FEMALE REPORTER: That’s up to you because you’re the expert, but that’s what I would do…I’d wait until you see who showed up because that indicates we already know something…[Laughter][INAUDIBLE]FEMALE REPORTER: Child molesters…MALE REPORTER: Oh yeah… can you repeat Joe Miller’s…uh… list of people, campaign workers, which one’s the molester?[INAUDIBLE]FEMALE VOICE: We know that out of all the people that will show up tonight, at least one of them will be a registered sex offender.[Laughter]MALE REPORTER: You have to find that one person…[INAUDIBLE]FEMALE REPORTER: And the one thing we can do is ….we won’t know….we won’t know but if there is any sort of chaos whatsoever we can put out a twitter/facebook alert: saying what the… ‘Hey Joe Miller punched at rally.’FEMALE REPORTER: Kinda like Rand Paul…I like that.[Laughter]FEMALE REPORTER: That’s a good one.
CBS Anchorage affiliate assignment editor Nick McDermott and other reporters were caught on an accidental voice mail tape planning to fabricate at least two news stories in a last ditch effort to defeat the Republican nominee running for the US Senate in Alaska, Joe Miller.
The voice mail tape was left on the cell phone of Joe Miller’s spokesperson, Randy DeSoto. It is clear from the discussion that assignment editor McDermott, the news director for CBS KTVA, and other reporters, openly discuss fabricating news about Miller.
The voice mail message was later authenticated by Mr. McDermott, who sent a text to DeSoto stating “Damn iPhone . . . I left you a long message. I thought I hung up. Sorry.”
In a statement released by the Miller campaign DeSoto said, “Frankly, when I first heard this I was shocked. Though a bit garbled at times, there are disturbing comments in this conservation that never should have occurred.”
In the first discussion, the KTVA reporters discuss getting a list of Miller campaign supporters in order to ‘find’ a “child molester.” “You have to find that one person,” says the male reporter, to laughter in the news room. The reporters at KTVA then discuss creating a “Rand Paul” incident at the then upcoming Miller Rally (held on October 28, 2010) and hoping for violence so that they can “send out a tweet” and “Facebook” that “Miller got punched” at the rally.
Full Transcript Here:
FEMALE REPORTER: That’s up to you because you’re the expert, but that’s what I would do…I’d wait until you see who showed up because that indicates we already know something…
FEMALE REPORTER: Child molesters…
MALE REPORTER: Oh yeah… can you repeat Joe Miller’s…uh… list of people, campaign workers, which one’s the molester?
FEMALE VOICE: We know that out of all the people that will show up tonight, at least one of them will be a registered sex offender.
MALE REPORTER: You have to find that one person…
FEMALE REPORTER: And the one thing we can do is ….we won’t know….we won’t know but if there is any sort of chaos whatsoever we can put out a twitter/facebook alert: saying what the… ‘Hey Joe Miller punched at rally.’
FEMALE REPORTER: Kinda like Rand Paul…I like that.
FEMALE REPORTER: That’s a good one.
Editors Note: we bring you this statement from Michael Moore to show just how hateful his rhetoric is.
By Michael Moore
Make no mistake about it, my friends. A perfect storm has gathered of racists, homophobes, corporatists and born agains and they are on fire. Two years of a black man who secretly holds socialist beliefs being the boss of them is more than they can stomach. They’ve been sick to death since the night of 11/04/08 and they are ready to purge. They won’t need a rope and tree this time to effect the change they seek (why bother when a nice shoe on another’s skull will do just fine, thank you).
They simply need to get their base to the polls (done), convince enough people Obama is responsible for the fact they don’t have a job or a secure home (done), and then hope enough of us Obama-voters are so frustrated, disappointed and downright mad at the Dems (done) that we’ll either stay home Tuesday or, if we vote, we won’t be carpooling with 10 others to the polls.
Done? Or not?
These Republicans mean business. Their boots are all shined and ready. But they’ve got one huge problem:
The majority of Americans don’t agree with them.
The majority want the troops home. The majority want true universal health coverage. The majority want the thievery on Wall Street to be stopped. The majority believe that global warming is happening, that social security shouldn’t be privatized and that unions are a good thing.
Too bad the majority party has done precious little to bring about the change for which the majority voted. Yes, change takes time. But try telling that to someone who hasn’t worked in two years. Or who hears the knock of the foreclosure sheriff at the door. The booted-up minority knows how to make hay in a situation like this. All they need is us, the disappointed, dismayed, disgusted us.
You may remember that the woman who was stepped on by the Rand Paul supporter was working as an instigator for the MoveOn “Republicorp” project which tries to ridicule Republicans as lapdogs for business interests. Well those Republicorp activists are a busy group. And sometimes they are instigating the violence! Witness this encounter in Arizona:
By Scott Baker, The Blaze
Now let me get this straight: George Soros, Media Matters, and the White House, in some unclear capacity, have unveiled their master plan to destroy the right: isolate and nullify Fox News by getting people fired from NPR.
NPR pink-slipped Juan Williams for the equivalent of stating that when he sees it’s raining out, he gets his umbrella. NPR president Vivian Schiller, evidently divining that disparaging fears of Muslim terrorists wouldn’t play well in a country that has suffered three serious terrorist attempts in a little over a year, added that this was merely the latest of a series of Williams outrages, but she produced no examples. (Schiller now says that she “regrets” how the firing was handled.)
Obviously, there has to be another reason, and when we look around, we find none other than the Prog Twins, Soros and Obama. (Not to forget David Brock…or is that the stupidest statement I ever typed?) Obama has been having bad dreams about Fox, so Soros contributes a cool $1.8 million to NPR for the purpose of hiring one hundred investigative reporters to learn the truth about Bigfoot. Another $1 mil went to Brock’s Media Matters for the purpose, I imagine, of mixing more mud to fling — they don’t do anything else. Then, as soon as the checks cleared, Williams finds himself out on the street.
Read More: By J.R. Dunn, American Thinker
cvrcak1 (Creative Commons)
When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he visited Colorado Springs and said he wanted to create a “Civilian National Security Force” as big and well-funded as the $650 billion-plus U.S. military, a mysterious campaign promise ignored by virtually the entire media except WND. Now Charlie Rangel is proposing that he have it.
Rangel, facing ethics charges in Congress, has proposed the Universal National Service Act that would require “all persons” from ages 18-42 “to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security.”
The plan also authorizes “the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.”
A WND reader who read the plans online was outraged.
“May Obama be d—–,” he wrote. “It reinstitutes the draft, and is for both males and females … There is no ‘opt-out’ – if you are not ‘fit’ for actual military service, or are a ‘conscientious objector,’ then you are shunted into ‘civilian service’ which is pretty much anything the ‘president’ says it is.”
Read More: By Bob Unruh, WND
by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
With the public firing of Juan Williams, a fatal blow was stuck to the meticulously cultivated brand image of National Public Radio (NPR), but that’s just the beginning of their problems. The firing itself takes a back seat in this sordid tale. The campaign of vindictive and libelous accusations against Williams is the most reveling actions taken during the controversy. NPR was a brand which while liberal, was renowned for thoughtfulness and tolerance.
But not now—that’s been blown—NPR’s been tarnished and irrevocably damaged.
Ironically, Williams personified the brand. Williams was predictably on the left, but he wasn’t dogmatic or arrogant. Unlike many pundits he was courteous and circumspect in his comments. He was thoughtful and tolerant. He was everything NPR claims to be.
This incident has permanently tarnished the brand, and for the first time since its creation the Corporation for Public Broadcasting faces being reformed, defunded, or maybe even abolished. If a Republican Congress returns to Washington, expect hearings on the issue.
The campaign against Williams was so vicious even The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) has commented warning National Public Radio (NPR) that a remark made by NPR’s CEO Vivian Schiller in the firing of Juan Williams violated the letter and spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
After firing Williams for talking about Muslims during a Fox TV News program, Schiller told news media that Williams’ personal feelings should have been kept between himself and his “psychiatrist or publicist — take your pick.” Williams responded that he did not have a psychiatrist.
In this week’s NAMI Blog , Executive Director Michael Fitzpatrick shares the text of a letter sent to NPR president and CEO Vivian Schiller, calling on NPR to adopt a plan no later than its board meeting scheduled in November to “educate and reassure” managers and employees about ADA protections in the workplace for people with mental health concerns.
“An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans age 18 and older-about one in four adults-suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year…this translates to 57.7 million people,” reports the government’s National Institute of Mental Health. As a family that has experienced mental illness amongst our ranks, we know that remarks such as Shiller’s do serious damage to already hurting people. America has made great strides in the treatment and healing of many mental disorders, and the progress should be celebrated not used as a club to publicly flog an employee.
We believe it is imperative that Schiller be dismissed for her libelous remark, and we hope that Juan Williams will vindicate his rights and the rights of millions of other Americans and seek legal recourse against NPR and Shiller.
Liberals always parade around being self-righteous about their tolerance and compassion. But if you scratch just under the surface, we contend you often find mean and dysfunctional souls. They are expert name callers, just ask the families hurt by Obama’s then Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel when he shouted out “F—ing retarded,” in a political strategy session.
In response former governor Sarah Palin posted a scathing critique of Emanuel’s comments on her Facebook page and rightly called for President Obama to fire him. A call Obama ignored. Palin wrote: “Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the ‘N-word’ or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities — and the people who love them — is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking.” Palin’s son, Trig, was born with Down Syndrome.
Let’s hope the calls to fire NPR’s Vivian Schiller are not equally ignored.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was set to vote on a 131-page draft report about the Obama administration’s decision to drop the Black Panther voter intimidation case today — but a partisan Democratic member prevented the commission from doing its job. Michael Yaki walked out of the meeting before the vote, preventing the commission from reaching quorum, a procedural motion designed to stall for time. A report now seems unlikely to be released until after the midterm elections.
However, the left-wing blog Talking Points Memo obtained a leaked copy of the report, which details credible allegations of Justice Department evasion, dissembling, and possible perjury before the commission. The document reveals a commission at the end of its rope dealing with a “recalcitrant” administration that refuses to investigate “serious allegations” of selective and racially discriminatory law enforcement, harassment of dissenters, and a politically controlled Justice Department bowing to the demands of left-wing pressure groups rather than the dictates of justice. (And contrary to TPM, “Much of the commission’s draft report is” not in fact “based on an anonymously sourced story” that appeared in the media. As the report makes clear, several DoJ career officials exposed a pattern of wrongdoing in the decision making process that reached at least as high as the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder.
The stakes could scarcely be higher. The draft report notes, “If the testimony before the Commission is true,” the Justice Department’s handling of the case would “encompass inappropriately selective enforcement of laws, harassment of dissenting employees, and alliances with outside interest groups, at odds with the rule of law.”
Among its most serious allegations, it presents a conflict over the testimony of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez that could indicate perjury. Perez testified under oath before the commission on May 14 that the decision to drop the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party after the case had essentially been won was simply “a case of career [Justice Department] people disagreeing with career people.” He testified there had been no “political leadership involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case.”
His testimony was a catalyst for both Christopher Coates and J. Christian Adams to ignore a Justice Department gag order and correct the record.
And the report makes clear, at least five separate officials have corroborated aspects of Adams’ and Coates’ testimony.
Political Officials May Have Dropped Case
Perez’s testimony asserted that Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Loretta King and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Steve Rosenbaum made the call on their own, unbidden, and both were “career” officials. Both claims seem false.
The draft report notes, “At the time the decisions were made with regard to the litigation, however, both Ms. King and Mr. Rosenbaum were temporarily serving in political position…It has been argued that, under the Vacancies Reform Act, Ms. King and Mr. Rosenbaum were, in fact, political appointees.”
But they are the veritable tip of the iceberg of political influence.
The report cites the work of Judicial Watch in securing the Vaughn Index, which describes the DoJ’s internal communications regarding the decision to dismiss the case. “The index of withheld documents provided by the Department strongly suggests, contrary to the [Obama administration's] assertion, senior political appointees outside the Civil Rights Division actively participated in the decision making regarding the litigation.”
The report specifically names Sam Hirsch as an example of political pressure. (This author provided extensive background on Hirsch here.) Hirch “provided direction” to Rosenbaum. Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli also consulted on the case with the office of David Ogden, the Deputy Attorney General and number two man in the department.
DoJ Official: “I Cannot Think of Any Other Instance”
A DoJ official told the commission under oath that the department’s political leadership would have had to be involved in a decision that so fundamentally offends the department’s standards. Acting Associate Attorney General Gregory Katsas testified, “I believe that [Ogden's office] would have been actively involved in deliberations” about the case, because the case’s dismissal was “anything but straightforward.” The change, Katsas said, “amounted to nothing less than a decision by DoJ, following a change in presidential administrations, to reverse legal positions asserted in a pending case. Such reversals are extremely rare — and for good reason: they inevitably undermine DoJ’s credibility with the courts, and they inevitably raise suspicion that DoJ’s litigating positions may be influenced by political considerations.” He noted the scope — when the department “abandoned most of its claims after a default by all of the defendants…I cannot think of any other instance when that has occurred.”
These deliberations percolated up through the DoJ, all the way to Eric Holder himself. According to the Justice Department, “The Attorney General was made generally aware” of the decision by King and Perrelli, although the department insists Holder “did not make the decisions regarding any aspect” of the case. Neither did the president.
NAACP Makes the Calls?
More troubling than the idea that the Obama administration called off the case is another allegation in the report: that it did so by caving into pressure from more liberal activist groups. The report indicates the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund (LDEF) seems to have pressured the department to drop the case. Kristen Clarke of the NAACP-LDEF confirmed to two media outlets she contacted the department, telling one she asked when the case would be dismissed — but during sworn testimony before the Civil Rights Commission, she has either asserted she did no such thing or refused to respond to direct questioning. Someone is lying.
Faced with this level of exposure, the government is shutting down the investigation as much as it can. The commission notes, although communication with outside bodies like the NAACP “are not privileged,” the Obama administration has stonewalled its investigation and refused to allow employees to testify.
The report notes the refusal to turn over “management-level communications and decision making” has stymied its investigation, but “the timing, frequency, and captions of such communications cast considerable doubt on several of the Department’s claims.”
The draft report concludes, “These serious allegations deserve either to be proven or exposed as false,” and indicates the Justice Department has done nothing to “confirm, deny, or explain the specific allegations of misconduct raised by Mr. Coates and Mr. Adams.” The department was instead “recalcitrant” and “largely unresponsive to the Commission’s specific requests for information.”
The Justice Department Investigates Itself?
The proposed draft makes a number of recommendations to strengthen its investigation. Under its current structure, the Justice Department must enforce any claims made against it, so the DoJ can legally stop any investigation into its actions. The draft notes any investigation into the DoJ presents “a potential conflict of interest,” since the department knows “it will never enforce a subpoena against itself.” It states, “The record in this case proves the point.” A “recalcitrant” Justice Department has exerted “vague and unexplained assertions of privilege,” and ordered its officials not to respond to the commission’s subpoenas.
The draft report calls on lawmakers to allow the commission to secure a special council, or to hire lawyers to independently pursue the case on its own, if it is investigating the Justice Department.
A Cry for Help
This draft report should be seen for what it is: a cry for help. The commission is unable to do its job, because the Obama administration is acutely intent on subverting its investigation.
Rather than defer to a federal executive office, Congress should initiate a full and complete investigation effective immediately. We are joined in this call by National Review magazine — and by the common sense of this nation, which recognizes a cover-up at the highest levels, to protect violent street thugs who intimidated white voters they assumed would vote against Obama.
All those involved in the dropping of this case — which undermines the department’s reputation and is unprecedented in its history — should be questioned. Anyone involved in the department’s refusal to apply the law against white victims should be drummed out of office, up the and including the president of the United States.
Barack Obama’s history of forcing his revolutionary agenda on the American people by any means necessary may soon reach a new front. The president hosted a conference with five far-Left bloggers this week, in which he signaled he is reassessing his stance on homosexual “marriage” and expected his views to “evolve.”
Obama’s sodomy soliloquy came in response to Joe Sudbay of AMERICABlog, who asked him, “I just really want to know, what is your position on same-sex marriage?”
The president began by belittling the importance of his invited guests. “Joe, I do not intend to make big news sitting here with the five of you, as wonderful as you guys are,” Obama joked. Even among left-wingers, his condescension knows no bounds.
Then he replied:
I am a strong supporter of civil unions. As you say, I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage.
But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine. And I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships. I have staff members who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who are raising children, who are wonderful parents.
And I care about them deeply. And so while I’m not prepared to reverse myself here, sitting in the Roosevelt Room at 3:30 in the afternoon, I think it’s fair to say that it’s something that I think a lot about. That’s probably the best you’ll do out of me today.
The one thing I will say today is I think it’s pretty clear where the trend lines are going. (Emphases added. Read the full transcript here.)
The president’s incrementally pro-gay “marriage” stance will come as no surprise to readers of this website. In the same report in which Obama chose to haul Arizona before the UN Human Rights Council, he wrote:
Earlier this year, the [Obama] Administration extended many benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, and supports the pending Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, a law that would extend additional benefits currently accorded to married couples to same sex partners. Furthermore, President Obama is committed to the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” statute, which prevents gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, and both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense have testified at congressional hearings in support of its repeal. The President has also supported passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Debate continues over equal rights to marriage for LGBT Americans at the federal and state levels, and several states have reformed their laws to provide for same-sex marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. At the federal level, the President supports repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Obama’s reference to same-sex marriage as an “equal rights” issue in a report to the UN Human Rights Council was neither extraneous nor happenstance. His intention is to provoke an international backlash to provide cover to pursue a deeply unpopular position he already favors. The battle over Arizona’s immigration law proves instructive.
As with same-sex marriage, Obama wrote Arizona’s S.B. 1070 had “generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world.” A month later, a UN agency responded with a thinly veiled critique of Arizona’s immigration law that equated its supporters with”xenophobes and racists.” The report demanded nations provide illegal immigrants with access to broad social welfare programs, including “reproductive healthcare” (abortion). After the international condemnation, Obama allowed 11 Latin American nations to join a federal lawsuit against the Arizona statute. It seems everyday the administration ratchets up the pressure on the one state that threatens to interfere with his plan of importing millions of illegals, who vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Last summer, SEIU International Secretary-Treasurer and honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America Eliseo Medina revealed the progressives’ real agenda: by providing amnesty, “we will create a governing coalition for the long-term, not just for an election cycle.”
Compare these actions with the president’s policies on homosexuality. He has provided benefits to same-sex “partners” of some federal employees. His Justice Department essentially threw the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” case. Supreme Court disaster Elena Kagan deliberately undermined the Obama administration’s “defense” of the Defense of Marriage Act while she was Solicitor General.
Now, the president has placed the issue of same-sex marriage before the UN Human Rights Council, inviting the World Body to exercise jurisdiction over the most divisive of U.S. social issues.
How long will it be until Eric Holder teams up with a dozen foreign nations to sue for the legalization of gay “marriage”?
Significant precedent exists for the Legal Left’s overturning of the American people’s most cherished values. Four sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices, including Obama appointees Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, support using foreign law in place of the U.S. Constitution. Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court case that struck down that state’s anti-sodomy law, cited European law in its rationale.
If the president, with or without UN cover, decrees that same-sex marriage is a “civil right” demanding “equal rights,” expect him to spare no effort to foist it on the American people, their collective opposition notwithstanding.
If the president has proven one thing, it is that public opinion will not stand in his way. Gallup polls indicate 53 percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Indeed, almost half of all Americans still believe the traditional Christian teaching that homosexuality is “morally unacceptable.”Moreover, propaganda aside, evidence continues to mount that homosexuality is an unhealthy and destructive lifestyle.
The popular will is meaningless to an ideologue like Obama. No less than 70 percent of all Americans support the Arizona immigration law, yet he continues to put the screws to the state’s lawmakers in every conceivable way.
When will the president’s “evolution” bring the same treatment for homosexuals?
Without a UN decree, a major shift in the electorate, or the likely prospect of political defeat (or impeachment), look for Obama to intensify his Fabian cultural Marxism not a day before November 6, 2012.