_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; (document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]).appendChild(ga); })();

Mainstream Media

It’s Time to Opt Out of Senator Reid’s Government Health Care Utopia

It’s Time to Opt Out of Senator Reid’s Government Health Care Utopia.

In the very near future, Senator Reid is going to follow Speaker Pelosi’s lead and try to pass his Senate version of the liberal utopian health care plan – a full, unabashed socialist-style takeover of our nation’s health care system.

constitution

Senator Reid said health care reform would cover the uninsured, but we’ve already learned it will drive up our premiums – forcing more of us into a Big Brother system with inevitable rationing. He said health care reform would lower costs by itself, but he’s now considering massive tax increases on small business to pay its trillion dollar price tag. He’s promised more competition in health care, but only offers massive government, disguised as phony competition in the form of the taxpayer-subsidized “government option.”

Premium increases, tax increases, and socialized medicine. Make no mistake. Senator Reid is willing to destroy Nevada’s – and the nation’s economy, to pay the ransom demands of the radical left for his re-election.

Senator Reid may think he rules America from his gilded Capitol perch, but I believe that ‘We the People’ still have hope to defeat him, and I have a plan.

Since Senator Reid desperately needs the votes of moderate Senators to pass his plan, he has proposed allowing states to “opt out.” Unfortunately, he will probably make it virtually impossible to opt out, while providing a fig leaf of political cover to Senators on the fence.

Well I’m not fooled, so I’ve called his bluff. If Senator Reid is going to allow states to opt out, then as citizens, let’s take the power out of his hands, and “opt out” ourselves.

In Nevada, I am already leading this charge against Senator Reid. As was reported in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, I have launched the Nevada Health Care Choice Committee, which will put the Reid health care plan on the ballot for the people to vote next November. Once we know the language in the bill related to this option, we will draft our own initiative language and gear up for a signature drive.

But this need not be restricted to Nevada. If your state has an initiative process, you should be researching the same option. Imagine if all of America went back to its states’ rights roots and voted on whether to implement this plan. This could kill any moderate support for the plan, and would put the health care takeover squarely in front of the voters at the same time as each politician – including Senator Reid – runs for re-election.

Already there are movements afoot in other states to do something similar to my initiative. Arizona, in particular is proposing a constitutional amendment that would preserve the rights of citizens to choose their health plan. And similar efforts have started in swing states like Florida, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio. I encourage you to learn more about what is going on in your state and take your own actions – while knowing that I will continue to lead on your behalf.

It’s time to fight back using the last line of defense: a vote of the people. There is no guarantee this can stop Senator Reid and his left-wing re-election agenda, but whatever the outcome, it is worth the fight.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • PDF
  • email
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Faves
  • Live
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS

Climategate: it’s all unravelling now

Climategate: it’s all unravelling now.

By JAMES DELINGPOLE

Telegraph.co.uk

So many new developments: which story do we pick? Maybe best to summarise, instead. After all, it’s not like you’re going to find much of this reported in the MSM.

1. Australia’s Senate rejects Emissions Trading Scheme for a second time. Or: so turkeys don’t vote Christmas. Expect to see a lot more of this: politicians starting to become aware their party’s position on AGW is completely out of kilter with the public mood and economic reality. Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme – what Andrew Bolt calls “a $114 billion green tax on everything” – would have wreaked havoc on the coal-dependent Australian economy. That’s why several opposition Liberal frontbenchers resigned rather than vote with the Government on ETS; why Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull lost his job; and why the Senate voted down the ETS.

2. Danes caught fiddling their carbon credits. (Hat tip: Philip Stott) Carbon trading is the Emperor’s New Clothes of international finance. It was invented by none other than Ken Lay, whose Enron would currently be one of the prime beneficiaries in the global alternative energy market, if it hadn’t been shown to be (nearly) as fraudulent as the current AGW scam. It is a licence to fleece, cheat and rob. Still, jolly embarrassing for the Danes to get caught red handed, what with their hosting a conference shortly in which the world’s leaders will try, straight-faced, to persuade us that carbon emissions trading is the only viable way of defeating ManBearPig.

3. Hats off to The Daily Express – the first British newspaper to make the AGW scam its front page story.

Express

The piece was inspired by another bravura performance by Professor Ian Plimer, the Aussie geologist who argues that climate change has been going on quite naturally, oblivious of human activity, for the last 4,567 million years.

4. BBC finally gets round to reporting – sort of – that Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia may have been up to no good. It’s true that this report on their website is so hedged with special pleading for the temporarily suspended director Phil Jones the man might have written it himself. But on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning, I did hear the newsreader reporting it as more than just a routine theft story. Which is a start.

5. Legal actions ahoy! Over the next few weeks, one thing we can be absolutely certain of is concerted efforts by the rich, powerful and influential AGW lobby to squash the Climategate story. We’ve seen this already in the “nothing to see here” response of Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the jet-setting, troll-impersonating railway engineer who runs the IPCC and wants to stop ice being served with water in restaurants. This is why those of us who oppose his scheme to carbon-tax the global economy back to the dark ages must do everything in our power to bring the scandal to a wider audience. One way to do this is law suits.

At Ian Plimer’s lunch talk yesterday, Viscount Monckton talked of at least two in the offing – both by scientists, one British, one Canadian, who intend to pursue the CRU for criminal fraud. Their case, quite simply, is that the scientists implicated in Climategate have gained funding and career advancement by twisting data, hiding evidence, and shutting out dissenters by corrupting the peer-review process. More news on this, as I hear it.

Lord Monckton has written an indispensible summary of the Climategate revelations so far.

6. Watch out Green Dave! The Independent reports on the growing backlash within the party to Cameron’s libtard-wooing greenery. Turning to the Independent for a balanced report on environmental matters is a bit like consulting Der Sturmer for a sensible, insightful view on the Jewish question. Still, for once, the house journal of eco-loonery seems to have got it right and the point made by Tory backbencher David Davis is well made:

“The ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds – is bound to cause a reaction in any democratic country.”

Read More at : Telegraph.co.uk

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • PDF
  • email
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Faves
  • Live
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS

Biggest Story of 2009: The Rise of the Virtual Newsroom

12596236295284

By  on 12.1.09 @ 6:09AM

It was the biggest story of 2009.

If you doubt, ask ACORN. Or Van Jones. Or the So We Might See campaign. You won’t need Time magazine’s once clout-filled “Man of the Year” issue to figure it out, either. Just take a look back at the bestseller lists, the ratings of Fox News or simply turn on your local AM radio dial.

The single most important news event of 2009 was the emergence of The Virtual Newsroom. A newsroom run by a virtual army of conservative journalists famous and unknown, their individual and collective impact multiplied exponentially by millions of Internet users, radio listeners, readers and television viewers.

How did this happen? How does it work in practice?

First, perspective is needed here. Like other big news events, it didn’t happen overnight. There is history, lots of it.

In the afterglow of World War II, at the dawn of the Cold War, the ideology of American liberalism reigned supreme. What began at the beginning of the 20th century as the “progressive movement” — an ideology that believed government control in some fashion was The Answer to the everyday lives of Americans — was now riding herd.

Politically, on the one-to-ten scale, Communism was at a thousand. Beginning with the Soviet Union, entire nations had succumbed to the idea of state control of everything, run by the famous Marxist dictum of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” In America, adherents to the driving principle of government control were spread out along the scale below, from socialists like Norman Thomas at a ten to progressives like FDR Vice President Henry Wallace at a nine and on down the line, ending with the weakest strain of the germ as exemplified by liberal Republicans like the New York Governors Thomas E. Dewey and Nelson Rockefeller.

The “progressive disease” was slowly and not so slowly infecting everything it touched — the culture, education, religion, commerce and so on. It was “mainstreamed” — and nowhere else were its believers more prominent than in the American media. As fate would have it, the media itself was undergoing a transformation — technology relentlessly pushing it along in a fashion that in fact had nothing to do with the politics of the participants. The power of newspapers, magazines and books was growing as printing and distribution technology blossomed. Radio, coming on the scene in the 1920s, was reaching what would be thought of as a peak, quickly giving way not just to television but to network television.

And in each and every case, these events were being shaped by believers who self-identified somewhere on that one-to-ten scale of “progressivism.” It was, literally, one giant food chain of intellectual thought, with respectability unquestioningly bestowed on just about everyone of any note who believed — which meant just about everyone of note. The country could trade political parties in the White House from Truman to Eisenhower, while putting up losing presidential nominees like Dewey or Democrat Adlai Stevenson. It could send its kids to college, buy bestselling books, go to church, turn the television channel from CBS to NBC to, later, ABC — and without missing a beat be on the receiving end of some forms of the progressive message.

In retrospect, the opening shot of the media counter-revolution to all of this was the 1951 publication of one book – God and Man at Yale – by a precocious William F. Buckley, Jr. The book took on the startled establishment of Yale, portrayed by alumni Buckley as progressive politicians in the guise of educators. The book was an instant bestseller, setting Buckley at 26 firmly on the road to a hugely successful life as a founding father of conservative media. The book was followed by Buckley’s establishment of National Review magazine in 1955.

The conservative counter-revolution in the American media was on.

There isn’t space to detail all that brought us to this moment. In brief — the known events of the Great Society, the 1960s cultural revolution, the comeback of AM radio, the rise of the Internet, cable and satellite TV, Fox News. What we can focus on here is the effect — how all of this has salted out in the biggest story of 2009. The coming of age of the Virtual Newsroom and its convergence with the conservative movement.

Imagine, if you will, the traditional newsroom as it dominated the once-great metropolitan daily newspapers of America. A vast acreage of desks, in the modern era, separated into cubicles. Somewhere is the glassed-in office of the editor, and somewhere else, usually not on the same floor, the clubby and comfortable quarters of the publisher.

Now take this image and virtualize it. Add in the names and faces, the specific tasks of each. Most importantly, understand that just as with the original, physical version of a newsroom, the relationship of one person to the other, one task to the other and each person and task to the whole is essential to the success of the entire virtual enterprise.

So let’s tour the Virtual Newsroom.

This being the modern era, computers hum at every work station. The acreage required to accommodate everyone is simultaneously huge — mammoth — yet intimate. This is a virtual operation. To be “at your desk” requires only a computer, and while the story files in here, the journalist in question can in fact be anywhere, not unlike the old-fashioned idea of the trench-coated foreign correspondent on the line from 1930s Berlin or the hard-charging White House correspondent calling in from the Dallas, Texas of November 22, 1963.

In one corner are the newspaper people, still engaging in the ancient art form by writing the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal or putting together the New York Postor Washington Times. In another corner are the magazines — the one you are reading, The American Spectator – along with Buckley’s National Review, Human Events,the Weekly Standard and Commentary. Throughout are the columnists — my colleagues — who sift the work product of the rest of the room for investigation or commentary.

Just down the hall is talk radio row. This line of studios filled with hosts, producers and call-screeners is enormous, covering hundreds of shows from Maine to California. The man who almost single-handedly created this section of the newsroom has — but of course — a corner office. Everybody in the newsroom loves Rush. They know he’s in when cigar smoke is seen wafting out the door, the occasional NFL replay booming forth as he preps his way through his “stack of stuff.” His EIB studio adjoins his office, a glassed-in-front providing an inside-look for visitors as he sits before the golden microphone. The great thing about the Virtual Newsroom is the corner office concept. Everyone can have one if they wish. Sean Hannity has one, a football frequently arcing out onto the larger newsroom floor waiting for someone to toss it back. Donuts airlifted from someplace called Stan’s in California signal that Mark Levin is back there, along with the pin-up of the U.S. Constitution. Beck’s people are distinctive because they seem to be perpetually running out of chalk, giving new meaning to the phrase “let’s chalk this one up.” Laura Ingraham is frequently seen running out to run with pal Lucy, the music plugged in, eyes rolling as she catches an Obama image on a nearby monitor.

Moving along the room we enter TV Land, populated primarily by Fox News and Fox Business Channel personalities. CNN rented space for Lou Dobbs but recently gave it up. O’Reilly and Beck seem constitutionally unable to stop pranking each other, which has necessitated a rare disciplinary procedure of giving Bernard Goldberg his virtual office separating the two on occasion. Dennis Miller does not help the situation. Sean and Beck, doing double-duty with radio shows and TV shows, seem to live in the newsroom, both apparently having a huge time of sheer fun with the whole thing. Greta and Neil and Stuart Varney work their respective beats, although there is a ripple of amusement or two every time heads lift to the realization that Frank Rich is on Imus and hence Fox Business, yet again playing defense for the Times.

The rapidly expanding section of the Virtual Newsroom that has everyone buzzing is the Internet “desk.” Drudge is here, ditto Andrew Breitbart. There is much suspiciously timed coming and going to the virtual water cooler when Breitbart stars James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles are in. In real life people are always disappointed to see O’Keefe doesn’t wear the chinchilla fur to work and that Giles is, in fact, suitably dressed for the virtual workplace. What’s particularly interesting here is the size of this division. Job applications pour in hourly from conservative bloggers around the nation. The applications are stamped “hire now” by someone wearing a Harry Potter-style “invisibility cloak” and the virtual newsroom expands yet again. There is some speculation that the physical dimension of the newspapers will at some point vanish altogether and their offices just be folded into the Internet group. Time will tell.

Last but most importantly not least, is what we call the Boswell department. Named after England’s James Boswell, the famous 18th-century chronicler of The Life of Samuel Johnson, the Boswell’s are conservative authors. The real-time chroniclers of conservatism as it is or is not seen or applied today. Between them they take the time to illuminate the basics of conservative philosophy (Mark Levin in Liberty and Tyranny), the craziness of liberalism (Ann Coulter, most recently in Guilty ,Glenn Beck inCommon Sense, Laura Ingraham in Power to the People), the historic attachment of progressivism to overripe if not outright totalitarian political thought (Jonah Goldberg in Liberal Fascism) or what the progressives running the government are up to now (Michelle Malkin in Culture of Corruption, Dick Morris in Catastrophe). The central function of each is the same. To educate, to remind, to explain, to illuminate for their Virtual Newsroom colleagues. This in turn keeps all of us in the Virtual Newsroom repeatedly attuned to the necessary ability to examine what we see in the world around us. To understand exactly what we are seeing, why we are seeing it, and most importantly why what we are seeing does or does not work.

SO HOW DOES all this work together? What is here that makes the Virtual Newsroom and its conservative occupants indisputably the biggest story of 2009?

Three stories.

Story One: Here you have two young conservative journalists, O’Keefe and Giles, possessed of a keen philosophical eye, a knowledge of technology (cameras, microphones videotape, the Internet) and a fat and inviting liberal fish in a barrel known as ACORN. Imagination conjured as to how they will approach their story — they go out and conduct their very-old style journalism investigation. Story in hand, Andrew Breitbart of Breitbart.tv in the Internet division takes the handoff. He sends a virtual memo to talk radio row’s Beck and Hannity. Who in turn are both Fox News stars. Five…four…three…two…one. Bang! Within a virtual instant, the Virtual Newsroom has just blown in the hull of the good ship ACORN, its stunned survivors racing around the deck of a political Titanic as Breitbart, O’Keefe and Giles are powered by the engines of the Virtual Newsroom. The full power of the Virtual Newsroom kicks in. Talk radio shows light up the call screeners screens. The newspaper and magazines kick in, in print and online. The lights are on in the Fox studios as the surging Fox audience gapes at a federally funded organization strategizing on prostitution. And…lights out for ACORN. Or more accurately, considerably damaged and suddenly congressionally unfunded. And the coverage from what’s left of the liberal mainstream media in all this? Next to zero.

Story Two: Van Jones has it made. From community organizer straight to the White House staff in the Obama era. Says Obama key aide Valerie Jarrett:

JARRETT: You guys know Van Jones? [Applause. Moderator injects: "This is his house apparently."]

JARRETT: Oooh. Van Jones, alright! So, Van Jones. We were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House. We were watching him, uh, really, he’s not that old, for as long as he’s been active out in Oakland. And all the creative ideas he has. And so now, we have captured that. And we have all that energy in the White House.

Alas for Mr. Jones, the Virtual Newsroom is at work. This is the 21st century, and not unlike millions of others, Mr. Jones has portions of his career on videotape. On the Internet. The blogger sleuths of the Virtual Newsroom are at work, from coast to coast. This time the info surfaces, speech by speech, piece of tape by piece of tape, painting a portrait of Van Jones — painted by Van Jones himself. A portrait recognized of the old progressivism highlighted so ably in book form by National Review’s Jonah Goldberg in Liberal Fascism – the desire to take from one group seen as undeserving and unworthy of their creations and give it to others. A portrait made more vivid by the Virtual Newsroom discovery of a tie to the nuttiness of the “Truther” movement that believes George W. Bush secretly set up the attack on America. In the material flows. The Old Media, predictably if irrelevantly, ignores the story. Seamlessly now, racing around the Virtual Newsroom from Internet desk to the talk radio desk to the television, magazine and newspaper desks — Van Jones is quickly and unceremoniously out of his White House job.

Story Three: The So We Might See campaign “hate speech” campaign that pushes to get both Beck and CNN’s Lou Dobbs off the air. In this case, the story came from my desk at The American Spectator section of the Virtual Newsroom. After spending much time in the Internet division’s research library, the Spectator runs a series of my investigative columns involving seven major religious denominations and what appear to be an effort to silence Virtual Newsroom colleagues Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reilly, Dobbs and others. Paid for in part by left-wing billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Institute. Once up on the virtual screen of The American Spectator, customers of the Virtual Newsroom begin swamping the leaders of their faiths, furious at what is instantly seen as an attempt to silence free speech — and in a fashion a portion of the Virtual Newsroom itself. Backtracking begins. Three faiths change their mind, two dropping from the FCC petition, one out of the group altogether. The campaigns to Drop Dobbs and get Beck are removed from the So We Might See site. Who in the Virtual Newsroom was involved in this? The Internet desk, the magazine desk, talk radio row, and Lou Dobbs. Ironically, Dobbs left CNN the night of my appearance on his show, a fact that only highlights CNN’s inability to cope with the Virtual Newsroom. He is still, it should be said, over there in his studio on radio row.

What these three stories illustrate — and there are more, the health care fight being another — is that the Virtual Newsroom has arrived. It is populated by a cast of thousands — TV stars, radio broadcasters, Internet sites, columnists, investigators, people in pajamas — you name them, they are here. They have a philosophical underpinning for what they do — something seen in the response to Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny. They know exactly what to look for, as Breitbart, O’Keefe and Giles of the Internet division have shown. Most importantly, they know how to take a story — to alert their colleagues in the Virtual Newsroom — and then work the story across the newsroom from virtual or physical print to Internet to radio to television. To wit: from the cameras of Breitbart, O’Keefe and Giles to talk radio and the bright lights of Beck and Hannity. Or, from my computer to pages of The American Spectator to the set of Lou Dobbs. And so on, for every single colleague in the Virtual Newsroom who has a compelling story to tell.

What is particularly interesting here — and a key to the success of the entire Virtual Newsroom — is that the Virtual Newsroom itself is a living, breathing example of what Levin calls Adam Smith’s devotion to free markets as “spontaneous order.”

No one “has” to write or broadcast a particular story. It’s a free market in story ideas out there on the Virtual Newsroom floor. As a result, creativity reigns. A million different ideas float through the Virtual Newsroom on any given day, with the journalists in the room looking them over as if at some giant intellectual smorgasbord. What appeals to The American Spectator may not interest National Review. What turns on Breitbart may enthuse Beck but not Hannity. The curiosity of Michelle Malkin on an issue may not appeal to a Jed Babbin at Human Events. Launching Laura is not the same as ticking off Ann. What gets Rush’s adrenaline flowing…well…generally speaking Rush gets everybody’s adrenaline flowing.

The problem for American progressives today — be they the activists of ACORN, Van Jones, the So We Might See group or others — is that they are unaccustomed to finding themselves on the receiving end of this kind of attention from the journalists, commentators, investigators, talk radio hosts, television stars and authors of the Virtual Newsroom. It is safe to say that whatever else went on in the three stories listed here, the scoundrels at ACORN, Mr. Jones, and the So We Might See-ers were taken aback at the fact they — they! — were suddenly under the Virtual Newsroom microscope for their public activities. Accustomed to velvet-gloved treatment from their progressive buddies in the Old Media, they simply never factored the existence of the Virtual Newsroom into the equation.

Newsflash to progressives. The Virtual News room is here to stay. Not only is it not going away — in spite of whatever shenanigans may be going on behind the closed doors of the FCC — it is gaining in both size and strength.

And gaining in something else that simply terrifies progressive activists everywhere: the power to seriously influence events.

Which is why, when all is said and done by December 31, it is already clear that the story of the year in 2009 is not President Obama, health care, Iraq or even Tiger Woods.

The story of 2009 is the emergence of a new and powerful player increasingly dominating American politics, culture, education, religion and who knows what else.

That player is the media that is the Virtual Newsroom. And the conservatives who run it.

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Reprinted from : The American Spectator

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • PDF
  • email
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Faves
  • Live
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS

Anatomy of a Beat-Down Part 1: Why Kenneth Gladney Was Beaten, And by Whom

Anatomy of a Beat-Down Part 1: Why Kenneth Gladney Was Beaten, And by Whom.

763d952c7bee4c4abe_12m6bxper

Anatomy of a Beat-Down Part 1: Why Kenneth Gladney Was Beaten, And by Whom

by Stage Right

On August 6, 2009 two Service Employee International Union (SEIU) leaders and a volunteer for Organizing for America (OFA) assaulted Kenneth Gladney outside of Rep. Russ Carnahan’s Town hall meeting on health care.  The perpetrators were arrested at the scene of the crime, and three months later charges have finally been filed.

Much has been said in the past three months about this incident.  Here at Big Government calls have been made for justice, for formal charges and mostly for the mass media to follow the story and delve into the government’s role in this violent attempt to intimidate and silence dissent.  We can no longer wait for the establishment journalists to connect the dots and bring to light the insidious relationships between the SEIU, OFA, Russ Carnaham’s office and the Obama Administration.

0

Was this assault merely a flare up of tempers during a heated exchange of rival political camps?  Or was it a coordinated attempt to silence the scores of protesters who had been so effective at swaying public opinion against the President’s health care scheme?  Today, Big Government will bring to light documents that read like an instruction manual for the SEIU forces in St. Louis the evening of August 6th.  We will also show that on the very same evening of the St. Louis assault, an almost identical scene played out in Tampa Bay, Florida.  Also involving SEIU and OFA.  Also resulting in hordes of union members shouting down and physically evicting protesters from a U.S. Representative’s Town hall meeting.  Finally, we will introduce all of the various players in leadership roles at these organizations, what they said in instructing their members in how to fight back against the Town hall protesters, and how these individuals all connect to each other and to the Obama Administration.  As I said, we’ve been waiting for the “Real” journalists to do this, we’ve waited long enough.

On June 1, 2009 President Obama enjoyed a 64% Job Approval rating with a disapproval rating of 30%.  As Summer approached, the President began the plans for the roll out of his comprehensive plan to overhaul the entire distribution system for America’s health care services.  As the messaging began, the talking points were clear:  “If you like your current health plan, you can keep it”, “This plan will cover the 40 million Americans who have no insurance”, “This plan will not add to the deficit and not raise taxes”.  It all seemed too good to be true.   The House Committee on Energy and Commerce promptly passed the first version of a reform bill in June.  President Obama planned multiple town hall meetings across the country including an unprecedented event televised live on ABC and everything seemed moving toward a major victory for the President and the Democratic Party.

In late June and through the month of July, members of congress held scattered town hall meetings in their districts to get their constituents’ feedback on the proposed health care bill.  The clusters of semi-organized protesters who had rallied at “Tea Parties” earlier in the Spring took these meetings as opportunities to rejuvenate their energies with passionate opposition to these congressmen.  YouTube videos began circulating showing outraged citizens challenging their representatives and showing those representatives completely unprepared for any legitimate questions about the proposed bill.  It was clear in many cases that the representatives were not well versed on these bills beyond the boiler-plate talking points the administration had handed them.  They were not used to being questioned.

By the beginning of August Sarah Palin had caught headlines by describing certain policy discussions that evaluate a patients “level of productivity in society” and how it relates to the level of prioritized care they would receive as ‘death panels’ , Rep. Michelle Bachmann had delivered a stinging speech on the House floor tearing apart the President’s advisors on health policy, Sen. Arlen Spector was caught flat-footed at a town hall meeting and protests began cropping up all around the country at various town hall meetings of Senators and Congressmen.  President Obama’s job approval rating had now plummeted to  52% with a disapproval rating of 41% (an unbelievable 23% swing in approval loss and disapproval gain combined in 60 days).  The White House had seen enough.  It was time to take action and engage the opposition.

Somewhere between August 2nd and August 6th a strategy was devised that put all tools at the administrations disposal in line and firing at the protesters.  August 4th seems to be an important day in the roll out of this strategy.  The White House famously posted a new aggressive offensive on their blog calling out what they described as “mis-information” about the proposed bill and directed true-believers to report any sources of these “lies” to a special e-mail address:  flag@whitehouse.gov.  Also on the 4th, an organization called Health Care for America Now (HCAN) released a document that became a blueprint for intimidation and, ultimately, violence under the guise of confronting the tea party protesters at these town hall meetings.

HCAN is an organization funded by various unions, most significantly SEIU, whose main purpose is to promote and push the effort for government-provided, universal health care.  (To understand the SEIU’s reasons for pushing for this government health care, read this post.)  The National Field Director for HCAN is Margarida Jorge.  Margarida Jorge used to work for the SEIU as an organizing director.

On August 4th Margarida Jorge released a four page memo instructing members of HCAN on how best to combat the mounting opposition on display at the town hall meetings.  On the HCAN web site, the new tactics were filed on a post under the heading “Fight Back Against the Right”.  A subsequent HCAN call to action on August 5th was under the benign headline “The Guns of August: A Call to Arms for Progressives and Obama Activists” likening the debate to World War I.

The entire memo can be seen here

763d952c7bee4c4abe_12m6bxper

The memo features instructions and tactics for the left on how to dominate the meeting and marginalize the protesters from the right:

  • Their side will be smaller but noisier. You must bring enough people to drown them out and to cover all our bases so as to marginalize their disruptive tactics.
  • We need to stack our folks in the front to create a wall around the Member, and we need to stake out the best spots for visibility and signs. Reconnaissance on the venue and an understanding of the staging will be important here. Make sure you do your homework so you can position your folks most effectively.

It features ideas on how to manipulate the media:

  • Make sure you have people holding signs in every place where a TV camera is likely to be and that next to every right wing sign, there’s one of your signs with your message.
  • Don’t wait for the reporter to approach you. You must approach the reporters and be assertive in shaping the narrative that they write. Have someone assigned to greeting the media or checking in media as they arrive. That way you will know who they are and be able to work with them both during the event and afterwards.

It has ideas about how to dominate the conversation by asking the congressman prepared, rehearsed questions:

  • Line up a number of people who feel comfortable interrupting and prepare them with statements like:
    • Excuse me, I came today to listen to Representative XXX explain how this bill is going to make health care more affordable for me and my family. We’re being gouged by insurance companies that just want to make more profits while we struggle to keep up with premiums and co-pays. Representative, how are you going to fix that?”
    • “I’m retired and can’t afford my prescription drugs because I’m on a fixed income. Representative, how is this bill going to affect me?”
    • “I want to hear the Representative speak. He’s the one voting on the bill. Representative, how will this bill help people who already have insurance at work?”
    • “What I’m worried about is how we’re going to keep the insurance companies from continuing to charge people more for being sick and keep them from taking away coverage when we need it most. What’s the plan for that?”

And, on page four of the memo written by Margarida Jorge of HCAN are instructions for hosting a town hall meeting.  These instructions include:

  • One advantage to organizing your own Town Hall or public event with Members of Congress is that you will have much more control over the event and limit the other side’s opportunities for disruption.
  • Make sure you turn out a substantial number of people from your base and that everyone signs a sign in sheet upon entering the event. Give everyone name tags so they are easily identifiable. If you want to ensure greater control over turnout, you can ask attendees to rsvp or even issue tickets to the event and require presentation of the ticket at the entrance.
  • Choose a venue that is difficult for the opposition to access without being noticed. Get to your location early and make sure you set up the venue in a way that ensures that the attendees you want are at the front and that any protesters who come are sequestered as far as possible from the stage.
  • Make sure that you assign marshals to take care of moving the crowd, keeping people organized and orderly, and acting as security should any need arise to ask noisy or disruptive protesters to leave.
  • Another way to limit protesters’ ability to hijack your event is to confiscate signs or leaflets that they may bring into the venue from outside. The best way to do this is to make a blanket rule that no one can bring signs or leaflets and to advertise this fact as you do turn out in the weeks preceding the event. You can distribute your own signs in the event and offer them one as they enter if you choose to allow them to enter.
  • It’s important that you take away right-wingers opportunities to talk with reporters by making sure that your staff or leaders are in constant contact with the media who attend.

On August 5th the DNC released a video advertisement calling the protesters an “angry mob” and showing a photo of one alleged protester hanging a congressman in effigy.  Also on August 5th we hadSpeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi derisively calling the protesters “Astro-turf” and claiming that they were carrying signs with swastikas.

By August 6th liberal web sites like Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos were cheering HCAN’s instructions and the stance taken by Organizing For America (The left-wing volunteer web site evolved from the Obama Campaign) urging liberals to call congress (providing them instructions on how to do this) and then to register the call at the OFA web site.  Huffington Post celebrated the new bold move with a post urging the unions to get more involved (an astounding 11,000 comments appear on this post in just 6 days, many of them from early in the day on August 6th show that the readers of HuffPo knew exactly what this union engagement meant and what the results would be).

Finally on August 6th, hours before the Carnahan town hall meeting where Kenneth Gladney was assaulted by members of the SEIU, David Axelrod and Jim Messina gave a pep talk to Senators on Capitol Hill prior to their leaving for the August recess.  According to Politico:

They showed video clips of the confrontational town halls that have dominated the media coverage, and told senators to do more prep work than usual for their public meetings by making sure their own supporters turn out, senators and aides said.  And they screened TV ads and reviewed the various campaigns by critics of the Democratic plan.

”If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” Messina said, according to an official who attended the meeting

Two days after the instructions on how to manage and control protestors at town hall meetings were released by Margarida Jorge at HCAN, one day after the Speaker of the House likened protestors to Nazis and mere hours after President Obama’s top political advisors assured Congressional Democrats that “If you get hit, we will punch them back twice as hard”, Kenneth Gladney lay beaten and bloody on the ground outside Rep. Russ Carnahan’s Town Hall meeting.

seiu

Tomorrow we will show how the people who are now charged with assaulting him are connected to SEIU and HCAN, how they followed HCAN’s instructions perfectly which inevitably led to the violence, and we will show how St. Louis was not the only meeting that followed HCAN’s template and ended in much the same way.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • PDF
  • email
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Faves
  • Live
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS

REVEALED: ACORN, NBC Worked Together in ‘Undercover Video Sting’

REVEALED: ACORN, NBC Worked Together in ‘Undercover Video Sting’

by Publius

Since the undercover ACORN videos from James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles first broke, the grand pooh-bahs of journalism have gone into self-absorbed philosopher mode. Rather than report on the ACORN corruption playing out before our eyes, “journalists” have tsk-tsked their way through thousands of words and yards of column inches making certain that everyone understands that what James and Hannah did IS…NOT…JOURNALISM. (As if that is the existential question to make sense of the ACORN videos.) Undercover videos and assuming fake identities are things real journalists do not do…except when they do.

Read the rest of the article at : Big Government

Operation: Can you hear us now? New York City (And Around The USA)

On September 17, all across America, Tea Party Patriots descended on their television media outlets to voice their criticism over the media bias that ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN have propagated with their leftist advocate style of news reporting. American patriots are not limiting their focus to the Obamacare debacle, rather they are mobilizing on multiple issues. The tipping point has been reached, and Americans are fed up. Below are some of the videos collected from this weekends actions. If you or your group would like me to add video, please e-mail me  mastersoundsdjs @ gmail.com

New York City

Other Videos from around the country.

California

Burbank CA

NBC Protest Burbank CA 10-17-2009

San Diego

Operation: Can You Hear Us Now?

NBC Media Protest San Diego, 10/17/09

Illinois

Chicago –

Can You Hear Us Now?  March on the Media

Florida

(Sons Of Liberty) (Pt 1)

(Sons Of Liberty) (Pt 2)

Atlanta, Georgia

New Hampshire

Operation Can You Hear Us Now

Manchester 10/17 pt 1

Operation Can You Hear Us Now

Manchester 10/17 pt 2

Operation Can You Hear Us Now

Manchester 10/17 pt 3

More  New Hampshire

Operation: Can You Hear Us Now?

Manchester, NH, Part I of II

Winston-Salem NC

Operation Can You Hear Us Now

Raleigh, North Carolina

(Southern Style Protest !!!)

Operation Can You Hear Us Now

Outside of WRAL-TV  10/17/2009

St. Louis, Missouri

Operation Can You Hear Us Now” KSDK-TV

SDK/NBC Cameraman Taunts Conservatives at

OPERATION: CAN YOU HEAR US NOW!?

Orlando Florida

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • PDF
  • email
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Faves
  • Live
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS

White House admits: We ‘control’ news media


Anita Dunn

TEL AVIV – President Obama’s presidential campaign focused on “making” the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was “controlled,” White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference.

“Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control,” said Dunn.

“One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters,” said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama’s chief campaign manager.

“We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it,” Dunn said.

Uncover the plot to use the government’s power to force an agenda onto the public, willing or not, in Brad O’Leary’s “Shut Up, America!” from the WND Superstore!

Continued Dunn: “Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying.”

Video of Dunn’s remarks at the conference can be seen below:

Dunn was speaking at a Jan. 12, 2009, event focusing on Obama’s media tactics and hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development , which seeks to promote collaboration between the U.S. and the Dominican Republic. The event was held in Santo Domingo and was attended by the country’s president.

Dunn has been facing some criticism since she led a White House campaign last week against Fox News, slamming the top-rated network as an “arm of the Republican Party” and “opinion journalism masquerading as news.”

Fox hit back this past Friday, releasing a video of Dunn speaking to high school students last June in which she lists her two “favorite political philosophers,” including Communist Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung, whose draconian policies are blamed for the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Video of Dunn’s speech, broadcast during a segment of Glenn Beck’s evening show on the Fox News Channel, can be seen below:

With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott

Source: World News Daily

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • PDF
  • email
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Faves
  • Live
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS

Tea Partiers Take Aim at Major Media Outlets

The “tea party” movement is back.

Groups of conservative protesters opposed to massive government spending are taking to the streets again, this time targeting the media.

The “Can You Hear Us Now” rallies are planned for Saturday in front of NBC studios in Burbank, CNN in Atlanta and affiliate stations of NBC, ABC and CBS across the nation.

“American citizens outraged by President Obama and the actions of Congress have set their sights on a new target — the so-called mainstream media — with tea-party protests now set to boil in front of more than 30 press offices across the U.S.,” the lead organizing group, FaxDC, wrote in a press release.

Organizers are encouraging protesters to also rally outside of The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and other prominent newspapers.

The rallies are just the latest in a series of public displays of voter outrage, dating back at least to April, when simultaneous “tea parties” were held around the country, largely in protest of President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill.

Anti-spending sentiment was heard in the uproar at town hall meetings held by lawmakers in August and in a march on Washington last month when the key issue was health care reform. Since then, the demonstrations have grown to include a broad range of grievances, while drawing accusations that they are grounded partly in racism and raising fears that they could incite violence — criticisms that protest leaders deny.

It is not clear who is leading Saturday’s protests. A so-called “webmaster” who didn’t identify himself, launched his Web site on Sept. 15. He urged protesters to spread word of the demonstrations through tea party groups, Facebook, Twitter, blogs and message boards.

“Some people messaged me and asked why not a more symbolic day,” he said in a press release. “I say, why shouldn’t we be the ones to make it a symbolic day, a day in history the press will never forget?”

The anonymous leader said he’s not an activist, just one guy.

“I have no sponsors, no bankroll, no agenda — except to help put a nail in the mainstream-media coffin,” he said.

Source: Fox News

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • PDF
  • email
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Faves
  • Live
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS