Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Obama Administration Fails the Transparency Test

by Roger Aronoff on Thursday, September 25th, 2014

This is article 459 of 461 in the topic Government Corruption

We have often pointed out the incestuous relationship that exists between the Obama administration and the mainstream media—a media that have largely bought the administration’s line that matters such as Benghazi, Operation Fast and Furious, and the IRS abuses amount to phony scandals. Throughout his presidency, President Obama has assumed control over media messaging by restricting the information and sources that journalists can access, while simultaneously providing prepackaged products that serve as government-sponsored press releases that the media are welcome to use. And, so far, the media have bent to these restrictions with little protest.

Where, for example, is the mainstream media protest that they are not allowed to embed with the soldiers conducting the air war against the Islamic State? “As the United States ramps up its fight against Islamic militants, the public can’t see any of it,” states one of eight criticisms from Sally Buzbee, Associated Press Washington Bureau Chief. “News organizations can’t shoot photos or video of bombers as they take off—there are no embeds. In fact, the administration won’t even say what country the S. bombers fly from.”

In fact, the information regarding Syrian attacks is provided by the government. “At a briefing for reporters, military officials showed photographs and video of before and after shots of the targets hit in Syria,” reported The New York Times on September 23. Perhaps the Obama administration doesn’t want reporters embedded in the fight against the Islamic State because it fears that the closer to the front line they are, the more journalists may be kidnapped and beheaded by terrorists and videos of such beheadings disseminated as vile propaganda. Or maybe they don’t want the world to see the collateral damage that will surely occur.

The dearth of first-hand journalism allowed by the administration has resulted in creative maneuvers by the press here at home, as well. The Washington Post ran a video on its website’s Post TV that was little more than a clip of a Whitehouse.gov segment—without commentary to clarify President Obama’s speech. And, during our border crisis and rapid influx of illegal immigrants, the Obama administration forbade the press to take pictures or ask questions during their visit to Fort Sill. Instead, government officials promised they would provide sanctioned photographs later.

Now, The Washington Post reports how even the most minute details are deleted or massaged by the White House from press pool reports. Such pool reports “are supposed to be the news media’s eyes and ears on the president, an independent chronicle of his public activities. They are written by reporters for other reporters, who incorporate them into news articles about President Obama almost every day,” reports Paul Farhi for the Post.

“Journalists who cover the White House say Obama’s press aides have demanded—and received—changes in press-pool reports before the reports have been disseminated to other journalists,” reports Farhi. “They say the White House has used its unusual role as the distributor of the reports as leverage to steer coverage in a more favorable direction.”

What exactly is going on with the most “transparent” administration ever? Doesn’t it value press freedom? And what about a little self-respect from the media, which would never allow a Republican administration to treat them this way?

Perhaps the media won’t be silent on this issue for much longer.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Where is our voice in the wilderness touting conservatism?

by Lloyd Marcus on Sunday, September 21st, 2014

This is article 27 of 27 in the topic Conservatives

For crying out loud, will someone “pleeeeease” take a stand for Conservatism? Someone forwarded this article to me, “Why Are Republicans Suddenly Leaning Left?” http://bit.ly/1qEJAvj The article cites numerous examples of the GOP obviously believing it must embrace at least lukewarm Liberalism while backing away from Conservatism to win elections.

The article mentioned that Mitt Romney avoided saying “Republican” in an ad supporting Scott Brown’s Senate run. Romney said in the ad referring to Brown, “will buck his own party to do what’s right for New Hampshire.” Romney’s statement implies that Conservatism can be mean, but rest assured that Brown will push back if Republicans go down that road. This hogwash drives me nuts because Conservatism is not mean, Liberalism is mean!

Mr Romney you are an honorable man. But, if you are not going to boldly articulate the superior attributes of Conservatism; how it is rooted in compassion and why it is most beneficial to all Americans – if you are afraid to explain the foundational evils of Liberalism, please stay home; out of the 2016 presidential race.

In the first 2012 presidential debate, Romney kicked Obama’s butt with truth and facts. Then, Romney went on “prevent defense” in the next debate. His behavior said, “I have Obama on the ropes. I’m not going to say or do anything to blow my lead.” Consequently, in the second debate Romney allowed Obama to get away with lies.

Clueless low info voters believed Obama’s lies and his sycophant MSM allies said nothing. Romney’s lukewarm defense of Republican principles (Conservatism) led to 4 million frustrated Republican voters staying home, not bothering to cast their votes on election day.

Thus far, Romney is telegraphing that he will use the same failed “don’t-come-across-too-conservative” strategy again. Stay home Mr Romney. Please stay home.

Even the Bible expresses displeasure with those who are afraid to stand up for what they believe. “So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”

Like President Ronald Reagan, I am a bold colors kind of guy. http://bit.ly/WIQPGf

Enough with the weak kneed apologizing and watering down what it means to be conservative; allowing certain Americans to break laws due to race, embracing immoral and culturally destructive behaviors in the name of inclusion.

I liked G. W. Bush, but I rue the day that he came out with his “Compassionate Conservatism.” He reenforced Dems/liberal’s lie that Conservatism is not by nature, compassionate. The truth is Conservatism is the epitome of compassion. When will someone have the backbone to stand up for Conservatism; tell Americans why it is far better for them than Liberalism? I am a black conservative because it would be idiotic and self-destructive to embrace Liberalism.

Conservatism 101: A Tale of Two Dads – Little Johnny Says He Does Not Want to Go to School.

Liberal dad’s reply: “Son, I feel your pain. School has too many challenges. Stay in bed. I will provide for and protect you.”

Conservative dad’s reply: “Johnny, you get your butt out of that bed this instant and get ready for school. I will speak to the principal, attend PTA and do whatever necessary. You need an education to have a happy and fulfilled life. I love you son.”

Which dad is righteous, loving and truly compassionate?

Click to continue reading “Where is our voice in the wilderness touting conservatism?”
Go straight to Post

President Obama’s Credibility Is in Short Supply

by Roger Aronoff on Wednesday, September 10th, 2014

This is article 1004 of 1007 in the topic Obama

President Barack Obama has consistently deceived the American people when called out on statements that he’s made in the past, but the media have not consistently reported on these often farcical inconsistencies. However, the President’s recent “evolution” regarding the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a Sunni militant group active in those countries that has been beheading kidnapped American journalists, has been so obvious that it could not fail to spark some media criticism. So, too, are the President’s contradictory comments on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And much, much more.

Back in January of this year, President Obama referred to ISIS as the junior varsity team and said, “I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.” Now that ISIS is terrorizing Americans, not just Iraqis, the danger seems more imminent to the average citizen, and President Obama finds it politically necessary to deny ever downplaying the threat.

To that end, he recently sent out Press Secretary Josh Earnest, who contended in a press conference that “…the President was not singling out [ISIS], he was talking about the very different threat that is posed by a range of extremists around the globe.” One of those groups is Ansar al Sharia (AAS). State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki argued, also in January, that AAS is not an “official affiliate” of al Qaeda, despite the fact that its leadership has ties to al Qaeda and formerly to Osama bin Laden himself.

How useful are these distinctions, really, when all of these terrorist organizations are intent on killing Americans?

Earnest earned four Pinocchios from The Washington Post’s Fact Checker Glenn Kessler for “Spinning Obama’s reference to Islamic State as a ‘JV’ team.” It is clear from the exchange that the question posed was specifically about ISIS. David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker magazine conducted several interviews with the President, but this one was just days after ISIS took control of Fallujah in Iraq. Obama made the JV (Junior Varsity) reference (“…if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.”), and then Remnick said, “But that JV team just took over Fallujah.” Obama replied, “I understand. But when you say took over Fallujah…let’s just keep in mind, Fallujah is a profoundly Sunni city…”

Yet again on Meet the Press on Sunday, September 7th, Chuck Todd raised the JV issue, asking the President if his use of the term JV to describe ISIS was “bad intelligence or your misjudgment?” Obama replied, “Keep, keep, keep in mind that I wasn’t specifically referring to ISIL.”

But the President’s and Earnest’s dissembling doesn’t end there. In early August, Josh Earnest said, “There are no military solutions to the very difficult problems that exist in Iraq now.” Then, on August 28, President Obama admitted on camera that he doesn’t “want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet.”

America’s strategy against ISIS is clearly not transparent to President Obama himself.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Fox News’ Special Re-ignites the Benghazi Scandal

by Roger Aronoff on Monday, September 8th, 2014

This is article 246 of 246 in the topic Congressional Investigations

Fox News aired new revelations this weekend in its documentary based on the forthcoming book, 13 Hours in Benghazi, but the left is not interested in what it calls old news. Benghazi is a “phony scandal,” right?

In fact, the left is on the defensive about this story, and is releasing salvos from all quarters. The Washington Post, The New York Times, Media Matters, and the Democratic members of the Select Committee have all gotten involved in the effort to dismiss what eyewitnesses have said about what happened that night, sometimes preemptively, as I cited in a previous column. Their message is loud and clear: This has already been investigated thoroughly; both sides agree that there was no wrongdoing other than bureaucratic missteps; this is another Fox News story and a phony scandal at that. Time to move on.

But nothing could be further from the truth.

What cannot be undone now is that eyewitnesses have publicly spoken out about what happened in Benghazi two years ago. What they say threatens to haunt the left’s strategy machine, which seems more concerned with spin than finding the truth.

Three contractors who were on the ground in Benghazi two years ago during the attacks on the U.S. Mission and CIA Annex said on Fox News that they were told specifically to “stand down” three times before defying orders, and heading out to try and save the personnel at the U.S. Mission, which was under fire—quite literally—less than a mile away from the Annex, where they were located at the time. They were delayed by 25 minutes, and say they could have possibly saved the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith if they’d been allowed to depart sooner. As a matter of fact, they all said that they believe the two would still be alive today had they been allowed to leave when they first made the request.

Washington Post writer Eric Wemple apparently received an advance copy of the book and said that these claims written therein, and previously reported by Jennifer Griffin in October 2012, were exaggerated for effect and “report after report has shredded this contention.” This is, of course, the line in the book that he voiced a problem with, saying it was mined for “maximum literary effect:”

“The more time the attackers had to dig in, the more likely they’d secure the Compound perimeter and organize defensive positions, at least until they achieved their objectives.”

“Maximum literary effect?” One wonders what world Wemple inhabits. Wemple points readers to the media’s favorite left-wing group, Media Matters, which also ran a hit piece on the broadcast sight unseen.

The day the documentary first aired, September 5th, the Democrats on the Select Committee on Benghazi went into full damage control mode. Representative Elijah Cummings (MD) stated that “these individuals were delayed while their supervisor attempted to ensure that he was not sending his team into an ambush,” the intelligence committees have already spoke to multiple witnesses on this issue, and “it is critical that the Select Committee understand what came before it to ensure we are not re-investigating the same issues all over again.” In other words, look somewhere else for your smoking gun. How many other topics are conveniently off limits for Rep. Cummings?

Rep.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

New York Times has devastating expose on how the Brookings Institution sells its research and access to Obama administration officials

by John Lott on Sunday, September 7th, 2014

This is article 570 of 570 in the topic Media
Brookings is the old line liberal think tank in Washington, DC.  It isn’t too surprising that the New York Times would have a lot of connections with Brookings.  Those connections have done a lot of damage to Brookings.  Here is just a few of the examples in the piece:

Qatar, the small but wealthy Middle East nation, agreed last year to make a $14.8 million, four-year donation to Brookings, which has helped fund a Brookings affiliate in Qatar and a project on United States relations with the Islamic world.

Some scholars say the donations have led to implicit agreements that the research groups would refrain from criticizing the donor governments.

“If a member of Congress is using the Brookings reports, they should be aware — they are not getting the full story,” said Saleem Ali, who served as a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar and who said he had been told during his job interview that he could not take positions critical of the Qatari government in papers. “They may not be getting a false story, but they are not getting the full story.” . . .

“I am surprised, quite frankly, at how explicit the relationship is between money paid, papers published and policymakers and politicians influenced,” Amos Jones, a Washington lawyer who has specialized in the foreign agents act, said after reviewing transactions between the Norway government and Brookings, the Center for Global Development and other groups. . . .

The Brookings Institution, which also accepted grants from Norway, has sought to help the country gain access to U.S. officials, documents show. One Brookings senior fellow, Bruce Jones, offered in 2010 to reach out to State Department officials to help arrange a meeting with a senior Norway official, according to a government email. The Norway official wished to discuss his country’s role as a “middle power” and vital partner of the United States.

