Fast and Furious: Of Ignoring Subpoenas and Ignoring the need for them

In the wake of the IRS scandal, the AP Reporter scandal, and the James Rosen scandal, we now have a new one, involving CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who was practically the only mainstream media reporter to doggedly pursue the gun-walking operation known as Fast and Furious. In addition to CBS confirming that Attkisson's computers have been breached, she says that it started during the time she was investigating Fast and Furious.

Here is an excerpt from an exchange with Bill O'Reilly:

O’REILLY: Which was what? What big stories were you working on?

ATTKISSON: Well, at the time I was doing Fast and Furious of course, some green energy debacle sort of stimulus spending stories, and then later on the Benghazi story.

Here is the exchange between O'Reilly and Attkisson, via NewsBusters:



In June of last year, Attorney General Eric Holder was found in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for not turning over documents related to Operation Fast and Furious demanded by a Congressional subpoena. As the contempt votes were taking place, President Barack Obama asserted Executive Privilege to prevent them from being turned over.

In that case, the Obama administration thumbed its nose at the notion of honoring a subpoena.

Even after being held in contempt, the arrogance of Holder was on full display during a statement he made to the press:



If it comes to light that the Obama administration had anything to do with the breach of Attkisson's computer, we can logically conclude that it was done so without a warrant or subpoena.

Conversely, Barack Obama himself asserted Executive Privilege to prevent Eric Holder from having to honor one. As for suspicions that Obama and Company were involved in breaching Attkisson's computers, they certainly would have had a motive. Otherwise, why go to such great lengths to ignore a Congressional subpoena?

There's a fine line between ignoring a subpoena and ignoring the need for one. That line is made even finer when subpoenas and the absence of subpoenas both appear to involve Fast and Furious.

Video: Senator Lindsey Graham calls out John Boehner over Benghazi

It would appear that Speaker John Boehner is feeling some heat directly from a Republican Senator in Lindsey Graham (R-SC) over getting to the bottom of the Benghazi attacks. During this interview, which took place last night, Graham said he would be meeting with House leaders "tomorrow" which is today. Can't wait to hear how that went.

Take note at the 3:00 mark. Shortly thereafter, Graham says:

"To my House colleagues, please, for God's sake step up your game when it comes to Benghazi."

I'd like to make a suggestion to Senator Graham. Pick of the phone and call Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee. I'm guessing Issa is sure to give you an earful about how Boehner did more harm than good when it came to helping with the Fast and Furious investigation.

When Communists chide their Opponents for being Intransigent

There are no better projection artists than communists and leftists. Why? Lying is a part of their fabric. It's like breathing. As such, they understand intimately everything they keep hidden; they understand motives; they understand intent; and they understand how badly it will go over if it is revealed. That is why it's so effective when they project those motives onto their opponents, who don't understand them and don't know how to refute them.

Those who do understand are rarely, if ever, ensnared.

Rush Limbaugh and Fox News just received a major badge of honor, courtesy of Barack Obama. Conversely, the likes of Republican establishment leaders - to include John Boehner - should feel driven into the arms of conservatives, in part, because of what Barack Obama told Franklin Foer in an interview.

Here are the words of Obama, via the New Republic:

“If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it,” he said. “I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.”

To illustrate the point further, check out this quote from Obama in the article:

“The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,” the president said in an interview with The New Republic.

This perfectly demonstrates the projection dynamic of Communists. Republicans are in sharply gerrymandered districts? The implication here is that Democrats are not. The exact opposite is true. Republican Party leadership actually bought into this argument, which is why good, conservative Tea Party congressmen like Allen West and Joe Walsh were... wait for it... re-districted out by their own party. Did this assuage the Democrats? Not in the least. It provided them with more fuel for their communist fire.

In reality, it's the Democrats that are very comfortably entrenched in gerrymandered districts. How else does one explain Jesse Jackson, Jr. getting re-elected with well more than 60% of the vote AFTER he claimed he was a re-incarnated chariot driver?

The intellectually-vacant vote was gerrymandered into a Democrat's district but we're to believe that Republicans are gerrymandered?

Until Republican leaders like Boehner admit to themselves - and then publicly to others - what we're up against, Obama's strategy of 'divide and conquer' when it comes to the Republican Party will continue to be effective. To this point, establishment voices not only refuse to rebut socialists' lies but think appeasement will cause them to stop.

Boehner is certainly not too old to understand what communism is. He was 35 at the height of the cold war in 1984. This necessarily means that he understands the threat of the ideology. He should also know that it cannot be negotiated with. The second you compromise with a communist is the second you've lost a battle. The only problem he has at this point is admitting that communism is back and it's taken root in the government he serves in as Speaker. It's a difficult reality for him - or anyone - to face but it is reality nonetheless.

