Don’t blame Trump. You are doing this to yourselves.

Right now, the media, universities, and the Democratic Party’s credibility is imploding. They yearn to blame Trump.  The truth is, they are doing it to themselves.  Tragically, they are basking in their self-inflicted wounds.

Don’t blame Trump.  You are doing this to yourselves.

By Mario Murillo

Right now, the media, universities, and the Democratic Party’s credibility is imploding.  The press is crying foul.  They claim the president’s attacks erode democracy. The truth is, they are doing it to themselves.  Tragically, they are not only missing the point, they are basking in their self-inflicted wounds.

Secular progressives from all of these institutions have gone off the rails.  Old Democratic Party leftists will not even consider self-examination.  They are the aging actress still trying to get free meals off her looks.   The damage is now clear!   Unable to take anymore, many mainstream liberals are quietly excusing themselves …quietly because of the left’s slander-terror campaign against any liberal who openly disagrees.

The exasperating—over-the-top—leftist behavior has given the base combat fatigue.  Not to mention the fact they look and sound just plain loony.  The new radical left is trapped in a twilight zone.  They are too big to be an insane asylum and too small to be a national movement.  They are merely an elite, out of touch group of bullies who—for the moment at least—hold the microphone.

It’s a fact of life: the public will hold you accountable even when you don’t hold yourself accountable.

It’s a fact of life: silencing people does not convert them.

The Trump excuse has worn thin and now the left must pay the piper.  They told the lies.  They colluded to elect Hillary Clinton.  They own the narrative that is spewing venom.  They are the ones who look unhinged.

fatigue

Here’s an all points left wing loon bulletin:

The University of Michigan has banned whiteboards in the dorms to cut down on hurtful words.

From the Devolving, Democratic Congress:  Maxine Waters calls the entire Trump Cabinet “scumbags.”

From the fading CNN Bunker:  A father asks Chris Cuomo, “what if my twelve-year-old daughter doesn’t want to see male genitalia in the girl’s locker room?”  His answer, “her overprotective father should teach her tolerance.”

A terror group in the Bay Area who call themselves By Any Means Necessary say that they break windows, set buildings on fire and beat people to silence speakers on campus.  Oh, and not on just any campus but Sproul Plaza at Cal Berkeley: the birthplace of the free speech movement.   They said, “Our violence is an act of self-defense.”

When you scream that the enemy is white male Christians—when you use violence to stop free speech—when you say gender is not scientific—you not only sound crazy, but you show the public that the real racism, sexism, and hate is coming from.

You are driving folks to conservatism.  You are the early committee to reelect Trump.  You are alienating America.  A part of me doesn’t want to tell you this.  Napoleon said, “never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

Is Woody Allen a child molester? An Open Letter From Dylan Farrow

An Open Letter From Dylan Farrow

By DYLAN FARROW
Dylan FarrowFrances SilverDylan Farrow

(A note from Nicholas Kristof: In 1993, accusations that Woody Allen had abused his adoptive daughter, Dylan Farrow, filled the headlines, part of a sensational story about the celebrity split between Allen and his girlfriend, Mia Farrow. This is a case that has been written about endlessly, but this is the first time that Dylan Farrow herself has written about it in public. It’s important to note that Woody Allen was never prosecuted in this case and has consistently denied wrongdoing; he deserves the presumption of innocence. So why publish an account of an old case on my blog? Partly because the Golden Globe lifetime achievement award to Allen ignited a debate about the propriety of the award. Partly because the root issue here isn’t celebrity but sex abuse. And partly because countless people on all sides have written passionately about these events, but we haven’t fully heard from the young woman who was at the heart of them. I’ve written a column about this, but it’s time for the world to hear Dylan’s story in her own words.)

What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains.

For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn’t like. I didn’t like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him. I didn’t like it when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear. I didn’t like it when he would place his head in my naked lap and breathe in and breathe out. I would hide under beds or lock myself in the bathroom to avoid these encounters, but he always found me. These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal. I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldn’t keep the secret anymore.

When I asked my mother if her dad did to her what Woody Allen did to me, I honestly did not know the answer. I also didn’t know the firestorm it would trigger. I didn’t know that my father would use his sexual relationship with my sister to cover up the abuse he inflicted on me. I didn’t know that he would accuse my mother of planting the abuse in my head and call her a liar for defending me. I didn’t know that I would be made to recount my story over and over again, to doctor after doctor, pushed to see if I’d admit I was lying as part of a legal battle I couldn’t possibly understand. At one point, my mother sat me down and told me that I wouldn’t be in trouble if I was lying – that I could take it all back. I couldn’t. It was all true. But sexual abuse claims against the powerful stall more easily. There were experts willing attack my credibility. There were doctors willing to gaslight an abused child.

After a custody hearing denied my father visitation rights, my mother declined to pursue criminal charges, despite findings of probable cause by the State of Connecticut – due to, in the words of the prosecutor, the fragility of the “child victim.” Woody Allen was never convicted of any crime. That he got away with what he did to me haunted me as I grew up. I was stricken with guilt that I had allowed him to be near other little girls. I was terrified of being touched by men. I developed an eating disorder. I began cutting myself. That torment was made worse by Hollywood. All but a precious few (my heroes) turned a blind eye. Most found it easier to accept the ambiguity, to say, “who can say what happened,” to pretend that nothing was wrong. Actors praised him at awards shows. Networks put him on TV. Critics put him in magazines. Each time I saw my abuser’s face – on a poster, on a t-shirt, on television – I could only hide my panic until I found a place to be alone and fall apart.

Last week, Woody Allen was nominated for his latest Oscar. But this time, I refuse to fall apart. For so long, Woody Allen’s acceptance silenced me. It felt like a personal rebuke, like the awards and accolades were a way to tell me to shut up and go away. But the survivors of sexual abuse who have reached out to me – to support me and to share their fears of coming forward, of being called a liar, of being told their memories aren’t their memories – have given me a reason to not be silent, if only so others know that they don’t have to be silent either.

Today, I consider myself lucky. I am happily married. I have the support of my amazing brothers and sisters. I have a mother who found within herself a well of fortitude that saved us from the chaos a predator brought into our home.

But others are still scared, vulnerable, and struggling for the courage to tell the truth. The message that Hollywood sends matters for them.

What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett? Louis CK? Alec Baldwin? What if it had been you, Emma Stone? Or you, Scarlett Johansson? You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten me?

Woody Allen is a living testament to the way our society fails the survivors of sexual assault and abuse.

So imagine your seven-year-old daughter being led into an attic by Woody Allen. Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her tormenter.

Are you imagining that? Now, what’s your favorite Woody Allen movie?

The Most Dangerous Religion in America: The Liberal God Delusion.

liberal god delusion copy

The Liberal God Delusion

Our government has been hijacked by a party obsessed with a higher power. But I’m not talking about the GOP. I’m talking about the left and their worship of government.

As Washington staggers into a new year, one side of the political spectrum polarizes and paralyzes all ongoing debates due to its irrational reliance on a higher power.

The problem isn’t religious conservatives and their abiding faith in God; it’s mainstream liberals and their blind confidence in government.

Consider the current dispute over the right response to gun violence. At its core, this argument comes down to a visceral disagreement between relying on self-defense or on government protection. Gun-rights enthusiasts insist that the best security for law-abiding citizens comes from placing formidable firearms into their hands; gun-control advocates believe we can protect the public far more effectively by taking guns away from as many Americans as possible. In other words, conservatives want to address the threat of gun violence by giving individuals more power while liberals seek to improve the situation by concentrating more power in the hands of the government. The right preaches self-reliance while the left places its trust in the higher power of government.

The same dynamic characterizes most of today’s foreign-policy and defense debates. Right-wingers passionately proclaim the ideal of “peace through strength,” arguing that a powerful, self-confident America with dominant military resources remains the only guarantee of national security. Progressives, on the other hand, dream of multilateral consensus, comprehensive treaties, disarmament, grand peace deals, and vastly enhanced authority for the United Nations. Once again, liberals place a touching and naive faith in the ideal of a higher power—potential world government—while conservatives insist that the United States, like any nation, must ultimately rely only on itself.

Regarding the great tax-and-spend battles presently pushing the nation ever closer toward the dreaded fiscal cliff, the right argues that the economy will perform better if money is controlled by those who earn it while the left wants to government to make better, more generous decisions on how to invest that money. Despite abundant evidence to the contrary from the failed welfare states of Western Europe, liberals maintain unwavering devotion to the notion that taking funds out of the private sector will miraculously generate more private-sector economic growth. Republicans trust the private decisions of prosperous people to make the best use of the money that those citizens have generated; Democrats rely on the superior wisdom and broader perspective of a larger, more activist government to distribute rewards and plan for the future in a complex economy.

In selecting strategies for helping the poor and uplifting the downtrodden, the opposed approaches of left and right offer an especially sharp contrast. According to Arthur Brooks’s important book Who Really Cares and many other studies, conservatives at every income level provide disproportionate support for private charities. On my radio show, we spent the holiday season raising nearly $50,000 for the Salvation Army with its focus on rescuing substance abusers, the homeless, and disaster victims from their miserable circumstances. Liberals, on the other hand, consider such private efforts insufficient and demand governmental initiatives and interventions to supplement the private armies of compassion.

This raises an uncomfortable question for true believers of the left: if organizations like the Salvation Army have indeed done a phenomenal job over many decades in turning lives around and bringing hope to the hopeless, why wouldn’t government want to invest its resources in supporting these operations rather than launching their own bureaucratic efforts? If private charities aren’t large enough at the moment to cope with the epic dimensions of poverty-related problems, wouldn’t government funding to expand these proven organizations provide a better investment—reaching more people at lower cost—than any costly federal start-up?

The contemptuous refusal even to consider such an approach stems from two sources: a liberal belief in totally restructuring a broken society rather than merely repairing the broken lives of individuals, and the related belief in the healing, transformative power of top-down, government-instituted change.

There’s also the inevitable tendency of any fanatical faith to despise and distrust all religious alternatives: liberalism can be a jealous god. Most progressives would therefore prefer to commit trillions to purely secular (and mostly dubious) federal and state antipoverty efforts rather than spending less money for more results if those investments involved proven charities with religious agendas.

The left’s contempt for religious conservatives stems in part from the false assumption that people of faith place irrational reliance on the role of God in solving all the world’s problems. Occasional comments by Christian right-wingers—like the rightly derided suggestion that the Newtown massacre resulted from an absence of prayer in public schools—give some credence to this unflattering caricature.

But mainstream conservatism has never denied the importance of human effort or governmental leadership in addressing dire circumstances or everyday difficulties: after all, Republican heroes of history from Lincoln to Reagan have been powerful presidents, not merely passive and prayerful observers. Yes, most religious conservatives hope for divine favor for the land they love but simultaneously embrace the old saw, “God helps those who help themselves.”

Liberals, on the other hand, place their confidence in the notion that “Government helps those who can’t help themselves”—a proposition that’s questionable in both its components. First, it’s wrong and destructive to believe that any America is truly helpless and second, it’s arguable whether government reliably helps more than it hurts when it expands its power into our daily lives.

Fair-minded people of all perspectives should agree that any form of uncompromising, unquestioned, illogical faith can poison public discourse and derail important debates. There’s no effective rejoinder to the declaration that “God tells me that that I’m right and I refuse to consider other arguments.”

There is similarly no easy response to the insistence that “I know that government can fix this problem and don’t confuse me with evidence to the contrary.”

In the wake of Obama’s reelection, unreasoning reliance on federal power distorts our politics far more destructively than simple-minded faith in God. At the moment, big-government fundamentalism poses more of a threat to the republic than religious absolutism.

How haters use this verse against us and uninformed believers go along with it.

judge_not blog copy

What is the most dangerous lie in America?  What is killing us?  The abuse of a simple phrase that Jesus used, “Judge not that you be not judged.”   Occasionally our site is smeared with vile posts by people claiming to be open-minded and, amazingly claiming to be more intelligent.  What was even more tragic is the host of self-defined Christians who go along with them saying  things like, “we shouldn’t judge,” and, “this makes it harder for us to reach people.”

It is my opinion that making moral conclusions does not make it harder to reach people.  Think about it: How can you witness?  At some  point in witnessing you have to make a moral judgment.

I live in Northern California, ground zero for liberalism.  They are constantly telling people not to judge.  Their hilarious hypocrisy is breathtaking.  Bay Area liberals are the most judgmental people on the planet.  I have lived under environmental, nutritional, gender sharia law most of my adult life.

Last December in Danville California I said, “Merry Christmas,” to my waiter.  He scowled at me and said, “I do not want to exclude anyone.”  Talk about a hair trigger!  Everything on earth is a cause for liberals.  How do they sleep at night with so much judging to do???  They judge, food, animal treatment, gardening, the car you drive, even your fireplace.  To them, it is a world is filled with “ists.”    Sexists, elitists, capitalists, fascists, racists, and now because of animal rights there are “Specists” (people who believe humans are a higher species than man.)

Christians we better wake up!  Don’t take Jesus out of context just so you can hide in a deeply immoral nation.   Now read the best article ever on the abuse of “Judge not.”  By By  BRANNON HOWSE

Tolerance mongers seem to have found the one absolute truth they are willing to live by. How many times have you heard someone say, “Judge not lest you be judged”? The statement has become the great American open-mindedness mantra when anyone has the courage to declare that someone else’s belief, actions or lifestyle is morally amiss.

Another form of the same non-judgmental judgment is “that may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.” The logic behind the statement goes something like this: “Your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth. We are both right, and I hold to my opinion of truth.” The last time I checked, it was impossible for two chairs to occupy the same space around my dining room table, but evidently such rules of time, space and logic don’t apply to tolerance philosophy.

Postmodernism’s live-and-let-live concept of truth argues that even two opposite and wholly contradictory claims can both be true. This is as stupid as saying that black and white are the same color. Yet, it clarifies the absurdity of the postmodernism we are all supposed to blithely accept as the fundamental principle by which we respond to each other’s ideas – the “please and thank-you” of philosophical respect.

So beware.  If you dare claim that another person’s truth is not, in fact, truth but is, in fact, wrong, you are not only being intolerant but you are also being – Mantra forbid! – Judgmental.

In his book “True for You, But Not for Me,” Paul Copan describes the fallacy in this all too common thinking:

It has been said that the most frequently quoted Bible verse is no longer John 3:16 but Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” We cannot glibly quote this, though, without understanding what Jesus meant. When Jesus condemned judging, he wasn’t at all implying we should never make judgments about anyone. After all, a few verses later, Jesus himself calls certain people “pigs” and “dogs” (Matt 7:6) and “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (7:15). … What Jesus condemns is a critical and judgmental spirit, an unholy sense of superiority. Jesus commanded us to examine ourselves first for the problems we so easily see in others. Only then can we help remove the speck in another’s eye – which, incidentally, assumes that a problem exists and must be confronted.

Those that tell you not to judge, quoting Matthew 7:1 grossly out of context, are often some of the most mean-spirited, judgmental souls you could ever meet. It’s not, of course, that they don’t want anyone to judge anything, because they want very much to judge and condemn your commitment to lovingly speak and practice your Christian worldview. You see how these tolerance rules work? We must tolerate them, but they don’t have to tolerate us. The logic is consistent, anyway.

Today’s postmodern culture of adults and students is so consumed by non-judgmentalism that there are some who say we should not even call wrong or evil the terrorists that attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001. In a Time magazine essay entitled “God Is Not on My Side. Or Yours,” Roger Rosenblatt offers the philosophical underpinnings of the live-and-let-live rule for global terrorism:

“One would like to think that God is on our side against the terrorists, because the terrorists are wrong and we are in the right, and any deity worth his salt would be able to discern that objective truth. But this is simply good-hearted arrogance cloaked in morality – the same kind of thinking that makes people decide that God created humans in his own image. The God worth worshiping is the one who pays us the compliment of self-regulation, and we might return it by minding our own business.”

ht and wrong is “good-hearted,” even if the reactions to it aren’t. Alison Hornstein, for instance, is a student at Yale University who observed the disconnect between tolerance and reality. Writing on “The Question That We Should Be Asking – Is Terrorism Wrong?” in the Dec. 17, 2001, issue of Newsweek, Alison noted, “My generation may be culturally sensitive, but we hesitate to make moral judgments.” While that might be putting it mildly, she goes on to say:

Student reactions expressed in the daily newspaper and in class pointed to the differences between our life circumstances and those of the [9-11] perpetrators, suggesting that these differences had caused the previous day’s events. Noticeably absent was a general outcry of indignation at what had been the most successful terrorist attack of our lifetime. These reactions and similar ones on other campuses have made it apparent that my generation is uncomfortable assessing, or even asking whether a moral wrong has taken place.”

Hornstein further describes how on Sept. 12th – one day after Islamic extremists murdered more than 3,000 people on American soil – one of her professors “did not see much difference between Hamas suicide bombers and American soldiers who died fighting in World War II. When I saw one or two students nodding in agreement, I raised my hand. …. American soldiers, in uniform, did not have a policy of specifically targeting civilians; suicide bombers, who wear plainclothes, do. The professor didn’t call on me. The people who did get a chance to speak cited various provocations for terrorism; not one of them questioned its morality.”

If Americans don’t start to judge and punish evil instead of accepting all ideas and beliefs as equal, we will become a nation that welcomes same-sex marriage, polygamy, pedophilia, incest, euthanasia and likely a host of moral aberrations so bizarre they’re still hidden in the darkest reaches of the Internet.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say, “you know we are not to judge people; even the Bible says ‘judge not lest you be judged.’” Americans had better start getting comfortable with politically incorrect, non-humanistic forms of making intelligent judgments on moral issues because even if we don’t make them, I’m concerned there is Someone very willing to hold our nation accountable for what we allow. And He doesn’t respond well to intimidation, name-calling, flawed logic or being quoted out of context.

