America’s Enemy-in-Chief And The Pseudo-Journalist Enemies Of Truth Who Attack Any Of Their Own Who Would Expose Him

This is the New York Times.  And we’re getting journalists who are calling Obama “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation” and “the most secretive White House I’ve ever covered.”

Barack Obama is a genuine FASCIST.  I’ve been saying it over and over and over again.  And now I can even point to the New York Times for confirmation.

The Democrat Party in general and the Obama presidency in particular have become the party of rabid, cancerous fascism in America.

NYT reporter: Obama administration ‘the greatest enemy of press freedom’ in a generation
Posted By Brendan Bordelon On 5:12 PM 03/24/2014

New York Times reporter James Risen called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation” on Friday, explaining that the White House seeks to control the flow of information and those who refuse to play along “will be punished.”

Poynter reports that Risen made the remarks while speaking at Sources and Secrets conference — a meeting of journalism , communication and government professionals held in New York City. The foreign policy reporter, who is currently fighting a fierce court battle with the federal government over his protection of a confidential source, warned that press freedom is under serious attack in today’s America.

In a speech kicking off the conference, Risen claimed that the Obama administration wants to “narrow the field of national security reporting” and “create a path for accepted reporting.” Those who stray from that path, he cautioned, “will be punished.”

The result is a “de facto Official Secrets Act,” Risen explained, making the current White House “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.” And the media has been “too timid” in pushing back against the onslaught.

Some of that timidity was on display at the conference. Jeffrey Toobin, a writer for The New Yorker, denied that any constitutional protections for his profession even existed. “It won’t take me long to alienate everyone in the room,” he declared. “For better or worse, it has been clear there is no journalistic privilege under the First Amendment.”

Robert Litt, the administration’s top lawyer for the national intelligence community, agreed with that statement. At the same conference, he likened reporting on national security leaks to drunk driving, arguing that we ban the practice despite the fact that there isn’t always a victim.

“Not every drunk driver causes a fatal accident,” he explained, “but we ban drunk driving because it increases the risk of accidents. In the same way, we classify information because of the risk of harm, even if no harm actually can be shown in the end from any particular disclosure.”

[h/t Poytner]

Follow Brendan on Twitter

Do you know what it will take to make liberal “journalists” like Jeffrey Toobin realize that “journalists” actually DO have constitutional freedom to report the truth even when an administration doesn’t like it?  A Republican president.  Nothing more.

Liberal journalists are not “journalists” at all – at least the overwhelming majority never are and the few who become “journalists” only do so to a small degree; rather, they are overwhelmingly ideological fascist defenders of their Führer’s official propaganda.  And they will carry the government’s water unless and until a Republican is elected president – in which case they will rabidly turn on that president.

Jill Abramson is not merely a journalist with the NY Times; she is the paper’s EXECUTIVE EDITOR.  Listen to what she has to say about America’s Enemy-in-Chief during an interview:

Let me move on to another topic in the Obama administration. How would you grade this administration, compared to others, when it comes to its relationship with the media.

Well, I would slightly like to interpret the question as “How secretive is this White House?” which I think is the most important question. I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush’s first term.

I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.

And do you think this comes directly from the president?

I would think that it would have to. I don’t know that, but certainly enough attention has been focused on this issue that, if he departed from the policies of his government, I think we’d know that at this point.

So it makes it more difficult for The New York Times to do its job.

Absolutely.

The White House does?

The White House does. And in the case of specific journalists, I would talk for a minute about Jim Risen, who is one of my most valued colleagues. In 2005, he is the reporter who, along with Eric Lichtblau, broke the story about the NSA’s warrantless eavesdropping, which was, in a way, the first view we had into the world of the NSA’s collection of data and communications. He has had this leak investigation hanging over his head for years now.

Abramson could also be talking about Fox News reporter James Rosen.  Obama sicked his rabid law thug Eric Holder on Rosen and literally had Rosen FALSELY called a criminal co-conspirator so the Obama regime could monitor not only Rosen’s calls, but his PARENT’S phone calls.

Note what Abramson points out: every Democrat on earth is a vile, twisted liar and hypocrite.  You people DESPISED Bush as an enemy of freedom, et al.  AND NOW YOU ARE MINDLESSLY DEFENDING A MAN WHO MAKES GEORGE W. BUSH LOOK LIKE A SNOW WHITE PURE CHOIRBOY.

Barack Obama’s criminal thug abuse of journalism and of the 1st Amendment is frankly stunning.  But like cockroaches whose mother eats them, liberals still flock to their messiah roach.

And because Democrats are liars without shame, without honor, without integrity, without decency and absolutely without virtue, they call people who take a principled stand against this tyrant “racists.”  Because that’s the kind of fascists that they are.

What is truly interesting is how the left does when their is criticized: they get rabid fast and the fangs come out and it doesn’t matter if you are black or a woman or a black woman or WHAT.  Of course it is EVIL for a conservative to attack a black person, or a woman.  But you just watch what happens when a black person or a woman or a black woman in any way, shape or form opposes the doctrines of liberalism.  You will see naked hate and you will FEEL that hate if you are their target.

And so leftist shrills at the Politico heard that a liberal woman had criticized Obama and so they tried to take her down in the most vicious, rabid, sexist terms they possibly could.  And Abramson admitted the sexist hit job made her cry.

The mainstream media did what it does when someone dares attack liberalism: they circled their wagons and made her persona non grata.  They published ugly photos of her to tarnish her the way that Joseph Goebbels would have done.

And this is nothing compared to what the left did to female journalist Lara Logan.  Her crime was daring to report on Obama’s lies in Benghazi.  And in her reporting, she made one mistake that should have been caught by CBS (which has a former FBI guy who literally could have caught this with a phone call) and put a man on the record who turned out to have lied about having been in Benghazi.  In the minds of liberals, of course, that one error not only obliterated all the GOOD reporting she’d done, but it somehow had a metaphysical power to obliterate ALL journalistic investigation into Benghazi.

Anyway, the left went vicious, war-on-women psycho on Lara Logan in an incredibly savage piece titled, “Benghazi and the Bombshell” – which goes into vile detail into Logan’s alleged sex life from numerous anonymous sources.  And they ask the question in the subtitle – as a warning to any journalist who would dare report the facts about Obama – “Is Lara Logan too toxic to return to 60 Minutes?”

The subtitle would have properly read: a warning to any who would dare to challenge the Obama narrative on Benghazi.

Note that hit job was written by a man.  And ask yourself if a man had written such a piece so “exposing” a true ideological liberal “journalist” in such blatantly sexist and sexual terms, how would the mainstream media have responded if not in frenzied outrage akin to the Donald Sterling stuff?

Award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson finally recently resigned in disgust and is blowing the whistle that Obama administration officials routinely gave her “misinformation” and “false information” and pressured CBS into not airing her stories. The former CBS News correspondent said her investigative pieces died “the death of a thousand cuts” and were much harder to get on the air under Obama than they had ever been under George W. Bush (when she was PRAISED for hard investigative reporting on an administration).

Let me give you another flavor of the diseased soul that is the heart of this presidency:

In her recently published memoir, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) relays a chilling anecdote about how Washington really works. In 2009, she was running a congressional panel to oversee the Treasury Department’s bailout of the financial industry, and the new Obama administration was unhappy that she was being as tough on them as she had been on its Republican predecessors. So the president’s top economic advisor, Lawrence H. Summers, took Warren out for a friendly dinner.

“Late in the evening, Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice,” Warren writes. “I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access…. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders.”

Warren decided to remain an outsider and went right on flaying then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for failing to help distressed homeowners while he was rescuing big banks. When President Obama decided against nominating Warren to run the new Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, she ran for the Senate instead. And last year, from that seat, she was one of several senators who helped kill Summers’ likely nomination as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

There are those on the inside and there is everybody else.  And under thug-tyrant Obama, you’d better shut your mouth the way a Mafia gangster does or you will find yourself on the outside.

When an Obama official like Jay Carney pats the administration on the back for being “the most open administration in history,” you know that they have to frankly be Nazis to even SAY such a ridiculous thing.  You have to be a rabid liar to work for a rabid liar like Obama.

Consider the warning of extremely-liberal legal scholar Jonathon Turley has said about Obama and his “sin eater” law thug Eric Holder.  Consider:

Liberal progressive legal expert Jonathan Turley (along with a number of other constitutional experts) had this to say about Obama’s action in setting aside the rule of law for his political expedience:

“The president is using executive power to do things Congress has refused to do, and that does fit a disturbing pattern of expansion of executive power under President Obama. In many ways, President Obama has fulfilled the dream of an imperial presidency that Richard Nixon strived for. On everything from (the Defense of Marriage Act) to the gaming laws, this is a president who is now functioning as a super legislator. He is effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.”

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.

The essence of progressive liberalism is and always has been rabid personal hypocrisy and the assertion that “It’s not fascist when we do what we called you ‘fascist’ for doing when you did a fraction of what we’re doing now.”

What do you say when 96% of the journalists at a significant mainstream media outlet voted for Obama?  You say that there is a climate of out-of-control bias.  And it CONSUMES all of media today.

I think of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army troops; they died at the rate of nineteen to every one American soldier killed in action.  NVA troops would get tattoos that read, “Born in the North to die in the South.”  But they kept coming.  Because in their nihilist worldview their lives meant nothing and all that mattered was the survival of the State.

That was how the leftists viewed things in World War II (when 20 million Soviets died defending Stalin), it was how they viewed it in North Korea (where 2 million died defending Kim Il-Sung) and it was how the left viewed things in the Vietnam War (where 1.1 million gave their last full measure of communist devotion to the State defending Ho Chi Minh).  And it is how leftist journalists view things now when they are willing – frankly eager – to throw themselves on every grenade that could harm their messiah Obama.

Obama is protected an army of cockroaches who will throw their “journalistic objectivity” and even their careers onto whatever grenade would blow up to expose their messiah.  And America is doomed because of these traitors to truth and to their profession.

 

Left Shocked And Panicked That Supreme Court May Not Like ObamaCare Fascism

This must be what it was like just before WWII Germany collapsed for the Nazis.

From Rush Limbaugh:

Left Shocked by Court Developments
March 27, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Grab sound bite two before we get to sound bites 23 and 24.  This is last night.  We’ll do a little timeline here involving Jeff Toobin.  Last night on Charlie Rose, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin — who, by the way, for those of you old enough to remember, is the son of former NBC News reporter Marlene Sanders.  He wrote a big book after the O.J. trial, and he’s been at CNN for quite a while.  And Charlie Rose said, Jeffrey Toobin, “How big a deal is this Obamacare case at the Supreme Court?”

TOOBIN:  Epic! Awesome! Enormous! Huge!

ROSE: (guffawing)

TOOBIN: This is the biggest case involving the power of the federal government since the New Deal.  And if this law is struck down, the federal government is gonna look very different the next day.  And lots of plans and lots existing programs are in jeopardy.  So, I mean, as big as you think this case is, it’s actually bigger.

RUSH:  Last night, Jeffrey Toobin accurately describes the size and scope of Obamacare.  Today, it’s Politico “breaking news,” but we’ve got sound bites from CNN.  Toobin, quote: “This law looks like it’s going to be struck down. I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong… [I]f I had to bet today, Wolf, I would bet that this court is going to strike down the individual mandate.” Tom Goldstein, attorney and cofounder, center-left SCOTUS blog: “The individual mandate is in trouble, significant trouble.” Los Angeles Times’ Noam Levey: “Tuesday’s arguments may signal trouble for the mandate, widely seen as a cornerstone of the law’s program for achieving universal health care coverage for the first time in the nation’s history.”

Politico breaking news: “The conservative justices and potential swing vote Anthony Kennedy raised concerns Tuesday that forcing Americans to buy health insurance would open the door to other intrusive requirements from the federal government…” What was so hard to predict about this?  This goes right to my point.  What’s so hard to predict that this thing is unconstitutional?  It is unconstitutional. And a Civics 101 student in junior high, after having the Constitution explained to them, would know this.  And here come these legal experts: “There’s no way that justices are gonna strike this down! There ain’t no way,” and then after one day of oral arguments, these same experts (probably just as qualified as the economic experts at the Associated Press) say: My God, these justices, they don’t like the individual mandate! We’re in big trouble.

Here’s Jeff Toobin.  He’s on CNN this afternoon.  The coanchor, Ashleigh Banfield, said, “Tell me everything, Jeff.  What happened today?”

TOOBIN:  This was a train wreck for the Obama administration.  This law looks like it’s gonna be struck down.  Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, was enormously skeptical.  Every comment Kennedy made — uh, at least that I heard — was skeptical of the law.  The wild card in this argument was, uh, Chief Justice Roberts.  Chief Justice Roberts actually asked a lot of hard questions.  Roberts seemed like a much more likely vote to uphold the law than Kennedy was.

RUSH:  See, he had to find something positive after saying today “was a train wreck for the Obama administration.”  And again he said, “I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong… this court is going to strike down the individual mandate.” Wolf Blitzer then weighed in…

BLITZER:  This is really huge! Uh, uh, uh, what you’re saying — and you’re an authority on the US Supreme Court. You’ve written the major book on the current Supreme Court — uh, The Nine. So you fully understand. But just because a justice is asking tough questions, let’s say of the government lawyer — Mr. Verrilli in this case — that doesn’t necessarily mean that that justice is gonna come down on the other side.  Isn’t that right?

TOOBIN:  It’s true, but it’s not very true, Wolf.  Yes, it is true that sometimes we’re surprised by the justices’ votes after hearing their comments at oral argument.  Most of the time — and it’s not all the time, but most of the time — the questions that the justices ask at oral argument are very good predictors of how they’re gonna vote.

RUSH:  So the left is in panic! Wolf Blitzer is in panic, looking for a life preserver from Jeff Toobin, who didn’t give him one.  And they’re shocked!  This is what’s funny.  They are shocked.  We aren’t.  Well, we might be because we’re surprised that the Constitution is actually being adhered to here, or appears to be.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

 RUSH:  Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to temper your expectations on this.  This is just oral argument, and we’re nowhere near the vote on this thing and we really don’t know how this is gonna go.  All we have right now is palpable fear on the left. … This fascinates me, all of this shock and surprise on the left.  The media, court watchers, leftist legal beagles.  They are in a state of shock, a legitimate state of shock, folks.  They really believed this was gonna sail through.  And we have to always keep in mind how relatively young most of these people are, and thus how they’ve been educated. They didn’t get Constitution 101 like I did.  They have been taught that the Constitution’s a flawed document that needs to be changed whenever it can be.

And this represents the greatest opportunity to do that that they have all ever had. The very fact that Obamacare became law against the objection of a majority of the American people — and the way it became law, basically under cover of darkness with every legislative trick under the sun being tried — didn’t matter. It didn’t matter that it might be illegal. It didn’t matter that it might be unconstitutional, because that’s precisely what this was about: Making it constitutional by virtue of changing the Constitution and using this law to do it. Then all of a sudden the oral arguments come up today, and the four conservative justices and the so-called swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, all have problems with the mandate.

And they’re literally shocked, A, that everybody doesn’t have the same worldview of this that they do; and, B, that there is any objection to it at all. Remember for these people the government is the end. It’s the be-all, end-all. Government is the final authority. Government is where everything important happens and every important decision happens for everybody. But it didn’t go that way today in the case of oral arguments and so now they’re scratching their heads and they’re genuinely surprised. Jeffrey Toobin is genuinely surprised. The CNN legal guy predicted this would sail through, and they probably were looking at this court’s actions on campaign finance law, McCain-Feingold. “Well, if that sailed through, this will.”

So where we are with this is the left now blogging incessantly their fears and their hopes at the same time. There is a left-wing blog called SCOTUSblog, Supreme Court of the United States. And this is a very relevant post on that blog: “Towards the end of the argument the most important question was Justice Kennedy’s. After pressing the government with great questions, Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs [i.e., the government] were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance, but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment.”

So they take all of Kennedy’s questioning here, which indicated to Toobin: This thing’s dead, this thing is a “train wreck.” One question by Kennedy at the end is now given them hope that he might see this as so unique that he would vote for the mandate. A reporter at the Huffing and Puffington Post is saying that it’s, quote, “almost entirely unequivocal that a majority of the court thinks Obamacare is unconstitutional.” They are scared to death. Lyle Denniston used to be the court reporter for the Baltimore Sun. He posts this:

“If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government’s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him,” and therefore give us a huge winning majority. “But if [Kennedy] does not, the mandate is gone. That is where Tuesday’s argument wound up — with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandate’s savior.” A lot of these blogs are being critical of the solicitor general, the government’s lawyer, Mr. “Virility.”

One blog is saying: “I can’t believe how poorly prepared this guy was on the mandate! I can’t believe they sent him up there and he had no idea how to answer these very obvious questions on the mandate.” So apparently the government’s lawyer didn’t do a good job. The left can’t believe he wasn’t prepared any better. Well, how do you defend the indefensible? What is this guy gonna say? When that burial analogy comes up, he’s dead. When the broccoli analogy comes up, he’s dead. If you’re up arguing before the Supreme Court that the government has the right to require us to buy health insurance, then why not burial insurance? Why not broccoli?

This guy had no answer for that other than a bunch of gobbledygook. And all of his supporters watching this know what a poor job he did, and so now they’re worried, and they’ve just go on a little carrot. Anthony Kennedy gave ’em a little carrot dangling there at the far end of the mine. It’s right down there next to the canary. He might find a way. This situation is so unique and we’re talking about health care, so maybe this could be okay. That’s what they’re desperately hoping. But their instincts tell them that it was a “train wreck” today. And I must tell you, I still find it… I don’t know, I guess I shouldn’t, ’cause I know how they were educated (which was poorly). I’m still struck by the fact that they’re surprised, that they’re shocked.

What world do they live in?

This could not have been the first day in their lives that they’ve heard these objections to the mandate. But what if it is? What if they live in such a close-knit circle and they hang around only with each other? What if it actually was the first time they’ve heard these objections? That can’t be! These objections, these arguments, against the mandate have been made throughout the media everywhere. So I guess they just locked in on the idea that it doesn’t have a prayer of losing. But like so much of liberalism, and like so many liberals, they live in their cloistered world of the faculty lounge. They sit around and they talk theory all day. They don’t understand dynamism. Everything is static to them.

And then they get confronted with reality one day and it’s like a cold shower or a slap upside the head and they are bewildered. And it still amazes me that people who are reputed to be so intelligent and so smart can be so surprised when they hear arguments — logical arguments — that make it obvious this is unconstitutional. But, again, I fall back on something we must never forget, and that is: This is not about health care and it’s not about the mandate per se. It’s about changing the Constitution. Not piecemeal with this one. This is huge. If you have it codified as the law of the land that the government can make you buy something? Then, my friends, the Constitution has finally been defeated — and that’s what they can taste. In fact, it’s in their grasp, but it’s a little slippery and they can’t hold onto it.

But it’s right there.

Right there.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Wolf Blitzer was in hysterics moment ago on CNN. He had the congressional correspondent Kate Bolduan on. They had this exchange. We already heard Toobin. Blitzer is beside himself with what happened today on oral arguments.

BLITZER: Kate, you were inside the courtroom! The solicitor general, uh, Donald Verrilli, uh, was he sort of stumbling? Did he not have the right answers? Uh, did he seem unprepared and overly nervous in responding to the conservative justices’ tough questioning?

BOLDUAN: It’s hard to get into his mind. But I can say, if you compare it to yesterday, he did appear to stumble more; almost seem apologetic for some of the answers that he was giving.

RUSH: Yeah. Yeah. So now it’s time to dump on “Virility” here, the government lawyer. Blitzer: “[W]as he sort of stumbling? Did he not have the right answers? Did he seen unprepared…?” Wolf, you go defend this law up there and see how you do. There isn’t anybody who can! Obama’s not even trying to defend it. Pelosi’s only defense is, “What do you mean ‘unconstitutional’? Don’t be silly!” Nobody can defend this. Nobody. It isn’t constitutional.

END TRANSCRIPT

I just wish I was as confident about the outcome that is so panicking Jeffrey Toobin.  But I can imagine Justice Kennedy giving his ruling in agreement with the liberals and – borrowing a phrase from Big Bang Theory’s Sheldon Cooper – saying “BAZINGA!”

Because that’s just how the law often works due to the fact that it is pretty much dominated by outrageous nerds.

But at least it’s fun to watch liberals squirm with the fear that maybe they won’t get their Big Brother takeover of society that they’ve been dreaming about.