Instead of Boehner seeing Obama's comments as incentive to go back to the conservative base and try to bring them to the middle, it's time for him and other establishment guys to come to grips with the fact that while the base may not be as politically polished or savvy as the seasoned politicians, it has been right all along.

The fence cannot be ridden any longer. Compromising with Obama or moving to the center is what Obama wants, not because the base is too radical. It's what he wants because he knows it will destroy the Republican Party. Obama learned a great deal by watching the Republican base stay home in 2012. He's attempting to replicate that in 2014.

When then-Rep. Allen West said there were dozens of Communist Party members in Congress, he was scorned and mocked by... communist sympathizers - the left. He was berated by a media that's in the tank for the president, who spent years of his childhood learning from a member of the Communist Party USA and later sought out Marxists in college (his own words).

Establishment Republicans didn't come to West's defense, even though he was right. The Gateway Pundit website proved the communist / Democrat nexus when the names of 70 Congressmen were found to be registered members of the Democratic Socialists Caucus of America (DSA) in 2009. These are individuals who aspire to the Communist ideology. Their membership in such a caucus should not be dismissed, massaged, or interpreted differently. They cannot and should not be compromised with. When Obama or any other Democrat accuses conservatives of being extremists, it's projection. Communists know they themselves are extreme and they know how to enunciate that extremism when they're honest (usually, only among themselves).

There was only one member listed on the DSA Caucus who wasn't a Democrat - Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a registered socialist (at least he's one of 70 who were honest about something) and he caucuses with Democrats.

By the way, Jesse Jackson, Jr. was one of the 70 members listed with the DSA Caucus.

Communists know they can't enunciate the truth about themselves, even though they're exhausted from hiding it for so many years. They're like pressure cookers. The best way for them to let it out is to enunciate it perfectly... while applying its agenda to their opponents.

The debate du'juor is Gun Control. Obama wants it and the conservative base says no way. You know who else wants it?

The Communist Party USA.

By compromising with the Democrats on gun control, Boehner would be giving communists some of what they want, which is always a battle lost.

Audio: Interview with Michael Savage

On Friday, January 4th, I had the opportunity to appear on the Michael Savage show to talk about Al Jazeera's recent purchase of Al Gore's Current TV. Recording of interview is below.

Conflicting CBS Reports on when Susan Rice received talking points

Perhaps it's time for CBS to reconcile some inconsistencies in its reporting about when U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice received her talking points on the Benghazi attack. Given that Rice's appearances on five talk shows on 9/16 have become a focal point, it might be more than just a little warranted here.

First, let's go back to a November 15th CBS report. In particular, take note of the very first paragraph, which says:

CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier. CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan says the talking points, which were also given to members of the House intelligence committee, make no reference to terrorism being a likely factor in the assault, which left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.

 Here is the screenshot:

Now, how about the most recent CBS report, published on November 20th? It claims that Rice received her talking points on September 14th:

The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.

This may seem like a matter of splitting hairs but given the sensitive nature of the timeline between 9/11 and 9/16, it's a bit relevant to find out exactly when Ms. Rice received those talking points, is it not? After all, two significant things happened on September 14th. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney pointed to the now infamous anti-Muhammad video in the daily press briefing that kicked off before Noon and Hillary Clinton was at Andrews Air Force Base as the four murdered Americans arrived. While there, Hillary talked about the video being responsible.

We now know that was demonstrably false and that Hillary gave that false information at quite an unseemly time and place. According to Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, a former Navy SEAL and CIA who was among the four who were murdered, Clinton told him that the filmmaker would be arrested and prosecuted.

So, CBS, when exactly did Susan Rice receive her talking points?

Date and time please.

Forget Susan Rice; who gave Jay Carney his September 14th Talking Points?

As a direct result of the November 16th testimony given to House and Senate Intelligence committees by former CIA Director David Petraeus, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice has come under the public spotlight. Everyone wants to know who altered her talking points prior to her five Sunday show appearances on September 16th, five days after the attack in Benghazi. According to Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Petraeus told the committee that the original CIA talking points made specific reference to al-Qaeda involvement. Rice's talking points did not.

CBS News reported that the talking points prepared for Rice were issued on September 15th. Petraeus briefed both Senate and  House Intelligence committees on September 13th and 14th respectively. After his November 16th testimony, King told reporters that Petraeus insisted that he always knew that it was a terrorist attack that involved al-Qaeda elements. The congressman said the recollections of both himself and Petraeus about the September 14th testimony were different. King remembered Petraeus saying the attack arose from a "spontaneous reaction" to the anti-Muhammad video. Petraeus' recollection was that he knew it was a terror attack.

Again, here is what King said after Petraeus testified on November 16th. Take note of what King says about the CIA talking points going through a "long process" that involved State and DOJ:



For the sake of argument, let's assume that Petraeus' recollection was correct and that on September 14th, he testified that there was al-Qaeda involvement in the attack and that it wasn't caused by a video. We're to believe then, that he delivered CIA talking points.  If Petraeus delivered the unchanged CIA talking points on September 14th, that "long process" likely would have begun sometime thereafter, taking approximately 24 hours to be given to Susan Rice.

Hang on a second.

At precisely 11:42am on September 14th, the daily White House press briefing began. During that briefing, White House press secretary Jay Carney - not just the voice of the administration but of the President himself - said this:



Here is the corresponding portion of the transcript via RCP:

JAKE TAPPER: Wouldn't it seem logical that the anniversary of 9/11 would be a time that you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?

JAY CARNEY: Well, as you know, we are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9/11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on all the precautions being taken. But, Jake, let's be clear. These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.

TAPPER: At Benghazi?

CARNEY: We certainly don't know. We don't know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned attack. The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims, find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary, that we know of, or to U.S. policy.

Again, if Petraeus was truthful with the committee on November 16th, that the CIA knew almost immediately that the attack was not "spontaneous" or in response to a video and that he relayed that information to the Senate Intelligence committee on September 13th and to the House Intelligence committee on September 14th, then Jay Carney lied. This is significant because Carney gets approved talking points from the President. Again, Rice is the voice of the administration while Carney is the voice of the President specifically.

Now, back to King's assertion that the CIA talking points went through a "long process, involving many agencies". Taking Petraeus at his word on November 16th, that he issued CIA talking points to congressional committees on September 13th and 14th, how did they go through such a lengthy process quickly enough for Carney to enunciate the new talking points before lunch on the 14th?

So, Rice was given her altered talking points on September 15th but the voice of the president had them by the morning of September 14th.

The question that needs to be asked is not who altered Susan Rice's talking points but who altered Jay Carney's talking points one day earlier?

This smacks of racism and sexism by the way. The black, female, U.N. Ambassador is being hung out to dry by the administration while the white, male, press secretary is getting a pass.

What say you Marcia Fudge and Gwen Moore?

**UPDATE** CBS News is now reporting that James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) reviewed the talking points before they were given to Rice and the House intelligence committee:

The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.

Uh, are my eyes deceiving me or did the date that Rice received the talking points change? Does this mean Clapper reviewed the talking points on the 14th or that they were given to Rice on the 14th? CBS no less, reported on November 15th that Rice received the talking points on September 15th:

CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier.

So which is it? Was Susan Rice given the talking points on September 14th or on September 15th?

Incidentally, James Clapper is the guy who told Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood was "largely secular". This is relevant because that lie speaks to his credibility:

Video: Chris Wallace vs. a very Pale-looking David Axelrod

In this exchange between a very pale-looking David Axelrod, senior adviser to Barack Obama, and Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Axelrod is asked to respond to Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter's remarks that the Benghazi attack is such a big story is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Expectedly, Axelrod doubles down and charges that Romney has politicized the attack and points to an interview Ambassador Chris Stevens' father gave to Bloomberg in which the senior Stevens denounced the politicization of his son's murder.

Axelrod then implies that anyone who discusses the attack isn't honoring the wishes of Stevens' father by saying everyone should wait until the investigation into the attack is completed. Forget the fact that the administration, at minimum, has a conflict of interest when leading any such investigation because it's shaping up to be a major scandal. Simply leaving it in the hands of people who answer to the administration is not acceptable.

Wallace, who was visibly agitated at the insinuation, stops him and points out that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told five different Sunday talk shows on September 16th that the attack was in response to a video, which proved to be demonstrably false.



h/t Free Beacon

Video: Newt Gingrich calls for liberating Big Bird from the Bureaucracy

Two separate exchanges here. First, Piers Morgan asks Rick Santorum if Big Bird should be killed. Santorum says he's voted to do so in the past before saying, "you can kill things and still like them." The next exchange involves Newt Gingrich who says "Big Bird will be fine" and then flips the coin by saying we "should liberate Big Bird from the bureaucracy".

Big Bird is definitely having a 'Joe the Plumber' moment by being mentioned in a debate.

h/t Right Newz:

Video: Obama voted against sending money to New Orleans after Katrina

This video from CNN, circa October of 2008. This news report takes on added significance in light of the video posted at the Daily Caller of Obama on June 5, 2007. Of course, while going off-script at Hampton University, Obama chastised the Federal government for its double standard on the Stafford Act, which requires local governments to pay $1 for every $10 paid by the Feds during times of emergency.

Obama cited 9/11 and Hurricane Andrew as instances in which the Feds waived the 10% requirement of local governments. He then alleged that when it came to Hurricane Katrina, the Feds demanded that 10% be paid.

That leads to the CNN report below. Not only did then Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden vote to fund the now infamous 'Bridge to nowhere' in Alaska but they voted against re-directing that money to New Orleans where it would be used to repair a bridge damaged by Katrina.

