Monday, December 28, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Christopher Hitchens on Sarah Palin
Christopher Hitchens on Sarah Palin: "A Disgraceful Opportunist And Real Moral Coward" That pretty much sums it all up.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
the propaganda continues
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair's recent admission that he would have invaded Iraq even if he knew from the start that it did not have weapons of mass destruction has sparked public outrage and calls for his prosecution for war crimes in the ongoing war inquiry, the AFP reported.
Blair's administration originally used WMDs to justify going to war, leaving the public feeling that the former minister had entered Iraq under false pretenses, using the language that was most convenient at the time.
Blair maintains that Saddam Hussein's presence in the region would have been enough of a threat to justify the war.
"I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean, obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat," Blair told the BBC.
"It was the notion of him as a threat to the region, of which the development of WMD was obviously one, and because you'd had 12 years of United Nations to and fro on this subject, he used chemical weapons on his own people -- so this was obviously the thing that was uppermost in my mind," Blair continued.
Blair's admission has gotten a reaction from all corners-- even Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth told the BBC he was "a little bit" surprised by Blair's comments.
"I supported the war in Iraq based on the arguments that were put at the time and a big part of those arguments was - and I firmly believed that they existed - was the existence of WMD at that time," Ainsworth said.
Journalist Andrew Gilligan commented in the Sunday Telegraph that Blair's "game-changing admission" will give the war panel "license to be tougher and more prosecutorial."
Blair will provide evidence at the Iraq war hearings early next year.
Blair's administration originally used WMDs to justify going to war, leaving the public feeling that the former minister had entered Iraq under false pretenses, using the language that was most convenient at the time.
Blair maintains that Saddam Hussein's presence in the region would have been enough of a threat to justify the war.
"I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean, obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat," Blair told the BBC.
"It was the notion of him as a threat to the region, of which the development of WMD was obviously one, and because you'd had 12 years of United Nations to and fro on this subject, he used chemical weapons on his own people -- so this was obviously the thing that was uppermost in my mind," Blair continued.
Blair's admission has gotten a reaction from all corners-- even Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth told the BBC he was "a little bit" surprised by Blair's comments.
"I supported the war in Iraq based on the arguments that were put at the time and a big part of those arguments was - and I firmly believed that they existed - was the existence of WMD at that time," Ainsworth said.
Journalist Andrew Gilligan commented in the Sunday Telegraph that Blair's "game-changing admission" will give the war panel "license to be tougher and more prosecutorial."
Blair will provide evidence at the Iraq war hearings early next year.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
a dimension for every outcome
Robert Lanza, M.D.Scientist; author, "Biocentrism"
Posted: December 8, 2009 04:06 PM
BIOBecome a Fan Get Email AlertsBloggers' Index
Does Death Exist? New Theory Says 'No'
digg stumble reddit del.ico.us
Read More: Albert Einstein, Biocentrism, Brain, Death, Death &Amp; Dying, Mind.Body.Soul, Physics, Science, Living News
WHAT'S YOUR REACTION?
Inspiring
Enlightening
Crazy
Scary
Helpful
Amazing
Innovative
Important
Many of us fear death. We believe in death because we have been told we will die. We associate ourselves with the body, and we know that bodies die. But a new scientific theory suggests that death is not the terminal event we think.
One well-known aspect of quantum physics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations each with a different probability. One mainstream explanation, the "many-worlds" interpretation, states that each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe (the 'multiverse'). A new scientific theory - called biocentrism - refines these ideas. There are an infinite number of universes, and everything that could possibly happen occurs in some universe. Death does not exist in any real sense in these scenarios. All possible universes exist simultaneously, regardless of what happens in any of them. Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling - the 'Who am I?'- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn't go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?
Consider an experiment that was recently published in the journal Science showing that scientists could retroactively change something that had happened in the past. Particles had to decide how to behave when they hit a beam splitter. Later on, the experimenter could turn a second switch on or off. It turns out that what the observer decided at that point, determined what the particle did in the past. Regardless of the choice you, the observer, make, it is you who will experience the outcomes that will result. The linkages between these various histories and universes transcend our ordinary classical ideas of space and time. Think of the 20-watts of energy as simply holo-projecting either this or that result onto a screen. Whether you turn the second beam splitter on or off, it's still the same battery or agent responsible for the projection.
According to Biocentrism, space and time are not the hard objects we think. Wave your hand through the air - if you take everything away, what's left? Nothing. The same thing applies for time. You can't see anything through the bone that surrounds your brain. Everything you see and experience right now is a whirl of information occurring in your mind. Space and time are simply the tools for putting everything together.
Death does not exist in a timeless, spaceless world. In the end, even Einstein admitted, "Now Besso" (an old friend) "has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us...know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Immortality doesn't mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether.
This was clear with the death of my sister Christine. After viewing her body at the hospital, I went out to speak with family members. Christine's husband - Ed - started to sob uncontrollably. For a few moments I felt like I was transcending the provincialism of time. I thought about the 20-watts of energy, and about experiments that show a single particle can pass through two holes at the same time. I could not dismiss the conclusion: Christine was both alive and dead, outside of time.
Christine had had a hard life. She had finally found a man that she loved very much. My younger sister couldn't make it to her wedding because she had a card game that had been scheduled for several weeks. My mother also couldn't make the wedding due to an important engagement she had at the Elks Club. The wedding was one of the most important days in Christine's life. Since no one else from our side of the family showed, Christine asked me to walk her down the aisle to give her away.
Soon after the wedding, Christine and Ed were driving to the dream house they had just bought when their car hit a patch of black ice. She was thrown from the car and landed in a banking of snow.
"Ed," she said "I can't feel my leg."
She never knew that her liver had been ripped in half and blood was rushing into her peritoneum.
After the death of his son, Emerson wrote "Our life is not so much threatened as our perception. I grieve that grief can teach me nothing, nor carry me one step into real nature."
Whether it's flipping the switch for the Science experiment, or turning the driving wheel ever so slightly this way or that way on black-ice, it's the 20-watts of energy that will experience the result. In some cases the car will swerve off the road, but in other cases the car will continue on its way to my sister's dream house.
Christine had recently lost 100 pounds, and Ed had bought her a surprise pair of diamond earrings. It's going to be hard to wait, but I know Christine is going to look fabulous in them the next time I see her.
Robert Lanza, MD is considered one of the leading scientists in the world. He is the author of "Biocentrism," a book that lays out his theory of everything.
Posted: December 8, 2009 04:06 PM
BIOBecome a Fan Get Email AlertsBloggers' Index
Does Death Exist? New Theory Says 'No'
digg stumble reddit del.ico.us
Read More: Albert Einstein, Biocentrism, Brain, Death, Death &Amp; Dying, Mind.Body.Soul, Physics, Science, Living News
WHAT'S YOUR REACTION?
Inspiring
Enlightening
Crazy
Scary
Helpful
Amazing
Innovative
Important
Many of us fear death. We believe in death because we have been told we will die. We associate ourselves with the body, and we know that bodies die. But a new scientific theory suggests that death is not the terminal event we think.
One well-known aspect of quantum physics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations each with a different probability. One mainstream explanation, the "many-worlds" interpretation, states that each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe (the 'multiverse'). A new scientific theory - called biocentrism - refines these ideas. There are an infinite number of universes, and everything that could possibly happen occurs in some universe. Death does not exist in any real sense in these scenarios. All possible universes exist simultaneously, regardless of what happens in any of them. Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling - the 'Who am I?'- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn't go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?
Consider an experiment that was recently published in the journal Science showing that scientists could retroactively change something that had happened in the past. Particles had to decide how to behave when they hit a beam splitter. Later on, the experimenter could turn a second switch on or off. It turns out that what the observer decided at that point, determined what the particle did in the past. Regardless of the choice you, the observer, make, it is you who will experience the outcomes that will result. The linkages between these various histories and universes transcend our ordinary classical ideas of space and time. Think of the 20-watts of energy as simply holo-projecting either this or that result onto a screen. Whether you turn the second beam splitter on or off, it's still the same battery or agent responsible for the projection.
According to Biocentrism, space and time are not the hard objects we think. Wave your hand through the air - if you take everything away, what's left? Nothing. The same thing applies for time. You can't see anything through the bone that surrounds your brain. Everything you see and experience right now is a whirl of information occurring in your mind. Space and time are simply the tools for putting everything together.
Death does not exist in a timeless, spaceless world. In the end, even Einstein admitted, "Now Besso" (an old friend) "has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us...know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Immortality doesn't mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether.
This was clear with the death of my sister Christine. After viewing her body at the hospital, I went out to speak with family members. Christine's husband - Ed - started to sob uncontrollably. For a few moments I felt like I was transcending the provincialism of time. I thought about the 20-watts of energy, and about experiments that show a single particle can pass through two holes at the same time. I could not dismiss the conclusion: Christine was both alive and dead, outside of time.
Christine had had a hard life. She had finally found a man that she loved very much. My younger sister couldn't make it to her wedding because she had a card game that had been scheduled for several weeks. My mother also couldn't make the wedding due to an important engagement she had at the Elks Club. The wedding was one of the most important days in Christine's life. Since no one else from our side of the family showed, Christine asked me to walk her down the aisle to give her away.
Soon after the wedding, Christine and Ed were driving to the dream house they had just bought when their car hit a patch of black ice. She was thrown from the car and landed in a banking of snow.
"Ed," she said "I can't feel my leg."
She never knew that her liver had been ripped in half and blood was rushing into her peritoneum.
After the death of his son, Emerson wrote "Our life is not so much threatened as our perception. I grieve that grief can teach me nothing, nor carry me one step into real nature."
Whether it's flipping the switch for the Science experiment, or turning the driving wheel ever so slightly this way or that way on black-ice, it's the 20-watts of energy that will experience the result. In some cases the car will swerve off the road, but in other cases the car will continue on its way to my sister's dream house.
Christine had recently lost 100 pounds, and Ed had bought her a surprise pair of diamond earrings. It's going to be hard to wait, but I know Christine is going to look fabulous in them the next time I see her.
Robert Lanza, MD is considered one of the leading scientists in the world. He is the author of "Biocentrism," a book that lays out his theory of everything.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Without Insurance, Man's Defibrillator Battery Ran Out -- Now His Sister Wants Everyone To Know
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/without-insurance-mans-de_n_330635.html
In 2003, William Koehler of Pittsburgh, Pa. lost his job as an electronics technician. He lost his health insurance, too, but he'd been lucky enough to have the defibrillator battery in his heart changed just the previous year. No insurer would cover him except for one company which refused to cover anything related to his arrhythmia, says his sister.
He survived as long as his battery did, dying on March 7, 2009 at 57. His sister, Georgeanne Koehler, has become an activist, telling the story about how her brother died to anyone who will listen. On Thursday, she traveled to Washington, D.C. from Pittsburgh to join a protest outside a conference for America's Health Insurance Plans, a lobbying group for the insurance industry.
"I blame insurance companies, I blame his doctor, and I blame politicians," Koehler said to a gaggle or reporters asking about her brother's death after the protest.
In an interview with the Huffington Post, she explained that after he was laid off, her brother found part-time work delivering pies for Vocelli Pizza, putting in about 30 hours a week. In 2007, as he was closing up shop, he collapsed. His coworkers called an ambulance, and his sisters joined him at the hospital.
"The doctor said that the defibrillator battery was extremely low, and he needed studies done, but not as an inpatient," said Koehler, who is 63 and works as a unit clerk at a hospital in Pittsburgh. Asked if he needed to pay for treatment upfront, her brother's doctor said he would, and that it would cost thousands of dollars.
"I'm a pizza delivery guy, I don't have insurance," Koehler recalled her brother saying. She said the cardiologist walked to the side of the bed and asked her brother if he put oil in his car. When he said he did, the doctor told him that's what he needed to do for his heart.
"You're talking about a $8.50 can of oil and my battery's going to be ten thousand dollars," Koehler recalled her brother saying. "The doctor said, 'Get your priorities straight and you'll come up with the money.'"
Instead, the lesson William Koehler took from the episode, his sister said, was that "You have to have money to have your health." Over the next two years he'd have episodes where he couldn't catch his breath but he always shrugged off going to the hospital.
Georgeanne Koehler said her brother's boss saw him leaning against a table in the shop on a Saturday in March. He said he was tired, so his boss sent him home early.
"He drove two blocks, swerved a little bit coming to a stop sign, came to the stop sign, put his car in park, and slumped against the steering wheel," Georgeanne Koehler said. A paramedic told her, she said, that it appeared as though the defibrillator implant gave her brother's heart a jolt, but the battery didn't have enough juice to save him.
Koehler said she and her brother had both been lifelong Republicans, but she said he voted for the current president in hopes of health care reform. Now an activist, she travels to rallies with a packet full of her brother's doctor's notes and EKG diagrams. The progressive pro-reform group Health Care for America Now, which heard of her case through the Service Employees International Union, of which she is a member, paid for her bus ticket to and from Washington.
Aside from attending events, Koehler said she's gone door-to-door asking her neighbors to sign rectangular pieces of construction paper. She's been pasting them to poster board in a brick pattern. When the president signs a health care reform bill, she said, "We're gonna take it down to the neighborhood and people are going to take the bricks down."
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/without-insurance-mans-de_n_330635.html
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/without-insurance-mans-de_n_330635.html
In 2003, William Koehler of Pittsburgh, Pa. lost his job as an electronics technician. He lost his health insurance, too, but he'd been lucky enough to have the defibrillator battery in his heart changed just the previous year. No insurer would cover him except for one company which refused to cover anything related to his arrhythmia, says his sister.
He survived as long as his battery did, dying on March 7, 2009 at 57. His sister, Georgeanne Koehler, has become an activist, telling the story about how her brother died to anyone who will listen. On Thursday, she traveled to Washington, D.C. from Pittsburgh to join a protest outside a conference for America's Health Insurance Plans, a lobbying group for the insurance industry.
"I blame insurance companies, I blame his doctor, and I blame politicians," Koehler said to a gaggle or reporters asking about her brother's death after the protest.
In an interview with the Huffington Post, she explained that after he was laid off, her brother found part-time work delivering pies for Vocelli Pizza, putting in about 30 hours a week. In 2007, as he was closing up shop, he collapsed. His coworkers called an ambulance, and his sisters joined him at the hospital.
"The doctor said that the defibrillator battery was extremely low, and he needed studies done, but not as an inpatient," said Koehler, who is 63 and works as a unit clerk at a hospital in Pittsburgh. Asked if he needed to pay for treatment upfront, her brother's doctor said he would, and that it would cost thousands of dollars.
"I'm a pizza delivery guy, I don't have insurance," Koehler recalled her brother saying. She said the cardiologist walked to the side of the bed and asked her brother if he put oil in his car. When he said he did, the doctor told him that's what he needed to do for his heart.
"You're talking about a $8.50 can of oil and my battery's going to be ten thousand dollars," Koehler recalled her brother saying. "The doctor said, 'Get your priorities straight and you'll come up with the money.'"
Instead, the lesson William Koehler took from the episode, his sister said, was that "You have to have money to have your health." Over the next two years he'd have episodes where he couldn't catch his breath but he always shrugged off going to the hospital.
Georgeanne Koehler said her brother's boss saw him leaning against a table in the shop on a Saturday in March. He said he was tired, so his boss sent him home early.
"He drove two blocks, swerved a little bit coming to a stop sign, came to the stop sign, put his car in park, and slumped against the steering wheel," Georgeanne Koehler said. A paramedic told her, she said, that it appeared as though the defibrillator implant gave her brother's heart a jolt, but the battery didn't have enough juice to save him.
Koehler said she and her brother had both been lifelong Republicans, but she said he voted for the current president in hopes of health care reform. Now an activist, she travels to rallies with a packet full of her brother's doctor's notes and EKG diagrams. The progressive pro-reform group Health Care for America Now, which heard of her case through the Service Employees International Union, of which she is a member, paid for her bus ticket to and from Washington.
Aside from attending events, Koehler said she's gone door-to-door asking her neighbors to sign rectangular pieces of construction paper. She's been pasting them to poster board in a brick pattern. When the president signs a health care reform bill, she said, "We're gonna take it down to the neighborhood and people are going to take the bricks down."
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/without-insurance-mans-de_n_330635.html
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
what about that sucka
Pentagon used psychological operation on US public, documents show
By Brad Jacobson
Wednesday, October 21st, 2009 -- 10:12 am
Share on Facebook Stumble This!
Figure in Bush propaganda operation remains Pentagon spokesman
In Part I of this series, Raw Story revealed that Bryan Whitman, the current deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations, was an active senior participant in a Bush administration covert Pentagon program that used retired military analysts to generate positive wartime news coverage.
A months-long review of documents and interviews with Pentagon personnel has revealed that the Bush Administration's military analyst program -- aimed at selling the Iraq war to the American people -- operated through a secretive collaboration between the Defense Department's press and community relations offices.
Raw Story has also uncovered evidence that directly ties the activities undertaken in the military analyst program to an official US military document’s definition of psychological operations -- propaganda that is only supposed to be directed toward foreign audiences.
The investigation of Pentagon documents and interviews with Defense Department officials and experts in public relations found that the decision to fold the military analyst program into community relations and portray it as “outreach” served to obscure the intent of the project as well as that office’s partnership with the press office. It also helped shield its senior supervisor, Bryan Whitman, assistant secretary of defense for media operations, whose role was unknown when the original story of the analyst program broke.
Story continues below...
In a nearly hour-long phone interview, Whitman asserted that since the program was not run from his office, he was neither involved nor culpable. Exposure of the collaboration between the Pentagon press and community relations offices on this program, however, as well as an effort to characterize it as a mere community outreach project, belie Whitman’s claim that he bears no responsibility for the program’s activities.
These new revelations come in addition to the evidence of Whitman’s active and extensive participation in the program, as Raw Story documented in part one of this series. Whitman remains a spokesman for the Pentagon today.
Whitman said he stood by an earlier statement in which he averred “the intent and purpose of the [program] is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American public.”
In the interview, Whitman sought to portray his role as peripheral, noting that his position naturally demands he speak on a number of subjects in which he isn’t necessarily directly involved.
The record, however, suggests otherwise.
In a January 2005 memorandum to active members of both offices from then-Pentagon press office director, Navy Captain Roxie Merritt, who now leads the community relations office, emphasized the necessary “synergy of outreach shop and media ops working together” on the military analyst program. [p. 18-19]
Merritt recommended that both the press and community relations offices develop a “hot list” of analysts who could dependably “carry our water” and provide them with ultra-exclusive access that would compel the networks to “weed out the less reliably friendly analysts” on their own.
“Media ops and outreach can work on a plan to maximize use of the analysts and figure out a system by which we keep our most reliably friendly analysts plugged in on everything from crisis response to future plans,” Merritt remarked. “As evidenced by this analyst trip to Iraq, the synergy of outreach shop and media ops working together on these types of projects is enormous and effective. Will continue to examine ways to improve processes.”
In response, Lawrence Di Rita, then Pentagon public affairs chief, agreed. He told Merritt and both offices in an email, “I guess I thought we already were doing a lot of this.”
Several names on the memo are redacted. Those who are visible read like a who’s who of the Pentagon press and community relations offices: Whitman, Merritt, her deputy press office director Gary Keck (both of whom reported directly to Whitman) and two Bush political appointees, Dallas Lawrence and Allison Barber, then respectively director and head of community relations.
Merritt became director of the office, and its de facto chief until the appointment of a new deputy assistant secretary of defense, after the departures of Barber and Lawrence, the ostensible leaders of the military analyst program. She remains at the Defense Department today.
When reached through email, Merritt attempted to explain the function of her office's outreach program and what distinguishes it from press office activities.
“Essentially,” Merritt summarized, “we provide another avenue of communications for citizens and organizations wanting to communicate directly with DoD.”
Asked to clarify, she said that outreach’s purpose is to educate the public in a one-to-one manner about the Defense Department and military’s structure, history and operations. She also noted her office "does not handle [the] news media unless they have a specific question about one of our programs."
Merritt eventually admitted that it is not a function of the outreach program to provide either information or talking points to individuals or a group of individuals -- such as the retired military analysts -- with the intention that those recipients use them to directly engage with traditional news media and influence news coverage.
Asked directly if her office provides talking points for this purpose, she replied, “No. The talking points are developed for use by DoD personnel.”
Experts in public relations and propaganda say Raw Story's findings reveal the program itself was "unwise" and "inherently deceptive." One expressed surprise that one of the program's senior figures was still speaking for the Pentagon.
“Running the military analyst program from a community relations office is both surprising and unwise,” said Nicholas Cull, a professor of public diplomacy at USC’s Annenberg School and an expert on propaganda. “It is surprising because this is not what that office should be doing [and] unwise because the element of subterfuge is always a lightening rod for public criticism.”
Diane Farsetta, a senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy, which monitors publics relations and media manipulation, said calling the program “outreach” was “very calculatedly misleading” and another example of how the project was “inherently deceptive.”
“This has been their talking point in general on the Pentagon pundit program,” Farsetta explained. “You know, ‘We’re all just making sure that we’re sharing information.’”
Farsetta also said that it’s “pretty stunning” that no one, including Whitman, has been willing to take any responsibility for the program and that the Pentagon Inspector General’s office and Congress have yet to hold anyone accountable.
“It’s hard to think of a more blatant example of propaganda than this program,” Farsetta said.
Cull said the revelations are “just one more indication that the entire apparatus of the US government’s strategic communications -- civilian and military, at home and abroad -- is in dire need of review and repair.”
A PSYOPS Program Directed at American Public
When the military analyst program was first revealed by The New York Times in 2008, retired US Army Col. Ken Allard described it as “PSYOPS on steroids.”
It turns out this was far from a casual reference. Raw Story has discovered new evidence that directly exposes this stealth media project and the activities of its participants as matching the US government’s own definition of psychological operations, or PSYOPS.
The US Army Civil Affairs & Psychological Operations Command fact sheet, which states that PSYOPS should be directed “to foreign audiences” only, includes the following description:
“Used during peacetime, contingencies and declared war, these activities are not forms of force, but are force multipliers that use nonviolent means in often violent environments.”
Pentagon public affairs officials referred to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” in documented communications.
A prime example is a May 2006 memorandum from then community relations chief Allison Barber in which she proposes sending the military analysts on another trip to Iraq:
“Based on past trips, I would suggest limiting the group to 10 analysts, those with the greatest ability to serve as message force multipliers.”
Nicholas Cull, who also directs the public diplomacy master’s program at USC and has written extensively on propaganda and media history, found the Pentagon public affairs officials’ use of such terms both incriminating and reckless.
“[Their] use of psyop terminology is an ‘own goal,’” Cull explained in an email, “as it speaks directly to the American public’s underlying fear of being brainwashed by its own government.”
This new evidence provides further perspective on an incident cited by the Times.
Pentagon records show that the day after 14 marines died in Iraq on August 3, 2005, James T. Conway, then director of operations for the Joint Chiefs, instructed military analysts during a briefing to work to prevent the incident from weakening public support for the war. Conway reminded the military analysts assembled, “The strategic target remains our population.” [p. 102]
Same Strategy, Different Program
Bryan Whitman was also involved in a different Pentagon public affairs project during the lead-up to the war in Iraq: embedding reporters.
The embed and military analyst programs shared the same underlying strategy of “information dominance,” the same objective of selling Bush administration war policies by generating favorable news coverage and were directed at the same target -- the American public.
Torie Clarke, the first Pentagon public affairs chief, is often credited for conceiving both programs. But Clarke and Whitman have openly acknowledged his deep involvement in the embed project.
Clarke declined to be interviewed for this article.
Whitman said he was “heavily involved in the process” of the embed program's development, implementation and supervision.
Before embedding, reporters and media organizations were forced to sign a contract whose ground rules included allowing military officials to review articles for release, traveling with military personnel escorts at all times or remaining in designated areas, only conducting on-the-record interviews, and agreeing that the government may terminate the contract “at any time and for any reason.”
In May 2002, with planning for a possible invasion of Iraq already in progress, Clarke appointed Whitman to head all Pentagon media operations. Prior to that, he had served since 1995 in the Pentagon press office, both as deputy director for press operations and as a public affairs specialist.
The timing of Whitman’s appointment coincided with the development stages of the embed and military analyst programs. He was the ideal candidate for both projects.
Whitman had a military background, having served in combat as a Special Forces commander and as an Army public affairs officer with years of experience in messaging from the Pentagon. He also had experience in briefing and prepping civilian and military personnel.
Whitman's background provided him with a facility and familiarity in navigating military and civilian channels. With these tools in hand, he was able to create dialogue between the two and expedite action in a sprawling and sometimes contentious bureaucracy.
Buried in an obscure April 2008 online New York Times Q&A with readers, reporter David Barstow disclosed:
“As Lawrence Di Rita, a former senior Pentagon official told me, they viewed [the military analyst program] as the ‘mirror image’ of the Pentagon program for embedding reporters with units in the field. In this case, the military analysts were in effect ‘embedded’ with the senior leadership through a steady mix of private briefings, trips and talking points.”
Di Rita denied the conversation had occurred in a telephone interview.
“I don’t doubt that’s what he heard, but that’s not what I said,” Di Rita asserted.
Whitman said he'd never heard Di Rita make any such comparison between the programs.
Barstow, however, said he stood behind the veracity of the quote and the conversation he attributed to Di Rita.
Di Rita, who succeeded Clarke, also declined to answer any questions related to Whitman’s involvement in the military analyst program, including whether he had been involved in its creation.
Clarke and Whitman have both discussed information dominance and its role in the embed program.
In her 2006 book Lipstick on a Pig, Clarke revealed that “most importantly, embedding was a military strategy in addition to a public affairs one” (p. 62) and that the program’s strategy was “simple: information dominance” (p. 187). To achieve it, she explained, there was a need to circumvent the traditional news media “filter” where journalists act as “intermediaries.”
The goal, just as with the military analyst program, was not to spin a story but to control the narrative altogether.
At the 2003 Military-Media conference in Chicago, Whitman told the audience, “We wanted to take the offensive to achieve information dominance” because “information was going to play a major role in combat operations.” [pdf link p. 2] One of the other program’s objectives, he said, was “to build and maintain support for U.S. policy.” [pdf link, p. 16 – quote sourced in 2005 recap of 2003 mil-media conference]
At the March 2004 “Media at War” conference at UC Berkeley, Lt. Col. Rick Long, former head of media relations for the US Marine Corps, offered a candid view of the Pentagon’s engagement in “information warfare” during the Bush administration.
“Our job is to win, quite frankly,” said Long. “The reason why we wanted to embed so many media was we wanted to dominate the information environment. We wanted to beat any kind of propaganda or disinformation at its own game.”
“Overall,” he told the audience, “we’re happy with the outcome.”
The Appearance of Transparency
On a national radio program just before the invasion of Iraq, Whitman claimed that embedded reporters would have a firsthand perspective of “the good, the bad and the ugly.”
But veteran foreign correspondent Reese Erlich told Raw Story that the embed program was “a stroke of genius by the Bush administration” because it gave the appearance of transparency while “in reality, they were manipulating the news.”
In a phone interview, Erlich, who is currently covering the war in Afghanistan as a “unilateral” (which allows reporters to move around more freely without the restrictions of embed guidelines), also pointed out the psychological and practical influence the program has on reporters.
“You’re traveling with a particular group of soldiers,” he explained. “Your life literally depends on them. And you see only the firefights or slog that they’re involved in. So you’re not going to get anything close to balanced reporting.”
At the August 2003 Military-Media conference in Chicago, Jonathan Landay, who covered the initial stages of the war for Knight Ridder Newspapers, said that being a unilateral “gave me the flexibility to do my job.” [pdf link p. 2]
He added, “Donald Rumsfeld told the American people that what happened in northern Iraq after [the invasion] was a little ‘untidiness.’ What I saw, and what I reported, was a tsunami of murder, looting, arson and ethnic cleansing.”
Paul Workman, a journalist with over thirty years at CBC News, including foreign correspondent reporting on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, wrote of the program in April 2003, “It is a brilliant, persuasive conspiracy to control the images and the messages coming out of the battlefield and they've succeeded colossally.”
Erlich said he thought most mainstream US reporters have been unwilling to candidly discuss the program because they “weren’t interested in losing their jobs by revealing what they really thought about the embed process.”
Now embedded with troops in Afghanistan for McClatchy, Landay told Raw Story it’s not that reporters shouldn’t be embedded with troops at all, but that it should be only one facet of every news outlet’s war coverage.
Embedding, he said, offers a “soda-straw view of events.” This isn't necessarily negative “as long as a news outlet has a number of embeds and unilaterals whose pictures can be combined” with civilian perspectives available from international TV outlets such as Reuters TV, AP TV, and al Jazeera, he said.
Landay placed more blame on US network news outlets than on the embed program itself for failing to show a more balanced and accurate picture.
But when asked if the Pentagon and the designers of the embed program counted as part of their embedding strategy on the dismal track record of US network news outlets when it came to including international TV footage from civilian perspectives, he replied, “I will not second guess the Pentagon’s motives.”
Brad Jacobson is a contributing investigative reporter for Raw Story. Additional research was provided by Ron Brynaert.
Share this article:
By Brad Jacobson
Wednesday, October 21st, 2009 -- 10:12 am
Share on Facebook Stumble This!
Figure in Bush propaganda operation remains Pentagon spokesman
In Part I of this series, Raw Story revealed that Bryan Whitman, the current deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations, was an active senior participant in a Bush administration covert Pentagon program that used retired military analysts to generate positive wartime news coverage.
A months-long review of documents and interviews with Pentagon personnel has revealed that the Bush Administration's military analyst program -- aimed at selling the Iraq war to the American people -- operated through a secretive collaboration between the Defense Department's press and community relations offices.
Raw Story has also uncovered evidence that directly ties the activities undertaken in the military analyst program to an official US military document’s definition of psychological operations -- propaganda that is only supposed to be directed toward foreign audiences.
The investigation of Pentagon documents and interviews with Defense Department officials and experts in public relations found that the decision to fold the military analyst program into community relations and portray it as “outreach” served to obscure the intent of the project as well as that office’s partnership with the press office. It also helped shield its senior supervisor, Bryan Whitman, assistant secretary of defense for media operations, whose role was unknown when the original story of the analyst program broke.
Story continues below...
In a nearly hour-long phone interview, Whitman asserted that since the program was not run from his office, he was neither involved nor culpable. Exposure of the collaboration between the Pentagon press and community relations offices on this program, however, as well as an effort to characterize it as a mere community outreach project, belie Whitman’s claim that he bears no responsibility for the program’s activities.
These new revelations come in addition to the evidence of Whitman’s active and extensive participation in the program, as Raw Story documented in part one of this series. Whitman remains a spokesman for the Pentagon today.
Whitman said he stood by an earlier statement in which he averred “the intent and purpose of the [program] is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American public.”
In the interview, Whitman sought to portray his role as peripheral, noting that his position naturally demands he speak on a number of subjects in which he isn’t necessarily directly involved.
The record, however, suggests otherwise.
In a January 2005 memorandum to active members of both offices from then-Pentagon press office director, Navy Captain Roxie Merritt, who now leads the community relations office, emphasized the necessary “synergy of outreach shop and media ops working together” on the military analyst program. [p. 18-19]
Merritt recommended that both the press and community relations offices develop a “hot list” of analysts who could dependably “carry our water” and provide them with ultra-exclusive access that would compel the networks to “weed out the less reliably friendly analysts” on their own.
“Media ops and outreach can work on a plan to maximize use of the analysts and figure out a system by which we keep our most reliably friendly analysts plugged in on everything from crisis response to future plans,” Merritt remarked. “As evidenced by this analyst trip to Iraq, the synergy of outreach shop and media ops working together on these types of projects is enormous and effective. Will continue to examine ways to improve processes.”
In response, Lawrence Di Rita, then Pentagon public affairs chief, agreed. He told Merritt and both offices in an email, “I guess I thought we already were doing a lot of this.”
Several names on the memo are redacted. Those who are visible read like a who’s who of the Pentagon press and community relations offices: Whitman, Merritt, her deputy press office director Gary Keck (both of whom reported directly to Whitman) and two Bush political appointees, Dallas Lawrence and Allison Barber, then respectively director and head of community relations.
Merritt became director of the office, and its de facto chief until the appointment of a new deputy assistant secretary of defense, after the departures of Barber and Lawrence, the ostensible leaders of the military analyst program. She remains at the Defense Department today.
When reached through email, Merritt attempted to explain the function of her office's outreach program and what distinguishes it from press office activities.
“Essentially,” Merritt summarized, “we provide another avenue of communications for citizens and organizations wanting to communicate directly with DoD.”
Asked to clarify, she said that outreach’s purpose is to educate the public in a one-to-one manner about the Defense Department and military’s structure, history and operations. She also noted her office "does not handle [the] news media unless they have a specific question about one of our programs."
Merritt eventually admitted that it is not a function of the outreach program to provide either information or talking points to individuals or a group of individuals -- such as the retired military analysts -- with the intention that those recipients use them to directly engage with traditional news media and influence news coverage.
Asked directly if her office provides talking points for this purpose, she replied, “No. The talking points are developed for use by DoD personnel.”
Experts in public relations and propaganda say Raw Story's findings reveal the program itself was "unwise" and "inherently deceptive." One expressed surprise that one of the program's senior figures was still speaking for the Pentagon.
“Running the military analyst program from a community relations office is both surprising and unwise,” said Nicholas Cull, a professor of public diplomacy at USC’s Annenberg School and an expert on propaganda. “It is surprising because this is not what that office should be doing [and] unwise because the element of subterfuge is always a lightening rod for public criticism.”
Diane Farsetta, a senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy, which monitors publics relations and media manipulation, said calling the program “outreach” was “very calculatedly misleading” and another example of how the project was “inherently deceptive.”
“This has been their talking point in general on the Pentagon pundit program,” Farsetta explained. “You know, ‘We’re all just making sure that we’re sharing information.’”
Farsetta also said that it’s “pretty stunning” that no one, including Whitman, has been willing to take any responsibility for the program and that the Pentagon Inspector General’s office and Congress have yet to hold anyone accountable.
“It’s hard to think of a more blatant example of propaganda than this program,” Farsetta said.
Cull said the revelations are “just one more indication that the entire apparatus of the US government’s strategic communications -- civilian and military, at home and abroad -- is in dire need of review and repair.”
A PSYOPS Program Directed at American Public
When the military analyst program was first revealed by The New York Times in 2008, retired US Army Col. Ken Allard described it as “PSYOPS on steroids.”
It turns out this was far from a casual reference. Raw Story has discovered new evidence that directly exposes this stealth media project and the activities of its participants as matching the US government’s own definition of psychological operations, or PSYOPS.
The US Army Civil Affairs & Psychological Operations Command fact sheet, which states that PSYOPS should be directed “to foreign audiences” only, includes the following description:
“Used during peacetime, contingencies and declared war, these activities are not forms of force, but are force multipliers that use nonviolent means in often violent environments.”
Pentagon public affairs officials referred to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” in documented communications.
A prime example is a May 2006 memorandum from then community relations chief Allison Barber in which she proposes sending the military analysts on another trip to Iraq:
“Based on past trips, I would suggest limiting the group to 10 analysts, those with the greatest ability to serve as message force multipliers.”
Nicholas Cull, who also directs the public diplomacy master’s program at USC and has written extensively on propaganda and media history, found the Pentagon public affairs officials’ use of such terms both incriminating and reckless.
“[Their] use of psyop terminology is an ‘own goal,’” Cull explained in an email, “as it speaks directly to the American public’s underlying fear of being brainwashed by its own government.”
This new evidence provides further perspective on an incident cited by the Times.
Pentagon records show that the day after 14 marines died in Iraq on August 3, 2005, James T. Conway, then director of operations for the Joint Chiefs, instructed military analysts during a briefing to work to prevent the incident from weakening public support for the war. Conway reminded the military analysts assembled, “The strategic target remains our population.” [p. 102]
Same Strategy, Different Program
Bryan Whitman was also involved in a different Pentagon public affairs project during the lead-up to the war in Iraq: embedding reporters.
The embed and military analyst programs shared the same underlying strategy of “information dominance,” the same objective of selling Bush administration war policies by generating favorable news coverage and were directed at the same target -- the American public.
Torie Clarke, the first Pentagon public affairs chief, is often credited for conceiving both programs. But Clarke and Whitman have openly acknowledged his deep involvement in the embed project.
Clarke declined to be interviewed for this article.
Whitman said he was “heavily involved in the process” of the embed program's development, implementation and supervision.
Before embedding, reporters and media organizations were forced to sign a contract whose ground rules included allowing military officials to review articles for release, traveling with military personnel escorts at all times or remaining in designated areas, only conducting on-the-record interviews, and agreeing that the government may terminate the contract “at any time and for any reason.”
In May 2002, with planning for a possible invasion of Iraq already in progress, Clarke appointed Whitman to head all Pentagon media operations. Prior to that, he had served since 1995 in the Pentagon press office, both as deputy director for press operations and as a public affairs specialist.
The timing of Whitman’s appointment coincided with the development stages of the embed and military analyst programs. He was the ideal candidate for both projects.
Whitman had a military background, having served in combat as a Special Forces commander and as an Army public affairs officer with years of experience in messaging from the Pentagon. He also had experience in briefing and prepping civilian and military personnel.
Whitman's background provided him with a facility and familiarity in navigating military and civilian channels. With these tools in hand, he was able to create dialogue between the two and expedite action in a sprawling and sometimes contentious bureaucracy.
Buried in an obscure April 2008 online New York Times Q&A with readers, reporter David Barstow disclosed:
“As Lawrence Di Rita, a former senior Pentagon official told me, they viewed [the military analyst program] as the ‘mirror image’ of the Pentagon program for embedding reporters with units in the field. In this case, the military analysts were in effect ‘embedded’ with the senior leadership through a steady mix of private briefings, trips and talking points.”
Di Rita denied the conversation had occurred in a telephone interview.
“I don’t doubt that’s what he heard, but that’s not what I said,” Di Rita asserted.
Whitman said he'd never heard Di Rita make any such comparison between the programs.
Barstow, however, said he stood behind the veracity of the quote and the conversation he attributed to Di Rita.
Di Rita, who succeeded Clarke, also declined to answer any questions related to Whitman’s involvement in the military analyst program, including whether he had been involved in its creation.
Clarke and Whitman have both discussed information dominance and its role in the embed program.
In her 2006 book Lipstick on a Pig, Clarke revealed that “most importantly, embedding was a military strategy in addition to a public affairs one” (p. 62) and that the program’s strategy was “simple: information dominance” (p. 187). To achieve it, she explained, there was a need to circumvent the traditional news media “filter” where journalists act as “intermediaries.”
The goal, just as with the military analyst program, was not to spin a story but to control the narrative altogether.
At the 2003 Military-Media conference in Chicago, Whitman told the audience, “We wanted to take the offensive to achieve information dominance” because “information was going to play a major role in combat operations.” [pdf link p. 2] One of the other program’s objectives, he said, was “to build and maintain support for U.S. policy.” [pdf link, p. 16 – quote sourced in 2005 recap of 2003 mil-media conference]
At the March 2004 “Media at War” conference at UC Berkeley, Lt. Col. Rick Long, former head of media relations for the US Marine Corps, offered a candid view of the Pentagon’s engagement in “information warfare” during the Bush administration.
“Our job is to win, quite frankly,” said Long. “The reason why we wanted to embed so many media was we wanted to dominate the information environment. We wanted to beat any kind of propaganda or disinformation at its own game.”
“Overall,” he told the audience, “we’re happy with the outcome.”
The Appearance of Transparency
On a national radio program just before the invasion of Iraq, Whitman claimed that embedded reporters would have a firsthand perspective of “the good, the bad and the ugly.”
But veteran foreign correspondent Reese Erlich told Raw Story that the embed program was “a stroke of genius by the Bush administration” because it gave the appearance of transparency while “in reality, they were manipulating the news.”
In a phone interview, Erlich, who is currently covering the war in Afghanistan as a “unilateral” (which allows reporters to move around more freely without the restrictions of embed guidelines), also pointed out the psychological and practical influence the program has on reporters.
“You’re traveling with a particular group of soldiers,” he explained. “Your life literally depends on them. And you see only the firefights or slog that they’re involved in. So you’re not going to get anything close to balanced reporting.”
At the August 2003 Military-Media conference in Chicago, Jonathan Landay, who covered the initial stages of the war for Knight Ridder Newspapers, said that being a unilateral “gave me the flexibility to do my job.” [pdf link p. 2]
He added, “Donald Rumsfeld told the American people that what happened in northern Iraq after [the invasion] was a little ‘untidiness.’ What I saw, and what I reported, was a tsunami of murder, looting, arson and ethnic cleansing.”
Paul Workman, a journalist with over thirty years at CBC News, including foreign correspondent reporting on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, wrote of the program in April 2003, “It is a brilliant, persuasive conspiracy to control the images and the messages coming out of the battlefield and they've succeeded colossally.”
Erlich said he thought most mainstream US reporters have been unwilling to candidly discuss the program because they “weren’t interested in losing their jobs by revealing what they really thought about the embed process.”
Now embedded with troops in Afghanistan for McClatchy, Landay told Raw Story it’s not that reporters shouldn’t be embedded with troops at all, but that it should be only one facet of every news outlet’s war coverage.
Embedding, he said, offers a “soda-straw view of events.” This isn't necessarily negative “as long as a news outlet has a number of embeds and unilaterals whose pictures can be combined” with civilian perspectives available from international TV outlets such as Reuters TV, AP TV, and al Jazeera, he said.
Landay placed more blame on US network news outlets than on the embed program itself for failing to show a more balanced and accurate picture.
But when asked if the Pentagon and the designers of the embed program counted as part of their embedding strategy on the dismal track record of US network news outlets when it came to including international TV footage from civilian perspectives, he replied, “I will not second guess the Pentagon’s motives.”
Brad Jacobson is a contributing investigative reporter for Raw Story. Additional research was provided by Ron Brynaert.
Share this article:
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Conservative Attack Dog Slams George Bush and Fox news
Both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats can agree on one thing: When Larry Klayman calls, start sweating.
The fastest trigger finger in D.C. when it comes to filing legal briefs, the founder of Judicial Watch is best known for playing an instrumental role in fueling the Whitewater crisis that drowned President Clinton in multiple scandals.
But in the decade since the Lewinsky scandal, Klayman has outraged Republicans with his attacks on Bush administration and former Vice President Dick Cheney's secretive energy task force.
In his new subtly-titled book, "Whores: Why And How I Came To Fight The Establishment," Klayman details his career as a thorn in the side of the powerful.
Describing his decision to take on the case of Scott Tooley, a congressional aide convinced that he was on a terrorist watch list and that his phone was being wiretapped by the government, Klayman engages in the usual hyperbole:
"The Tooley case, which continues to this day, went directly to abuses of power -- this time, by an administration that colored itself conservative but too often behaved as if the Constitution is an inconvenience to be sidestepped or even ignored.... Bush and Cheney did more to pave the way for Obama's push toward socialism than Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Tse-tung could have ever dreamed or hoped for."
Klayman says that he met with Senator John McCain in 1997 to discuss allegations that the Clinton administration was illegally soliciting campaign contributions in exchange for seats on trade missions. Asked why the congressional hearings into the matter had ended in failure, McCain admitted that it was because both political parties had checkmated each other, telling Klayman: "Yes, my party is involved as well in the illegal fund raising. It's a disgrace."
Klayman reserves particular venom for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whom he targeted by filing complaints with the House Ethics Committee. When he ran into former GOP Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.) at a hearing and asked the conservative lawmaker what he thought about DeLay, Barr laughed: "He's a crook but he's our crook!"
Story continues below
Klayman proudly recalls the night the "vast right-wing conspiracy... was born." He and fellow conservatives -- including Paul Weyrich, Phyllis Schafly and the NRA's Wayne LaPierre -- met in a room near the Council for National Policy conference in Charleston, South Carolina in 1998. "We voted to remove the 42nd president of the United States by whatever legal and ethical means were necessary," he said.
But Klayman disparages Republicans who attacked Clinton for demonstrating a double standard when it came to the Bush administration. Calling the leaking of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame's name "indefensible," Klayman says of the GOP: "Their hypocritical silence was deafening. For both Democrats and Republicans, politics too often trumps national security and the best interests of the American people."
In an odd bit of convenient amnesia regarding his own role in stirring up Whitewater, Klayman knocks Republicans for pursuing Clinton scandals and ignoring the looming threat of Islamic terrorism. "Years later, it would become clear how damaging to the country this strategy was," he writes. "By leaving Bill Clinton in office, preoccupying him with a sex scandal and diverting attention away from the growing threat of bin Laden, Al Qaeda and terrorism in general, the Republican leadership laid the foundation for a serious cancer to grow -- one that ultimately metastasized into September 11, 2001."
Of course, Klayman's main criticism is that the House impeachment managers refused to widen the proceedings into Chinagate and other scandals and focused solely on Lewinsky: "While the House managers were patting themselves on the back for what they had done, or rather, for what their gutless Senate colleagues had not done, Osama bin Laden was hard at work and the nation was too preoccupied with a sex scandal to know who was really being screwed."
And Klayman reserves some of his harshest words for Fox News, expressing his increasing disappointment with the network, which "should really change its motto 'We report, you decide' to 'We brainwash, you decide.'"
He accuses Fox News and host Sean Hannity of not being straight with him by tricking his clients to coming on the air: "I came to perceive Hannity as a shallow and insincere Rush Limbaugh wannabe. In contrast, his television co-host, Alan Colmes, a Jewish liberal, was actually a mensch, even though I rarely agreed with him politically."
Klayman takes particular aim at the "strange and petty tactics" of the network's chairman Roger Ailes. When he asked Ailes about his decision to hire Chris Cuomo, the current "Good Morning America" co-host, to do commentary, the Fox News executive replied: "If I'm going to put on some goddamned liberal, I might as well get the dumbest fuck I can find!"
Klayman claims that Fox owner Rupert Murdoch "tried to kill the publication of this book" because of his criticism of the network.
Both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats can agree on one thing: When Larry Klayman calls, start sweating.
The fastest trigger finger in D.C. when it comes to filing legal briefs, the founder of Judicial Watch is best known for playing an instrumental role in fueling the Whitewater crisis that drowned President Clinton in multiple scandals.
But in the decade since the Lewinsky scandal, Klayman has outraged Republicans with his attacks on Bush administration and former Vice President Dick Cheney's secretive energy task force.
In his new subtly-titled book, "Whores: Why And How I Came To Fight The Establishment," Klayman details his career as a thorn in the side of the powerful.
Describing his decision to take on the case of Scott Tooley, a congressional aide convinced that he was on a terrorist watch list and that his phone was being wiretapped by the government, Klayman engages in the usual hyperbole:
"The Tooley case, which continues to this day, went directly to abuses of power -- this time, by an administration that colored itself conservative but too often behaved as if the Constitution is an inconvenience to be sidestepped or even ignored.... Bush and Cheney did more to pave the way for Obama's push toward socialism than Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Tse-tung could have ever dreamed or hoped for."
Klayman says that he met with Senator John McCain in 1997 to discuss allegations that the Clinton administration was illegally soliciting campaign contributions in exchange for seats on trade missions. Asked why the congressional hearings into the matter had ended in failure, McCain admitted that it was because both political parties had checkmated each other, telling Klayman: "Yes, my party is involved as well in the illegal fund raising. It's a disgrace."
Klayman reserves particular venom for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whom he targeted by filing complaints with the House Ethics Committee. When he ran into former GOP Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.) at a hearing and asked the conservative lawmaker what he thought about DeLay, Barr laughed: "He's a crook but he's our crook!"
Story continues below
Klayman proudly recalls the night the "vast right-wing conspiracy... was born." He and fellow conservatives -- including Paul Weyrich, Phyllis Schafly and the NRA's Wayne LaPierre -- met in a room near the Council for National Policy conference in Charleston, South Carolina in 1998. "We voted to remove the 42nd president of the United States by whatever legal and ethical means were necessary," he said.
But Klayman disparages Republicans who attacked Clinton for demonstrating a double standard when it came to the Bush administration. Calling the leaking of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame's name "indefensible," Klayman says of the GOP: "Their hypocritical silence was deafening. For both Democrats and Republicans, politics too often trumps national security and the best interests of the American people."
In an odd bit of convenient amnesia regarding his own role in stirring up Whitewater, Klayman knocks Republicans for pursuing Clinton scandals and ignoring the looming threat of Islamic terrorism. "Years later, it would become clear how damaging to the country this strategy was," he writes. "By leaving Bill Clinton in office, preoccupying him with a sex scandal and diverting attention away from the growing threat of bin Laden, Al Qaeda and terrorism in general, the Republican leadership laid the foundation for a serious cancer to grow -- one that ultimately metastasized into September 11, 2001."
Of course, Klayman's main criticism is that the House impeachment managers refused to widen the proceedings into Chinagate and other scandals and focused solely on Lewinsky: "While the House managers were patting themselves on the back for what they had done, or rather, for what their gutless Senate colleagues had not done, Osama bin Laden was hard at work and the nation was too preoccupied with a sex scandal to know who was really being screwed."
And Klayman reserves some of his harshest words for Fox News, expressing his increasing disappointment with the network, which "should really change its motto 'We report, you decide' to 'We brainwash, you decide.'"
He accuses Fox News and host Sean Hannity of not being straight with him by tricking his clients to coming on the air: "I came to perceive Hannity as a shallow and insincere Rush Limbaugh wannabe. In contrast, his television co-host, Alan Colmes, a Jewish liberal, was actually a mensch, even though I rarely agreed with him politically."
Klayman takes particular aim at the "strange and petty tactics" of the network's chairman Roger Ailes. When he asked Ailes about his decision to hire Chris Cuomo, the current "Good Morning America" co-host, to do commentary, the Fox News executive replied: "If I'm going to put on some goddamned liberal, I might as well get the dumbest fuck I can find!"
Klayman claims that Fox owner Rupert Murdoch "tried to kill the publication of this book" because of his criticism of the network.
conservative attack dog
Both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats can agree on one thing: When Larry Klayman calls, start sweating.
The fastest trigger finger in D.C. when it comes to filing legal briefs, the founder of Judicial Watch is best known for playing an instrumental role in fueling the Whitewater crisis that drowned President Clinton in multiple scandals.
But in the decade since the Lewinsky scandal, Klayman has outraged Republicans with his attacks on Bush administration and former Vice President Dick Cheney's secretive energy task force.
In his new subtly-titled book, "Whores: Why And How I Came To Fight The Establishment," Klayman details his career as a thorn in the side of the powerful.
Describing his decision to take on the case of Scott Tooley, a congressional aide convinced that he was on a terrorist watch list and that his phone was being wiretapped by the government, Klayman engages in the usual hyperbole:
"The Tooley case, which continues to this day, went directly to abuses of power -- this time, by an administration that colored itself conservative but too often behaved as if the Constitution is an inconvenience to be sidestepped or even ignored.... Bush and Cheney did more to pave the way for Obama's push toward socialism than Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Tse-tung could have ever dreamed or hoped for."
Klayman says that he met with Senator John McCain in 1997 to discuss allegations that the Clinton administration was illegally soliciting campaign contributions in exchange for seats on trade missions. Asked why the congressional hearings into the matter had ended in failure, McCain admitted that it was because both political parties had checkmated each other, telling Klayman: "Yes, my party is involved as well in the illegal fund raising. It's a disgrace."
Klayman reserves particular venom for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whom he targeted by filing complaints with the House Ethics Committee. When he ran into former GOP Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.) at a hearing and asked the conservative lawmaker what he thought about DeLay, Barr laughed: "He's a crook but he's our crook!"
Story continues below
Klayman proudly recalls the night the "vast right-wing conspiracy... was born." He and fellow conservatives -- including Paul Weyrich, Phyllis Schafly and the NRA's Wayne LaPierre -- met in a room near the Council for National Policy conference in Charleston, South Carolina in 1998. "We voted to remove the 42nd president of the United States by whatever legal and ethical means were necessary," he said.
But Klayman disparages Republicans who attacked Clinton for demonstrating a double standard when it came to the Bush administration. Calling the leaking of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame's name "indefensible," Klayman says of the GOP: "Their hypocritical silence was deafening. For both Democrats and Republicans, politics too often trumps national security and the best interests of the American people."
In an odd bit of convenient amnesia regarding his own role in stirring up Whitewater, Klayman knocks Republicans for pursuing Clinton scandals and ignoring the looming threat of Islamic terrorism. "Years later, it would become clear how damaging to the country this strategy was," he writes. "By leaving Bill Clinton in office, preoccupying him with a sex scandal and diverting attention away from the growing threat of bin Laden, Al Qaeda and terrorism in general, the Republican leadership laid the foundation for a serious cancer to grow -- one that ultimately metastasized into September 11, 2001."
Of course, Klayman's main criticism is that the House impeachment managers refused to widen the proceedings into Chinagate and other scandals and focused solely on Lewinsky: "While the House managers were patting themselves on the back for what they had done, or rather, for what their gutless Senate colleagues had not done, Osama bin Laden was hard at work and the nation was too preoccupied with a sex scandal to know who was really being screwed."
And Klayman reserves some of his harshest words for Fox News, expressing his increasing disappointment with the network, which "should really change its motto 'We report, you decide' to 'We brainwash, you decide.'"
He accuses Fox News and host Sean Hannity of not being straight with him by tricking his clients to coming on the air: "I came to perceive Hannity as a shallow and insincere Rush Limbaugh wannabe. In contrast, his television co-host, Alan Colmes, a Jewish liberal, was actually a mensch, even though I rarely agreed with him politically."
Klayman takes particular aim at the "strange and petty tactics" of the network's chairman Roger Ailes. When he asked Ailes about his decision to hire Chris Cuomo, the current "Good Morning America" co-host, to do commentary, the Fox News executive replied: "If I'm going to put on some goddamned liberal, I might as well get the dumbest fuck I can find!"
Klayman claims that Fox owner Rupert Murdoch "tried to kill the publication of this book" because of his criticism of the network.
Both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats can agree on one thing: When Larry Klayman calls, start sweating.
The fastest trigger finger in D.C. when it comes to filing legal briefs, the founder of Judicial Watch is best known for playing an instrumental role in fueling the Whitewater crisis that drowned President Clinton in multiple scandals.
But in the decade since the Lewinsky scandal, Klayman has outraged Republicans with his attacks on Bush administration and former Vice President Dick Cheney's secretive energy task force.
In his new subtly-titled book, "Whores: Why And How I Came To Fight The Establishment," Klayman details his career as a thorn in the side of the powerful.
Describing his decision to take on the case of Scott Tooley, a congressional aide convinced that he was on a terrorist watch list and that his phone was being wiretapped by the government, Klayman engages in the usual hyperbole:
"The Tooley case, which continues to this day, went directly to abuses of power -- this time, by an administration that colored itself conservative but too often behaved as if the Constitution is an inconvenience to be sidestepped or even ignored.... Bush and Cheney did more to pave the way for Obama's push toward socialism than Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Tse-tung could have ever dreamed or hoped for."
Klayman says that he met with Senator John McCain in 1997 to discuss allegations that the Clinton administration was illegally soliciting campaign contributions in exchange for seats on trade missions. Asked why the congressional hearings into the matter had ended in failure, McCain admitted that it was because both political parties had checkmated each other, telling Klayman: "Yes, my party is involved as well in the illegal fund raising. It's a disgrace."
Klayman reserves particular venom for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whom he targeted by filing complaints with the House Ethics Committee. When he ran into former GOP Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.) at a hearing and asked the conservative lawmaker what he thought about DeLay, Barr laughed: "He's a crook but he's our crook!"
Story continues below
Klayman proudly recalls the night the "vast right-wing conspiracy... was born." He and fellow conservatives -- including Paul Weyrich, Phyllis Schafly and the NRA's Wayne LaPierre -- met in a room near the Council for National Policy conference in Charleston, South Carolina in 1998. "We voted to remove the 42nd president of the United States by whatever legal and ethical means were necessary," he said.
But Klayman disparages Republicans who attacked Clinton for demonstrating a double standard when it came to the Bush administration. Calling the leaking of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame's name "indefensible," Klayman says of the GOP: "Their hypocritical silence was deafening. For both Democrats and Republicans, politics too often trumps national security and the best interests of the American people."
In an odd bit of convenient amnesia regarding his own role in stirring up Whitewater, Klayman knocks Republicans for pursuing Clinton scandals and ignoring the looming threat of Islamic terrorism. "Years later, it would become clear how damaging to the country this strategy was," he writes. "By leaving Bill Clinton in office, preoccupying him with a sex scandal and diverting attention away from the growing threat of bin Laden, Al Qaeda and terrorism in general, the Republican leadership laid the foundation for a serious cancer to grow -- one that ultimately metastasized into September 11, 2001."
Of course, Klayman's main criticism is that the House impeachment managers refused to widen the proceedings into Chinagate and other scandals and focused solely on Lewinsky: "While the House managers were patting themselves on the back for what they had done, or rather, for what their gutless Senate colleagues had not done, Osama bin Laden was hard at work and the nation was too preoccupied with a sex scandal to know who was really being screwed."
And Klayman reserves some of his harshest words for Fox News, expressing his increasing disappointment with the network, which "should really change its motto 'We report, you decide' to 'We brainwash, you decide.'"
He accuses Fox News and host Sean Hannity of not being straight with him by tricking his clients to coming on the air: "I came to perceive Hannity as a shallow and insincere Rush Limbaugh wannabe. In contrast, his television co-host, Alan Colmes, a Jewish liberal, was actually a mensch, even though I rarely agreed with him politically."
Klayman takes particular aim at the "strange and petty tactics" of the network's chairman Roger Ailes. When he asked Ailes about his decision to hire Chris Cuomo, the current "Good Morning America" co-host, to do commentary, the Fox News executive replied: "If I'm going to put on some goddamned liberal, I might as well get the dumbest fuck I can find!"
Klayman claims that Fox owner Rupert Murdoch "tried to kill the publication of this book" because of his criticism of the network.
Tom Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, made an appearance on Morning Meeting with Dylan Ratigan Wednesday to tout the Chamber's "American Free Enterprise" campaign to generate 20 million new jobs over the next decade. Ratigan seemed to be more interested in taking Donohue to the woodshed.
"The government can't do it, the unions can't do it, the trial lawyers can't do it and it's going to have to be done by the private sector," said Donohue, explaining the Chamber's multimillion-dollar campaign. "Let's remind, let's educate, let's promote the idea that a free enterprise system with open capital markets and free trade and the ability to fail and get up and go again and the ability to be very successful is what brought us the greatest economy in the history of the world."
Ratigan asked if Donohue favored idle speculation with taxpayer money and eliminating "the anti-competitive practices that surround the health practice in this country... or are you more in favor of lobbying the government to change rules to the benefit of special interests who can't adapt to a real competitive marketplace?"
(The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent $26,196,000 lobbying so far in 2009.)
"I don't believe that federal money ought to be used for any speculation," said Donohue, "and that the great preponderance is being held in those institutions to insure that they can reach their capital mandates... They are going out and pressing them to create more liquid capital for loans and investments so that small companies and medium-sized companies and, yes, large companies."
Then, the interview became acrimonious. Donohue had no response to Ratigan's assertion that "unless the government and people like you that lobby to the exemptions that allow banks to [speculate with taxpayer money] get out of the way, we will never have fair play again in this country and we'll have job creation by virtue of taxpayer theft, which is ultimately destructive, and I would argue, treasonous to this country."
"Boy, when you get on this show, it's really hard to get four words in without hearing six more," said Donohue at the end.
"Yes, it is," replied Ratigan. "Especially when you talk nonsense."
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/14/dylan-ratigan-to-chamber_n_320397.html
"The government can't do it, the unions can't do it, the trial lawyers can't do it and it's going to have to be done by the private sector," said Donohue, explaining the Chamber's multimillion-dollar campaign. "Let's remind, let's educate, let's promote the idea that a free enterprise system with open capital markets and free trade and the ability to fail and get up and go again and the ability to be very successful is what brought us the greatest economy in the history of the world."
Ratigan asked if Donohue favored idle speculation with taxpayer money and eliminating "the anti-competitive practices that surround the health practice in this country... or are you more in favor of lobbying the government to change rules to the benefit of special interests who can't adapt to a real competitive marketplace?"
(The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent $26,196,000 lobbying so far in 2009.)
"I don't believe that federal money ought to be used for any speculation," said Donohue, "and that the great preponderance is being held in those institutions to insure that they can reach their capital mandates... They are going out and pressing them to create more liquid capital for loans and investments so that small companies and medium-sized companies and, yes, large companies."
Then, the interview became acrimonious. Donohue had no response to Ratigan's assertion that "unless the government and people like you that lobby to the exemptions that allow banks to [speculate with taxpayer money] get out of the way, we will never have fair play again in this country and we'll have job creation by virtue of taxpayer theft, which is ultimately destructive, and I would argue, treasonous to this country."
"Boy, when you get on this show, it's really hard to get four words in without hearing six more," said Donohue at the end.
"Yes, it is," replied Ratigan. "Especially when you talk nonsense."
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/14/dylan-ratigan-to-chamber_n_320397.html
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
good defense
Birther leader Orly Taitz has been fined for "wasting the judicial resources" of the Middle District of Georgia with her "frivolous and sanctionable conduct."
Taitz filed a lawsuit demanding that President Obama prove his citizenship before deploying an Army captain to Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the soldier herself has disavowed her lawyer and threatened to file a bar complaint against Taitz.
Judge Clay Land wrote that Taitz's behavior in the case "borders on delusional" and "demonstrates bad faith."
Regrettably, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel's conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsel's response to the Court's show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20,000.00 shall be imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court. Payment shall be made to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk's Office, within thirty days of today's Order. If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings.
In an interview with Talking Points Memo, Taitz said she had no intention of paying the fine. "Are you kidding? Of course not," she said. "This is a form of intimidation."
Taitz filed a lawsuit demanding that President Obama prove his citizenship before deploying an Army captain to Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the soldier herself has disavowed her lawyer and threatened to file a bar complaint against Taitz.
Judge Clay Land wrote that Taitz's behavior in the case "borders on delusional" and "demonstrates bad faith."
Regrettably, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel's conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsel's response to the Court's show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20,000.00 shall be imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court. Payment shall be made to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk's Office, within thirty days of today's Order. If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings.
In an interview with Talking Points Memo, Taitz said she had no intention of paying the fine. "Are you kidding? Of course not," she said. "This is a form of intimidation."
Throughout the congressional health care debate, considerable attention has focused on the Blue Dog Coalition - a group of House Democrats committed to fiscal responsibility and budget discipline.
We're Blue Dogs, too, and we believe in the group's core principles. But we've broken with our Blue Dog sisters and brothers over their lukewarm support for the public insurance option a concept we think must be part of a successful health care reform package.
Far from being an option of last resort or a government-funded takeover of the country's health care system, we see the public option as a critical market mechanism that will drive down costs, foster competition and expand Americans' insurance choices.
This is not just smart health care policy, it is smart economic policy.
A Gallup-Healthways survey has identified more than 290,000 uninsured people in our congressional districts alone. This is astonishing, and, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, their medical care cost local hospitals and other health care providers $65 million last year.
How can providers stay afloat in the face of such expenditures? By charging people who have insurance more. A recent study by the Center for American Progress found that more than 10 percent of the average Californian's premiums, approximately $500 each year, goes to covering the cost of caring for the uninsured.
Expanding coverage will greatly reduce the costs of uncompensated care and alleviate a major drag on the state and national economies. A public option is necessary to reach that goal.
If private insurers were already providing affordable coverage, there would be no need for this debate. But they are not. In fact, the profit motive has routinely trumped a customer's health and well-being. They set premiums at artificially high rates to compensate for the costs of the uninsured, drop people from their plans when they become sick, or use fine print to deny expensive but medically necessary treatments.
We understand the fear of many insured Californians that health care reform will take away their current doctors and coverage. However, the grim reality is that many more insured people will lose their coverage without reform.
In August it happened to Rep. Harman's 27-year-old son, who was dropped from his insurance after suffering a torn eardrum.
He's not alone. According to a recent report by the Treasury Department, without health care reform, nearly half of all Americans under 65 will lose their coverage at some point over the next 10 years. Additionally, health care spending in the United States will go from $1 out of every $6 spent to $1 of every $5 in the next decade.
Ultimately, our country and our constituents can't afford to wait for health care reform. Doing nothing means Californians will pay twice as much in premiums and out-of-pocket costs in the coming years and insurance companies will still call the shots, denying care to people with pre-existing conditions and walking away from families that need coverage the most.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 97 percent of all Americans would have insurance coverage if legislation that includes a public option becomes law. If this benchmark is reached, in our districts, more than 250,000 additional people would be able to count on quality, affordable health care coverage. Whether people choose a private insurer or the public option, all could count on a guaranteed standard and comprehensive set of benefits to ensure access to quality, affordable health care.
The health care debate in Congress will continue through the end of the year. The recent Senate Finance Committee defeat of two amendments to include a public insurance option in its health care reform bill is a disappointing setback.
Nevertheless, we remain hopeful that at the end of its process, Congress will have succeeded in passing a fiscally responsible health care bill that includes a robust public option.
This is our best bet to ensure Californians have access to quality, affordable health care without burdening future generations.
This post originally appeared as an Op-Ed in the Sacramento Bee.
We're Blue Dogs, too, and we believe in the group's core principles. But we've broken with our Blue Dog sisters and brothers over their lukewarm support for the public insurance option a concept we think must be part of a successful health care reform package.
Far from being an option of last resort or a government-funded takeover of the country's health care system, we see the public option as a critical market mechanism that will drive down costs, foster competition and expand Americans' insurance choices.
This is not just smart health care policy, it is smart economic policy.
A Gallup-Healthways survey has identified more than 290,000 uninsured people in our congressional districts alone. This is astonishing, and, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, their medical care cost local hospitals and other health care providers $65 million last year.
How can providers stay afloat in the face of such expenditures? By charging people who have insurance more. A recent study by the Center for American Progress found that more than 10 percent of the average Californian's premiums, approximately $500 each year, goes to covering the cost of caring for the uninsured.
Expanding coverage will greatly reduce the costs of uncompensated care and alleviate a major drag on the state and national economies. A public option is necessary to reach that goal.
If private insurers were already providing affordable coverage, there would be no need for this debate. But they are not. In fact, the profit motive has routinely trumped a customer's health and well-being. They set premiums at artificially high rates to compensate for the costs of the uninsured, drop people from their plans when they become sick, or use fine print to deny expensive but medically necessary treatments.
We understand the fear of many insured Californians that health care reform will take away their current doctors and coverage. However, the grim reality is that many more insured people will lose their coverage without reform.
In August it happened to Rep. Harman's 27-year-old son, who was dropped from his insurance after suffering a torn eardrum.
He's not alone. According to a recent report by the Treasury Department, without health care reform, nearly half of all Americans under 65 will lose their coverage at some point over the next 10 years. Additionally, health care spending in the United States will go from $1 out of every $6 spent to $1 of every $5 in the next decade.
Ultimately, our country and our constituents can't afford to wait for health care reform. Doing nothing means Californians will pay twice as much in premiums and out-of-pocket costs in the coming years and insurance companies will still call the shots, denying care to people with pre-existing conditions and walking away from families that need coverage the most.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 97 percent of all Americans would have insurance coverage if legislation that includes a public option becomes law. If this benchmark is reached, in our districts, more than 250,000 additional people would be able to count on quality, affordable health care coverage. Whether people choose a private insurer or the public option, all could count on a guaranteed standard and comprehensive set of benefits to ensure access to quality, affordable health care.
The health care debate in Congress will continue through the end of the year. The recent Senate Finance Committee defeat of two amendments to include a public insurance option in its health care reform bill is a disappointing setback.
Nevertheless, we remain hopeful that at the end of its process, Congress will have succeeded in passing a fiscally responsible health care bill that includes a robust public option.
This is our best bet to ensure Californians have access to quality, affordable health care without burdening future generations.
This post originally appeared as an Op-Ed in the Sacramento Bee.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
military coup against Obama
WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 30, 2009 11:31 EDT
Conservative writer: Military coup may be needed in U.S.
John L. Perry, a columnist for the conservative Web site NewsMax.com, is worried about "the Obama problem." And he thinks he knows what the solution might have to be: A military coup.
In his most recent column, which has apparently been removed from the site since getting attention from liberal blogs, Perry wrote:
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it ....
magine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."
Conservative writer: Military coup may be needed in U.S.
John L. Perry, a columnist for the conservative Web site NewsMax.com, is worried about "the Obama problem." And he thinks he knows what the solution might have to be: A military coup.
In his most recent column, which has apparently been removed from the site since getting attention from liberal blogs, Perry wrote:
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it ....
magine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
Glenn Beck: There’s a Coup Going On. A Stealing of America.
James Joyner | Monday, August 31, 2009
Glenn Beck continues to impress in his ability to top himself with zaniness. Today, he explained how “they” have all manner of plans to destroy America and make it more like Cuba. And “they” may be getting away with it because “they” are so far ahead of us.
For those who can’t view the video or hear the audio, MediaMatters provides the transcription:
If I could just — if we could just be like Cuba. Let me give you the last piece of evidence that there is a revolution going on, and it is coming. It is — there is a revolution, and they think they can get away with it quietly.
They think they — and they — they — you know what? At this point, gang, I’m not sure, they may be able to because they are so far ahead of us. They know what they’re dealing against; most of America does not yet. Most of America doesn’t have a clue as to what’s going on. There is a coup going on. There is a stealing of America, and the way it is done, it has been done through the — the guise of an election, but they lied to us the entire time.
Some of us knew! Some of us we’re shouting out, you were: “this guy’s a Marxist!” “No, no, no, no, no, no.” And they’re gonna say, “we did it democratically,” and they are going to grab power every way they can. And God help us in an emergency.
I’m not sure who “They” are but I’m scared of them.
Seriously, to borrow from George Will, no serious person nowadays takes Glenn Beck seriously anymore. While I was lamenting Barack Obama’s skill at running a presidential campaign without actually saying anything two years or more ago, it’s hard to argue that he didn’t make it clear that he wanted a government-run health care program. (Although he’s likely to settle for something much, much less than that out of political necessity.) What, precisely, is it that “they” are doing — through the guise of an election — that was hidden from us?
For that matter, even aside from the Cuba hyperbole, it looks as if the Republican minority, through a combination of the hesitancy of the Blue Dog Democrats to go along with their party’s leadership and having successfully mobilized public fear of the the Democrats’ plans, will prevail in stemming the worst of it. So what is it that Beck’s talking about?
James Joyner | Monday, August 31, 2009
Glenn Beck continues to impress in his ability to top himself with zaniness. Today, he explained how “they” have all manner of plans to destroy America and make it more like Cuba. And “they” may be getting away with it because “they” are so far ahead of us.
For those who can’t view the video or hear the audio, MediaMatters provides the transcription:
If I could just — if we could just be like Cuba. Let me give you the last piece of evidence that there is a revolution going on, and it is coming. It is — there is a revolution, and they think they can get away with it quietly.
They think they — and they — they — you know what? At this point, gang, I’m not sure, they may be able to because they are so far ahead of us. They know what they’re dealing against; most of America does not yet. Most of America doesn’t have a clue as to what’s going on. There is a coup going on. There is a stealing of America, and the way it is done, it has been done through the — the guise of an election, but they lied to us the entire time.
Some of us knew! Some of us we’re shouting out, you were: “this guy’s a Marxist!” “No, no, no, no, no, no.” And they’re gonna say, “we did it democratically,” and they are going to grab power every way they can. And God help us in an emergency.
I’m not sure who “They” are but I’m scared of them.
Seriously, to borrow from George Will, no serious person nowadays takes Glenn Beck seriously anymore. While I was lamenting Barack Obama’s skill at running a presidential campaign without actually saying anything two years or more ago, it’s hard to argue that he didn’t make it clear that he wanted a government-run health care program. (Although he’s likely to settle for something much, much less than that out of political necessity.) What, precisely, is it that “they” are doing — through the guise of an election — that was hidden from us?
For that matter, even aside from the Cuba hyperbole, it looks as if the Republican minority, through a combination of the hesitancy of the Blue Dog Democrats to go along with their party’s leadership and having successfully mobilized public fear of the the Democrats’ plans, will prevail in stemming the worst of it. So what is it that Beck’s talking about?
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