Ben Carson Cancels Hopkins Graduation Speech. The Left shows its utter intolerance.

dr-ben-

Ben Carson Cancels Hopkins Graduation Speech

Thursday, 11 Apr 2013 09:02 AM

By Melanie Batley

Conservative favorite Benjamin Carson has canceled his scheduled appearance as a graduation speaker at Johns Hopkins University medical school after an uproar over his recent comments on gay marriage.
Carson, the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, had apologized for his comments last month on Fox News’ Sean Hannity program, during which he compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia.But The New York Times reported Thursday that Paul Rothman, dean of the Johns Hopkins medical faculty, had criticized Carson for the comments amid outcries by students. The criticism, the Times reported, led Carson to send an email Wednesday to Rothman withdrawing his name as speaker at the upcoming ceremonies on the Baltimore campus.”My presence is likely to distract from the true celebratory nature of the day,” Carson reportedly told Rothman.

According to the Times, Carson also suggested in the email that he was a victim of political correctness.“Someday in the future, it is my hope and prayer that the emphasis on political correctness will decrease and we will start emphasizing rational discussion of differences so we can actually resolve problems and chart a course that is inclusive of everyone,” he wrote.The doctor had become a favorite among conservatives and Republicans after he made a speech at February’s annual prayer breakfast criticizing President Barack Obama’s healthcare plan and his call for higher taxes on the wealthy — all while the president sat two seats away on the dais.After his appearance on Hannity, students in the Hopkins graduating class reportedly petitioned the school to have him removed as a speaker. Carson, who has been associated with Hopkins for 36 years, responded to the protest with an apology for any embarrassment he may have caused the school.“What really saddens me is that my poorly chosen words caused pain for some members of our community and for that I offer a most sincere and heartfelt apology,” he said at the time. “Hurting others is diametrically opposed to who I am and what I believe.”

Mario’s Note: Face it.    A conservative black man cannot make a single verbal mistake.   If they do the onslaught from the left is intolerant and unending. 

Liberal voices on the other hand can say the most obscene and insane things, utter a tepid apology and the liberal spin machine sanitizes it immediately.  All of the liberal pundits who called for Bush to be murdered are back at their posts.  All of the news hosts who called Sarah Palin a C_ _ _ are back behind microphones.  Joe Biden can gargle with gun powder, shoot his mouth off and the press will wipe off the power burns. 

Then there are the misbehaving liberal politicians:  Anthony D. Weiner is the poster child for what I am talking about.  He did things that should banish him from the scene forever yet the rehab machine is already at work to make him Mayor of New York.    How can we forget Mayor Marion Barry from Washington D.C. caught with prostitutes and cocaine on film and reelected anyway.  What does a liberal politician have to do to be permanently exiled?  I do not think that we know.

But a conservative black man can be exiled for a single miscue.  Our most brilliant surgeon, a paragon of integrity and an inspiration to all minorities who misspoke and then apologized will have liberals calling for his head from now on.   They will never let up on him because he is a threat to their agenda.  

 If you are a liberal with even a single-cell conscience you should outraged.  You are a hopeless fool if you think that this has anything to do with journalism, facts or even sanity.  Today liberals have zero credibility.  And hold steady, in my next blog I will show you the most disgusting abuse yet by the liberal press.

 

For the First Time in My Life, I Am Ashamed of My Country.

For the First Time in My Life, I Am Ashamed of My Country

February 21, 2013

Listen to it Button

Windows Icon
Windows Media

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Folks, I’m sorry here.  I can’t help but think that we are all being played for a bunch of fools, a bunch of suckers on this sequester business.  I don’t know.  Are you like me?  Do you really think 800,000 people are gonna lose their jobs in the Pentagon because we cut $22 billion?  Do you really think air traffic control’s gonna shut down?  Do you really think there aren’t gonna be any meat inspectors?  Do you really think that all of these horror stories are going to happen?  I don’t.I feel like I’ve been here.  This is deja vu all over again.  I remember the 1995 budget battle.  That involved a legitimate government shut down.  That wasn’t just $22 billion we were not gonna spend.  We’re still gonna spend $3.5 trillion.  We’re just not gonna spend $22 billion, if it happens.Now, the government shutdown in 1995, yeah, we were gonna starve kids.  That was the plan then.  I’m just kidding.  Snerdley I’m sorry, it’s all ridiculous to me.  Every bit of this.  I’ve been doing this — you get new perspective.  I’m into my 25th year, and I think I mentioned to you last week and maybe the week before, I’ve been doing this long enough now to start seeing the repeat cycles on everything.  I don’t care whether it’s the debt limit or the fiscal cliff or continuing resolution or the budget crisis of 2008 or TARP or the auto bailouts, and now the sequester, it’s the same playbook.It is the same threats.  It’s the same danger.  It’s the same crisis.  It’s identical.  There’s nothing about it that changes, over and over.  And everybody gets sucked into it.  I try to escape, I try to get out of it, I try to leave it aside, I try to move on, but it just sucks me back in, too, until I realize that I have been sucked back in.  And then there’s a part of me that says, “Well, wait a minute now.”  You got not just Panetta, but now a uniformed military general, General Odierno, saying that he could lose 600,000 uniformed people, and the common sense of this doesn’t add up.  Now we’ve got a guy comparing this to the Oklahoma City bombing.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Everything gets repeated. The cycle, the claims, the threats, the crisis, Armageddon, it’s the same. And we’re talking $22 billion. It’s not as though we’re not gonna spend anything. If the sequester happens, the first year is $44 billion. Half of that’s defense. We’re still going to spend $3.5 trillion or $3.3 trillion, even if we don’t spend the $22 billion. Then there’s this guy who draws an analogy to the Oklahoma City bombing.

Plus, we have our old buddy Ron Fournier. He used to be at AP, and is now at the National Journal. This is quite instructive, actually. Let me just read a portion of this to you. “You May Be Right, Mr. President, But This Is Crazy — Your federal government is almost certain to blow past the March 1 deadline for averting $1.2 trillion in haphazard budget cuts that could cost 700,000 jobs.” But see, it’s not $1.2 trillion.

It is over ten years, but it’s not this year and it’s not next year. This year’s portion of it is $22 billion. Besides, does anybody really think that, even if the sequester happens, it’s not gonna get fixed for ten years? Anyway… “Don’t worry. We know who to blame. President Obama makes a credible case that he has reached farther toward compromise than House Republicans.” He has? Well, I guess he has, since the media says so. “President Obama makes a credible case that he has reached farther toward compromise…”

“But knowing who’s at fault,” writes Mr. Fournier, “doesn’t fix the problem. To loosely quote Billy Joel: You may be right, Mr. President, but this is crazy. Is this fiscal standoff (the fifth since Republicans took control of the House in 2011)…” Is that not an interesting perspective, by the way? It’s not “the fifth standoff since Obama was inaugurated.” No, no. It’s “the fifth standoff since Republicans took control of the House” two years ago. “Is this fiscal standoff … just about scoring political points, or is it about governing?”

Unbeknownst to Mr. Fournier, he has now swerved right into my theory: Political points versus governing, and he says it’s all about politics. “If it’s all about politics, bully for Obama. A majority of voters will likely side with the president over Republicans in a budget dispute because of his popularity and the GOP’s pathetic approval ratings.” Speaking of that, I don’t want to depress you out there, but Obama’s approval rating is as high as it’s been since 2009. It’s 55%.

The Republicans’ approval is as low as it’s been since 2009. Chris Christie goes on Letterman, eats a doughnut, and he’s at 74% approval. Christie is at 74%. Obama is at 55%, his highest approval in four years. But then Mr. Fournier writes, “If it’s all about politics, bully for Obama” but “[i]f it’s about governing, the story changes” for obama ” Yes siree bob. That’s my whole point. “You see,” as Mr. Fournier writes, totally unaware that he’s totally confirming my brilliant theorem of last week, “If it’s about governing, then the story changes for Obama.”

Because “in any enterprise, the chief executive is ultimately accountable for success and failure. Sure, blame Congress — castigate all 535 lawmakers, or the roughly half you hate. But there is only one president. Even if he’s right on the merits, Obama may be on the wrong side of history. Fair or not, the president owns this mess.” Mr. Fournier, I disagree with you. He doesn’t. That is the whole point. The president does not own this mess. His approval rating wouldn’t be 55% if he owned this mess.

He is not governing, Mr. Fournier. You’ve stumbled into this and I’m here to alert you how right you are. You don’t even know it. He’s not governing. It’s all about politics. Congress is being blamed for this. The Republicans are being blamed. Obama is just the outsider trying to fix it all. He’s the guy trying to compromise. He even went out and played golf to try to compromise! He even went out and played golf with Tiger Woods to try to compromise, and still the Republicans resist.

“Fair or not, the president owns this mess.” He doesn’t own this mess. Even though it was his idea. Even though he will choose if the sequester happens where there are cuts. (He will choose it!) But as far as the low-information voter population in this country knows, he does not own this mess, Mr. Fournier, and he will not own it. The Republicans own this lock, stock, and barrel. But, Mr. Fournier writes, “What can he do about it? For starters, he could read this op-ed piece published two months ago in a Midwestern newspaper…”

Fournier highlights an op-ed written by a Republican who blames everybody on both sides for it and we all gotta get together and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That’s what Fournier thinks Obama needs to read. “With a few tweaks, Obama could make it a presidential address. … ‘Americans are fed up with the jousting.… There is a lot of public posturing but apparently not much genuine conversation.'” That gets to the root of what’s bothering me here. The jousting never ends. I just feel like I’m being played for the fool here to get sucked into this narrative and this template every day.

The way all this stuff plays is, I think this whole episode is a big joke on the country. I think this is an insulting joke to everybody. This is an embarrassing spectacle. After 1995, 1993, whatever, I’m getting tired of it. I’m worn out. It’s history repeating it’s over and over and over, almost verbatim, from “taking food out of the mouths of children,” to “they’re coming for our children” to “No meat inspectors!” They’re even saying have to close down the sleigh rides in Jellystone Park! That has come up again, like it did in the 1995 budget battle.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in my life, I am ashamed of my country. To be watching all of this, to be treated like this, to have our common sense and intelligence insulted the way it’s being insulted? It just makes me ashamed. Seriously, man. Here we get worked up over $44 billion. That’s the total amount of money that will not be spent that was scheduled to be spent this year. In truth, we’re gonna spend more this year than we spent last year.

We’re just not gonna spend as much as was projected. It’s all baseline budgeting. There is no real cut below a baseline of zero. There just isn’t. Yet here they come, sucking us in, roping us in. Panic here, fear there: Crisis, destruction, no meat inspection, no cops, no teachers, no firefighters, no air traffic control. I’m sorry, my days of getting roped into all this are over. We have the media playing along with all this. The ruling class of both parties play along with all this. It’s insulting. I don’t know how else to describe it.

I’m into my 25th year.

I can’t tell you the number of times this has happened. This hit me yesterday. I’ve said the same things over and over for 25 years. Whether the Clinton presidency or the Obama presidency, whether it’s a Pelosi speakership or Tom Foley (who was speaker when I started), it’s the same stuff. It’s the same threats. It’s the same arguments over and over. Nothing ever changes! We just keep spending more money. We create more dependency, we get more and more irresponsible from one crisis to the next, all of them manufactured.

Except for the real crisis, which nobody ever addresses, and that is: We can’t afford any of this.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: What’s happening here, folks, is we are being played for fools and being suckered — suckered into supporting the never-ending expansion of government, the wholesale destruction of the private economy. Everybody who joins in this debate under the premise that Obama puts forth, as well as debating the politics of this nonsense, is just being used to cover up what’s actually going on. Now, what’s going on is no great conspiracy. It’s no mystery. We’re spending much more money than we have.

The government is getting inexorably larger.

It’s less and less efficient at accomplishing anything. We’re creating more and more dependents. We’re robbing people of their dignity and humanity and of their opportunity to realize their dreams as they turn their lives over to the government. It’s like a never-ending cycle. The government makes the private sector smaller. There are fewer job opportunities. There’s less money in the private sector, less opportunity to accrue wealth. Income taxes and others threaten to go higher; they do go higher.

original

It all adds up to the government growing, the private sector shrinking, freedom being lost ever so slowly, and nobody ever talks about stopping this. Everybody gets sucked into debating the crisis of the moment according to the terms of the moment, without any context and relationship to the past and a knowable future and a relevant perusal of the present. These little debates take place within their own little universe, as though they’re unaffected by things that have happened in the past.

We hear the most outrageous things. The government’s gonna shut down. Life can’t go on as we know it if we don’t spend $22 billion this year. For 15 to 20 years, I have been behind this microphone, and I’ve actually been defending the accusation that Republicans want to starve children. It comes up — predictably, regularly — and for 15 or 20 years I have been trying to tell people in this country via this radio show, “No, the Republicans are not trying to starve children.”

The allegation itself ought to disqualify the people who make it, because it’s patently absurd. There’s nobody trying to starve anybody in terms of food, but particularly Republicans trying to starve children? Republicans trying to deny people health care? The Republicans want big business to be able to pollute the air? The Republicans want their children living in an economic and environmental sewer? It’s an insult to my intelligence to have to even try to defend this to people.

The idea that there are people who believe it is bad enough. I can understand it once or twice, but for 20 years this cycle has been repeating, and it’s ridiculous. It’s a distraction. Either one of two things is happening: Either more and more people believe this idiocy, or more and more people are just saying, “You know what? I don’t want any part of this,” and they’re not paying attention to it. National Journal has a piece today by Matthew Cooper.

Just when you thought the Drive-Bys could not top themselves with “sequesteria,” we get this. Matthew Cooper is comparing the 2.2% reduction in the rate of spending increase to the Oklahoma City bombing. Now, he immediately says that he’s not making that comparison. But if he’s not, why did he bring it up in relationship to sequestration? That seems the point of his article. It seems that sequestration has a good side that it will show the American public that the government is important, that the American people will learn that we should not demonize the government.

He says the sequester cuts are gonna stop air traffic control.

original

Well, you know, that’s happened before. Ronaldus Magnus fired the air traffic controllers when they went on strike in the early eighties, and the airplanes still flew, and the airports remained opened. The schools remained open, and the military was still out there firing weapons at bad guys. But we need to live through this sequester so people will find out just how important and relevant government is to their life and how we should not demonize it.

Not only will the sequester stop air traffic control, Mr. Cooper says it’ll end meat inspections. It’ll close Yellowstone. This is exactly what I mean: The budget battle of 1995 was gonna end the sleigh rides at Jellystone National Park. CNN’s Larry King actually got the sleigh ride concessionaire on his TV show, and the sleigh ride concessionaire — who ended up being a conservative. We ended up talking to that guy. He called here, but he was playing it for all it was worth.

Yeah, he went on and he talked about how tough it was gonna be. Nobody was gonna be able to go on the sleigh rides because the government wasn’t gonna be paying him to do it. Remember all the federal employees were going to lose their Thanksgiving turkeys because of the government shutdown. Oh, folks, if you weren’t around then, it was Armageddon — and so is this. But never mind that the world didn’t end when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers.

Never mind that the states have their own meat inspectors and they pay teachers and cops and firefighters. The federal government doesn’t. Never mind that there has to be enough money remaining in the $3.7 trillion budget, after the $44 billion in “cuts” to keep the national parks open and everything else operating. Look at it this way: How much money do you earn a year, $100,000? Just pick a round number. If you earn $100,000 a year, and every now and then the government comes to you and says, “We need to raise taxes.

“You can afford to do without as much as you’re earning. You don’t really need that much. We’re gonna raise taxes because we need to invest in education here, and we need to invest in research and development, and we need to invest in jobs, and we need to invest in infrastructure. So we’re gonna raise your taxes.” You’re expected to not complain and get along with less. Now, the federal government earns a lot more than $100,000 a year. The federal government has $3.7 trillion!

But whereas you are not supposed to complain and you’re supposed to be able to get along just fine with a little tax increase if you make $100,000, the government can’t be expected to continue to operate if $22 billion is subtracted from their $3.7 trillion. This is the equivalent of the government being asked to do without a penny and a half, ladies and gentlemen — and they can’t do it. A penny and a half closes airports and shuts down air traffic control. It shuts down meat inspection.

It shuts down the military’s civilian personnel. A penny and a half out of our budget not being spent. Whereas you are expected to happily pay more and get by just as you have been on a little less next year, the government is never, ever supposed to be able to get by with a little less. Can you imagine if the government came along said, “We want to raise your taxes 10%,” and you said, “Well, no! I won’t be able to afford food. I won’t be able to afford clothes for my kids. I might not be able to afford my mortgage.”

If you used the same arguments on them that they use on you, do you know what they’d do? They’d tell you, “(Raspberry!) Deal with it.” But here we are over and over again.” The American public needs to learn that the sun will rise. That’s what we need to learn: That the sun will still rise and the sky will still be blue and the birds are still gonna chirp after this sequester if it happens. Here’s Mr. Cooper: “The last time I can think of such an educational moment was not the short-lived government shutdown on the ’90s, but the Oklahoma City bombing. …

“In 2001, looking back on the bombing, Clinton said: ‘And I had, like every politician, on occasion, gotten upset by some example of government waste or something the way we all do, and referred derisively to government bureaucrats. And I promised myself that I would never use those two words together for the rest of my life. I would treat those people who serve our country with respect, whether they’re in uniform, in law enforcement, firefighter, nurses, any other things.'”

Then Cooper says, “I’m not comparing the tragedy of Oklahoma City to sequestration.” Of course not. He just compared them! So we can’t even think about cutting federal spending by $22 billion without being accused of disrespecting law enforcement, firefighters and nurses, none of whom are paid for by the federal government. Anyway, this is the predictable course this takes every time such a crisis appears. We just lived through this with the fiscal cliff. We just went through this with the expansion of the debt limit. If it all sounds familiar to you, it’s because it is.

We haven’t had a federal budget in four years, and because of that, we have these never-ending budget crises.

“Funding crises.”

END TRANSCRIPT

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.