Yesterday, several members of the Congressional Black Caucus claimed protesters at the Capitol hurled racial epithets at them as they entered the Capitol. Georgia’s John Lewis even claimed to have been spat on. In addition, Barney Frank (D-MA) accused protesters of shouting anti-gay slogans as he entered the Capitol.
Andrew Breitbart, at BigGovernment.com has video proof:
by Emmett Tyrrell at Townhall.com
WASHINGTON — Whatever happened to the mainstream media’s high regard for “anger” in politics? From roughly the midterm elections of 2006 through the presidential election of 2008, the “Angry Left” seemed to grow in stature with the media. Liberal pundits spoke of it with a hush of awe. By the election of the Prophet Obama, the Angry Left had acquired a hallowed public status similar to that of the “muckraker” or the “consumerist,” though no consumerist whom I ever have known has been agreeable company. Would you want to sit down to tea with, say, Ralph Nader? Certainly Ralph never has been known for his hearty laugh or elegant manners.
Yes, I said “tea.” The word has become something of a red flag among the bien-pensants. Tea brings to mind Tea Parties, which for the bien-pensants means angry political activists, not angry political activists of the noble variety but angry political activists of the alarming variety. That is to say, activists variously inveighed against as members of the “extreme right,” the “far right,” the Reagan administration. The Tea Partiers supposedly are crazed and provincial — or, as a recent chronicler of the Tea Party movement, John Avlon, puts it, “wingnuts.”
Arkansans joined the nationwide protest movement last year as conservative voters found their collective voice and stood against the Obamanation of our country. From Tea Parties to Health Care Town Halls, these voters calls for responsibility and accountability from their elected officials went largely unheeded. But several candidates for office were paying attention, even when our Representatives and Senators weren’t.
Rick Crawford, GOP candidate for Arkansas’ 1st Congressional district seat in the US House of Representatives was one of these. He’s well known and recognized by 1st district voters who are actively involved in their local Republican Committees or Tea Parties. He’s been working to spread his message since last spring, not only at protests, but local festivals and events across the 1st District.
Crawford appears to have a real shot at becoming the first Republican to represent the 1st Congressional District since 1875. And his campaign is gaining momentum.
But if you were counting on the mainstream media to inform you of Rick’s candidacy, you may not yet know he exists. That’s because television stations and newspapers, statewide and local to the 1st District, have largely ignored his campaign.
Traditional news sources across the state have failed to cover several major developments in what could be an historic campaign. In the past month, Crawford has received three major endorsements from influential Republicans in the state. Mike Huckabee, Ed Bethune, and Asa Hutchinson have thrown their support to this Jonesboro veteran with strong ties to the 1st District’s large agricultural community.
Even the television station from his hometown of Jonesboro doesn’t seem to think his candidacy deserves more than a casual mention every once in a while. Searching their site you’ll see one article devoted to Rick–the August 27, 2009 article on his official announcement that he was entering the race. Those search results do include two articles covering Rep. Marion Berry’s (D) announcement that he won’t seek reelection and Crawford is mentioned almost as an aside in these.
Search results of the archives of the Jonesboro Sun reveal a similar dearth of articles on Crawford’s campaign. The obligatory August announcement that he’s running, then a couple of mentions in articles about Berry. The Sun did mention Crawford in a late January article titled “1st District Race Far from Settled” in late January, but only toward the end and after a long list of potential Democrat contenders.
Arkansas’ statewide newspaper, The Arkansas Democrat Gazette, also mentions Crawford in several Berry articles, but nothing devoted entirely to Rick’s campaign. But the Democrat Gazette did consider it newsworthy that Princella Smith, a potential GOP challenger to Crawford, is thinking about throwing her hat in the ring following Berry’s announcement that he won’t run again.
Of the four major television stations in Little Rock, only KTHV 11 has an article on their website about Crawford. That’s an AP article from May of last year announcing Rick’s intent to challenge Berry.
Last May, on the influential conservative blog Redstate.com, Moe Lane speculated “We will no doubt see more [Crawford] campaign-related items as time goes on.” But we haven’t…at least not from traditional media sources.
Luckily, Crawford embraced new media and social networking sites early on. His Facebook page sports over 1300 fans now and almost 800 follow him on Twitter. Many of these supporters depend on the blog posts on his website to keep them informed since the mainstream media refuses to.
Several Facebook fans recently wondered about the lack of coverage by the mainstream media and one even speculated the media’s liberal bias is to blame.
Shelley asked, “Why is it that we aren’t seeing any articles on you in the papers? I keep waiting to see you mentioned and they talk about all the other candidates and you are never mentioned!”
Grace responded, “I agree, I never see anything about you in the papers. What is up with that?”
And Kelly replied, “I think the main reason that the papers around here are not picking up Rick is because they are controlled by a liberal bias. They are afraid to give Rick the time of day because he is the most creditable [sic] threat to eliminate Nancy Pelosi’s liberal agenda in Washington…”
Whatever the reason, it’s pretty obvious the mainstream media has chosen to ignore Rick Crawford.
Backdoor Taxes to Hit Middle Class
Earlier today, Reuters ran a story with the preceding headline. Then, suddenly, it was gone.
Imagine that. A story that confirms yet another broken promise by President Barack Hussein Obama removed from public view.
Is this censorship? Did the propaganda ministry in the White House black list the story? No explanation from the news agency certainly leads the mind to wonder.
Fortunately, the folks at ShowbizGossips posted the story before the censors decided bad press for Obama isn’t allowed. We’ll repost it here in case they feel the Propaganda Ministry pinch too. Here’s the post Reuters (and the Obama administration?) didn’t want you to see!
The Obama administration’s plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.
In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year — effectively a tax hike by stealth.
While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.
The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.
If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.
Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 — though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.
Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a “patch” that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.
Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year’s levels,the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy — the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.
Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:
- Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;
- The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;
- The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;
- Individuals who don’t itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;
- The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free
Hat Tip: ARRA News Service
On his radio show January 15, Ed Schultz encouraged Massachusetts voters to “vote 10 times if they could” in order to defeat Republican Scott Brown who’s challenging Democrat Martha Coakley for the Massachusetts Senate seat vacated when long-time Senator Ted “Lady Killer” Kennedy died last year. Referring to Brown and other Republicans as “these Bastards,” Schultz demonstrated the liberal bias prevalent at MSNBC that has led to the left-wing network’s plummeting ratings.
Telling the truth about President Obama’s administration and its policies tends to make enemies.
But the good news for us on the right is this iconic member of the liberal media may be finally shaking itself out of its hypnosis where the Obama administration is concerned, and finally looking for the truth.
Here’s the AP headline of the day:
“Ten months into President Barack Obama’s first economic stimulus plan, a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment and only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, an Associated Press analysis has found.
Really? Isn’t that what we tried to tell them back when Obama, Pelosi, and Reid were pushing their $787 trillion spending bill?
The AP even challenges the need for a second “stimulus” bill largely based on the same failed model as the first! It seems the news organization is no longer settling for the crumbs that fall in the wake of the omniscient oracle’s passing, because Obama is actively promoting this second round of spending.
There may yet be hope, even for the MSM!
Left wing NPR probably didn’t expect Fox News to garner more support from readers of their blog, but that’s exactly what’s happening at the moment. As of the writing of this post, 59% of respondents to the NPR poll side with Fox News versus 39% who support the White House in the Obama administration’s war with the network.
Who do you support, Fox or Obama’s Propaganda Ministry?
from Blogs for Borders
We noticed a segment on Fox News this morning and googled “sheriff jo arpaio told to back off.” Not surprisingly, the MSM seems to have failed to cover this story. But our friends across the pond picked it up in an October 9 article on guardian.co.uk.
by Daniel Nasaw at guardian.co.uk
A controversial Arizona sheriff known for taking a hard line against illegal immigrants has been stripped of some of his powers in what he described as a political move by the Obama administration.
Joe Arpaio, a gruff lawman who styles himself as America’s toughest sheriff, has won acclaim from US anti-immigrant forces for his relentless pursuit of mostly Hispanic illegal immigrants in Maricopa county, Arizona, a fast-growing county of 4 million people that is home to Phoenix, the nation’s fifth largest city.
Arpaio’s aggressive tactics include the jailing of illegal immigrants in tent cities surrounded by barbed wire in the middle of Arizona’s searingly hot summers, the reduction of meal costs to 20 cents per day, the use of pink jail clothing for men, and chain gangs for women inmates.
Arpaio also came in for criticism when he appeared on the Fox reality show Smile: You’re Under Arrest.
Under a two-year-old agreement with the federal department of homeland security, Arpaio and his deputies had been authorised to enforce federal immigration law by arresting suspected illegal immigrants in the field and by checking the immigration status of people arrested on other offences. The department of homeland security includes the US immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) agency.
But after drawing thousands of complaints and a civil rights investigation from the justice department, Arpaio was this week stripped of his federal authority to make immigration arrests. County attorney Andrew Thomas, one of Arpaio’s supporters, condemned the “setback in the fight against illegal immigration”.
For his part Arpaio has promised to continue chasing illegal immigrants using state laws. In an angry press conference, he called US homeland security officials “liars” and said he would personally drive those caught on the streets to the border if federal officers refused to take arrested illegal immigrants into custody. “I’ll take a little trip to the border and turn them over to the border,” he said.
Arpaio’s critics decried his continued plans to arrest illegal immigrants and said the Obama administration should sever all ties with him.
The now-rescinded authority to conduct field sweeps of illegal immigrants yielded only about 300 out of the roughly 33,000 total arrests of illegal immigrants since 2007, the Obama administration has done little to curtail Arpaio, said Frank Sharry, executive director of immigration reform advocacy group America’s Voice.
“He’s going to go down in history as a man who terrorised the Latino community for the sake of his own visibility and political popularity,” Sharry said. “The fact that the Obama administration would lend any of its legitimacy to any of his activities is surprising and disappointing.”
Arpaio was first elected sheriff in 1993.
“The department of homeland security is making a historic mistake if it continues its relationship with Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” said Paco Fabian, spokesman for immigration reform advocacy group America’s Voice. “The federal government is lending its full force and legitimacy to a rogue cop certain to go down in history as a serial violator of civil rights and an enemy of the Latino community.”
An estimated 12 million illegal immigrants live in the US. The federal government is virtually paralysed over how to react, with conservatives like Arpaio calling for the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants and increased border enforcement. Obama, many Democrats and some Republicans call for a system that will allow most to gain legal status after paying a fine and learning English, but reform efforts in 2006 and 2007 withered under sustained rightwing opposition.
More than 60 law enforcement agencies across the country have signed onto the same programme under which local officers are effectively deputised to enforce immigration law. But critics of the programme say it wastes police resources needed to fight street crime, promotes racial profiling of Hispanics, targets peaceful workers, breaks up families and breeds distrust of police among immigrants, who become afraid to report crime for fear they will be asked for immigration papers.
• This article was amended on 19 October 2009. The original headline read: White House strips immigration policing powers from Arizona sheriff.
In his interview on Fox, Arpaio said he wasn’t backing down and the Federal government couldn’t stop him from enforcing the Arizona laws he was elected to uphold.
Oh and how the liberal lapdog press played right into the hands of their master manipulators! But what happens when they can’t control a player in the news arena?
We on the right have long argued the relationship between the Obama campaign (and now administration) and the mainstream media was more like puppeteer and marionette than the public servant and public watchdog envisioned by our founders when they insisted on the freedom of the press in our 1st Amendment. But now we have President Obama’s chief propagandist gloating about pulling the strings to manipulate the supposed objective media.
“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.
Now we musn’t forget this is the same Propaganda Minister Anita Dunn who last week initiated a war on Fox News, attacking the organization as a “wing of the Republican Party.”
With video of the Obama administration equivalent of Joseph Goebbels boasting about controlling the press, it seems clear White House animosity towards Fox stems more from its inability to control the network’s coverage than the purported bias.
Some are questioning the wisdom of the White House strategy of waging a war with a major news outlet. “It’s a very risky strategy. It’s not one that I would advocate,” David Gergen said. But such thoughts may represent a level of naivete in thinking the Obama administration still respects the rules of the game, and American traditions such as freedom of the press. But our President may be willing to take yet another lesson from some of his new buddies like Chavez and Castro.
After all, Obama and his Democratic allies haven’t tried to camoflauge their intentions for the future of talk radio. They’ve already made clear, to anyone with open eyes, they intend to destroy any broadcaster who dares air messages critical of the Obamessiah.
Chavez’ media strategy of ‘if you can’t control it, kill it’ may be what Obama has in mind for Fox. I mean, the President’s Propaganda Minister proudly proclaims Mao Tse Tung is one of her most admired political leaders. Mao was responsible for the deaths of some 70 million to establish control of the Chinese population.
What can we infer from such radical idolization of a murderous, Communist tyrant and the war now being waged on Fox News by the White House Propaganda Ministry?
Maybe the White House intent is to control the message, or destroy the messenger.
Before we showed you a teacher using her class to indoctrinate the next generation as worshipers of Obama. But now it’s getting worse.
Watch the video below to see CNN acting as the propaganda arm for the Obama administration in its bid to sell a government takeover of the US health care system. Worse yet, the network uses school children to help the President sell his flawed plan.
It’s no longer just indoctrination instead of education, but now we’re seeing the MSM volunteer its services to the Propaganda Ministry of the administration.