Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Friday, May 28, 2010


The White House memo signed by the husband of Mao fan Anita Dunn - Robert Bauer - identified Bill Clinton as the person who approached Joe Sestak. Inconsistent with Sestak's repeated claims that he was offered a high ranking job in the Obama administration to drop out of the primary race, the memo claims he was offered a non-paying Board position he could serve on while remaining a congressman.

HERE is the link to the White House memo.

As was the case in Watergate, the cover-up was much worse than the act itself. Enter Bill Clinton. If there is nothing to this and no illegal activity took place, why dodge questions? Here, Clinton not only dodges them but he completely ignores them. Wouldn't it be something if Bill Clinton ends up finishing off his own legacy AFTER he left office?

Something tells me this scandal is just beginning. Via Real Clear Politics:


After the very liberal paper - the Austin American Statesman - printed reader letters expressing opposition to the Austin city council's boycott of Arizona over SB 1070, it heard from Barack Obama's Organizing for America (OFA). OFA was going astroturf against the Statesman by encouraging all of its members to write to the paper. Why? Because there were no letters expressing support of the boycott and the Statesman and OFA saw it as a matter of unfairness that had to be righted.

I decided to write the Statesman to express my support for them, despite their very storied liberal bent. If the Community Organisms were going identify them as a target to be intimidated, they should be supported regardless of how ideological they are.

On May 28th, my letter appeared in the Statesman, strategically placed right above an editor's note that seemed to be an attempt to dismiss the offer:
As a radio talk show host and producer for "The Lynn Woolley Show," I would like to express solidarity with the American-Statesman with respect to the paper being the target of intimidation from Organizing for America. Stand strong and know that you did nothing wrong by publishing reader letters (May 19) in opposition to the recent City Council resolution calling for an Austin boycott of Arizona.

Ben Barrack


Editor's note: Organizing for America ( has borne no pressure on the American-Statesman, either directly or via letters that the organization might have encouraged. We have received a high volume of letters about Arizona's immigration law and the Austin City Council's resolution to stop doing business in Arizona, especially after we published 20 letters against the Austin boycott on May 19.

— Tom Widlowski, Letters editor
As with most of these newspaper guys, they're clever with how they word things, leaving much up to reader interpretation. If Widlowski is making the claim That OFA did not attempt to intimidate or pressure the Statesman, he's not being truthful (see image of OFA Austin flyer). If Widlowski is saying that OFA Austin attempted to organize an astroturf campaign that wasn't successful, he should have said that.

There were two emails I received in response to the letter above which I found interesting. The first serves as a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
From: Jeff
Subject: funny
Date: Friday, May 28, 2010, 9:55 AM

That was so funny how the Austin American-Statesman called you on your lie in today's Letters column. This is a great example of what we all know (but many refuse to admit) that right-wing talk show hosts do best: make stuff up!

Calling what I wrote a lie is easily refuted by looking at the OFA flyer. Then again, perhaps Jeff's view comes from a misleading editor's note.

My personal favorite came from Michael. Keep in mind what the Arizona boycott is supposedly about - racism and discrimination as you read it.
From: Michael
Subject: Hate radio
Date: Friday, May 28, 2010, 12:18 PM

Thanks for giving a name to just some of the hate radio right here in Central Texas. 9/11 happened on Bush and Chaney's watch...never forget!!

And just because you are a host and producer of some redneck talk show doesn't mean your words are truth for all!

Proud Native Texan senior,

Wouldn't you love to know what Michael thinks of the term "redneck" in light of the debate over the new Arizona law.

h/t to Hot Air for posting about the OFA Astroturf effort. That is how I became aware of it.


Eric Holder's Department of Justice has found itself on the receiving end of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit over its decision not to prosecute the now infamous - and lingering - Black Panther case. Most know the story about the inexplicable decision by the Justice Department to drop the case despite having a clear cut example of voter intimidation caught on video and the defendants - all Black Panthers - not responding to the complaint. U.S. Attorneys had won a default judgment and were ordered to stand down.

Due to the egregiously blatant nature of that decision, what happened with the FOIA requests by Judicial Watch is not all that surprising.
Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on May 29, 2009. The Justice Department acknowledged receiving the request on June 18, 2009, but then referred the request to the Office of Information Policy (OIP) and the Civil Rights Division. On January 15, 2010, the OIP notified Judicial Watch that it would be responding to the request on behalf of the Offices of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Public Affairs, Legislative Affairs, Legal Policy, and Intergovernmental and Public Liaison.

On January 15, the OIP also indicated that the Office of the Associate Attorney General found 135 pages of records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request, but that all records would be withheld in full. On January 26, the OIP advised Judicial Watch that the Office of Public Affairs and Office of Legal Policy completed their searches and found no responsive documents. On February 10, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division indicated that after an extensive search it had located “numerous responsive records” but determined that “access to the majority of the records” should be denied. On March 26, the OIP indicated that the Office of Legislative Affairs and the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison completed searches and found no documents.
Welcome to the Eric Holder led Justice Department. First, 135 pages found to be responsive but the decision was made to withhold them. Then, there were none responsive at all. That was followed by the location of "numerous" documents that were responsive but that most of them should be held. Then, lastly, the decision was made that none were responsive. That old saying, "Tell the truth because it's the easiest thing to remember" comes to mind.

This lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch coupled with an investigation into the Black Panther case by the U.S. Commission on Civil RIghts has definitely brought to bear, significant pressure on the DOJ. One attorney there has already resigned because he was not cooperating with the Commission's probe or FOIA requests. The attorney was obviously being directed by someone not to cooperate but was incurring great personal expense because the DOJ was not declaring Executive Privilege for withholding the documents so the attorney had no reason to withhold them - that is, no overt reason. It would seem to indicate that the practice of throwing people under the bus is not reserved solely for the president. More on the resigning attorney HERE.

Michelle Malkin has a great take on all this in the context of what's going on with Jobsgate - the scandal involving the White House and Joe Sestak. The stonewalling there is not at all dissimilar from that witnessed in the Black Panther case. Unlike the Sestak case however, public outrage at the stonewalling hasn't risen to the level requiring Obama to respond; Obama announced at yesterday's news conference that an official statement on Sestak would be released "shortly".

As this Black Panther case continues to take a similar path to Jobsgate - a slowly percolating scandal that could explode - look for it to one day get a similar level of attention. The probes by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights along with Judicial Watch's lawsuit, along with the ongoing repercussions like the resignations of attorneys, could blow this open as well.

Read the complaint HERE.

h/t to Michelle Malkin
Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive