Posts Tagged ‘openness’

If You Were REALLY A Liberal, You’d Vote Straight-Ticked Republican. Here’s Why.

October 24, 2014

There are a lot of people – and I’m one of them – who find it distasteful to have to describe my opponents as “liberals.”  They AREN’T “liberal” in the political sense.

Liberalism in the classical sense – and I’M a liberal in that sense – has nothing whatsoever to do with modern American “liberals.”

Note the definition of classical liberalism:

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2][3][4] Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.[5]

Do modern American “liberals” want limited government?  No, they want the opposite; they are the OPPOSITE of liberals.  Do they want to emphasize private property rights?  Do they believe in laissez-faire free markets?  Do they believe in individual liberty and natural law?  Absolutely not.  Do Democrats believe in “progress” in this classical sense?  No.  In fact they demonize it as evil:

This painting (circa 1872) by John Gast called American Progress, is an allegorical representation of the modernization of the new west. Here Columbia, a personification of the United States, leads civilization westward with American settlers, stringing telegraph wire as she sweeps west; she holds a school book as well. The different stages of economic activity of the pioneers are highlighted and, especially, the changing forms of transportation.[1]

So-called “liberals” don’t want ANY of the things that actual, real liberalism embraces.

What modern American “liberals” actually are is “fascist.”

The only component of “fascism” that is NOT directly embraced by the modern American left is the doctrine of racism, which of course these leftists exploit to demonize their opponents.  I submit that yes, in face, modern American “liberals” ARE racist and exploit race and race-baiting and racial politics at every turn to document their racism.  And I submit that “fascism” and “racism” do not need to be connected in any way.  As an example, while Nazi fascism was fundamentally racist, Italian fascism was NOT.

So, while I submit that modern American “liberals” are in fact even fascist in the NAZI sense – and if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party” you’re d damn FOOL if you don’t believe it would be the Democrat Party in America today – let’s exclude that from our calculus.  Because when it comes to all the other criteria for membership as a fascist – belief in a leader with dictatorial powers, belief in the exaltation of the state, belief in the right of the state to dictate to corporations what should be produced and at what price produced goods should be sold, belief in “corporatism” in which people organize into groups a la unions that then negotiate with other groups within the dominance of the state to make “progress” in the fascist sense of “progress,” belief in the power of the state to extend its influence into every sphere of society – modern American liberals are not only fascist but enthusiastically fascist.

Let me quote a remark the Hollywood liberal actress Gwyneth Paltrow recently made at a fundraiser she hosted for our so-called “Democrat” president:

“It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass.”

That’s right.  If the Führer only had more power, he’d be a much better Führer.  And think how wonderful the world would be.

The only problem is that’s actually been tried as socialists banded together in Germany under a man to whom they gave all of the power that he needed to pass the things that he needed to pass.

Now, some liberal is going to come here and say that it’s unfair to associate liberals with this big-time major liberal who just hosted a major fundraiser for Obama.  Kind of like all the Democrats running for re-election saying its unfair to associate them with Obama after they spent the last six years voting with Obama an average of 95% of the damn time.  But in fact Gwyneth Paltrow is not some idiot bimbo here, but an informed leftist describing the mindset of intellectual leftism here.  Let me quote a great liberal of a former era – in fact the Godfather of American liberalism – H.G. Wells:

In a talk at Oxford provocatively titled “Liberal Fascism,” he called for liberalism to be “born again.” After his customary denunciation of parliamentary politics as an anachronism, he let out his frustrations, calling for fascist means to serve liberal ends by way of a liberal elite as “conceited” and as power-hungry as its rivals. “I suggest that you study the reinvigoration of Catholicism by Loyola,” Wells said. “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti.” It was also to Communism that “we shall have to turn—we outsiders, that is, the young people with foresight for enlightened Nazis; I am proposing that you consider the formation for a greater Communist Party; a western response to Russia.”

Wells thought he had found that Western response in 1934, when he met with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and with key members of FDR’s Brains Trust. “My impression of both him and Mrs. Roosevelt,” he wrote, “is that they are unlimited people, entirely modern in the openness of their minds and the logic of their actions.” Here, for a time at least, was another political hero with whom he could identify wholeheartedly. FDR was “continually revolutionary in the new way without ever provoking a stark revolutionary crisis,” wrote the ever-certain Wells. “I do not say that the President has these revolutionary ideas in so elaborate and comprehensive a form as they have come to me, [but] unless I misjudge him, they will presently possess him altogether.” Indeed, FDR was “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order,” and in Brains Trusters Raymond Moley, Felix Frankfurter, and Rex Tugwell, Wells found the nucleus of the new elite, those who were destined to take full power in time.

Consider another of the great fathers of modern American liberalism, Woodrow Wilson:

“If any trait bubbles up in all one reads about Wilson,” rites the historian Walter McDougall, “it is this: he loved, craved, and in a sense glorified power.”

Wilson’s fascination with power is the leitmotif of his whole career.  It informed his understanding of theology and politics, and their intersection.  Power was God’s instrument on earth and therefore was always to be revered.  In Congressional Government he admitted, “I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.”  Such love of power can be found in many systems and men outside the orbit of fascism, but few ideologies or aesthetics are more directly concerned with the glory of might, will, strength, and action.  — Modern Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg, p. 84

Gwynet Paltrow simply stated what is necessarily true about what modern American “liberals” believe and HAVE believed.

Now with that awareness of ACTUAL American “liberal” history, consider Obama.  Consider the massive, sweeping executive orders that the man has passed by dictatorial fiat.

This is a president who has been smacked down by UNANIMOUS Supreme Court rulings condemning his totalitarian power grabs THIRTEEN TIMES.  That has NEVER happened in the entire history of our republic.

Just as a Senate Majority leader seizing more power to block amendments than all the previous Senate Majority Leaders COMBINED TIMES TWO has never happened before.

We live in an age of raw, distilled FASCISM that is coming out of the Democrat Party.

As we speak, Obama is waiting until after the election – because otherwise he would be held accountable for his raw, naked fascist power-grab – to give amnesty to as many as 34 million “future Democrat voters.”

Fascist.

I was nearing the end of my long walk two nights ago and was walking in the parking lot of a gym that I belonged to.  I was four-tenths of a mile from my home in a public place.  A police officer flashed me with his lights and demanded I show my ID.

As I gave the officer my information I gave him a piece of my mind, pointing out that I don’t have the right to walk near my house in a public area in the parking lot of an establishment that I am a member of without being required to produce identification.  But I can vote for the God damned president of the God damned United States – and I used that then as now as a technical term to denote the damnation of this president and the country he represents by the God of the Bible – without being required to produce any identification whatsoever.  And that this is a patently immoral and fascist system.

I mentioned the shenanigans that were taking place as we speak in Colorado and other states by fascists who have bought and rigged the system.

The officer said he completely agreed with me.  “What can we do?” He asked me.

I didn’t have an answer.  Democracy has been perverted by perverted, fascist people with a perverted, fascist end and a perverted, fascist means to achieve that perverted, fascist end.  Because these are the last days and the beast is coming.

As much as the left demonizes the Koch brothers, they are not even ON the list of the top fifty political donors with said list leaning overwhelmingly DEMOCRAT.

Right now, with Obama so far down in the polls and so unpopular with Democrats running for office that Chris Matthews was forced to state on MSNBC:

“It’s like Obama has ebola.”

Obama has “moral Ebola.”  He is a wicked man with a wicked ideology and a wicked means to attain his wicked ends.

But filthy rich leftist who demonize the other side for giving any money to support their values have pumped MILLIONS into the Democrat Party attack machine to try to buy elections.  The money is coming almost entirely from the uber rich because every poll is demonstrating that the Republican base is FAR more energized than the Democrat base.  So where the hell else is the damn money coming from?  Because it sure as hell isn’t coming from the rank and file.

Obama was the first major candidate in history to refuse federal matching funds as he raised over a billion dollars.  It was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party who fundamentally perverted and broke the campaign finance system.

Democrats KNOW they’re liars as they demonize Republicans as being responsible for elections being bought when THEY’RE THE ONES WHO INVENTED IT AND THEY’RE THE ONES WHO ARE DOING IT TO THE TUNE OF TWENTY-TO-ONE.  Look again at the damn list of donors, the numbers, the amounts.

You liberals say you want money out of politics.  Because you are incredibly cynical hypocrites and liars and frauds.

And if these hypocrites and  liars and frauds can’t buy their elections, they’ll do it with fraud.  Because they will stop at nothing to impose their fascist agenda on America any more than Obama will let Congress or the Constitution stop him from imposing his fascist agenda on the American people with the most sweeping and far-reaching and illegal executive order power-grabs in history.

That is why they so rabidly and so militantly oppose ANY ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER NO MATTER HOW REASONABLE IT IS to have any kind of voter identification whatsoever.

I keep hearing Democrats saying there’s no evidence of voter fraud.  WHEN YOU CAN’T CHECK IDs, HOW THE HELL CAN YOU EVER PROVE ANY KIND OF VOTER FRAUD???

Remember refusing to say whether she voted for Obama?  Remember how she punted to some higher principle of being allowed to cast your vote privately rather than admit something that would hurt her as she runs for an office in which all of her votes would necessarily be public when she herself proudly declared that she had voted for Hillary in the primary???  Democrats do the same thing when they punt to some higher principle of voting and that it is immoral to in any way suppress voter turnout.  BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO SUPPRESS THE REPUBLICAN VOTE.

Democrats are on the record desperately searching for “effective messaging to degrade Republican enthusiasm” and thus keep Republicans out of the voting boothsThat from the TOP donor in American politics who by himself contributed more than the top 31 Republican donors COMBINED.

Get off your damned high-horse when you talk about voter suppression, you so-called “liberal.”

So allow me to simply state it as a bald FACT: if you want money out of politics, you vote straight-ticket REPUBLICAN.  Or you’re a hypocrite and a liar like the fascist party you support is a bunch of hypocrites and liars.

Here’s another one.  Do you want “transparency”???

Then don’t you DARE vote for a single damn Democrat.

First of all, let’s talk about the Obama administration’s “transparency.”

Oh, wait.  There ISN’T any.  As even leftist writers in “Democracy Now!” openly admit.  Barack Obama is “the least transparent president in American history.”

An Associated Press analysis called the Obama administration “the least transparent in 2013.”  You get to 2o14 and the change of year was just “One more reason why the Obama administration is the least transparent EVER.”

But let’s move beyond the fact that the Democrat Party machine is the party of opaque fascism.

Let’s move to expose “liberalism” itself as an ideology as being inherently non-transparent.

As a blogger who is openly partisan, I know what it’s like to encounter facts that are either unpleasant to me or hostile to my point-of-view.  And the tendency is to simply ignore it and refuse to talk about it.  And the more rabidly partisan you are, the more you will refuse to deal with facts that you don’t like.

Which is what the mainstream media is doing with the mid-term elections.

When Bush was unpopular, the “news” covered Bush’s unpopularity with glee.  Now that Obama’s every bit as unpopular, all we hear is the crickets chirping.

When Republicans were in danger, the media rushed in to cover the story massively in hopes of finishing Republicans off.  Now that its Democrats in trouble, SILENCE.  ABC ran 36 stories on the 2006 mid-term elections.  How many have they ran now that Democrats are in danger?  ZERO.

You find that a decidedly liberal partisan political agenda outstrips and outweighs any objective reporting of the news by a SIX-TO-ONE MARGIN – 159 stories then when Democrats were ascendant to 15 stories now when Republicans are ascendant.

The mainstream media is nothing short of a Democrat fascist propaganda machine that reports what the Democrat Party wants them to report the way the Democrat Party wants them to report it.

History overwhelmingly proves that if you want a media that will investigate and report on the activities of a presidency and a political party, you will vote to ensure that that president and those politicians are REPUBLICAN.  Because otherwise the fascist so-called “liberal” media will NOT investigate and will NOT report the facts.

So if you’re in any way an honest person and you want openness and transparency, you will NEVER vote Democrat.

Of course, the fact of the matter is that Democrats DO NOT want openness or transparency.  They most certainly do NOT want money out of politics.  They do NOT want any of the things that actual “liberals” would want and in fact they want what only FASCISTS want.  Which is why they vote the way they do for the people who do what the Democrat Party machine does.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TSA Manual: Obama ‘Transparency’ Only For Terrorists, Not Americans

December 9, 2009

Obama promised the most transparent and open administration ever.  For Americans, he has utterly failed to deliver anything remotely close:

From Newsweek back in July of this year:

As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding “secret energy meetings” with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama’s “clean coal” policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged “presidential communications.” The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig’s office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a “new era” of openness, “nothing has changed,” says David -Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. “For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies.”

What we’ll find is that Obama is FAR worse than Bush ever was.  Obama took Bush secrecy as his launching platform and then flew off to Mars with pathological and paranoid secrecy of his own.

How about this one?

From the Associated Press, just three days ago:

WASHINGTON — It’s hardly the image of transparency the Obama administration wants to project: A workshop on government openness is closed to the public.

The event Monday for federal employees is a fitting symbol of President Barack Obama’s uneven record so far on the Freedom of Information Act, a big part of keeping his campaign promise to make his administration the most transparent ever. As Obama’s first year in office ends, the government’s actions when the public and press seek information are not yet matching up with the president’s words.

That’s right: Obama had a workshop on openness that was closed to the public.  He doesn’t actually want an open administration; he merely wants to have the appearance of one.  So we had a workshop on gimmickry on how to spin the truth and conceal reality.

And Obama’s paranoid secrecy gets even more pathetic and absurd from there.  He just got through invoking executive privilege for his freaking SOCIAL SECRETARY! Do you know how ridiculous that is?

Michael Scherer of Time points out how utterly a insane this paranoid invocation of executive privilege is in his article:

But Gibbs’ justification for Rogers’ absence — invoking the separation of powers — nonetheless raised some eyebrows among legal scholars. “I’d completely fall out of my chair if they invoked executive privilege with regards to a social secretary arranging a party,” said Mark J. Rozell, a public policy professor at George Mason, who recently wrote a book on executive privilege.

The writer at American Power notes:

I mean, c’mon, does the Social Secretary sit in on White House domestic and foreign policy briefings? It would sound simply absurd, but given the unprecedented corruption of this regime, nothing can be taken for granted.

Invoking executive privilege for a social secretary is beyond ridiculous.  Unless you think that the number of White House plate settings in the color “mauve” is highly sensitive confidential information that needs to be protected.

So let’s just let it be known: the Obama administration clearly has no intention of applying Obama’s promises of transparency and openness to the American people.

So who IS Obama going to apply his promises of transparency and openness to?

I’m glad you asked:

In a massive security breach, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) inadvertently posted online its airport screening procedures manual, including some of the most closely guarded secrets regarding special rules for diplomats and CIA and law enforcement officers.

The most sensitive parts of the 93-page Standard Operating Procedures manual were apparently redacted in a way that computer savvy individuals easily overcame.

The document shows sample CIA, Congressional and law enforcement credentials which experts say would make it easy for terrorists to duplicate.

The improperly redacted areas indicate that only 20 percent of checked bags are to be hand searched for explosives and reveal in detail the limitations of x-ray screening machines.

The most terrorist-friendly administration in American history just got even friendlier.

On the bright side, at least conservative can’t say Obama isn’t being “transparent” and “open” anymore.  Terrorists are being allowed to learn everything they want as the veils are lifted.

Helen Thomas Shows It’s Official: Barack Obama, Fascist

July 2, 2009

Take a gander at the definition of fascism, and ask yourself how many parts of it Barack Obama has already implemented:

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

Barack Obama has seized control of the auto industry, in spite of the fact that Americans overwhelmingly thought it was a bad idea (with 59% disapproving).  He has taken Bush measures to control the banks in order to control the scope of the financial crisis to an entirely new levels.  And Obama additionally recently seized “unprecedented powers” over Wall Street:

The plan clearly grants the central bank unprecedented new powers to conduct comprehensive examinations of almost any U.S. financial company, as well as any of that company’s foreign affiliates.  It would also give the central bank oversight of any commercial company that owns a banking charter known as an industrial loan company, according to The Journal.

If all that wasn’t bad enough, Obama has now appointed some twenty czars – who are answerable only to him – in a move that is unprecedented in American history.  Reuters said, “Name a top issue and President Barack Obama has probably got a “czar” responsible for tackling it“).  Even longest-serving Senate Democrat Robert Byrd says that “President Obama’s ‘czar strategy’ is an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional oversight and in violation of the Constitution.”

So as a matter of definition and fact, it is entirely appropriate to call Barack Obama “a fascist.”  And fascist leaders have never have paid such trivial matters as a “Constitution” much mind.  And this leading of America into fascism by the left shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

The only thing that anyone could argue was lacking in labeling Barack Obama as “a fascist” has been Obama’s contrived persona as presented in the media.

But that’s been blown away as well.

It’s somewhat surprising who would blow that mask away, but the fact that 40-year liberal White House Press Correspondent Helen Thomas would be the one to do it shows how obviously and how blatantly the Obama administration has sought to manipulate the media in full fascist fashion.

First of all, Helen Thomas has called herself a liberal, as an interview with CBC demonstrates:

Helen Thomas: I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, I’ll be one ’til I die, what else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?

CBC Interviewer: Well, you know, it’s interesting because I’m sure that if somebody from the right was sitting here they would say… if you ask the question what should a reporter be they will say, “Oh, I don’t know, How about objective?”

Barack Obama had a much publicized “town hall” which turns out to have been very “tightly controlled,” with a tightly controlled audience and a tightly controlled list of White-House-approved questions.  Barack Obama wants to keep the real tought questions – such as who will pay for the massive government health care, how much will it cost, and will any bureaucrat ever be allowed to get between a patient and his/her physician and make decisions based on statistics rather than medical needs, just to name a few – out of the spotlight.  And so he has an event that is falsely presented as an open forum, but in actuality being controlled by the White House for propaganda purposes.

And Helen Thomas, to her credit, came unglued as White House Press Secretary Gibbs cheerfully presented the false face of propaganda as though nothing was amiss:

Gibbs: “… But, again, let’s–How about we do this?  I promise we will interrupt the AP’s tradition of asking the first question.  I will let you [Chip Reid] ask me a question tomorrow as to whether you thought the questions at the town hall meeting that the President conducted in Annandale—“

Chip Reid: “I’m perfectly happy to—”

Helen Thomas: “That’s not his point.  The point is the control–”

Reid: “Exactly.”

Thomas: “We have never had that in the White House.  And we have had some, but not– This White House.”

Gibbs: “Yes, I was going to say, I’ll let you amend her question.”

Thomas: “I’m amazed.  I’m amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and—”

Gibbs: “Helen, you haven’t even heard the questions.”

Reid: “It doesn’t matter.  It’s the process.”

Thomas: “You have left open—”

Reid: “Even if there’s a tough question, it’s a question coming from somebody who was invited or was screened, or the question was screened.”

Thomas: “It’s shocking.  It’s really shocking.”

Gibbs: “Chip, let’s have this discussion at the conclusion of the town hall meeting.  How about that?”

Reid: “Okay.”

Gibbs: “I think—“

Thomas: “No, no, no, we’re having it now–”

Gibbs: “Well, I’d be happy to have it now.”

Thomas: “It’s a pattern.”

Gibbs: “Which question did you object to at the town hall meeting, Helen?”

Thomas: “It’s a pattern.  It isn’t the question—”

Gibbs: “What’s a pattern?”

Thomas: “It’s a pattern of controlling the press.”

Gibbs: “How so?  Is there any evidence currently going on that I’m controlling the press–poorly, I might add.”

Thomas: “Your formal engagements are pre-packaged.”

Gibbs: “How so?”

Reid: “Well, and controlling the public—”

Thomas: “How so?  By calling reporters the night before to tell them they’re going to be called on.  That is shocking.”

Gibbs: “We had this discussion ad nauseam and—”

Thomas: “Of course you would, because you don’t have any answers.”

This event follows a situation in which Barack Obama called upon a Huffington Post “reporter” to ask an obviously pre-screened question about Iran that generated a lot of media controversy.  Reporters were legitimately outraged over an unprecedented situation in which an American president gets to pre-screen questions at a supposed official White House press conference.

This follows ABC “teaming up” with President Obama in what amounted to a free hour-long “infomercial” to allow Obama to sell his health care agenda.  If that isn’t disturbing enough, ABC refused to allow paid ads that were critical of the presidents health care agenda during that infomercial.  This wasn’t a question of apparent bias suggesting an unhealthy White House-media relationship; it was in-your-face obvious bias proving an unhealthy White House-media relationship.

Helen Thomas has been a White House correspondent for more than forty years.  And she has been a doctrinaire liberal who clearly would tend to see things from the perspective of the administration in power.  It should be beyond disturbing to you that such a journalist would say, “We have never had that in the White House.”  That she would say, This is really shocking.”  And it should frighten you that she is “amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency” even as they reveal themselves to be the most manipulating and controlling administration in history.  It’s not just about self-righteous hypocrisy; it goes to Nixonian levels of deceit and lust for power.

An attempt by a president to control the press is bad enough; it’s terrifying when that same president has already grabbed unprecedented control over so many other things.

And it gets downright creepy when you consider that this president who is now trying to control the press has actually recieved the most favorable press coverage of any president (nearly TWICE as much favorable coverage as Bush recieved during the same period even while Bush was virtually as “popular” as Obama was).  It makes one wonder: what psychological defect, what pathological need to control, would need to exercise so much control?

This is no small matter.  We now have a president who seized more power than any president in American history – FDR included.  And we now have a Congress that is dominated by the same party as the president, and now posessing a filibuster-proof majority.  For the media to be in bed (to allude to a joke Obama made about NBC anchor Brian Williams) with the president is beyond dangerous – especially with our economy in such a fragile state.

Democracy is doomed in a nation that allows propaganda to dominate – as America is clearly doing.  Because in a democracy, people are expected to vote their will, and they cannot vote their own will when their opinion is being shaped and controlled by propaganda.

Update, July 3: As further proof that what I am arguing is true, take something that happened just yesterday, following the publication of this article.

The leftist Washington Post cancelled a “salon” event in the wake of an uproar over the sheer raving inappropriateness of such an event.  The Newspaper planned to sell access to reporters and Obama administration officials to lobbyist for sums of up to $250,000.   A quote from the Politico article breaking the story:

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.”

The newspaper has an incredibly flimsy excuse for this selling of its credibility, but the entire fiasco merely amounts to yet another of the complete abandonment of journalistic ethics and integrity of the mainstream media.

This is a blurring of the White House and the press that is intended to sell policy to the public.  It is dangerous.  It is facsist.