Brookings organized another event in April 2013, in which one of Norway’s top officials on Arctic issues was seated next to the State Department’s senior official on the topic and reiterated the country’s priorities for expanding oil exploration in the Arctic. . . .

Go straight to Post

Is a Gay Football Player News?

by Alan Caruba on Thursday, September 4th, 2014

This is article 63 of 63 in the topic Gay Rights

By Alan Caruba

Michael Sam, the first openly gay athlete drafted into the National Football League, did not make the cut with the St. Louis Rams after it trimmed its roster ahead of the start of the 2014 season.
Sam has been signed for the practice squad of the Dallas Cowboys, but given their dismal record of late we are not likely to hear much other than their losing scores. The only reason I would watch the Cowboys on TV is their cheerleaders!
 
Now we will be able to enjoy the season without a story every day about what Michael Sam did or said. We will not have to endure television interviews of him and his boyfriend telling us how wonderful it is to be gay in America.
If I never see a photo of those two kissing one another, I will be happy knowing that neither will a generation of young boys who want to grow up to be football players.
If you think about it, since homosexuals are about two percent of the U.S. population, it should hardly be newsworthy that a particular athlete is gay. We accept that there’s a fair percentage of gays in the arts and other fields, but gay athletes are deemed—at least by the media—to be in some special category.
When it comes to sports, most of us only want to know if an athlete has won or lost. Writing for NBC Sports, Michael David Smith probably got the Michael Sam story right. He reported that Eric Wood, a Bill’s defensive lineman, believes that “teams are avoiding Sam because they don’t want the ESPN hype that would come with having Sam.”
The plain fact of Sam’s fate was that he was not as good as the others on the preseason team. Prior to the news he was not signed, Vinnie Iyer, a Huffington Post sports writer, noted “Robert Quinn and Chris Long are the Ram’s elite starters at defensive end. Veterans William Hayes and Eugene Sims are the projected backups. Sam’s chief competition, undrafted fellow rookie Ethan Westbrooks, was better than Sam throughout the preseason.”
To show his support, Sam’s boyfriend, Vito Cammisano, tweeted a photo of the couple together, wearing shirts from the University of Missouri, where they both attended college. In May, ESPN had aired a celebratory kiss between the two men. “You know, I can play in this league,” said Sam. Just barely.
If you think the media devotes altogether too much “news” about gays, I would be inclined to agree. There is, however, a massive propaganda campaign conducted by gay organizations to ensure that their issues are always in the news. They hardly merit such coverage. Why should their sexual orientation be the subject of so much coverage? The answer most likely is the intense liberal orientation of the news media these days.
Nor has the U.S. ever had such a gay-oriented President as Obama in its history.

Click to continue reading “Is a Gay Football Player News?”
Go straight to Post

Obama blames social media and news shows for dismal world view

by Jim Kouri on Monday, September 1st, 2014

This is article 569 of 570 in the topic Media

President Barack Obama on Friday blamed social media and the abundance of news sources for giving Americans the impression that the world during his administration is coming apart at the seams, according to news outlets that covered his fundraiser during a Democratic National Committee picnic in the town of Purchase, New York.

“I can see why a lot of folks are troubled. The world’s always been messy … we’re just noticing now in part because of social media,” Obama said to the adoring crowd, who paid what amounted to many Americans’ yearly salaries just to rub elbows with POTUS.

The low-approval rated President claimed that current crises in the United States, such as the tsunami of illegal aliens flagrantly sneaking into the United States, and the violence and destruction across the world in nations such as Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Somalia, Egypt, and other locations, do not equal the situation the Americans faced during the Cold War.

“First of all, Obama isn’t the only president to face news organizations such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Channel and talk radio. Second, the Internet wasn’t just created while he’s been in the White House and both Clinton and Bush were slammed on the world wide web. In Obama’s case, the perception that the world is more chaotic while he’s been sitting in the Oval Office than it was when Bill Clinton and George W. Bush sat there is reality! Countries that were at least at peace are now filled with violence and death,” said former police chief and now director of corporate security Howard Cusack.

“That includes his ancestral home of Kenya, where Islamists are running rampant and Christians are being persecuted and killed,” Cusack added. “Doesn’t anyone want to know why Michelle Obama gave up on those African girls kidnapped in Nigeria by Islamic radicals?”

The barbeque with the “swells” was held at the home of Robert Wolf, Obama’s golf partner and the former president of UBS Investment Bank. The ticket prices started at $15,000 and went up to $35,000 per couple for upwards of 200 supporters to hobnob with the president.

“You can bet the farm that none of these people are feeling the pain and degradation of the real world. Like their beloved leader, they live in a world of ‘should be” rather than in the world most people must face,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

“To these limousine liberals, their mistakes are merely the cost of leading the American people — those pesky unwashed masses — to the promised land. But Moses they ain’t,” Baker quipped.

Go straight to Post

The Media at War With the Obama Administration?

by Roger Aronoff on Friday, August 29th, 2014

This is article 568 of 570 in the topic Media

While the media are usually doing the bidding of President Obama and the Democrats, and are deep in the President’s pocket, there are cases in which they are very unhappy with his actions. New York Times reporter James Risen has become famous not only for his ongoing Espionage Act case, but also for his willingness to call President Obama the “greatest enemy to press freedom in a generation.”

In the case of Fox News reporter James Rosen, the government “monitored Rosen’s movements in and out of the State Department,” according to CBS News. They also “searched his personal emails and combed through his cell phone records.” Risen received similar treatment: his computer was subjected to forensic analysis and his phone calls were investigated.

Yet President Barack Obama’s press secretary recently had the temerity to joke to another Fox News White House correspondent that “We are always watching.” Rosen was labeled a “criminal co-conspirator” alongside Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, who recently went to jail for his crime. Clearly, the Obama administration has either not learned from its mistakes—or doesn’t care.

As I mentioned in an earlier article about Obama’s ongoing war on journalists, Risen appealed to the Supreme Court to carve out special immunity for reporters in the courts. But his bid to be heard by the Supreme Court failed, leaving him no more legal options.

Now, he has “exhausted all his legal options against the Justice Department’s pursuit of him under the controversial Espionage Act,” reports The Guardian this month. If pursued, Risen could end up in jail for his act of “journalistic defiance” as early as this fall, reports the Guardian.

Journalists are rallying to Risen’s side as he becomes a media darling for his defiance in the face of Obama administration pressure. Fourteen Pulitzer Prize winners have issued statements in support of him, 100,000 petitioners have voiced their concerns about his case to the Department of Justice, and The Washington Post editorial board has come to his defense.

But one of the disturbing developments of the Risen case is the push for a media shield law to create special protections for journalists. “The Risen case, [Gregg] Leslie [of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press] said, provides a clear picture for why a federal shield law is needed to complement similar laws in 49 states,” reported Business Insider on August 27. “The Supreme Court’s dismissal of his petition, Leslie said, is more evidence of what he called a ‘disturbing’ trend—federal courts have been less and less willing to side with reporters’ arguments.”

This is not the first time the media have called for a shield law. Back in 2008 Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid called the proposed law what it really is: not the Free Flow of Information Act, but the “Special Rights for Journalists Act.” “The bill puts in the hands of federal politicians and judges the ability to define a ‘legitimate’ journalist or blogger who is deserving of federal protection,” wrote Kincaid in 2008. “As such, it restricts First Amendment rights to a certain group of people currently in favor with federal authorities.”

The legislation could create an unhealthy relationship between the media and the federal government.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Ferguson’s Media Problem

by Daniel Greenfield on Wednesday, August 27th, 2014

This is article 567 of 570 in the topic Media

If there’s a problem in America or anywhere in the world, inflicting the media on it can only make it worse. By some accounts there are more reporters in Ferguson than there are protesters. That may be why the protesters ran for cover behind the media after throwing bottles of urine at the police.

There are so many reporters in Ferguson that the rioters and looters can use them as human shields.

You just wouldn’t know it because they don’t take pictures of each other.

The occasional photos of media scrums around a crying woman in the Middle East or an angry protester in Ferguson reveal the artificiality of the event.

It’s okay to have one reporter in front of a camera, but when there are so many reporters at an event that they outnumber everyone else, the whole thing starts looking like a movie set on which events are staged for the entertainment and profit of the producers.

Remember that every time you see a masked protester caught in the act of throwing a rock or a loving couple huddled in fear of dark masked shapes in riot gear, these images are as artificial and posed as anything in an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog. They show you what is in front of the camera, not what is behind it.

