The left is all excited about the prospect of juicy bits coming from the new book, Roger Ailes: Off Camera (Kindle), about Fox News’ chief Roger Ailes, including one about why he hired Sarah Palin:
“MSNBC has [already] announced they’re out of the news business,” Ailes added. “They have several different hosts, but it’s always the same show: Republicans are no good.” Ailes pointed out that CNN is moving out of the news business and mocked CNN chief Jeff Zucker over the network’s bizarre obsession with the documentary Blackfish: “[Zucker] had a big hit with a whale one night [the documentary Blackfish]. I guess he’s going to do whales a lot.“
Just this morning, CNN aired a full package on a few protesters motivated by Blackfish to give Southwest Airlines a hard time. You could compare CNN to a train wreck, but people actually watch those.
Fox News not only dominates in the ratings (frequently beating CNN and MSNBC combined in total viewers), but both CNN and MSNBC suffered horrible years in the department of credibility. Among other things, CNN was caught red-handed flaking for gun control and fabricating evidence to frame George Zimmerman as racist. Due to its own embarrassing scandals, MSNBC lost two of its anchors, Martin Bashir and Alec Baldwin; and to close out an already awful year, anchor Melissa Harris-Perry led an on-air segment ridiculing Mitt Romney’s infant grandson.
The biggest news Fox News made about itself, though, was juggling an already successful primetime line-up into something even more successful. Moving rising cable superstar Megyn Kelly to 9pm has not only boosted the network’s ratings by 20% in the coveted 25-54 demo but this happened without bumping a single anchor or host.
Fox News has not only won the cable news wars but scared its competitors into becoming something else entirely. MSNBC is now National Public Radio with pictures and a mean streak while CNN is, well, a slow-motion disaster.
Another loser in this cable news war is the Soros-backed, tax-exempt, left-wing Media Matters, who surrendered in their own Ahab-esque battle against Fox News by declaring victory.
Would you really eat in a restaurant, trusting their food or service, where the owners, chefs, workers and their families refuse to eat? Of course you wouldn’t. Nobody would, but that is what the Democrats, some GOP establishment career politicians and the Obama administration and their staffs are asking you to do.
They are asking, no mandating, that you to sign up and subject yourself and your family’s health, and in many cases losing better coverage, for healthcare coverage that they refuse to sign up for and be covered by themselves.
The so-called tea party Republicans, who are following their constituents wishes, but have now pretty much backed away from all their demands about the budget and upcoming debt ceiling raise, in what seems like their 20th compromise when the left has refused to negotiate or compromise on anything, were willing to pass and extend the budget and debt ceiling negotiations for several months with a clean bill, except for one provision… The Republicans attached the Vitter amendment (DeSantis bill in the House) which would demand that the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House and their staffs and federal appointees would have to sign up for and live under the same ObamaCare bill that we all will have to suffer under, without any extra provisions or exemptions. The Democrats’, RINOs’ and administration’s response: NO…!
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) (KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom)
The Vitter Amendment on Obamacare: Senate Liberals’ Curious Complaint
Last week (mid-September) Senator David Vitter (R–LA) proposed an amendment that would end exemptions for White House political appointees and stop illegal taxpayer subsidies for Congress and staff enrolled in Obamacare’s new health insurance exchanges. In other words, political appointees, Members of Congress, and their staffs would receive the same coverage and be eligible for subsidies available to every other American enrolled in the exchanges. No special deals.
On September 17, Senator Dick Durbin (D–IL) charged that Vitter’s proposed amendment was “unfair” because it would eliminate the employer payment for Members of Congress and 16,000 congressional staffers.
But this is a curious complaint. In 2010, Senator Durbin and all other Senate Democrats voted—lockstep—for final passage of Obamacare, which included Section 1312, which ended Members’ access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead placed them into the Obamacare health insurance exchanges. Without access to employer coverage, there is no employer subsidy—not for Congress and not for any other worker dumped out of job-based coverage into the exchanges. That’s the law.
Durbin also tries to use Vitter’s vote for an amendment (Amendment No. 3564) offered by Senator Chuck Grassley (R–IA) during debate over Obamacare to undermine his current efforts. Yes, Vitter voted for the amendment. The amendment would have put the President, his appointees, Congress, and staff into the exchanges but would have preserved the government contributions for Congress and staff in the new exchanges.
Here’s the catch: Senator Durbin voted against the Grassley amendment, as did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV), Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA), and 53 other Senate Democrats. (See The Congressional Record, March 24, 2010, p. S1996.) In other words, these Senators voted to protect the President and his appointees from their own law but also voted to remove the employer contribution to Congress and their staff. Yet these Senators now oppose it.
Senate liberals say they like Obamacare. If that’s the case, it is only reasonable for them to want to make sure they get what they like on the same exact terms and conditions as every other American enrolled in the exchanges, as put forth by Senator Vitter.
So why wouldn’t the Democrats from both Houses of Congress (as well as the Establishment RINO GOP) vote for the Republican’s compromise and embrace ObamaCare on the same terms the American people are getting… the terms they voted for? And if they aren’t why should the American people?
Why? Because our politicians know it is a bad plan, bad coverage, certainly worse and more expensive if you compare apples to apples, than they have now, and it opens them up to the same IRS mandates and access into all their records and information. It also opens them up to having a non-medically trained review board tell them which services they will and will not get… essentially death panels. But although they don’t want it, it is good enough for the rest of us in their book. After all what better advertisement for his signature program would there have been than President Obama and Vice President Biden signing themselves and their families up for all to see for the ObamaCare exchanges the day the program opened on October 1st?
Don’t be fooled by the propaganda being fed us through the mainstream media. ObamaCare was never about healthcare, and definitely not about better healthcare, it was always about ideology and control… about the federal government controlling you… all of us!
Just like President Obama and Harry Reid’s refusal to negotiate with the Republicans has nothing to do with what is good for the country or even the budget, or even the truth for that matter, it is about demonizing the Republicans so that the Progressive Democrats win the next election… so they can maintain their control of you!!
Do your homework and then you be the judge… But in my kitchen, the cook eats his own food and no matter how the present shutdown ends… Our politicians still don’t want to eat theirs!
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told NBC News on Wednesday that the country will never develop nuclear weapons and that he has the clout to make a deal with the West on the disputed atomic program.
"In its nuclear program, this government enters with full power and has complete authority," Rouhani told Ann Curry, NBC News national and international correspondent and anchor at large, in his first interview with a U.S. news outlet since his election.
"The problem won't be from our side," he said at the presidential compound in Tehran. "We have sufficient political latitude to solve this problem."
Asked whether Iran would ever build a nuclear weapon, Rouhani noted that the country has repeatedly pledged that "under no circumstances would we seek any weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, nor will we ever."
"We have never pursued or sought a nuclear bomb, and we are not going to do so," he said. "We solely are looking for peaceful nuclear technology."
Rouhani's comments are the latest in a slew of signs that he is cautiously open to defrosting relations with the U.S., which were in deep freeze under the isolating leadership of his predecessor, the inflammatory Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
He and President Obama have exchanged letters in which they traded views on "some issues."
"From my point of view, the tone of the letter was positive and constructive," Rouhani said of the note he got from the White House congratulating him on his June election, in which he defeated five hard-liners.
"It could be subtle and tiny steps for a very important future. I believe the leaders in all countries could think in their national interest and they should not be under the influence of pressure groups. I hope to witness such an atmosphere in the future."
White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday that in the letter, Obama told Rouhani the U.S. is open to a resolution to the nuclear impasse in which Iran can prove its atomic program is peaceful.
But he also conveyed the need to act quickly because the window for a diplomatic deal "will not remain open indefinitely," Carney said.
On another pressing topic, Rouhani was questioned about his views on Iran's close ally Syria and its promise to give up chemical weapons under the threat of air strikes from the U.S.
He said he could give no guarantees on behalf of Syrian President Bashar Assad, just days after he was quoted by his country's official news agency as saying he would accept any Syrian president elected by the people.
Fox News Contributor Lisa Diftari had quite a different take from the hopeful and naïve mainstream media on Rouhani’s NBC Interview comments. She warned that this was a play by Rouhani to improve the Iranian economy, which would take his people off the streets and in-turn take pressure off the Iranian government, buying Iran more time, funds and flexibility to continue their uranium enrichment program and to develop nuclear weapons! As she warned, “In Iran’s case, the motto must be ‘guilty until proven innocent’” Should America, Israel and the world really be naïve enough not to follow that line, everyone will be the loser in the end!
Joshua Pundit: Here's a smoking gun for you. Attorney General Holder is speaking to Democrat Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia of the oversight committee about the AP scandal...and at 5:00 Holder says clearly, under oath that he never had anything to do with signing off on spying on the press:
"In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy."
And who was the DOJ attorney who filed in district court to keep the illegal surveillance ongoing and secret for years even though they hadn't found anything? That would be U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen - the same attorney who was charged with deciding whether to pursue the House’s contempt citation against his boss, Eric Holder, over Fast and Furious. And - what a coincidence - he just happens to be leading the FBI investigation into the leak that involved the DOJ subpoenaing AP reporters’ phone records.
And who appointed him to that position? None other than James Cole, Holder's deputy, who took over after Holder recused himself.
Even more disgusting, President Obama acted socked, just shocked about all this and proclaimed yesterday in that faux sincere baritone of his that he had ordered the Attorney General to review the DOJ’s guidelines for spying on reporters.
In other words, Eric Holder will be in charge of investigating what Eric Holder did. And in the areas where he recused himself , he has a couple of loyal, dependable soldiers to take care of things.
Yet the fact remains that Holder committing perjury and likely obstruction of justice, and that particular cat is now out of the bag.
North Caucasus jihadists’ money traces back to Saudi Arabia and Osama bin Laden
The seed money of major North Caucasus or Chechen terrorist groups such as the Caucasus Emirate, the Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade (IIPB), the Special Purpose Islamic Regiment (SPIR) and the Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs (RSRSBCM) can all be traced back to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
Although we don’t yet know to which groups the two Russian-born brothers of Chechen descent who were identified as suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings may belong, it’s important to take a look back at the origins of the money behind the North Caucasus jihadist network overall.
Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade
The Council on Foreign Relations says that, “According to the U.S. State Department, the Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade is the primary channel for Islamic funding of the Chechen guerillas, in part through links to al-Qaeda-related financiers on the Arabian Peninsula.”
In October 1999, emissaries of [IIPB founder Shamil Basayev] and [mujahideen leader] Ibn al-Khattab traveled to Kandahar where bin Laden agreed to provide fighters, equipment, and money to conduct terrorism and aid the fight against Russia. Later that year, bin Laden reportedly sent substantial sums of money to Basayev, Ibn al-Khattab, and Chechen commander Arbi Barayev to train gunmen, recruit mercenaries, and buy ammunition.
The United Nations says that, “With Al‑Qaida’s financial support, Al-Khattab also mobilized fighters from Ingushetia, Ossetia, Georgia and Azerbaijan to fight in Chechnya and Dagestan.”
History Commons offers further details similarities between Ibn Khattab and Osama Bin Laden, and the U.S. and U.K.-based imams who have funded Chechen rebels:
They share fundraising and recruiting networks. For example, a Florida cell of radical Sunnis that is monitored by the FBI starting in 1993 is involved with both organizations (see (October 1993-November 2001). Radical London imam Abu Qatada raises money for jihad in Chechnya (see 1995-February 2001 and February 2001) and is a key figure in al-Qaeda-related terrorism who is in communication with al-Qaeda logistics manager Abu Zubaida. [BBC, 3/23/2004; Nasiri, 2006, pp. 273] The Finsbury Park mosque of fellow London imam Abu Hamza al-Masri is used as a conduit for funds for both jihad in Chechnya and bin Laden’s Darunta camp in Afghanistan (see March 1999 and March 2000-February 2001)…
Khattab repaid Bin Laden in kind: “In October 2001, Khattab sent additional fighters to Afghanistan and promised to pay the volunteers’ families a substantial monthly stipend or a large lump-sum payment in the event of their death.”
Special Purpose Islamic Regiment
In a 2003 study, the CDI found that, “Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network provided much ideological and financial support to the SPIR after the mid-1990′s. The group has been known to engage in kidnapping, extortion, and contract killings as well to generate money.”
Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs
RSRSBCM, like the other North Caucasus terrorist groups, is financially connected to Al Qaeda, as documented in a UN sanctions summary:
In October 1999, emissaries of [RSRSBCM leader Shamil Basayev] and Al-Khattab, who was a leader of IIB, traveled to Usama bin Laden’s home base in the Afghan province of Kandahar, where Bin Laden agreed to provide substantial military assistance and financial aid, including by making arrangements to send to Chechnya several hundred fighters to fight against Russian troops and perpetrate acts of terrorism. Later that year, Bin Laden sent substantial amounts of money to Basayev, Barayev and Al-Khattab, which were to be used exclusively for training gunmen, recruiting mercenaries and buying ammunition.
The RSRSBCM, IIB and SPIR were jointly responsible for the hostage-taking crisis at a Moscow theater in 2002.
Caucasus Emirate
The Caucasus Emirate is a confederation of different Chechen terrorist groups. The International Institute for Strategic Studies notes that in the 1990s, “Al-Qaeda also established a presence in the North Caucasus, where it organized training camps and provided weapons, financing and other logistical support to Chechen rebels.” Previous Money Jihad coverage of the use of zakat to fund jihad in the North Caucuses can be found here and here.
Last year, Caucasus Emirate began demanding “tribute for jihad” by imposing taxes on wealthy residents and businessmen in Dagestan, similar to the forced zakat of the Taliban, taxes levied by Al Shabaab in Somalia, and the revolutionary taxation of Basque separatists and the PKK.
Conclusion
The wealthy Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia, men like bin Laden and Khattab, fanned out in the 1980s and 1990s to wage jihad along the fringes of the Islamic world—places like Afghanistan, Bosnia, and the North Caucasus. They took their own money and the sadaqa donations of rich fellow Arabs to finance their cause. The disease could not be quarantined, and the infection spreads to this day.
Most recently, Chechen jihadists have made the news for joining forces with Syrian rebels, and declaring upon arrival that “Jihad needs very many things. Firstly it needs money.”
Beck: “Let me send this message very clear: We know who this Saudi national is. It is in your best interest of the integrity of the people of United States of America. It’s best coming from you, not from a news organization. It’s best coming from you. You have until Monday. We have information on who this man is. And listen to me carefully. In your little “event” world, we know he is a very bad, bad, bad man. I know that doesn’t make any sense to you right now. But on Monday it will…
It makes sense to somebody in Washington.
I don’t bluff. I make promises. The truth matters.
On Monday I reveal everything we know. So let me just say this to those at the highest echelons of government. No the tagging system. They know about events. Not files, events.”
The question for the day is… Will the American people stand-up and demand answers… the truth… and consequences for misdeeds or will we let this all go again, like we did Fast and Furious, Benghazi(gate) and so many other questionable actions by this administration (and others) that are covered-up or aided by the Progressive media who support them?!? It is time to follow our common sense and to dig deep for all the strength we can muster! For it is beyond time for all freedom-loving Americans to stand-up for the truth! Time to rebuild!!
Amazing how there are funds for Sasha and Malia to head to Idaho, the Bahamas (and Mexico last year) with Secret Service in tow for Spring Break, but no funds for the rest of America’s kids to visit the White House (the People’s House) or have an Easter Egg Roll on the White House Lawn… finally reinstated after an uproar from the public; Obama even played the Jesus card in his Easter message… no doubt hoping to appease “We the Sheeple” and to take the focus off the first daughters’ trip(s)?
Earlier this week, Breitbart News broke the story that the Obama daughters spent part of Spring Break at the Atlantis resort on Paradise Island in the Bahamas.
***
UPDATE: The White House has confirmed the report was removed on their request. From Kristina Schake, Communications Director to the First Lady:
From the beginning of the administration, the White House has asked news outlets not to report on or photograph the Obama children when they are not with their parents and there is no vital news interest. We have reminded outlets of this request in order to protect the privacy and security of these girls.
Earlier this week, Breitbart News broke the news that the First Daughters were on a spring break trip in the Bahamas, with Secret Service protection in tow, despite staff shortages that the White House cited in closing tours to the public.
The cross-continental trip for the First Daughters represents an epic tour. The KMTV news report cited photo evidence that the First Daughters were on the ski slopes, but noted that it was "unclear" whether First Lady Michelle Obama had accompanied them.
Separately, Breitbart News received a tip Friday morning from a parent whose daughter encountered the First Daughters in Sun Valley: "My daughter found herself in the middle of the entourage as she exited a local shop."
Meanwhile, the White House remains closed to thousands of students traveling to Washington, D.C. over Spring Break.
President Obama canceled the public, self-guided tours in a bid to trim $2 million from the Secret Service budget. The full cost of the First Daughters' 2013 spring break travel and necessary security detail are unknown at this time. Presumably, the Secret Service costs could have covered at least a few weeks of public White House tours.
Most people, if they have a spring break vacation, have to choose between the beach or the slopes. The Obamas, however, are not most people.
*Beware people… this will be our world, the have and have-nots, if we don’t snap out of our daze quickly. Just like in most of the rest of the world, we the masses, the sheeple, the lowly taxpayers will not be taking the trips… it will be the ruling elite, and most of the time, you won’t even get to see the pictures!
Hillary, “What Difference, at This Point Does It Make?” Really? It makes a huge difference… especially when you didn’t do your job, or worse!!!!
Brit Hume, “As usual, the government interrogators weren’t very good!!”
Angry Hillary Clinton Explodes at Questioning on Libya Protest: ‘We Have Four Dead Americans… What Difference at This Point Does It Make?’
Getty Images
RUSH: No coincidence that Hillary’s $25 mil campaign debt was just paid off this week before she testified / Exactly what I thought!
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton erupted at Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) during his questioning Wednesday over whether there were protests in Benghazi, Libya before the deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission.
Johnson was insisting that the American people were “misled” about protests that supposedly occurred over an anti-Islam video, similar to those that had taken place at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo hours earlier on Sept. 11, 2012. It was later determined there had been no protests in Benghazi and the assault was labeled a terrorist attack.
“Do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened would have ascertained immediately that there was no protest?” Johnson asked Clinton during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. “That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained, within hours if not days.”
“Senator, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on — ” Clinton started to answer.
” — I realize that’s a good excuse,” Johnson cut in.
“Well, no, it’s the fact,” Clinton said sharply, adding that there are questions being raised “even today” about what precisely happened in Benghazi.
She continued, “Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing, is still — ”
“No, no, no, again, again — we were misled that there were supposedly protests and then something sprang out of that, an assault sprang out of that and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact and the American people could have known that within days,” Johnson said. “And they didn’t know that.”
“With all respect, the fact is we have four dead Americans was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans,” Clinton shouted. “What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator.”
Rand Paul Grills Clinton at Benghazi Hearing: ‘Had I Been President…I Would Have Relieved You of Your Post’
"Not to know of the requests for securities really, I think, cost these people their lives."
US Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) questions US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as she testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the September 11, 2012 attack on the US mission in Benghazi, Libya, during a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on January 23, 2013. Credit: AFP/Getty Images
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton faced a tough line of questioning Wednesday as lawmakers grilled her on the deadly terrorist attack that occurred in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012. No one posed tougher questions than Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who blasted the “inexcusable” failure of “leadership” Clinton displayed in the time leading up to the assault.
Paul told Clinton he was glad she had decided to take responsibility for the “worst tragedy since 9/11″ but that doesn’t excuse the State Department for ignoring cables from Benghazi asking for additional security and warning of extremist activity.
“Had I been president at the time, and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post,” he said. “I think it’s inexcusable.”
He continued: “I would think that by anybody’s estimation, Libya has to have been one of the hottest of hotspots around the world. Not to know of the requests for securities really, I think, cost these people their lives. Their lives could have been saved if someone had been more available, had someone been aware of these things, more on top of the job.”
Paul went on to say that he does not suspect Clinton of “bad motives” but that doesn’t excuse her negligence in the situation, even it was wasn’t “willful.”
Watch Sen. Paul skewer Clinton during Wednesday’s Benghazi hearing: Watch
The senator followed up by asking Clinton whether she had any knowledge of the transfer of weapons to Turkey out of Libya. She denied having any knowledge of it, but took the question “for the record,” never denying it.
“To Turkey?” Clinton asked, perplexed. “I will have to take the question for the record, nobody’s ever raised that with me.”
“It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that that they may have weapons,” Paul pressed. “And what I’d like to know is the annex that was closely, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries.”
“Well, senator, you will have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available,” Clinton replied.
“You’re saying you don’t know,” Paul shot back.
“I don’t know. I don’t have any information on that,” she said.
Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R- UT) told Breitbart News on Wednesday that he has been “thwarted” by the State Department from seeing any Americans who survived the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Many people forget that there were Americans who survived the Benghazi attack, some of whom were badly injured and are still recovering.
“My understanding is that we still have some people in the hospital. I’d like to visit with them and wish them nothing but the best but the State Department has seen it unfit for me to know who those people are—or even how many there are,” Rep. Chaffetz said. "I don’t know who they are. I don’t know where they live. I don’t know what state they’re from. I don’t even know how many there are. It doesn’t seem right to me."
“This is so patently different than any other experience I’ve had. Unfortunately, people have been killed and maimed and in harm’s way in Afghanistan and Iraq and in points beyond. It’s typically been the case that they would release those names but in this case, they won’t. My challenge is to the media. You try and figure it out. They won’t let Congress know. They won’t seem to let the media know either.”
Breitbart News sent an inquiry to the State Department regarding those who survived the attack in Benghazi and is awaiting a response. See video
If you have not followed the Benghazigate saga please take some time to inform yourself below (And there is a lot more information all over the Internet):
Many are already talking about Hillary Clinton running for president in 2016, when in reality if the media had done their job, that would not even be a consideration. Other than Senator Rand Paul (TN), Senator Ron Johnson (WI) and Congressman Jeff Duncan (SC), very few Senators or Congressmen asked any tough questions: Where are the survivors and witnesses from Benghazi and why can’t we hear from them?; What about the reports that you (Hillary), the President and VP, Leon Panetta, etc. all watched the Benghazi incident live and told people who could have helped to stand down?; What about the leaks that the CIA was using the Benghazi Consulate for rendition and gun running?… and the list of unasked questions goes on? The few times that Hillary was asked a tougher question or when she mis-spoke about Chris Stevens knowing about the dangers in the area he was going to when he took the post, she either became very defensive, began stammering or staged a tantrum (see above).
Until Americans take the responsibility to inform themselves and to speak up, demanding that their elected officials ask the right questions and then act, America will not change and will not improve. And as long as we keep re-electing people that lie to us or on the flip side sit on committees and have no spine, America’s place in the world will continue to diminish and our situation at home will continue to decline!
WND: In 2003, Rush Limbaugh lost his position as a NFL commentator because an observation about a black quarterback was construed as "racist."
In 2010, NPR's Juan Williams was fired for a comment about his concerns when boarding a plane with Muslim passengers.
In 2013, in the heated environment following the massacre of school children in Newtown, Conn., CNN's Piers Morgan hosted a panel in which the idea of shooting an outspoken opponent of gun control with an "assault rifle" was approvingly discussed.
Piers Morgan still has his job. Why??
These folks plan to change that.
WASHINGTON – Officials with the conservative group Americans for Legal Immigration are challenging CNN to take Piers Morgan off the air after a controversial debate on gun control with InfoWars.com’s Alex Jones.
Jones has been just one those Morgan has brought on the air over gun control in recent days.
Following the debate with Jones, which sparked a media firestorm, Morgan featured a panel on his program including Daily Beast sports columnist Buzz Bissinger, and commentator Abby Huntsman, daughter of presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, in which Buzz joked about how someone should “pop” Jones with an “assault rifle.”
To which Abby Huntsman laughingly responded, “I’d love to see that, in uniform!”
William Gheen, president of ALIPAC, called Morgan’s segment one of the worst he’s seen in his career.
“Monitoring the media is something I have done professionally for two decades now, and in that entire time I have never seen anything as outrageous as the Piers Morgan segment joking about killing one of their guests with an ‘assault rifle’,” Gheen told WND.
Morgan and Jones engaged in a heated debate over Americans’ rights to be armed, despite Morgan being British. The ever-controversial Jones discussed a New World Order and mentioned his fear of political assassination. Morgan’s decision to feature Jones as the face of the right wing gun control position outraged many conservatives including Glenn Beck and Erick Erickson who feared he would delegitimize their case.
The gun control debate has been put back on the forefront of American politics following the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting and Newtown, Conn., school tragedy.
Those representing Second Amendment advocacy including Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, and current NRA President David Keene, have received death threats – ironically involving guns – over social media.
ALIPAC also has launched a social media effort that has gained them 65,000 Facebook followers and has clogged up lines at CNN calling for Morgan to be taken off air.
“Please call CNN to demand that Piers Morgan be fired for advocating political murder with assault rifles on last night’s show. Free speech is one thing, but we cannot allow the liberal media to take things this far against those that oppose amnesty or support gun rights etc.. Call 404.827.1500 and wait for a human operator,” Gheen encouraged.
The Washington Post reported that Morgan also interviewed gun-rights advocate John Lott and dismissed him by “scoffing at him.
Morgan then interviewed gun-rights advocate Larry Pratt and dismissed him by “insulting” him.
The report said Morgan was unable to control all of the interviews over guns. When Ben Shapiro, editor-at-large of Breitbart.com was on the show, Morgan brought out Ronald Reagan.
He said, according to the Post, “One of the great right-wing presidents of modern times agreed with me.”
“Shapiro’s priceless retort: ‘So?’” the paper reported.
Morgan then said, “You genuinely believe your own government is going to turn on you in a way that you require an AR-15 to challenge them? You really believe that will happen in modern-day America? Is that what you think?”
Said Shapiro, “”They may not turn on me. They may not turn on my children. But the fact is this, history is replete with democracies going tyrannical. It has happened. It happened in France in the 19th century. It happened in Spain in the last century. It happened in Germany. It happened in Italy. It happened in Japan.”
And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).
President Barack Obama was a guest at the 1991 wedding of ABC senior foreign correspondent and vice presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz, The Daily Caller has learned. Obama and groom Julius Genachowski, whom Obama would later tap to head the Federal Communications Commission, were Harvard Law School classmates at the time and members of the Harvard Law Review.
After TheDC made preliminary inquiries Monday to confirm Obama’s attendance at the wedding, ABC leaked a pre-emptive statement to news outlets including Politico and The Daily Beast Tuesday, revealing what may have been internal network pressure felt just days before Raddatz was scheduled to moderate the one and only vice-presidential debate Thursday night.
Both Politico and The Daily Beast jumped to ABC and Raddatz’s defense. The Huffington Post, a liberal news outlet, joined them shortly thereafter, while calling “unusual” ABC’s attempt to kill the story before it gained wide circulation.
Genachowski — called “Jay” at the time of his wedding, sources told TheDC — and Raddatz would go on to have a son together before their divorce in 1997. They have both since remarried to other people.
A source who attended the 1991 wedding told TheDC that Obama was also a guest there, and remembered that a man by the name of “Barry Obama” was among the guests dancing at the reception.
In August, The Daily Caller first connected Genachowski, an Obama appointee, to Raddatz following her selection as the vice presidential debate moderator by the left-leaning Commission on Presidential Debates. That debate, between Congressman Paul Ryan and Vice President Joe Biden, will take place Thursday night at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky.
Carol Platt Liebau, a political commentator who was a Harvard Law Review colleague of Genachowski and Obama, wrote that “despite being a year below both men on the Review and not close personal friends with either of them,” she remembered Genachowski and Raddatz’s relationship as “quite public” during those days, and that “Raddatz visited Boston frequently.”
Genachowski’s friendship with Obama would continue through the campaign trail in 2008 and into the White House: He aggressively fundraised for Obama in 2008 as a campaign bundler, and served on the presidential transition team before winning his appointment to chair the FCC.
On Monday evening ABC spokesman David Ford grudgingly confirmed Obama’s attendance at the wedding, after shielding Raddatz in August by declining to comment when The Daily Caller first reported the story.
“This is absurd,” Ford said, in the same statement now circulated by ABC’s media allies on the left.
Obama, Ford wrote, “attended their wedding over two decades ago along with nearly the entire Law Review, many of whom went onto successful careers, including some in the Bush administration,” he said without providing a specific number of Harvard Law Review members to verify the statement.
When pressed further on Tuesday for a specific number of Harvard Law Review members in attendance at the wedding, Ford could offer none, despite circulating the same unverified approximation through sympathetic media outlets earlier that day in order to discredit The Daily Caller’s reporting.
Ford also could not provide The Daily Caller with a specific number of Harvard Law Review members who worked with Obama and Genachowski during that year. A photo taken of the Harvard Law Review during Obama and Genachowski’s final year of law school contains 70 people.
The ABC spokesman’s assertion that “nearly the entire Law Review” attended the wedding cast doubt on the significance of Obama’s attendance. But Ford’s unwillingness to document that claim now suggests that Obama was among a close circle of fewer Harvard classmates who were personal friends of Raddatz and Genachowski.
Instead, Ford maintained his ambiguity in subsequent statements to The Daily Caller, identifying only one other Harvard Law Review classmate of Obama and Genachowski who attended the wedding.
When TheDC asked Ford via email Tuesday night for further specifics on actual numbers, he did not respond with any.
The FCC, the Obama campaign and the Romney campaign also did not respond to The Daily Caller’s request for comment.
David Martosko contributed reporting.
UPDATE: Michael Steel, a spokesman for Paul Ryan, told Fox News’ Joy Lin that he has “no concerns” about Raddatz’s conflict of interest.
