Abject Liar Alert: Washington Post Documents FACT That Under Obama, More Lobbyists Are Getting Access And Exploiting The System Than Ever

The Washington Post article featured below says the following about Obama’s self-righteous promises:

“More than any president before him, Obama pledged to change the political culture that has fueled the influence of lobbyists.”

What are some things that Obama said en route to taking the presidency in 2008?

“I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president. I’m in this race to take those tax breaks away from companies that are moving jobs overseas and put them in the pockets of hard working Americans who deserve it.” – Barack Obama, in a speech to the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, November 10, 2007.

What else?

“We will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest pacs.”

“They will not fund our party.  They will not run our White House.”

“We’re going to change how Washington works.”

Talk is cheep.  Obama knows that – which is why his presidency has been based entirely on cheep talk and on saying he’d do one thing and then doing another.

Just who is visiting the White House?  And how often are these people getting access?

WH Logs Reveal Obama Met With AFL-CIO & ACLU Lobbyists Over 50 Times Each
by Wynton Hall3 hours ago14post a comment

An interactive and searchable database of White House visitor logs is turning up some interesting findings and reveals a “steady stream of lobbyists” visiting the Obama White House, reports the Washington Post. 

For example, AFL-CIO lobbyist Bill Samuel visited the White House over 50 times, and American Civil Liberties Union lobbyist Laura Murphy visited almost as frequently.

By comparison, Speaker of the House John Boehner has only visited the White House 23 times.

Oprah Winfrey has visited five times. 

To search the 1.3 million distinct names in the database, which span from December 2009 to January 31, 2012, click here.

If you’re going to try to argue that Obama has been reaching out to the Republicans, Speaker  Boehner’s 23 invites versus just two union lobbyists hundred or so invites says different.

Barack Obama has already been documented to be a hypocrite and a liar on lobbyists and special interests pacs.  But this is just out from the Washington Post to show that even as he’s attending more fundraisers than the previous five presidents COMBINED, nothing has changed as Obama campaigns 24-7 for re-election:

White House visitor logs provide window into lobbying industry
By T.W. Farnam, Published: May 20

Before 9 a.m., a group of lobbyists began showing up at the White House security gates with the chief executives of their companies, all of whom serve on President Obama’s jobs council, to be checked in for a roundtable with the president.

At 1 p.m., a dozen representatives from the meat industry arrived for a briefing in the New Executive Office Building. At 3 p.m., a handful of lobbyists were lining up for a ceremony honoring the 2011 World Series champions, the St. Louis Cardinals.

And at 4 p.m., a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs arrived in the Old Executive Office Building for a meeting with Alan B. Krueger, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

It was an unremarkable January day, with a steady stream of lobbyists among the thousands of daily visitors to the White House and the surrounding executive office buildings, according to a Washington Post analysis of visitor logs released by the administration. The Post matched visits with lobbying registrations and connected records in the visitor database to show who participated in the meetings, information now available in a search engine on the Post’s web site.

The visitor logs for Jan. 17 — one of the most recent days available — show that the lobbying industry Obama has vowed to constrain is a regular presence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The records also suggest that lobbyists with personal connections to the White House enjoy the easiest access.

More than any president before him, Obama pledged to change the political culture that has fueled the influence of lobbyists. He barred recent lobbyists from joining his administration and banned them from advisory boards throughout the executive branch. The president went so far as to forbid what had been staples of political interaction — federal employees could no longer accept free admission to receptions and conferences sponsored by lobbying groups.

“A lot of folks,” Obama said last month, “see the amounts of money that are being spent and the special interests that dominate and the lobbyists that always have access, and they say to themselves, maybe I don’t count.”

The White House visitor records make it clear that Obama’s senior officials are granting that access to some of K Street’s most influential representatives. In many cases, those lobbyists have long-standing connections to the president or his aides. Republican lobbyists coming to visit are rare, while Democratic lobbyists are common, whether they are representing corporate clients or liberal causes.

Lobbyist Marshal Matz, for example, who served as an unpaid adviser to Obama’s 2008 campaign, has been to the White House roughly two dozen times in the past 2¹ / ₂ years. He has brought along the general counsel for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the chief executive of cereal maker General Mills and pro bono clients, including advocates for farmers in Africa.

In April 2011, Matz came to the Old Executive Office Building with the owner of Beef Products Inc. to meet with Robin Schepper, a woman he has known for years who heads Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign. The company owner argued that one of his products should be promoted for school lunches, according to two participants in the meeting.

Matz, like most of the lobbyists contacted for comment, declined to be interviewed. But Howard Hedstrom, a Minnesota sawmill owner and president of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition that hired Matz, said: “I appreciate Marshall’s ability to have access. . . . He opened the door, but basically the conversation was carried by those of us who know the issues.”

White House spokesman Eric Schultz referred in a statement to Obama’s “unparalleled commitment to reforming Washington” and noted that this is the first administration to release the visitor records. “The people selected for this article are registered lobbyists, but this article excludes the thousands of people who visit the White House every week for meetings and events who are not,” he said. “Our goal has been to reduce the influence of special interests in Washington — which we’ve done more than any Administration in history.”

Acting on a pledge to make government more transparent, Obama released the visitor logs, although he did so to settle a lawsuit seeking the records. The administration publishes the information monthly, with a three-month delay, so the latest information is from January.

The lack of a list from previous administrations makes it impossible to know whether paid advocates have more or less access than in the past.

The logs show the names of the roughly 2,600 people each day who are given a badge to enter the White House, the Old Executive Office Building, the New Executive Office Building or the vice president’s residence. The visits can be for any purpose, from meetings, group tours and state dinners to basketball with the president.

The database containing the visits lists more than 2 million visits, with 1.3 million distinct names, but includes no other information about their identities or professions.

Many of the lobbyists who appear on the visitor logs are representing organizations that support administration policies. Bill Samuel, lobbyist for the AFL-CIO, for example, has been to the White House more than 50 times since Obama took office. The logs show he met four times with former White House Chief of Staff William M. Daley and three times with Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council.

“We’re not dealing with any state secrets here,” Samuel said, noting that his organization has worked closely with the White House to persuade lawmakers to pass job-boosting legislation.

Other White House allies have visited almost as often, including Nancy Zirkin, a lobbyist for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and Laura Murphy, who represents the American Civil Liberties Union.

“The administration’s stance on lobbying may be a great applause line for people outside the Beltway but there are people here in D.C. who are lobbying on behalf of a multitude of worthy causes,” Murphy said.

Tony Podesta, brother of former Obama aide John D. Podesta, has visited 27 times. And Robert Raben, who represents many liberal causes, has been 47 times.

But lesser-known names are also among the frequent lobbyist visitors, including Tim Hannegan, an informal adviser to Obama’s 2008 campaign with clients such as Comcast and Taser International. He has been to the White House and executive buildings more than 30 times for social events or meetings.

Hannegan did not respond to requests for comment.

In October, Hannegan gathered at the Old Executive Office Building with the CEO and a lobbyist from his client Kelly Services and aides in charge of the president’s jobs council. Among other things, the group discussed a tax credit that Kelly, which supplies temporary office staffers, was pushing to encourage companies to hire unemployed veterans. Obama signed into law the credit, known as the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, a month and a half later.

James McIntire, the Kelly Services lobbyist, noted the advantage of hiring Hannegan, who is very familiar with the White House. “He was aware of many of the administration’s ideas and then directionally where they were heading,” McIntire said.

Hannegan was also the top lobbyist for a coalition of for-profit colleges, which successfully argued for weaker regulations affecting their industry. The Washington Post Co., which owns Kaplan University, also lobbied on that issue.

Among the lobbyists with close ties to the White House is former New York congressman Tom Downey, who is married to Carol Browner, until last year Obama’s energy czar. Downey is the head of Downey McGrath Group, a lobbying firm whose clients include Time Warner Cable and Herbalife, which sells nutrition and dieting products. He has been to the White House complex for meetings and events 31 times.

Downey declined to be interviewed, but a statement from his office noted that before Browner joined the administration, “he took the extraordinary step of discontinuing work for a client with issues in her purview” and did not sign up new clients in that area during her tenure.

On Dec. 10, 2010, Downey held a meeting with economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers and Bill Cheney, the head of the Credit Union National Association, one of Downey McGrath’s clients. John Magill, the top lobbyist for the association, said that the group was pushing to lift the cap on the percentage of assets its members can lend out. The group asked Downey to request the meeting because he is a well-known Democrat.

“Had it been the Bush administration, we probably would have asked one of our Republican consultants to make the call,” Magill said. “That’s the way it works.”

Downey also visited his wife about 20 times in the two years she worked there, usually signed into the building by her aides. The logs show him attending a raft of social events, including holiday parties, a St. Patrick’s day reception and two senior staff dinners.

Andrew Menter, the chief executive of Vivature Health, said that Downey helped set up a meeting for him in December 2010 with Michael Hash, a top health-policy official. The group discussed how the new health-care law might affect Menter’s business, a Texas-based company that provides billing services for college health programs.

“The whole process was interesting for me. It’s a little scary,” Menter said. “You need a lobbyist to get a meeting.”

That last sentence pretty much sums up the abject hypocrisy that is Obama.  From:

“More than any president before him, Obama pledged to change the political culture that has fueled the influence of lobbyists.”

to:

“The whole process was interesting for me. It’s a little scary,” Menter said. “You need a lobbyist to get a meeting.”

So let’s just put those two thoughts together and conclude that:

“More than any president before him, Obama is a cynical, dishonest lying hypocrite.

And it’s more than a little scary.

Obama Bullied A Young Girl. So Why Is The Left ‘BULLYING’ Mitt Romney Over A ‘Factually Incorrect’ Incident That Happened Fifty Years Ago???

The Washington Post published a 5,400-word story to characterize Mitt Romney as a “bully” guilty of having committed “troubling incidents” as a teen age kid.

A couple of things.

First, I think this post puts things into perspective:

 How absurd is the following sentence?

“As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.”

The Washington Post publishes an over 5,400 word story this morning exploring Mitt Romney’s high school career as a prankster, including this story of a time when he teamed up with a group of boy to cut the floppy blond locks of John Lauber, described as a “a soft-spoken new student” who was “perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality.”

That’s just one of many stories ‘exposed’ by the Washington Post, in a story that sets this narrative: Romney was an entitled rich kid who bullied people different than himself to get laughs from his peers.

For men who have attended all boys schools, a hair cutting incident is remarkably tame.

Where are the 5,000 word stories about Obama’s teen years?

I didn’t go to an all-boys school.  I can only imagine what it would have been like (although I did see the movie Porky’s years and years back).

We still know NOTHING about Obama’s early years that Obama didn’t tell us (i.e., we know NOTHING).  But we’ve not got a 5,000 word expose on Romney?

And when did this story come out?  At the most convenient time for Obama:

One day after gay rights moved to the center of the presidential race with Obama’s announcement on same-sex marriage, a Washington Post report about Romney’s high school escapades nearly 50 years ago added a personal dimension to Democrats’ claim that he’s out of step on the sensitive topic.

Which is to say that Wa Po was sitting on this waiting to hurt Romney the most with it and help Obama the most with it.  You know, as opposed to being fair or objective.

Another problem is that there is apparently no factual record that John Lauber ever came out as a homosexual.  He died a few years ago (again, this happened a REALLY long time ago!), so conveniently you can’t ask him.  But it is convenient for the liberal media to say he was “presumed” to be gay.  So it’s a clear case of gay-bashing.

Here’s the thing: John Lauber’s sister – who presumably knows her brother – has come out and issued the following statement:

“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family.”

So the portrayal of the very heart of Wa Po’s 5,400 word article is “factually incorrect.”  If a liberal were to ever have contact with the truth, the allergic reaction would kill them.  Fortunately for them, the world of lies they live in insulates them from facts and from reality.

We’re also told in the Wa Po story:

The paper recounted another incident in which Romney shouted “atta girl” to a different student at the all-boys’ school who, years later, came out as gay.

If we implemented a policy that any boy who has ever referred to another boy in feminine terms should be put to death, there would never be a boy who survived into adulthood ever again – including homosexual boys.  I’ve had the somewhat unfortunate experience to be around a few homosexual men – who call each other “girls” and “bitches” all the time.  Which is to say if you attacked every boy who said “atta girl” to another boy, no group of boys would be more under attack than HOMOSEXUAL boys.

This stuff was never anything.  It is far more a testament to the unhinged propaganda that is coming out from even the most “respected” liberal media sources than it is anything about a young Mitt Romney while in an all-boys high school fifty years ago.

Romney was apparently a pretty straight-laced kid from a pretty straight-laced family.  He never had any behavior problems at school.  Not that the Washington Post cares about the truth or about character assassination of children who would one day grow up to be Republicans.

There are a lot of problems in the Washington Post story that defy journalistic credibility.  One of those problems boils down to Romney’s main accuser.  We find of Stu White:

The Washington Post’s Mitt Romney was a teenage bully story has caused a lot of media thumbsucking today. However, questions about the story itself keep emerging. The Post acknowledges that one of the major sources for the story was an Obama campaign volunteer in 2008. Beyond that, the paper’s been less than transparent. Here’s the original version of the story:

“I always enjoyed his pranks,” said Stu White, a popular friend of Romney’s who went on to a career as a public school teacher and has long been bothered by the Lauber incident.”

However, Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller noted that White told ABC News a different version of the story:

White was not present for the prank, in which Romney is said to have forcefully cut a student’s long hair and was not aware of it until this year when he was contacted by the Washington Post.

After ABC News’s report, the Post had changed its story. It now reads:

“I always enjoyed his pranks,” said Stu White, a popular friend of Romney’s who went on to a career as a public school teacher and said he has been “disturbed” by the Lauber incident since hearing about it several weeks ago, before being contacted by The Washington Post. “But I was not the brunt of any of his pranks.”

Emphasis added. That is a pretty substantive change to the story, yet nowhere does the Post note that a correction/clarification has been made.

If a conservative Republican Tea Party activist had made a claim about Obama being a jerk as a kid, would the Washington Post have accepted those claims???  Because that’s exactly what they did with a LIBERAL ACTIVIST who said Romney was a jerk as a kid.  And it damn well turns out that he wasn’t even present for the central slam of the story and didn’t even KNOW about it until the Wa Po interviewer brought it up. 

And then the “newspaper” wrote up this account by a clearly activist and biased individual with an axe to grind who wasn’t even there and didn’t even know about it to make it sound like he’d always been troubled with how evil Mitt Romney was about an incident he never even knew had happened???

From “long been bothered by the Lauber incident” to “he has been “disturbed” by the Lauber incident since hearing about it several weeks ago, before being contacted by The Washington Post…”????

You don’t get more biased or more propagandistic than this Wa Po crap.

Ben Shapiro tears into this dishonest Wa Po story like a hungry pit bull going after a crippled poodle:

That Romney. You never know whose life he was going to ruin (subtext: it could be yours!).

Romney, the Post claims, was mean enough that he once dumped a girl:

“The person who wrote the most consistently was Mitt,” said Lyn Moon Shields, who dated Romney in the fall semester of 1964. Gentlemanly and fun, Romney was her best date in her six years at school. He called every evening and picked her up in his powder blue Rambler and drove her up and down Woodward Avenue on weekends, and to school dances where she wore blue-green formal dresses and he a dark suit and tie. “Things were so innocent,” she said. “We kissed each other, I think Mitt would admit to that.” One day, she said, Romney just stopped calling. He had taken an interest in a Kingswood sophomore.

Wow. Back in high school, Romney had the gall to break up with someone. No word from the Post on why a young Barack Obama was sleeping with a girl, refusing to tell her he loved her, then dumping her for racial incompatibility.

The Post is clearly doing rearguard action for Obama on his same-sex marriage blow-up. But they’ve done so by destroying their journalistic credibility.

Back to that whole “where’s the damn stories about Obama?” meme.

It’s a good meme, because there happens to be a lot of substance behind it.  For example, in a story that slams Mitt Romney for being an anti-gay bully (when if anything he was an anti-bottle-job-blond-hair bully), where’s the objectivity by which Wa Po finds out if there are any similar incidents from Obama’s past?

The media will never bother to dig through Obama’s past the way they’ve repeatedly dug through Sarah Palin’s, of course, but Obama himself revealed he bullied a girl:

The above text comes directly from President Obama’s first memoir, “Dreams From My Father” and recounts an incident which occurred while he was in middle school. When our president became the subject of taunts from his fellow classmates, he decided to shove a little girl named Coretta. Although he chronicles his feelings of regret, he never does not offer her an apology.

When the Washington Post does a story titled, “Barack Obama’s despicable history as a girl-shoving misogynist,” that’ll be the day.  When the Washington Post describes this lurid story as Obama shoving a girl, causing her to stagger back and flee in obvious terror and humiliation from his physical and emotional attack and needs to resign from office for his hate crime, THEN you can go after Romney.  Until then, kindly shut the hell up.

When on the one hand the Wa Po and the Democrat machine argue that something that – according to the “victim’s” own FAMILY  is FACTUALLY INCORRECT PROPAGANDA, and which happened FIFTY DAMN YEARS AGO – is valid, then why is Obama’s photographed and admitted hard-core drug use as an adult man irrelevant???  Because it’s a HELL of a lot more likely Obama is snorting coke and smoking crank in the White House basement than it is that Mitt Romney is cutting kids’ hair off, you know.

What the mainstream media is doing to Mitt Romney reminds me of my older brother grabbing my own arm and then asking me why I’m hitting myself.  It’s the liberal MEDIA who are the most vicious bullies of all.

Dishonest Propagandist Government Network NPR Fires Juan Williams For Muslim Remark

Mainstream media outlets an d the apparatchiks who staff them reach low after low; and then keep right on digging.

Monday night Juan Williams appeared on Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly Program and said:

Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don’t want to get your ego going.  But I think you’re right.  I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.

I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot.  You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country.  But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

Now, I remember also when the Times Square bomber was at court — this was just last week — he said: “the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood.” I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts.

NPR is basically firing Juan Williams the day after getting $1.8 million from far-leftist billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations to buy at least 100 “journalists” at NPR.

If that isn’t blatant enough, the same day far leftist radical George Soros gave that $1.8 million to NPR, he similarly gave another million dollars to the profoundly leftwing Media Matters, with the express purpose of attacking Fox News.  From Newsmax:

Billionaire currency titan George Soros, long a patron of liberal political causes in the United States, is giving $1 million to Media Matters in what he says is an attempt to stop the growing popularity of Fox News.

And, just to complete the picture, Media Matters proceeds to tell us the real sin of Juan Williams – appearing on Fox News – as it turns its demonization campaign to Mara Liasson.  From millionaire Media Matters:

News that Juan Williams’ contract with NPR was terminated over comments he made about Muslims while appearing on Fox News shines a spotlight on the radio network’s evergreen controversy: Its continued affiliation with Fox News. Specifically, NPR’s Mara Liasson and her long-running association with Fox News has often raised questions.  This might be the proper time for NPR to finally address that thorny issue.

So liberals, being the dishonest lying slime that they are, can’t just say, “We’re firing Juan Williams because he’s appearing on the most trusted name in news, which and we just can’t have that.”

A study last year by George Mason University stated, “Our results show a very significant liberal bias.”  And identified Fox News as the most balanced.  NPR wants bias, and they most certainly don’t want balance.

They don’t have the decency to say that former Nazi collaborator George Soros bought them 100 paid-in-fill propagandists, and probably instructed NPR to clean house of anyone who won’t properly march to his goose-step.

Instead NPR relied upon the favorite tactic of the left – the politics of personal destruction – in order to try to personally destroy Juan Williams’ character and integrity.

That’s just the kind of slimy reptiles these people are.

And to add “slimy” to “reptilian,” the NPR CEO issued a comment that implied that Juan Williams needed to see a psychiatrist.  Which is to say that that this woman – who just fired the only black journalist on her entire network – should fire herself for bigotry.

A few things come to mind as I think about the craven excuse NPR used to get rid of Juan Williams:

1) Juan Williams was fired for telling the truth, of all things.  You just can’t have truth in liberal “journalism.”  Because truth is an embarrassment to the left.

A Pew survey documented that journalists describe themselves as being even MORE LIBERAL than they were in the past.  Which is frankly amazing, given how liberal journalists were in the past.

NPR’s own ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, has acknowledged that NPR held a bias.

So NPR fired Juan Williams under the guise that Williams took a “personal public positions on [a] controversial issue.” But that wasn’t why he was fired, or else NPR journalist Nina Totenberg would have been fired for wishing that Republican Jessie Helms or his grandchildren would get AIDS.  That wasn’t why he was fired, or NPR journalist Andrei Codrescu who called the Christian doctrine of the Rapture “crap” wouldn’t still be part of the NPR team.  That wasn’t why he was fired, or else Cokie Roberts would have been fired for saying that “Actually, Beck is worse than a clown. He’s more like a terrorist who believes he has discovered the One True Faith, and condemns everyone else as a heretic. And that makes him something else as well — a traitor to the American values he professes so loudly to defend.” It very clearly and obviously wasn’t that Juan Williams expressed a “public position on a controversial issue” that got him fired; it was that he expressed such a position that did not conform to doctrinaire liberal political correctness.  And in particular, it was that he appeared on Fox News, a network that has the audacity to actually allow conservatives to offer (along with many liberals) their point of view.

Further, “government-funded” and “journalism” go together like ketchup and milkshakes.  NPR and PBS stand as embodiments of disgrace to journalism.  And when you add “George Soros” to “government funded,” you get something that is quintessentially dangerous to both journalism and democracy itself.

2) Every mainstream media outlet is fundamentally hypocritical as well as dishonest regarding Islam as the “religion of peace.”

On the one hand, we are constantly told that Islam is peaceful.  And that anyone who fears Islam is some kind of a bigot.

And yet, on the other hand, the same “journalists” and news outlets that say this to us are themselves so piss-in-their-pants afraid of this peaceful religion becoming über-violent at the drop of a hat that they constantly censor themselves lest they end up as terrorist murder victims.

Case in point: the Washington Post, the Denver Post, and many other mainstream media papers, refused to allow the following Non Sequitur cartoon:

“Piss Christ” – an image of Jesus Christ on a cross in a jar of urine – okay.  A cartoon that doesn’t even show Muhammad?  Not okay.

Why?  Because the people the leftist journalists so dramatically insist are “peaceful” will launch a murderous jihad if they feel insulted or offended in any way, shape, or form.

If NPR, the New York Times, the “ladies” of The View, or anyone else, wants to tell me that Muslims are peaceful, or that Islam is the religion of peace, let them publish pictures of an image of The Prophet immersed in a jar of urine.  So we can see Islamic “tolerance” in action.

And don’t let them hide and change their identities like cartoonist/journalist Molly Norris recently did, because THEY HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM THESE PEACE-LOVING MUSLIMS, DO THEY???

The fact of the matter is that the very mainstream media news outlets that are the most vocal in telling us that fear of Islam equals bigotry are in point of fact the most terrified of Islam.  And journalists have literally bowed down to the point of becoming the most pathetic form of useful idiots out of fear of the thing they constantly tell the American people they must not be afraid of.

3) NPR, in firing Juan Williams, committed a terrorist act itself.  With this firing as their “jihadist propaganda bomb.”

I think that’s what Rush Limbaugh was getting at when he started referring to Muslims today as “Middle Eastern liberals.”

Let’s face it.  This wasn’t just about Juan Williams.  This was about any journalist who dares to cross the line from propaganda to truth.  If you tell the truth – especially on the most trusted network in news – they will bury you.

The idea was to strike terror in any journalist who would say, “I’m going to be objective for once in my life.”

I always got the sense that Juan Williams was both a personally gracious man and a straight shooter who called it as he saw it.

Now, having said all of that, I found most of Juan Williams’ offerings to be frankly idiotic.  And if the man was to be fired by anyone, it should have been by Fox News for offering mostly stupid, doctrinaire liberal crap.

Instead, he was fired by the left for telling the truth, and for appearing on a network these First Amendment-despising, “Fairness Doctrine” propagandists despise.

Latest Mainstream Media Bias Scandal: WaPo Reporter Covering Conservatives Outed In Emails

Imagine the New York Times assigning a reporter to cover liberalism and the liberal agenda.  They pass this reporter off as being himself a liberal, but he’s really a plant.  He personally despises liberals and hates the liberal agenda, and is only on staff to sabotage the liberal movement by continually reporting a slanted picture of on only the worst aspects of liberalism.

Don’t worry, liberals.  You can stop hyperventilating.  Such a thing will never happen.  You don’t have to worry.  Every story you read will be doctrinally pure leftist propaganda.

But that is precisely what the mainstream media does to conservatives 60 seconds every minute, 60 minutes every hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and so on.

The leftwing bias and total lack of objectivity is simply unrelenting.

The perennially dishonest left have destroyed journalism.  It is dead.

Breaking: WaPo’s David Weigel Resigns After More Conservative-bashing Emails Disclosed
By Lachlan Markay
Fri, 06/25/2010

UPDATE | Lachlan Markay – 6/25, 3:00 PM: A roundup of reactions from all over the blogosphere and twitterverse below the fold. Washington Post blogger Dave Weigel resigned today after a host of offensive e-mails surfaced revealing his disdain for much of the right – the beat he was charged with covering. Fishbowl DC, which published a number of those emails yesterday, confirmed the resignation with the Post just after noon.

Yesterday I reported on leaked emails from Weigel to a listserve of liberal journalists bashing conservatives and conservatism – you know, the people Weigel is supposed to be covering. As bad as those email were, a plethora of messages from Weigel published in the Daily Caller take the conservative-bashing to a whole new level.

The new emails also demonstrated that yesterday’s quasi-apology from Weigel was really not as sincere as he claimed. He said that he made some of his most offensive remarks at the end of a bad day. But these new emails show that there was really nothing unique about them, and that offensive remarks about conservatives really were nothing new or uncommon.

Many of the misguided statements were clearly made in jest – “I hope he fails,” Weigel said of Rush Limbaugh after the radio host was hospitalized with chest pains, a reference to Limbaugh’s hope that Obama’s agenda would fail. But other bouts of name calling – ragging on the “outbursts of racism” from “amoral blowhard” Newt Gingrich, for instance – were obviously not jokes.

The Daily Caller revealed some quite stunning statements from the JournoList in its piece today:

“Honestly, it’s been tough to find fresh angles sometimes–how many times can I report that these [tea party] activists are joyfully signing up with the agenda of discredited right-winger X and discredited right-wing group Y?” Weigel lamented in one February email.

In other posts, Weigel describes conservatives as using the media to “violently, angrily divide America.” According to Weigel, their motives include “racism” and protecting “white privilege,” and for some of the top conservatives in D.C., a nihilistic thirst for power.

“There’s also the fact that neither the pundits, nor possibly the Republicans, will be punished for their crazy outbursts of racism. Newt Gingrich is an amoral blowhard who resigned in disgrace, and Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite who was drummed out of the movement by William F. Buckley. Both are now polluting my inbox and TV with their bellowing and minority-bashing. They’re never going to go away or be deprived of their soapboxes,” Weigel wrote.

Of Matt Drudge, Weigel remarked,  “It’s really a disgrace that an amoral shut-in like Drudge maintains the influence he does on the news cycle while gay-baiting, lying, and flubbing facts to this degree.”…

Republicans? “Ratf–king [Obama] on every bill.” Palin? Tried to “ratf–k” a moderate Republican in a contentious primary in New York. Limbaugh? Used “ratf–king tactics” in urging Republican activists to vote for Hillary Clinton in open primaries after Obama had all but beat her for the Democratic nomination.

Weigel continued to defend these outbursts, as he did when contacted by the Daily Caller. “My reporting, I think, stands for itself,” he said. “I’ve always been of the belief that you could have opinions and could report anyway… people aren’t usually asked to stand or fall on everything they’ve said in private.”

First, there’s the issue of whether anything said on a 400-member email list can really be considered “private.” “There’s no such thing as off-the-record with 400 people,” Nation columnist Eric Alterman told Politico.

But the real issues are, first, whether such mean-spirited jabs demonstrate a disdain for many conservatives that precludes Weigel from covering them fairly (he did label gay marriage opponents “bigots,” after all), and second, whether the Post feels it is appropriate to have someone hostile to the right covering conservatism, while a through-and-through liberal in Ezra Klein covers the left.

The Post signaled that it did not consider Weigel’s comments to be a serious problem. It seems that attitude has changed.

Managing Editor Raju Narisetti told Politico that “Dave’s apology to readers reflects he understands, in calmer hindsight, the need to exercise good judgment at all times and of not throwing stones, especially when operating from inside an echo-filled glass house that is modern-day digital journalism.” He added that it was “time to move on.”

The Post declined comment on Weigel’s resignation.

*****UPDATE

Below is a roundup of reactions from prominent online commentators since Weigel’s resignation.

Politico’s Ben Smith paints Weigel as an unfortunate casualty of the collapsing facade of objectivity in the Post’s online efforts.

The current flap over Washington Post blogger Dave Weigel has its roots in a fact that suprised me when I learned of it earlier this year: The Post appears to have hired Weigel, a liberal blogger, under the false impression that he’s a conservative. The new controversy over the revelation that he’s liberal is primarily the Post’s fault, not his, except to the degree that he allowed the paper’s brass to put him in an unsustainable position.

Ed Morrissey seems to share this sentiment:

Having an anthropological study of conservatives, such as Dave provides, would work if the Post had a similar anthropological look at liberals from someone on the outside to balance it.  As it stands, however, Post readers get a Conservatives In The Mist approach that seems to predicate itself on the belief that they can’t figure conservatives and conservatism out for themselves.  That’s not a reflection on Dave, but a criticism of the editorial decision to pursue a one-sided strategy of critical analysis at the Post.

And indeed, one of the most interesting elements of the reaction to Weigel’s resignation seems to be the admission, or at least the acknowledgment, that he is, in fact, a liberal. The “libertarian” label seemed to stick.

But today,  Weigel’s liberalism was treated as a given. Even Keith Olbermann, on whose show Weigel is a regular guest, tweeted his agreement: “If the WaPost didn’t know @DaveWeigel  wasn’t a conservative blogger, it’s time for the Post to FOLD. My full support is yours, David.”

At the Atlantic, Jefferey Goldberg made that observation almost in passing. Goldberg went on to make what has been (somewhat surprisingly) a sparsely invoked argument in the hours since Weigel’s resignation: that the crudity of his comments itself was enough to sully his reporting.

Media consultant Josh Treviño claimed on Twitter that “nearly all journalists mock their subjects. Maybe not the ones covering elementary schools. But all the others.” But Goldberg disagrees:

“How could we destroy our standards by hiring a guy stupid enough to write about people that way in a public forum?” one of my friends at the Post asked me when we spoke earlier today. “I’m not suggesting that many people on the paper don’t lean left, but there’s leaning left, and then there’s behaving like an idiot.”

I gave my friend the answer he already knew: The sad truth is that the Washington Post, in its general desperation for page views, now hires people who came up in journalism without much adult supervision, and without the proper amount of toilet-training. This little episode today is proof of this. But it is also proof that some people at the Post (where I worked, briefly, 20 years ago) still know the difference between acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior, and that maybe this episode will lead to the reimposition of some level of standards.

Others, such as NewsBusters contributor Dan Gainor and National Review’s Jim Geraghty, attributed Weigel’s decline not so much to the language he used as to his style of reporting; his tenancy to seek out the fringe elements of the movement, and focus on them, rather than on mainstream conservatism.

As Gainor said in a statement today,

Weigel’s rapid meltdown showed the incredible danger for traditional media to play fast and loose mixing news and opinion. The Post was either unwilling or unable to find a neutral reporter to cover conservatives. Nor did it hire an actual advocate as it has done for the left with Ezra Klein. Instead, the Post brought in someone who tried to tear down conservatives and look at the right as if he were visiting a zoo. This disaster should be proof enough that their method was a failure.

Geraghty echoed Gainor’s comments in a blog post, saying

Dave only fits the loosest definition of conservative; I think he’s best defined as a left-leaning, idiosyncratic libertarian. He is also a political junkie with a voluminous appetite for news and a dogged reporter. From where I sit, he spends too much time writing about fringe figures and trends that are largely irrelevant to national politics (Orly Taitz, Birthers, etc.) but perhaps that’s his genuine fascination and/or what his employers wanted. Righties suspected Dave wanted to spotlight the freakiest and least appealing self-proclaimed “conservatives”; I suspect that at least part of Dave’s mentality was simply, “You have got to hear what this lunatic is saying.”

Journalism is a field that basically only hires liberals.  Like another liberal-dominated field – education – it basically maintains standards of ideological purity that rival the Nazi or Communist Parties in their worst days  of yore.  Journalism is dead in America, and liberals were the murderers.

Education is likewise dead.  Like the unions that destroyed every single other industry they touched, liberals have destroyed education – turning it into leftist indoctrination – just as liberals turned journalism into leftist propaganda.

You will never see a day in which half of all reporters, journalists, and op-ed writers are conservatives.  The status quo is hard-core liberalism; and the field of journalism will maintain that status quo at absolutely all costs – even as the liberal dinosaur media shrink into bankruptcy or laughably low ratings and readership.

Which means any scintilla of objectivity is a farce.

The most asinine thing of all is this notion that reporters – who are so overwhelmingly liberal it is absurd – somehow believe that they can think conservatives are not only stupid, but genuinely evil, while at the same time believing that liberals are both intelligent and virtuous, are somehow able to cover both sides fairly and objectively.

In that regard, journalists are so arrogant, and so transcendentally stupid, that it defies all rationality.

Allah Be Praised For American Mainstream Media, Say Terrorists Who Want To Murder Americans

Allah be praised for American liberals, and for their liberal mainstream media.  Without these useful idiots, more of us glorious soldiers of Allah would die, and more infidel American dogs would live.

The American mainstream media is completely useless.  Except to terrorists who want to murder as many Americans as possible.  Papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post are VERY useful to them.

Washington Post Article Saved the Life of Terrorist Anwar Al Awlaki
Posted on 05/24/2010 by jveritas

In his most recent interview with an Al Qaeda media outlet terrorist “Anwar Al Awlaki” the US born Al Qaeda terrorist said that he stopped his communications when he read in the Washington Post that he is being tracked by US intelligence. He said that once he stopped his communications he left the area in Yemen where he was hiding and then this area was bombed by US airstrikes.

He also said that both terrorists “Nidal Hassan” who killed 13 of our troops at Fort Hood and “Omar Farouk Abd Al Moutaleb” who had the failed terrorist attack on the Delta Detroit plane on Christmas Day 2009 were his students and that he is honored and proud that they were his students.

In his interview he called for every muslim serving in the US military to imitate what terrorist “Nidal Hassan” did and kill US soldiers.

He said that he is very proud of his role to incite violence against Americans.

The text of his video interview with “Al Malahem” which the media outlet of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula can be found on this link below which is from “al falojah” terrorist forum. It is in Arabic.

http://alfaloja.ws/vb/showthread.php?t=117974

Below is the translation of terrorist Anwar Al Awlaki statement regarding the Washington Post article:

Beginning of the translation

Question from “Malahem” Al Qaeda media: The Americans are saying that after Nidal Hassan attack they tighten the noose around your neck, they closed your website on the internet and now you are being chased, is that true?

Answer from terrorist Al Awlaki: Yes they closed this website after Nidal Hassan attack, I wrote on the website an article approving of what Nidal Hassan did and then after that they closed the website. After that I read an article in the Washington Post that they are monitoring my communications so I was forced to stop these communications and left the area and then after that the American bombardment occurred.

End of the translation

Here is a transcript of the interview in which Al Awlaki gives credit to the Washington Post for saving his wretched life.

It’s hard to know for certain which Washington Post article Al Awlaki is referring to: liberal media are so quick to alert terrorists and undermine American national security that there are many such articles to pick from.  But this Wa Po story is a likely candidate.

Basically, about the only time the mainstream media reports the truth anymore is when they’re trying to tip off terrorists like the good useful idiots they are.

And Barack Hussein Obama, of course, has repeatedly criticized Fox News for not being more like the “useful idiot” media.

I’m sure Al Awlaki would approve this message: “Help spread terrorism, and death by jihad.  Support the American mainstream media.  We surely do.”

Even Liberals Beginning To Warn Of Obama ‘Debt Tsunami’

We are heading for a cliff, and Barack Obama keeps pushing the accelerator to the floorboard.

It is bad.  It is so bad even the liberals on the editorial board of the Washington Post are aware of it.

The Debt Tsunami: The CBO’s latest warning on the long-term deficit is scarier than ever

Sunday, June 28, 2009

THE CONGRESSIONAL Budget Office has a tough job: to provide America’s lawmakers with a reality check on their tax and spending plans. Not surprisingly, the CBO’s projections are not always received cheerfully. Both President Obama and leading congressional Democrats were less than thrilled when the CBO estimated that the costs of universal health coverage would be much higher than advertised. To be sure, projecting the cost of legislation involves making assumptions and constructing models that may or may not prove accurate 10 years down the road. Nonetheless, the CBO, with its tradition of scholarly independence, is the best available arbiter, and Congress must heed its numbers — like them or not.

Now comes the CBO with yet more news of the sort that neither Capitol Hill nor the White House is likely to welcome: its freshly released report on the federal government’s long-term financial situation. To put it bluntly, the fiscal policy of the United States is unsustainable. Debt is growing faster than gross domestic product. Under the CBO’s most realistic scenario, the publicly held debt of the U.S. government will reach 82 percent of GDP by 2019 — roughly double what it was in 2008. By 2026, spiraling interest payments would push the debt above its all-time peak (set just after World War II) of 113 percent of GDP. It would reach 200 percent of GDP in 2038.

This huge mass of debt, which would stifle economic growth and reduce the American standard of living, can be avoided only through spending cuts, tax increases or some combination of the two. And the longer government waits to get its financial house in order, the more it will cost to do so, the CBO says.

It’s actually worse than the Washington Post editorial board states.  The 113% debt-to-GDP ratio cited by the Post used a different measuring standard than what the Congressional Budget Office uses today.  When the debt-to-GDP raises to 82% in 2019, it will be the equivalent of 144% when converted to the same standard that was used to calculate the WWII figure.

Let me illustrate: in 1945 the debt-to-GDP was 115% as found at scribd.com (it actually went to 121% in 1946); the same chart – which runs to 2007 – shows the debt-to-GDP as 65% in 2007.  But the Congressional Budget Office figure for the year 2007 shows the debt-to-GDP as 36.9% in 2007 (and 40.8% in 2008).  Clearly very different numbers.

So we have to do some converting to make the numbers comparable.  And what we find when we take that into account is that our debt-to-GDP ratio in 2019 will be 144.4% rather than 82% [65/39.6 = 1.76;     82 X 1.76 = 144.44].

So, if the Washington Post is going to provide us with debt-to-GDP figures from 1945, they need to state the current and future debt-to-GDP figures in the same terms.

Not only will our debt-to-GDP be considerably higher than it was at the highest point in our nation’s history due to Barack Obama’s frankly insane spending, but other factors need to be considered which reveal the real truth to be even worse yet.

Namely, during the WWII and post-WWII era, American productivity was at its height.  U.S. industrial capacity literally stunned the world.  We could built more tanks than the Germans believed possible; we could build so many aircraft that by wars’ end the U.S. were able to fly more planes on one single mission than Japanese intelligence said existed in the entire world.  And as the war ended, and as American factories geared toward peacetime production to provide a world whose industry had been devastated by war, we were able to produce as had never been seen before.

This is clearly not true anymore.  Today, we are watching our industrial capacity go bankrupt, in a trend that started years ago and has accelerated dramatically in recent times.

You cannot spend your way out of debt; you can only produce your way out of debt.  When American productivity was at its apex, we could recover from a high debt-to-GDP ratio.  But what can we do now and in the future, when we have lost that productive capacity?  Exactly how will we produce our way out of anything?

As another problem that is about as serious, during the WWII era America rationed and saved.  Even as Americans were rationing every commodity for the war effort, they were also investing in war bonds and Treasury bills.  So when the United States government went into high debt in the 1940s, who did they owe that debt to?  American citizens.  And as the U.S. government repaid that debt, it was being fed right back in to the U.S. economy.

Is that true anymore?  Not even close.  The U.S. population no longer rations, and it certainly doesn’t save.  And thus today, our debt is largely owned by foreign countries (particularly China).  So as our debt goes up and ever upward, the U.S. government is most certainly NOT feeding the American economy when it makes its interest payments; it is feeding China’s economy.

So, in real terms, our debt-to-GDP will be higher than it’s ever been (144.4% in 2019, soaring way past the 200s in 2038), and at the same time our means to accommodate that debt will be at an all-time low.  Thus, while our debt went down steadily after 1946, it will be going up dramatically as we enter our very bleak future.

In other words, we’re screwed.  We are really, truly screwed.

And as shocking as these numbers already are, they do not take into account the trillions of dollars that will be racked up as the Democrats advance their government health care agenda and their cap-and-trade fiasco.  The former will add trillions of dollars in costs even as the latter muzzles our economic output to the tune of trillions of dollars.

As the government tries to calculate the cost of health care “reforms,” realize something: in 1965, nobody (but conservatives) ever even began to dream that the Medicare program would soar to an unfunded obligation that is now over Thirty-six TRILLION dollars.  The next time someone tells you that the government will be able to create “savings,” remind him of the $36 trillion black hole known as Medicare.  And then laugh hysterically in his face.

It won’t get better.  Rather, it’s going to get so much worse that it would frankly be less frightening to be having Jason Voorhees chasing you around in a horror movie.  The baby boomer generation began qualifying for Social Security in 2008.  In two years, they will begin to qualify for Medicare.  From that point on, wave after wave of 77 million retiring baby boomers will begin to swamp the system for the next 20 years.  Talk about a “tsunami.”

To make matters even worse, our population is aging, and health care costs are going to “necessarily skyrocket” (to borrow a phrase Obama used to describe the costs that would result from his energy plan) no matter what we do.  In 1945, we had a worker-to-retiree ratio of 42 workers paying into the system for every retiree consuming benefits.  Now we have a 3-1 ratio.  And by 2030 it will be only 2-1.  It kind of makes me miss those 50 million potential workers that we murdered in the abortion mills.

There is no possible way out system can escape disaster.  And on top of that, we have a president and a Congress that is compiling more debt faster than any president and Congress in history, bar none.  President Obama racked up more debt in his few months in office – $1.8 trillion – than President Bush did in seven years (dealing with 9/11, two wars, and Hurricane Katrina to boot).

A New York Post article points out:

And these deficits aren’t merely a temporary result of the recession; the president’s budget would run deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion a year for the next decade.

The national debt would double. In other words, Obama would run up as much government debt as every president in US history from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined. Put simply, he’d dump $84,352 per household of new debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren over the next decade.

Given what we face, does more spending and more debt at a faster rate than has ever been compiled in human history seem sane to you?

One day, not very far off now, Americans will realize that they voted for their nation’s national suicide in voting for Barack Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress.  They will realize that they voted for their children or grandchildren to struggle, and quite possibly starve to death as their country collapses under the weight of its own massive debt.

But until that time, we will continue merrily along as we hurtle faster and faster toward food riots and a total societal collapse.

The beast is coming.  I pray you will be ready.