The Final Word: Kirsten Powers, Isaiah the Prophet, and the Glory of God.

final word

The outstanding feature of Kirsten Powers’ testimony is that she experienced the fear of the Lord.   She said, “I was more traumatized by Jesus visiting me I tried to write off the experience as misfiring synapses that but I couldn’t shake it when I returned to New York a few days later and I suddenly felt God everywhere and it was terrifying more important it was unwelcome it felt like an invasion I started to fear I was going crazy”

The layers of intellectualism, and the objections to the FAITH that modern preachers insist must be addressed were answered by fire.  Instantly, her doubts were consumed by the Glory of Christ that appeared to her.

We have all heard the verse in the Bible that says perfect love casts out fear.  However, love is not the only thing that casts out fear.  As a matter of fact, the best killer of most fears IS A GREATER FEAR.

Once, as a young preacher I sat on a jet writing out my bills. I was vexed by my shortage of finances.  I blurted out a misguided prayer.  I said, “How am I supposed to believe You for vast sums to win the lost if I am fearful over basic bills? Lord, deliver me from this fear of finances.”

Moments later, the Captain came on the intercom and announced that “we have just lost engine number three.”  I was instantly delivered of my fear of finances.

This is exactly what happened to Isaiah.  Isaiah is in the temple to seek comfort for the death of his first cousin King Uzziah. We know that they were close because Isaiah wrote the King’s life story.  Second Chronicles 26:22 says, “Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, from first to last, the prophet Isaiah, son of famous wrote.”

kirsten-powers-headshot-3a-300

Uzziah was a righteous King who welcomed the prophets and obeyed their counsel. After 51 great years of leading his people under the grace of God, Uzziah forgot about God he became proud and arrogant.

One day, Uzziah entered the temple to light a candle on the altar of incense. This was a gross violation of God’s law. As a result leprosy broke out on his forehead.  He was banished until he died a slow and horrible death.

During those five years, Isaiah lived in the shadow of past glory.  He must have regretted the years he wasted. The standing invitations to Royal events, rubbing shoulders with the intelligentsia, cast a spell on his judgment.  Isaiah is devastated by his failure to speak and act for God.  Now he fears the future.

Then Isaiah saw something that should have killed him instantly.  6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. 2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3And one cried to another and said:“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;  The whole earth is full of His glory!” 4 And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.”

There was the mighty, awesome God flanked by two of the most dreadful beings in heaven: the Seraphim; towering beings of pure fire whose voices caused violent earthquakes.

Isaiah’s old fear is vaporized before this holy awesome ultimate godly fear.  Soon his sin is purged and a legendary Prophet is commissioned. This is what I yearn for my brothers and sisters in the ministry.

The story of Isaiah is our story.  We are at the end of our human wisdom in a nation hell-bent on destroying herself.

The most disturbing thing about Kirsten Powers’ conversion maybe this:  God sidestepped us to save a soul by His own power.   He is not consulting us for advice and He will replace vessels to do His work, His way.

Leprosy has indeed broken out on the forehead of the seeker model. It cannot speak to the sin of our government, to the villainy of the entertainment industry or to the works of Satan that are devastating the public.  It worked for a while but Uzziah is now dead.

We must return to the Temple.  We must fall of God’s mercy and await the Glory and the fire.  Let us reinstate the Holy Spirit as the commanding officer of our endeavor.  Seek Him whose strategies will not fail.  Be endued with power that will not dissipate.

Part two: Kirsten Powers, Isaiah the Prophet, and the Glory of God.

kirsten-powers-headshot-3a-300

Here is the burning question:  Can the mega church save America?  I am not asking if you think they are successful.  I am asking… do you believe that the rising tide of anti-God, pro-perversion forces that are propelling the nation to oblivion can be reversed by mega churches.

I am positive that even the most famous of seeker pastors would not dare say that their approach is going to result in an American moral awakening…the one and only thing we need now.

Those who blindly hold to the seeker model may be our version of the “Warmists.”   Global warming is such a tenuous theory that they had to rebrand it “climate change.”  In spite of the coldest winter in Chicago’s history they cling to their religion and stick to their guns.   Even playing the ultimate mental goobly gook by saying, “these occasional cold spells are caused by warming.”