Look through the news reports of riots anywhere and you’ll see the same poses repeat across continents and generations. The rioters are different people with different causes and agendas, but the photos of them are being taken and selected by the same people from the same news agencies.

There is never anything new on the news because the media has a pre-existing formula for handling any event. What we think of as the newspaper or the evening news just plugs actual news into its formula and turns it into propaganda.

The national news network and the newspaper of record tell the same few stories just like Hollywood makes the same movies, even if they seem to feature different characters and places. That’s because the formula doesn’t change. The formula is what we are getting from Ferguson’s mob of professional and amateur reporters each fighting for the chance to retell the same story to the same audience.

Calling the packed masses of angry leftists in Ferguson “reporters” is a little unfair. Even the term media is mostly meaningless. Ferguson is packed with reporters from national and local news networks. Alongside them are crews from enemy state propaganda outlets like Al Jazeera and RT. And they’re the cream of the crop compared to Vice, Infowars and activists with digital cameras selling what they shoot to anyone who will buy it.

Every young leftist who is afraid of going Syria or Gaza has come down to Ferguson to pad his Instagram with something besides photos of last night’s dinner. Activism is to today’s privileged liberal youth what taking a year off to tour Europe used to be to their parents and grandparents. Instead of backpacking through France, they pop some camera gear into their messenger bags and head down to Ferguson to link hands with another Evergreen or Vassar grad while shouting about justice before posing for selfies.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Is the tea party dead/ more MSM lies

by Lloyd Marcus on Tuesday, August 26th, 2014

This is article 565 of 570 in the topic Media

I have been engaged in a series of interviews, radio/TV discussing the topic, “Is The Tea Party Dead?” Because I am black, every interview has begun with me being asked my take on Ferguson before discussing the Tea Party.

Talk about the excrement hitting the fan; liberal interviewers are outraged when I say blacks are not routinely shot by police and that the MSM is promoting a deplorable, divisive and irresponsible false narrative.

One radio interviewer laughed at me saying she was looking at stats on her computer screen which proved otherwise. During another radio interview the host cited stats that say one hundred thousand people are shot by police every year in America. Bill O’Reilly stated the true FBI stats. Out of 12 million arrests only 400 fatal shootings; many justified. http://bit.ly/1v2lRIi

Clearly, the Left is using lies to spread their despicable evil lie that blacks are targeted and murdered by police. I am struck by the liberal interviewer’s passion behind spreading their lie. They act as if their belief is as true as there is a sun in the sky. The liberal media’s attitude is, of course the police murder black males. The media will slap around anyone who states otherwise.

The MSM’s shameful coverage of Ferguson is as criminal as yelling fire in a crowded theater. Remember the outbreak of black flash mob attacks on whites? http://bit.ly/1pW4gOu No one in the MSM is talking about the “Knock Out Game” also known as “polar-bear hunting.” Mostly black youths bet whether or not they can knock out an unsuspecting innocent white person with one powerful punch; women, seniors and more. http://bit.ly/19SKoEv

My God, what is wrong with these people in the MSM? Furthering the socialist/progressive agenda and bolstering Democrat voter registration and turnout has trumped all sense of decency and morality. If dividing Americans along racial lines and selling millions of black youths the lie that whitey (Republicans, Conservatives and police) are out to get them will further the Left’s cause, the Left says so be it. This truly is spiritual wickedness in high places.

After several rounds of verbally beating me up side the head, realizing they can not force me to agree with their claim that cops are shooting blacks at will, the liberal interviewers move on to gleefully proclaiming the death of the Tea Party.

They cite how numerous Tea Party candidates have been defeated in primaries by GOP establishment candidates. As chairman of The Conservative Campaign Committee, my team, my wife and I have been boots on the ground in Mississippi, Tennessee and other Senate races. We are away from home so much that upon our return, Sammy our greyhound only gives me an acknowledging glance and retires to his bed. I think the pet sitter has conspired to steal Sammy’s affection from me. But, that’s another story.

In every Senate race, we (CCC) have witnessed the intense involvement, commitment and enthusiasm of the local Tea Party groups in support of our candidates. Every race has been a David vs Goliath scenario; highly qualified grassroots funded Tea Party conservative candidates vs deep pocketed GOP establishment and big business funded and MSM supported Democrat-Lite GOP primary candidates.

Click to continue reading “Is the tea party dead/ more MSM lies”
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin