, Freedom Into Socialism and a Disaster into a Catastrophe…and How to Fight Back.”

“Well, what an indictment of the administration…” Vieira said to Morris.

“Yeah,” he replied.

“Where do you come up with that?” she asked incredulously. And for the rest of the interview, Vieira did her best to argue against Morris’ points and defend President Obama: “But then why, Dick, do you think a majority of Americas, 56 percent by our latest poll, think he’s doing a good job?” “But he [Clinton] didn’t inherit the mess that Obama inherited.” “But the – but the president clearly has said that’s not the road he’s headed down.”

Meanwhile, Vieira’s “Today” co-host was handling liberal authors with kid gloves.

Introducing Elizabeth Edwards, Lauer cooed that “Resilience” was “a stunningly candid look at how she’s dealt with some painful challenges in her own life, including the tragic death of her 16-year-old son Wade, her bout with cancer and her husband’s affair.” He later called a paragraph from the book “stirring.”

To Richard Wolffe, author of an account of the 2008 Obama campaign, Lauer lobbed this softball: “And, Richard, let me ask you about some criticism you received for the book. You got incredible access during the campaign to the Obamas. And some have said because of that access, you may have lost your perspective and have written more of a PR account of the campaign than a balanced, journalistic account.”

“Well, Matt, the first leak of this book came out on Fox News, and they found plenty in that book that was very uncomfortable for the White House, especially for the vice president’s office,” Wolffe responded. “You know, my book has a whole chapter on failure. I think you actually learn more from failure than you do from success. And there’s plenty in the book that speaks for itself.”

That was good enough for Lauer, who ended the interview.


The Numbers Don’t Add Up

Levin, Coulter and Morris were just the most obvious examples of network bias. There were 25 political and current events books on the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction Best-Seller List between January and June 2009, and the numbers tell the story.

CMI analyzed the coverage – or lack thereof – ABC, CBS and NBC gave each book since its official release date.

The three networks combined covered liberal best-sellers 36 times. They covered conservative volumes only 12 times. That’s exactly 3-to-1 in favor of liberal books.

Analysts found that the networks covered nearly four out of five liberal authors on the Best-Seller List, but they covered less than half that (36 percent) of conservative authors on the same List.

A notable exception was conservative author Joe Scarborough. His book, “The Last Best Hope” proposed for conservatives a route out of the political wilderness. “It is especially critical at this chapter in our nation’s history for conservatives to set aside the dogmas of the quiet past and instead explain their vision to a new generation,” reads the introduction. “This book will lay out that vision.”

With three interviews on NBC, Scarborough received more coverage than most of his conservative counterparts. Of course, the fact that he hosts “Morning Joe” on MSNBC might have something to do with it.

With a 4-to-1 discrepancy, ABC was the most biased network, covering liberal books and authors eight times, and conservatives just twice. NBC was a close second. It covered liberals 20 times and conservatives only six.

CBS offered the most balanced coverage, with eight liberals to five conservatives.

Part of the discrepancy in coverage can be attributed to the overall structural bias against conservatives on the networks. Liberal authors often appear as analysts and subject experts, and their books are mentioned in the course of introducing them. Few conservatives fill those roles on news broadcasts. For instance, David E. Sanger of the New York Times and Richard Wolffe of Newsweek both had books on the List recently, and both are fixtures on the networks’ news shows. That still doesn’t explain how the networks could completely ignore very successful books.

Take for example the case of Richard Wolffe vs. Bill O’Reilly. Wolff’s “Renegade: the Making of a President,” about Barack Obama and the 2008 election was released June 2. It was on the list for six weeks and made it to the No. 4 position.

Bill O’Reilly, however, released his book, “A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity,” September 23, 2008. It was on the list for 39 weeks, and made it to the No. 2 position. In two months, Wolffe’s book has received three times more coverage than O’Reilly’s has in the 10 months since his book’s release.

Clearly, the networks weren’t considering popularity in determining which books and authors to highlight. If there be any doubt of that, consider the case of what is far and away the most successful book on the Nonfiction Hardcover List.


Conclusion

The networks showed a clear bias against conservative authors and their books. The news broadcasts completely ignored wildly successful books like Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny” while covering far less popular titles by liberals. When conservatives did appear, they faced skepticism at best and open hostility at worst.

Given the popularity of books like Levin’s, it’s easy to conclude that their exclusion from the networks was ideologically motivated.

The networks must address these discrepancies, first by considering popularity when allotting coverage. They should also insist that on-air talent treat all authors equally.

Despite the chilly reception (in some case no reception) of the networks, conservative books and authors continued to more than hold their own atop the best-seller list. Imagine what they could do with some publicity.


Recommendations

The mainstream media often argue that where liberal bias does exist, it’s a byproduct of the natural pursuit of ratings and ad revenue. CMI’s study of authors clearly refutes this, at least in the case of network coverage of liberal vs. conservative authors.

Conservative books led liberal books in time on the Best-Seller List and in the highest positions they achieved. At this writing, Michelle Malkin’s “Culture of Corruption” was at No.1 on the List. “A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity,” “Catastrophe,” and “Liberty and Tyranny” all kept their berths in the list’s top 10.

By ignoring these and other very successful conservative titles, the networks do themselves and their viewers a disservice. They must work to balance the quantity and quality of coverage they give to liberal and conservative authors.

While one-for-one parity isn’t necessary, producers should keep in mind which authors and what books they’ve covered recently, and try to ensure diversity of perspective. Networks should consider the popularity of the books. Perhaps they should consider only a liberal or conservative book’s popularity according to the List when planning coverage.

Interviewers should either read and compliment the books of both sides, or refrain from complimenting any of them. Network personalities who want to avoid charges of bias shouldn’t be applying words like “stunning” and “stirring” to the books of liberals while calling conservatives “sophomoric” and “outrageous.” Before interviewing someone from either side, hosts should review the tone and type of questioning they used the last time an author was on.


Methodology

CMI compiled a list of 25 titles that appeared on the New York Times Best Seller Non-Fiction Hard Cover List during the first half of 2009. Each book was judged to be either conservative or liberal based on subject covered, how issues were addressed and/or professed political orientation of author.

Using the official release date of each book as a starting date, analysts used Nexis and actual recordings to search network transcripts for mentions of the book, its author, or both. If a book or author was mentioned at least once in a segment, CMI counted it as an instance of coverage.

The books studied were:

“A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity” by Bill O’Reilly
“A Slobbering Love Affair” by Bernard Goldberg
“The American Journey of Barack Obama” by the Editors of Life Magazine
“The Breakthrough” by Gwen Ifill
“Catastrophe” by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
“Do the Right Thing” by Mike Huckabee
“The Gamble” by Thomas E. Ricks
“Guilty” by Ann Coulter
“Hot, Flat, and Crowded” by Thomas L. Friedman
“The Housing Boom and Bust” by Thomas Sowell
“The Inheritance” by David E. Sanger
“The Inaugural Address 2009” by Barack Obama
“Inside the Revolution” by Joel Rosenberg
“The Last Best Hope” by Joe Scarborough
“Last Lion” by Peter S. Canellos
“Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto” by Mark R. Levin
“Losing Mum and Pup” by Christopher Buckley
“The Meltdown” by Thomas E. Woods
“My Remarkable Journey” by Larry King (and Cal Fussman)
“Obama” by Jill Abramson
“Renegade” by Richard Wolffe
“Resilience” by Elizabeth Edwards
“The Return to Depression Economics” by Paul Krugman
“We can Have Peace in the Holy Land” by Jimmy Carter
“Why We Suck” by Dennis Leary

By Matt Philbin and Zoe Ortiz
Culture and Media Institute
September 8, 2009

Why Obama’s Address to Schoolchildren Is Objectionable

As I read the many editorial columns and articles in support of Obama’s speech, I can see that many writers are very upset and emotional over criticism of Obama’s action. They also are clueless concerning the reasons why his address is unwelcome. They are name-calling. They are not bothering to mention, much less rebut, the reasoned objections of people like me.

I can at least articulate my reasons for objecting.

Such a speech blurs or crosses several boundaries that I believe there are good reasons to have in place.

The President’s constitutional powers are explicit. They include the "executive Power." They include being "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" and a few more listed in the Constitution, including preserving and protecting the Constitution. They do not include addressing schoolchildren.

If the President were to live up to his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution, he would request that Congress repeal all its laws regarding education. Section 8 of Article I lists the powers of Congress. Education is not on that list. So when the President addresses schoolchildren, he breaks his oath in several ways. He does not have that power, and he affirms and solidifies a power assumed by Congress that Congress does not have. The President is failing in his sworn duty. Those who think that the President’s speech is helpfully teaching civics are mistaken. His speech is conveying and confirming anti-civics and anti-Constitutional lessons.

The President is a political leader. He is not in office to be an educator. His duties are clearly laid out, and they do not include educating children. By the same token, the President is not the parent of all these children. He is not their teacher. He is not their religious leader. The reason for these boundaries is so that political figures do not use their power and influence to dominate our social lives.

It is a special danger to liberty and society when national powers are developed. These are powers in which the national leadership directly controls or influences individual citizens, while bypassing or circumventing other local sources of governance and influence such as parents, families, churches, schools, and local governments.

An Obama address to schoolchildren is an instance of the further development of national power and influence. It breaks new ground in the influence of State over society. Public education already is under the influence of objectionable forces, but this establishes a new precedent that can be extended. If one political leader addresses youth, other leaders are more likely to address youth. The content of their speeches can be enlarged. Their influence can be enlarged. Government will be given more play and support than it already has. Such a speech is inescapably political. Such a precedent can eventually lead to further dangerous developments, such as a Presidential Youth or an Obama Youth.

The President is a politician. Any address he might make, no matter how nonpartisan it may seem, is bound to be political. It cannot be neutral. The very fact that he is President and making such a speech will be taken in by school children. He will be conveying his authority to these children, with the blessings of their parents and school teachers. They will be taught by the speech itself, regardless of its content, to look to the national government in matters relating to their lives. After all, is he not addressing them about very personal and civic matters? His speech is necessarily a political act.

The President is the leader of a particular political party, so that the very fact that he is a Democrat who is President and making such a speech influences his listeners. Children grow up to be voting adults.

In any speech, what the President says lies beyond the control of those who allow that speech to enter the classroom. The teachers have control over the subsequent discussion, if they choose to have it. But the President will already have made his impact. Children do not fully possess the capacities to judge political matters.

Will the opposition party demand equal time? Do we want politicians routinely competing with one another for the attention of and influence over children?

The President commands the airwaves. This is a dangerous and influential power when used with adults. Allowing this power to be extended to communication with every child in the country is even more dangerous.

School districts can opt out of the speech. In some districts, children may be allowed to opt out of the speech. These options are good ones. But they do not alter the reasons outlined above for objecting to a president making speeches in schools.

I’d like to add that I have seldom read stronger words in newspapers directed against those who object to Obama’s speechmaking to children. They are being called crackpots. They are being accused of demonizing the President. They are being accused of McCarthyism. They are being accused of being racist, completely insane, and members of the right-wing lunatic fringe.

These attacks are not called for. There are very good reasons to object to Obama’s speech. I’ll sum up the ones that bother me. There are no doubt others, but I have made no attempt to research them and find out what others are thinking on this matter.

1. The speech is beyond the President’s constitutional powers.
2. The President is supporting a national role in education, which also is unconstitutional.
3. The President is not supporting his oath of office, so he is conveying an anti-constitutional message to children.
4. The President is crossing a boundary between the political and social spheres. That boundary is in place in order to control government power and maintain a healthy free society.
5. The President is augmenting national power and influence.
6. The President is starting a new precedent that has dangerous implications.
7. The President’s speech cannot possibly be non-political. The very act itself is politically in furtherance of government and an enhanced government role.
8. The President also leads his party, and that fact may influence children.
9. The President may have an undue influence over children due to his position and power.
10. Will fairness considerations lead to equal time for opposition leaders?
11. Presidential access to communications is dangerous enough without extending it to youth.

by Michael S. Rozeff

Obama White House Misled American Public On Van Jones

Last November after the national election Team Obama announced to the American public that they would initiate the most extensive and invasive application process ever. Their vetting process would "go beyond what might have been expected."

The Obama White House was committed to "change."
The New York Times reported:

A seven-page questionnaire being sent by the office of President-elect Barack Obama to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts may be the most extensive — some say invasive — application ever.

The questionnaire includes 63 requests for personal and professional records, some covering applicants’ spouses and grown children as well, that are forcing job-seekers to rummage from basements to attics, in shoe boxes, diaries and computer archives to document both their achievements and missteps...

...Mr. Obama has elevated the vetting even beyond what might have been expected, especially when it comes to applicants’ family members, in a reflection of his campaign rhetoric against lobbying and the back-scratching, self-serving ways of Washington.

“President-elect Obama made a commitment to change the way Washington does business, and the vetting process exemplifies that,” said Stephanie Cutter, chief spokeswoman for the Obama transition office.

Here are a couple examples from the questionaire (pdf).
Imagine Truther-communist cop-killer supporter Van Jones' response to question number 8:

8.) Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with over the course of your career."

Or, how about question number 12?
Again, imagine communist-Truther Van Jones' response to this question:

12.) Speeches: Please identify all speeches you have given. If available please provide the text or recordings of each such speech.

Here's another one:

46.) Have any members of your family or close social or business associates ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a crime other than a minor traffic violation?

(Van Jones was arrested in San Francisco in 1992 for participating in a demonstration following the acquittal of four LA police officers accused of beating Rodney King.)

If the Obama Administration had actually used this template to screen Van Jones his controversial speeches, his past arrest, and his musical collaborations with cop-killers should have raised a red flag or two with the administration.

Either Team Obama ignored Van Jones' past-- accepted and agreed with his past-- or completely misrepresented their vetting process to the American public.

Just how exactly did such a radical hater like Van Jones make it through such an extensive and invasive screening process?
The administration has some explaining to do.

gatewaypundit.blogspot.com

FOX News All Star Bill Kristol on Van Jones: Jim Hoft in St. Louis Who Runs Gateway Pundit Blog Did More Reporting On This Than Entire MSM

The FOX News All Stars discussed the Van Jones resignation this morning on FOX News Sunday.
Bill Kristol gave a nice plug to this blog for the breaking information on Obama's commie-Truther Van Jones:



Bill Kristol on the resignation of commie-Truther Van Jones:

"I think it would have been better if he were fired by the president once he found out more about Mr. Jones's background than waiting for him to resign because we all agreed that he had to go."

"But, I was amused by this fact. If you just read the New York Times you would know nothing about this. The mainstream media did not cover this story. You wouldn't learn about it on network news. The New York Times readers tomorrow morning are going to pick up the print New York Times and for the first time discover that there was a huge controversy about this radical who was quite at a high level at the White House. So its a an interesting case study I think where some of the blogs, a guy named Jim Hoft in St. Louis, Missouri who runs a blog called Gateway Pundit did much more reporting on this than the entire mainstream media."

Thanks Bill Kristol.
To be fair I had some great tips from readers and commenters.
Thanks to you all.

And, to be fair, there were several bloggers who reported on this scandal.
Glenn Beck hammered Van Jones all week.
...And, Breitbart TV and Naked Emperor News posted some devastating Van Jones' video clips.

Ed Morrissey has more on the state-run media's protectionist reporting.

Bummer. This must mean that the MSM will never get around reporting on Van Jones' crazy musical collaboration with Mumia Abu Jamal.
That's too bad.

Here again...
Previously on Van Jones:
** Surprise... Obama's Radical Green Czar Is Behind Glenn Beck Boycott ...Update: Beck Will Expose Green Czar As Communist!
** Obama's Green Czar Van Jones Also Blamed America For 9-11
** Obama's Commie Green Czar Van Jones: Republicans "Are A$$holes" (Video) --Updated
** Obama's Commie Green Czar: "White Polluters" Steered Poison Into Minority Communities (Video)
** Glenn Beck: Will Progressive Pigs Fly Out of Van Jones' Butt to Power America? (Video)
** Obama's Green Czar Van Jones: ‘Green Jobs’ Goal is ‘Complete Revolution’ Away From ‘Gray Capitalism’
** A Truther Czar?... Obama's Green Czar Van Jones Believes Bush Administration Was Behind 9-11
** Oh Brother... Van Jones Says He's Not a Truther "Now Or Ever" ...Update: Experts Predict He's Gone By Monday (Video)
** Van Jones Endorsed Anti-Police Day Initiated By Maoist Group in 2006
** Busted. Van Jones Linked to 9-11 Truther Movement Back in **January 2002**
** Top Republicans Call For Obama's Communist-Truther Green Czar to Step Down
** Commie Van Jones on Bush: "President Bush Sounded Like a Crackhead" (Video)
** Busted Again... Van Jones Was On the Board at "War Times" For a Year & a Half ...Update: Jones "Bush Used Flag to Beat-Whip Iraq Dissenters"
** Sing It... Van Jones Cut Nasty Hate-Filled Music Album, Too! (Video) ...Update: Album Cover Found!
** GREEN CZAR VAN JONES RESIGNS!... Communist Leaves White House

gatewaypundit.blogspot.com

The resignation (and coming MSM/left-wing martyrdom) of Van Jones; Obama “thanks him for his service”

Bay Area Marxist/Truther/Mumia-supporting race hustler-turned-environmental justice guru Van Jones has resigned from his post as Barack Obama’s green jobs czar.

In classic Team Obama style, Jones blames an orchestrated “campaign” of “lies and distortions to distract and divide.” Get ready for the coming media/left-wing martyrdom of Jones. Never mind his own apologies and weasel excuses for his radical views.

The mainstream media, which has ignored criticism and investigative analysis of Jones in the blogosphere/Internet since the spring (see, for example, here, here, here, here) repeats the lie that Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck targeted Jones only after the czar’s organization, Color of Change, initiated a boycott against Beck at the beginning of August:

Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck repeatedly denounced Jones after a group the adviser co-founded, ColorofChange.org, led an advertising boycott against Beck’s show to protest his claim that Obama is a racist.

The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz also disseminated that distortion. Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard corrected the record last month for the clueless MSM. They persist in ignoring the truth:

Howard Kurtz on Sunday accused Fox News’s Glenn Beck of attacking White House “green czar” Van Jones in response to the advertiser boycott implemented by Color of Change, an advocacy group founded by Jones.

Such a conclusion seems to stem from all the time Beck spent on his program last week chronicling Jones’s activities as well as his background.

What Kurtz conveniently ignored in this installment of CNN’s “Reliable Sources” was that Beck did two reports on Jones prior to the start of Color of Change’s campaign to get companies to end their sponsorship of Beck.

Ironically, this came as Kurtz chided Beck for not sharing all the facts with his viewers…

…Well, here’s a little detail Kurtz neglected to mention: Beck discussed Van Jones’s radical background on July 23 –

Obama’s new green czar, Van Jones, this is a guy who is a self-avowed communist, and he is in the Obama administration. He says in his book that has been out now for about four months, “The Green Collar Economy,” subtitle: “How One Solution Can Fix Two Big Problems,” that the best way to fight global warming and urban poverty is by creating millions of green jobs.

This guy wasn’t a radical, and then was arrested. He spent six months in jail, came out a communist. Then he was a communist-anarchist radical. And then he decided — he found the eco-movement — and decided green is the new red. He then went on to become a green expert.

A percentage of these jobs, he says, should go to the disadvantaged and to the chronically unemployed. Well, why are they chronically unemployed? “The green economy should not just be about reclaiming thrown- away stuff. It should be about reclaiming thrown-away communities.”

And again on July 28:

BECK: All right. You know, what we’re uncovering here on this program is complex, and it is — it takes a lot of our day just to figure out how to explain it to you. And it’s complex by design. You know, it’s the vast left-wing conspiracy.

The Apollo Alliance combines environmental policy, the green movement, with labor and social justice. Why is that troubling? Maybe it’s the guy behind the curtain making it all happen. He’s a former black nationalist and self-professed communist.

Here is Phil Kerpen. He is the director of policy for Americans for Prosperity.

Phil, how are you, sir?

PHIL KERPEN, AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY: I’m good, Glenn. How are you?

BECK: Good. Tell me about — tell me a little bit about Apollo and these — I have ACORN and the Black Farmers and the Sierra Club and Greenpeace and AFL-CIO and SEIU. Why are these thee categories — how are they tied to Apollo?

KERPEN: Well, the Apollo Alliance is designed to bring together the elements of organized labor with the community organizers with the green groups, the environmental groups, and to access all of the big foundation money that’s been supportive of those causes in the past. So, it’s kind of — Van Jones, who you mentioned, the self-described communist who is now green jobs czar, he described the Apollo Alliance mission as sort of a grand unified field theory for progressive left causes that ties all these things together.

Instead of compensating for their willful failure to cover Jones’s radicalism by informing their readers about the full story, Obama water-carriers are helping the administration with its own campaign of distortion.

The story is not just about Beck or Fox or us racist conservatives martyring Van Jones.

The story is not just about Jones.

The story is about Adolfo Carrion, Carol Browner, Vivek Kundra, Nancy DeParle, John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd, Obama’s education comrades, and the culture of circumvention and corruption that plagues this White House.

The story is the czar explosion, purposeful undermining of congressional oversight, Valerie Jarrett’s promotion of a two-bit Jeremiah Wright in eco-guru’s clothing, and the public vetting of unaccountable Obama appointees that Washington won’t do.

They don’t get it. They’re in the tank. Behind the curve. And slouching towards irrelevance.

***

Gotta love the lead paragraph of the NYTimes’ story on Jones today:

In a victory for Republicans and the Obama administration’s conservative critics, Van Jones resigned as the White House’s environmental jobs “czar” on Saturday.

Republicans in Washington were bringing up the rear. This was no victory for them.

Let’s rewrite that sentence:

In a victory for public disclosure and transparency over the Obama administration’s secrecy and evasion, the White House’s environmental jobs “czar” resigned on Saturday.

The Times continues:

Appointed as a special adviser for “green jobs” by President Obama, Mr. Jones did not go through the traditional vetting process for administration officials who must be confirmed by the Senate. So it was not until recently that some of Mr. Jones’s past actions received broad airing, including his derogatory statements about Republicans in February and his signature on a 2004 letter suggesting that former President George W. Bush might have knowingly allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to occur in order to use them as a “pre-text to war.”

And we should add an important fact to that paragraph, too:

Appointed as a special adviser for “green jobs” by President Obama, Mr. Jones did not go through the traditional vetting process for administration officials who must be confirmed by the Senate. The New York Times and other mainstream outlets did not want to touch the radical past and inflammatory statements of Mr. Jones reported on the Internet in the spring of 2009, when Mr. Jones’s appointment was first announced. So it was not until recently that some of Mr. Jones’s past actions received broad airing, including his derogatory statements about Republicans in February and his signature on a 2004 letter suggesting that former President George W. Bush might have knowingly allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to occur in order to use them as a “pre-text to war.”

***

Update: Sen. Lamar Alexander on Fox News Sunday this morning: “He’s not the issue; the czars are the issue.”

The light bulb in the GOP establishment’s head is finally turning on!

Update: Via George Stephanopoulos, here is Robert Gibbs’s “first official response:”

GEORGE: Does the president believe that he is the victim of a smear campaign or does the president think that Jones actions and words merit resignation?

GIBBS: “Well what Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual. The president thanks Van Jones for his service in the first eight months helping to coordinate renewable energy jobs and lay the foundation for our future economic problem…The president accepted his resignation, but Van Jones as he said in his statement he was going to get in the way of the President.”

GEORGE: So the president doesn’t endorse in any way the things that Van Jones said before but the president doesn’t want him to go?

GIBBS: He doesn’t but he thanks him for his service.”

michellemalkin.com

“I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama”

As if I needed any more evidence to bolster today’s column about the Obama junior lobbyist campaign in America’s schools, here’s another item fresh from the headlines in Utah:

A school principal has apologized for showing a video at an assembly that a politically conservative group leader is calling “radical, leftist propaganda.”

Children at Eagle Bay Elementary School in Farmington were shown a short video called “I pledge” on Aug. 28. The video opens with an image of President Barack Obama and part of a speech in which he says, “Let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.” The video then features celebrities making pledges about how they will help the president and the world — and that’s where some say the problem lies…

… Gayle Ruzicka, president of conservative Utah Eagle Forum, said the video was blatantly political. She said other offensive pledges included, “I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama,” “I pledge allegiance to the funk, to the united funk of funkadelica,” and pledges to not use plastic grocery bags and not flush the toilet after urinating.

“It’s very inappropriate to show a radical, leftist propaganda piece that political to children,” Ruzicka said. “If parents want their children to learn about those things and do them in the home, wonderful, fine, but it’s not the place of the school to show a one-sided propaganda piece to children without parents knowing about it.”

Cieslewicz said such values should be decided in the home, not at school.

Coming to a classroom assembly near you…

michellemalkin.com

Obama’s classroom campaign: No junior lobbyist left behind

My syndicated column today digs a little deeper into President Obama’s September 8 speech to schoolchildren. The school guides now featured front and center on the www.ed.gov website were developed by the White House Teaching Fellows — a group which includes several activist educators as you’ll see below.

Downplaying academic achievement in favor of left-wing radical activism in the public schools is rooted in old neighborhood pal and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers’ pedagogical philosophy. It was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge way when the two served as board members of the educational foundation — and it is the Washington Obama way now.

***

Obama’s classroom campaign: No junior lobbyist left behind
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

“ABC” stands for All Barack’s Children. On September 8, young students across the country will be watching television. Yes, they’ll be parked in front of the boob tube and computer screens watching President Obama’s address on education.

Instead of practicing cursive, reviewing multiplication tables, diagramming sentences, or learning something concrete, America’s kids will be lectured about the importance of learning. And then the schoolchildren, from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade, will be exhorted to Do Something — other than sit in their seats and receive academic instruction, that is.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan dispatched letters to principals nationwide boasting that “This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation’s school children about persisting and succeeding in school.” But the goal is not merely morale-boosting. According to White House event-related guides developed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Teaching Fellows, grade-school students will be told to “listen to the speech” and “could think about the following:”

*What is the President trying to tell me?

*What is the President asking me to do?

*What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?

• Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

After the speech, teachers will ask students:

*What do you think the President wants us to do?

*Does the speech make you want to do anything?

*Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?

Obama’s White House Teaching Fellows include Chicago high school educator Xian Barrett, a fierce opponent of charter schools who founded a “Social Justice Club” and bussed students to protests and Michelle Bissonette, a Los Altos, Calif., teacher who is “focused on developing my leadership as a more culturally and racially conscious educator.”

The activist tradition of government schools using students as junior lobbyists cannot be ignored. Zealous teacher’s unions have enlisted captive schoolchildren as letter-writers in their campaigns for higher education spending. Out-of-control activists have enlisted their secondary-school charges in pro-illegal immigration protests, gay marriage ceremonies, environmental propaganda stunts, and anti-war events.

And last year’s presidential campaign saw disgraceful abuses of power by pro-Obama instructors. In New Rochelle, New York, elementary students were given an in-class assignment to color in drawings of Barack Obama – including a picture of a campaign button featuring his face and the slogan “Students for Obama 2008.”

In Cumberland County, N.C., a fifth-grade-school teacher turned a “civics” discussion into an unhinged harangue against a girl who said her family supported John McCain.

Nor can the Democrats’ strategy of using kiddie human shields to advance their legislative agenda be overlooked in the context and timing of Obama’s speech. Children have been front and center of the Left’s push for an ever-increasing government role in health care – from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s use of seventh-grader Baltimore school kid Graeme Frost to push for the massive S-CHIP entitlement expansion, to President Obama’s none-too-coincidental choice of Massachusetts 11-year-old town hall questioner Julia Hall (the daughter of a prominent Obama activist/organizer who assailed Obamacare critics’ “mean” signs), to the Kennedy family’s decision to put grandson Max Allen on center stage to pray for health care reform at his uncle’s funeral last week.

So when the Department of Education directs schools to gather children ‘round the TV monitors for Obama’s pep talk and then do this…

• Create posters of their goals. Posters could be formatted in quadrants or puzzle pieces or trails marked with the labels: personal, academic, community, country. Each area could be labeled with three steps for achieving goals in those areas. It might make sense to focus on personal and academic so community and country goals come more readily.

• Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.

…parents have every right to worry about their children being used as Political Guinea Pigs for Change.

***

Postscript: Stanley Kurtz’s invaluable investigation of the Obama/Ayers/Chicago Annenberg Challenge ties last fall is must-read. A very timely and relevant excerpt:

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago’s public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation’s other key body, the “Collaborative,” which shaped education policy.

The CAC’s basic functioning has long been known, because its annual reports, evaluations and some board minutes were public. But the Daley archive contains additional board minutes, the Collaborative minutes, and documentation on the groups that CAC funded and rejected. The Daley archives show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda.

…The CAC’s agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers’s educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland’s ghetto.

In works like “City Kids, City Teachers” and “Teaching the Personal and the Political,” Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? “I’m a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist,” Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk’s, “Sixties Radicals,” at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.

…CAC translated Mr. Ayers’s radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with “external partners,” which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Mr. Obama once conducted “leadership training” seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama’s early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC’s in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.

…Mr. Ayers is the founder of the “small schools” movement (heavily funded by CAC), in which individual schools built around specific political themes push students to “confront issues of inequity, war, and violence.” He believes teacher education programs should serve as “sites of resistance” to an oppressive system. (His teacher-training programs were also CAC funded.) The point, says Mr. Ayers in his “Teaching Toward Freedom,” is to “teach against oppression,” against America’s history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.

The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming “guilt by association.” Yet the issue here isn’t guilt by association; it’s guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

michellemalkin.com

Hey Flickr … why so censorious?

Photo site isn’t talking about 'Jokerized Obama,' and you better not either

The “Jokerized” image of President Barack Obama sat unmolested on Flickr for about two months before it was removed by the staff at the photo-sharing Web site. A couple thousand users viewed the image — Obama’s Time magazine cover superimposed with the iconic “Joker” look from “The Dark Knight" — and many of them commented on it. Sometimes it got heated.

Then the co-opted image was co-opted again; the Time cover replaced with the single word, “SOCIALISM” on anti-Obama posters that started popping up in Los Angeles. Suddenly, the original “Jokerized” Time cover was gone from Flickr. And so were the comments. People noticed. Media noticed too.

Flickr cited copyright concerns over the Time magazine image. It also stated that it couldn’t discuss specifics due to its policy on customer privacy and blah, blah, blah.

The company, it seems, didn’t want its customers talking about it either. Flickr not only deleted the comments that accompanied the image, it shut down threads discussing the removal of both. Why? ‘Cause that’s how Flickr rolls.

Read More

Related:

Photo Sharing Website Flickr Takes Down Obama Joker Poster

The popular photo sharing website Flickr has taken down the original version of the now famous Obama Joker poster that's been sweeping the nation.

Apparently, management is concerned about a copyright infringement issue due to the appearance of the Time magazine logo in Firas Alkhateeb's parody that ended up being reprinted with the word "Socialism" at the bottom.

Oddly, a quick search of Flickr identified a number of Bush parodies with Time's logo present (vulgarity alert below the fold).

As such, one has to wonder if Flickr's decision is actually censorship. According to Read Write Web (h/t Ken Shepherd):

In a recent L.A. Times profile on Alkhateeb, it's reported that the photo generated over 20,000 pageviews during the time it was hosted on the photo-sharing website Flickr.com. However, as of last Friday, Flickr removed the photo from their site. Why? Alkhateeb says he received an email from the company stating it had to be taken down due to "copyright infringement concerns." (Apparently, TIME magazine wasn't too happy seeing their brand associated with this sort of political commentary.)

But isn't this sort of political commentary, political parody in fact, protected as a form of free speech? Noted photographer and blogger Thomas Hawk thinks it is, citing a precedent for fair use (Folsom v Marsh) which states "if you produce something that is transformative, and not derivative, then it's fair use." Although Hawk isn't a lawyer, he may be right on this one. Says Corynne McSherry, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit that defends digital rights, Alkhateeb has a strong fair use defense if he was ever sued. "You really want to think twice about going after a political commenter," she noted.

Yet, a quick search of Flickr found the following:

And this (pardon the vulgarity):


And this:


Why wasn't Flickr or Time concerned with copyright issues involving these parodies?

Not surprisingly, this isn't the first time Flickr came to Barack Obama's defense:

Hawk also blogged about how the site deleted the account of a user named Shepherd Johnson after he made critical comments about Obama in the Official White House Photostream back in June.

Is Flickr protecting itself from a lawsuit by Time, or censoring free speech it doesn't agree with?

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.