Our version of global warming goes like this:  We are facing a spiritual ice age but the problem is actually heat…heat that was caused by hot Bible preaching, revivalism, fervent prayer and repentance.  The solution to the coldness of America is to remove even more heat from the church?query_letter

So what is the answer for the American church?  For some, it is simply “at all cost, keep the lie alive.”  To consider the urgency of revival can lead to the most dangerous of all questions: what is the point of any church program that has zero chance of waking America up?

This is why the conversion of Kirsten Powers matters.   The seeker manifesto orders us to expect conversions that are gradual, comfortable and noninvasive.  Read in her own words how her experience is the polar opposite:

“then one night on a trip to Taiwan I woke up in what I felt like a strange cross between a dream and reality Jesus came to me he said here I am it felt so real I didn’t know what to make of it I called my boyfriend but before I had time to tell him about it he told me he had been praying the night before and felt we were supposed to break up. So we did. I honestly while I was upset I was more traumatized by Jesus visiting me I tried to write off the experience as misfiring synapses but I couldn’t shake it when I returned to New York a few days later I will cost I suddenly felt God everywhere and it was terrifying more important it was unwelcome it felt like an invasion I started to fear I was going crazy”

One of the most recognizable and outspoken voices of secular thought violently reverses courses, claiming a supernatural vision of Christ ala Saul of Tarsus?  We better sit up and take heed! Here is what I believe this miracle says to us:

big boy pants

1. Our strategy for reaching America must come from the Holy Spirit and not man made marketing.  No matter how unreachable she seems, God has a strategy He wants to execute through us but only by the Holy Spirit.  Jesus gave this role to the Holy Spirit and any plan we invent on our own will not only fail it is disobedience.

2. No active ingredient of the Gospel should be left out in our preaching.  Yes sir, your message was full of inspiration and dazzling anecdotes.  And, I must say, the fancy footwork that left out hell, repentance, the Blood, the Cross, and the Resurrection was indeed impressive but wholly ineffective for deliverance from sin.

3. Conversion is not comfortable but in many cases it is fearful and overwhelming.  When Kirsten got back to New York she felt God everywhere and wondered if she was losing her mind.  People sobbing at the front of a Church, pastors getting calls at 3 AM from distraught souls will become a common byproduct of true awakening.

And this is just the beginning.  The most indispensable fact of Kirsten’s conversion is a message to pastors about the Glory of God.  That is what I will tell you about tomorrow.

Kirsten Powers, Isaiah the Prophet, and the Glory of God

kirsten

Kirsten Powers, Isaiah the prophet, and the Glory of God

Have you heard about what happened to Kirsten Powers?  I will tell you all about that, but first I must tell talk about something very disturbing.

It may not seem very important, but recently a highly regarded expert made 14 predictions for the American Church in 2014.   If what he says is true it is the worst news for the church in American history.  Here’s why:

It says essence; Americans do not want to hear the Gospel.  Many churches will close their doors and combine with other churches.  Massive layoffs of church staff are coming.  Cities will clamp down on any new church building to protect their tax base. Only mega churches will grow.

None of that is good news, but saying that only mega-churches will grow is really bad news. This is because it is implies:

1. The church is not supernatural.   To survive she is compelled to apply marketing concepts that are from corporate America.  Programs must be based on what the public wants and rebranding Christ to answer the secular objections to His teachings.

 2. That he is giving a ringing endorsement for the seeker sensitive model. The dirty little secret that few want to admit is that seeker churches do not win unbelievers so much as they attract complacent believers.

For a lukewarm believer who wants less accountability but still feels a twinge of guilt about church attendance, the mega church is the perfect hiding place.  They can lose themselves in the crowd, be assured the service will end on time and the chicken soup for the soul sermons can salve the pain of their double life.

3. Since the seeker model does not win souls, growth can only come from stealing sheep from other churches.  This is the worst news.  Let me use Wal-Mart as an example of why this is so destructive.  When Wal-Mart came to your town, it did not increase the number of people who needed sweat socks and beef jerky.  It merely herded the buyers into one location.  Many other stores who could not compete with the price and convenience shut down.  This is a brilliant concept in the business world but disaster in the Christian community.

Like Wal-Mart, the mega church does not increase the number of buyers.  It only rearranges where the already converted worship.  Churches that cannot compete shut down.   Making matters worse, these lukewarm Christians suffer spiritual malnutrition and get even weaker.  The army of God suffers a perilous drop in quantity and quality without even knowing it.

Mega churches can be the best party going on the deck of the Titanic.  As America sinks, the ballroom is filled with people partying as if there is no disaster.  It is possible for a celebrity pastor to beam with confidence even as America, on his watch, suffers the most cataclysmic moral decline in history.

Our actual numbers are dropping.  Our influence in America is declining.  But this addiction to false success blinds us to these realities.  The Christian birth rate in America is virtually zero.  We are not replacing the Saints who are dying off.  Every day we lose influence because there are less of us in number to counteract evil legislation.

But is this expert right?  Is this how the story of the American church ends?  With our numbers dwindling except for a few pockets where the soldiers are getting weaker?  Doomed to fade into irrelevance?   Apparently not.

Kirsten Powers is the outspoken atheist that we all know from television.  She despised Evangelical Christians.  She epitomizes the unreachable American intellectual.  Listen in her own words to why she is now fervently following Christ.

“then one night on a trip to Taiwan I woke up in what I felt like a strange cross between a dream and reality Jesus came to me he said here I am it felt so real I didn’t know what to make of it I called my boyfriend but before I had time to tell him about it he told me he had been praying the night before and felt we were supposed to break up. So we did. I honestly while I was upset I was more traumatized by Jesus visiting me I tried to write off the experience as misfiring synapses that but I couldn’t shake it when I returned to New York a few days later I will cost I suddenly felt God everywhere and it was terrifying more important it was unwelcome it felt like an invasion I started to fear I was going crazy”

Part two tomorrow

Press is finally starting to treat it like Watergate.

Benghazi, IRS: Son of Watergate?

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, discusses the ongoing hearings into the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Cal ThomasTribune Media Services4:30 a.m. CDT, May 14, 2013
In his defense of President Obama, Press Secretary Jay Carney is beginning to sound a lot like Ronald Zeigler, Richard Nixon’s spokesman. Carney only has to use the word “inoperative,” as Ziegler did when incriminating evidence surfaced that proved his previous statements untrue.Following what appears to be a cover-up in the Benghazi attack, the Washington Post has obtained documents from an audit conducted by the IRS’s inspector general that indicate the agency targeted for special scrutiny conservative groups with “tea party” and “patriot” in their names, as well as “nonprofit groups that criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution.”

  • CAL THOMAS
  • Cal Thomas
  •  
  • Editorial: Why did the IRS muscle the right?

IRS official Lois Lerner described the targeting efforts as “absolutely inappropriate,” but said IRS actions were not driven by partisanship. How, then, would she explain why no groups with “progressive” in their titles were similarly targeted? Carney labeled Lerner an “appointee from the previous administration.” In other words: Bush’s mistake, not Obama’s.

The Post’s editorial board writes, “A bedrock principle of U.S. democracy is that the coercive powers of government are never used for partisan purpose.” The board called for a full accounting. I doubt we’ll get it. Take Benghazi.

ABC News first reported that the now famous Benghazi “talking points” used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on five Sunday morning news shows were revised 12 times, deleting references to “the al-Qaida-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia (and) CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.”

Carney said Ambassador Rice’s initial claim — that the attack grew out of protests over a video that insulted Islam — was based on what was known to U.S. intelligence at the time. But as last week’s testimony by three whistleblowers before the House Oversight Committee revealed, much more was known at the time.

Contributing to cover-up suspicions is the administration’s continued stonewalling when asked to provide information on Benghazi. CNN sources acknowledge that “An email discussion about talking points the Obama administration used to describe the deadly attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, show the White House and State Department were more involved than they first said…” The American people deserve the full story.

The latest, but probably not the last shocker, is a report in The Daily Caller about CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, who has “steadily covered the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Libya,” reportedly frustrating CBS News executives who claim her unrelenting coverage is “bordering on advocacy” on the issue. Now, according to Politico, Attkisson can’t get some of her stories about Benghazi on the air. Oh, did I fail to mention that CBS News President David Rhodes is the brother of Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes? Coincidental? Attkisson is reportedly in talks to leave the network. Is it because she chooses to behave like a real journalist instead of a cheerleader for Obama?

On Friday, Carney held a “secret briefing” on Benghazi for a select number of White House reporters, raising the ire of reporters not in the room. Is this what the Obama administration calls transparency?

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) has asked Speaker John Boehner to name a select committee to investigate the Benghazi attack with full subpoena powers that could place witnesses under oath. Boehner should. Meanwhile, House Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany (R-LA) has demanded the IRS turn over by Wednesday all communications containing the words “conservative,” “patriot” or “tea party.” And the IRS should.

Democrats now accuse Republicans of partisanship, claiming their motive is to damage Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential prospects. If she has nothing to hide, transparency should enhance, not harm, her chances. We’ve learned more about Benghazi since her appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January and she should be asked to account for it.

In 1972, Republican partisans initially accused Democrats of wanting to destroy President Nixon, but most were forced to acknowledge his culpability in Watergate once the facts became known. One of the Articles of Impeachment of Nixon concerned his misuse of the IRS to undermine political enemies.

Journalists should stop protecting President Obama and Hillary Clinton and do their jobs, like Sharyl Attkisson. Congressional Republicans should press for all the facts. That’s their job.

Scandal politics sweep Capitol Hill

Capitol Hill is pictured. | AP Photo

House committees will morph into mock courtrooms with the White House as defendant. | AP Photo

Close

By JAKE SHERMAN and LAUREN FRENCH | 5/13/13 7:15 PM EDT

Scandal politics are sweeping Capitol Hill.

Just days after news broke that the IRS targeted conservative nonprofits, Speaker John Boehner’s House committees will morph into mock courtrooms where the White House will be the defendant in what amounts to a number of high-stakes political trials.

The most recent scandal to grip the Obama administration came Monday evening, when The Associated Press disclosed that the Justice Department sought its reporters’ phone records — including those of correspondents who sit in the Capitol. Within hours, House Republicans vowed to investigate. To make things worse for President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder is scheduled to be on Capitol Hill Wednesday for a House Judiciary Committee hearing.

(Also on POLITICO: Journalists fume over DOJ raid on AP)

That’s hardly the president’s only problem.

Two separate committees — Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and Means — will probe whether the IRS was treating right-leaning groups unfairly. Republicans moved swiftly to secure the IRS acting director for a Friday hearing, just a week after the news broke. GOP aides hinted Monday afternoon that widespread calls for the director’s resignation could come shortly.

The panels will probe whether the targeting of right-leaning groups is systematic, or isolated. Ways and Means Republicans say they are interested in when top IRS officials, specifically former Commissioner Douglas Shulman was told about search terms used to single out conservative groups. Shulman told Ways and Means members in March 2012 that the IRS was not engaged in any manner of political targeting.

(PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)

Top GOP sources acknowledge that it’s highly unlikely the White House was directly involved in the IRS mess, but the probe is sure to add to the Republican-spun narrative of Democratic, Big Government overreach.

The IRS probes might be new to the public, but they’re not to House Republicans, who have long worried about politicization at the agency. The hot-button topic has come up in several committee hearings since the GOP took the majority.

The inquest into the IRS is just the latest in a string of GOP-led investigations suddenly gaining steam on Capitol Hill. Instead of negotiating with the White House, GOP lawmakers are now investigating it.

There are currently five separate committee investigations into the attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, and a probe into Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius raising millions of dollars to promote Obamacare. Ways and Means is demanding answers to seven questions on this matter, as well.

(PHOTOS: 10 hits on Obama and Benghazi)

All together, roughly one-third of House committees are engaged in investigating some aspect of the Obama administration.

“The speaker and other House leaders have been clear: Effective, responsible oversight is a key constitutional responsibility of Congress,” said Michael Steel, Boehner’s spokesman. “Whether the topic is the truth about Benghazi, thuggish political attacks from the IRS or the ‘train wreck’ of the president’s health care law, we will keeping fighting to make sure the American people know the truth.”

Government seizes AP phone records

  • 101

  • 50
By ASSOCIATED PRESS |

5/13/13 4:30 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative’s top executive called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.

In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

(WATCH: Darrell Issa: AP report prompts DOJ review)

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know,” Pruitt said.

The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP’s source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an “unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information.”

Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual and largely unprecedented.

In the letter notifying the AP received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt’s letter and attorneys for the AP. The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.

Among those whose phone numbers were obtained were five reporters and an editor who were involved in the May 7, 2012 story.

The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of leaking classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.

Justice Department published rules require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained though subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.

Spokesmen in Machen’s office and at the Justice Department had no immediate comment on Monday.

The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can only be considered after “all reasonable attempts” have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department has taken to get information in the case.

A subpoena to the media must be “as narrowly drawn as possible” and “should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period,” according to the rules.

The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that “might impair the news gathering function” because the government recognizes that “freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news.”

News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption’s wording, might “pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.”

It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.

The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden.

The plot was significant because the White House had told the public it had “no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden’s death.”

The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once government officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot because officials said it no longer endangered national security. The Obama administration, however, continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.

The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government.

Brennan talked about the AP story and leaks investigation in written testimony to the Senate. “The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made … when someone informed the Associated Press that the U.S. Government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. Government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it,” he said.

He also defended the White House’s plan to discuss the plot immediately afterward. “Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession, it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with Government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qa’ida plot,” Brennan told senators.

UPDATE (4:36 p.m. (DB)): Pruitt’s full letter to Attorney General Holder:

There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.

We regard this action by the Department of Justice as a serious interference with AP’s constitutional rights to gather and report the news.

UPDATE (5:08 p.m. (DB)): The Dept. of Justice has released the following statement:

We take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations. Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media. We must notify the media organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation. Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws.

UPDATE (6:25 p.m. (DB)): House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa has released the following statement:

This is obviously disturbing. Coming within a week of revelations that the White House lied to the American people about the Benghazi attacks and the IRS targeted conservative Americans for their political beliefs, Americans should take notice that top Obama Administration officials increasingly see themselves as above the law and emboldened by the belief that they don’t have to answer to anyone.  I will work with my fellow House Chairmen on an appropriate response to Obama Administration officials.

Obama vs. Fox News — behind the White House strategy to delegitimize a news organization.

Obama vs. Fox News — behind the White House strategy to delegitimize a news organization

By Kirsten Powers

Published January 29, 2013

FoxNews.com

Kirston Powers

  •                                                                                                                                                                                                 KIRSTEN POWERS

     

     

  • President Barack Obama US.jpg

Jan. 14, 2013: President Obama gestures during his final news conference of his first term in the East Room of the White House in Washington. (AP)

 

 

There is no war on terror for the Obama White House, but there is one on Fox News.

In a recent interview with The New Republic, President Obama was back to his grousing about the one television news outlet in America that won’t fall in line and treat him as emperor. Discussing breaking Washington’s partisan gridlock, the president told TNR,”If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News…for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”

Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him. What other motive could a journalist have in holding a president accountable? Why oh why do Ed Henry and Chris Wallace insist on asking hard questions? Make them stop!

Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him.

The president seems more comfortable talking to “real journalists” such as Chris Hughes, who asked the question in the TNR interview that elicited Obama’s reflexive Fox hatred. Hughes is the new owner of TNR and is a former major Obama campaign donor and organizer who was featured on the cover of Fast Company, with the headline, “The Kid Who Made Obama President.” You can’t make this stuff up.

This latest volley from the president is just one in a long line of comments from his White House as part of their campaign to silence any dissent they detect in the press corps.

Recently, the White House has kept Fox News off of conference calls dealing with the Benghazi attack, despite Fox News being the only outlet that was regularly reporting on it and despite Fox having top notch foreign policy reporters.

They have left Chris Wallace’s “Fox News Sunday” out of a round of interviews that included CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS for not being part of a “legitimate” news network. In October 2009, as part of an Obama administration onslaught against Fox News,White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week” that the Fox News Channel is “not really a news station” and that much of the programming is “not really news.”

Whether you are liberal or conservative, libertarian, moderate or politically agnostic, everyone should be concerned when leaders of our government believe they can intentionally try to delegitimize a news organization they don’t like.

In fact, if you are a liberal – as I am – you should be the most offended, as liberalism is founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.

That more liberals aren’t calling out the White House for this outrageous behavior tells you something about the state of liberalism in America today.

Sure, everyone understands how some of Fox’s opinion programming would get under President Obama’s skin, the same way MSNBC from 4pm until closing time is not the favorite stop for Republicans.  But it’s not okay — or presidential — to continue smearing an entire network of hard working journalists because you are mad at Sean Hannity.

During the initial launch of the war on Fox News in October 2009, then-White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told the New York Times of Fox News, “[W]e don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” On CNN, she declared that Fox was a “wing of the Republican Party.” Then: “let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”

Gosh, this sounds so familiar. In fact, it’s exactly the line that Media Matters used in a 2010 memo to donors: “Fox News is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public.”

In fact, this is the signature line of Media Matters in discussing Fox News, which they say they exist to destroy. Their CEO, David Brock told Politico in 2011 that their strategy was a “war on Fox” that is executed by 90 staff members and a $10 million yearly budget, gratis liberal donors.

Can someone explain to me how it’s “liberal” to try and shut down a media organization? What the Obama administration is doing, and what liberals are funding at MMFA is beyond chilling – it’s a deep freeze.

On the heels of Dunn’s attack on Fox, Brock wrote a letter to progressive organizations bragging about the U.S. government trashing a news organization: “In recent days, a new level of scrutiny has been directed toward Fox News, in no small part due to statements from the White House, and from Media Matters, challenging its standing as a news organization.” Point of order: who put Media Matters in charge of determining what is and isn’t a news operation?

A Media Matters memo found its way into the public domain and if you care at all about decency and freedom of the press, it will make you throw up. If you like McCarthyism, it’s right up your alley. It details to liberal donors how they have plans to assemble opposition research on Fox News employees.

It complains of the “pervasive unwillingness among members of the media to officially kick Fox News to the curb of the press club” and outlines how they are going to change that through targeting elite media figures and turning them against Fox. They say they want to set up a legal fund to sue (harass) conservatives for any “slanderous” comments they make about progressives on air. They actually cite one of the best journalists around, Jake Tapper, as a problem because he questioned the White House about calling a news outlet “illegitimate.” Tapper can see the obvious: if the White House can call one news outlet illegitimate for asking tough questions, then guess who is next? Anyone.

We defend freedom of the press because of the principle, not because we like everything the press does. For example, I defend MSNBC’s right to run liberal programming to their hearts content.

Monitoring the media is actually a good thing; the media should be held accountable, including Fox News. When MMFA began I was supportive of their endeavor and even used some of their research. They seemed a counterbalance to conservative media monitoring organizations.

But now the mask is off. They make no bones about their intentions, and it’s not a fair media. It is clear now that the idea of freedom of the press actually offends Media Matters. In their memo, they complain about “an expansive view of legal precedent protecting the freedom of the press, and the progressive movement’s own commitment to the First Amendment” as an impediment to be overcome or changed. They say they are “consider[ing] pushing prominent progressives to stop appearing on Fox News.” For those who defy the order, they threaten to start daily publishing the names of Democrats who appear in order to shame them. If that doesn’t work, presumably they will just shave our heads and march us down Constitution Avenue.

When Anita Dunn was informing America – as a senior government official – which news organizations were “legitimate,” she conveniently deemed CNN, which rarely challenges the White House, as a “real” network. Presumably she believes MSNBC is “legitimate” also, despite their undisguised disgust of the GOP and hagiography of the president, not to mention more opinion programming than any cable outlet.

I’m going to go out on a limb and assume she thinks CBS is “legitimate” after they just ran what amounted to a 2016 ad for Hillary Clinton on “60 Minutes.” CBS is the same place that has a political director who also writes for one of the most liberal outlets in the country, Slate. Who also just wrote in that publication that the president should “pulverize” the GOP. Imagine a political director at CBS hired away from the Weekly Standard who then wrote an article about “pulverizing” Democrats. I know, I lost you at the part where CBS hired a political director from a conservative outlet.

Last week Rolling Stone editor Michael Hastings – who is a liberal and said recently that “most journalists I know are liberal” – discussed his time covering Obama on the campaign trail. Among the things he witnessed was a reporter trying to interview Obama using a sock puppet.

He told MSNBCs Martin Bashir, “That’s the presence of Obama, even on the press corps, even on the people who follow him every day. When they are near him, they lose their mind sometimes. They start behaving in ways, you know, that are juvenile and amateurish and they swoon.”

Hastings admitted that the presence of Obama made him go gooey too. “Did I ask about drones, did I ask about civil liberties? No, I did not.”

I guess this is what the White House and their friends at Media Matters call the “legitimate” media.