Obama is that which he derides.

You really can't make this stuff up.



h/t Free Republic

Obama administration called out on Benghazi narrative by... CNN?

The issue of whether the attack on our Benghazi consulate was the spontaneous result of the anti-Muhammad film or a planned terrorist attack has all but been put to bed. The issue that hasn't been put to bed is why the Obama administration chose to enunciate the false talk track and not the true one - that it was indeed a terrorist attack.

Reports are in abundance that the CIA knew the truth within 24 hours. Yet, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows 120 hours after the attack and repeatedly pushed the notion that it was spawned by the video.

CNN, the network that brought us the contents of Ambassador Christopher Stevens' diary seems to be asking some tough questions. In the exchange below, between Erin Burnett and her network's foreign affairs reporter Elise Labott, we learn that Labott's intelligence contacts told her the CIA knew within 24 hours that the attack on the consulate was coordinated. Yet, somehow the CIA is being expected to take the fall for Rice's comments several days later?

Burnett also asks a very prescient question toward the end of this exchange. Specifically, why wasn't Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the one making the rounds on the 9/16/12 Sunday shows instead of Rice? After all, Stevens was Hillary's employee and the consulate where he was housed was an extension of the State Department, which is out of Rice's purview. Labott essentially says that Hillary's political seasoning and experience likely told her that telling the lie was untenable, she knew it, and someone other than her needed to push it.

On a side note, using the mainstream media's standards for conservatives, why isn't it considered racist to protect Hillary by sending Rice, who happens to be black, out to lie when it was Hillary's lie to tell?

Instead, the buck stops with the... U.N. Ambassador?

Via CNN (h/t Hot Air):



Rice's role in this particular instance is reminiscent of Jim Carrey's role with Globodyne. Sent out to spin the un-spinnable, Carrey takes the fall in much the same way Rice seems to be doing.

Ignore Ralph Nader... if you can.



Now that the lie about the Benghazi attacks being the spontaneous result of an anti-Muhammad film has become all but proven, another question that must be answered is why it was told in the first place. There very well may be several reasons, like spiking the bin Laden football at the DNC, five days before the attack but there's a more nefarious possibility - the same motive the Muslim world has for telling the same lie.

Attacking our first amendment right of free speech.

Let's not forget this exchange between Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General over the Civil Rights division, back in July. I've posted this before but in light of Rice's words being demonstrably false, coupled with their being congruent with the Muslim Brotherhood's narrative that the video was responsible, this exchange is perhaps a bit more timely:

Video: Newt hits Romney for not being tough with Obama

The Newt Gingrich presidential campaign peaked in South Carolina. In the days leading up to the primary, the former House Speaker was on offense. He was hitting Obama on Saul Alinsky, he was hitting CNN's John King on the debate floor, and he called out Juan Williams for the latter's obvious race-baiting. Gingrich was rewarded with a primary victory in that state.

Media outlets were reporting that candidates who win South Carolina almost always win the nomination. If Gingrich had proceeded to carry Florida one week later, he may have pulled away to victory. In the days after the South Carolina primary, the Romney campaign went to work, destroying Gingrich, who had a sizable lead in Florida shortly after that South Carolina victory only to see it eaten up by vicious Romney attack ads. It was essentially the end of Newt's campaign; he never recovered.

When it comes to destroying Obama, Romney has no interest and this fact is not lost on Newt who, during an appearance on Piers Morgan's show, called Romney out on it.

Good for Newt. He's right.



h/t Right Newz

Video: Bill O'Reilly Channels John McCain over heckler in Rose Garden

Bill O'Reilly, once again, shows himself to be more interested in a public perception that he is above the fray than in taking a principled stand. First, he refers to Obama's granting amnesty to 2-3 million illegal aliens as "humane," spending no time on the fact that the president has circumvented Congress in an illegal and unconstitutional power grab to secure more votes (and put more illegals on Obamacare rolls - see Joe Wilson).

Then, he channels John McCain who, after Rep. Joe Wilson shouted, 'You Lie' at Obama in a 2009 during a Joint Session of Congress, demanded Wilson apologize. O'Reilly falls back on the same argument when talking about the exchange between Neil Munro and Obama in the rose garden, saying that regardless of what you think of the President, the office of the Presidency must be respected. That's a fair point but it's Obama who is disrespecting the office far more than Wilson or Munro.

At some point, doesn't Obama become responsible for these reactions? Lying to the country in 2008 about being a member of the socialist New Party should absolutely anger people. Perhaps Bill O'Reilly should crack open Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Use of those tactics by Obama is like breathing for most people. He knows that these overreaching actions will get reactions. Alinsky taught how to get your opponents to react to your advantage.

“The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.” -Saul Alinsky

Obama knows this and O'Reilly, who has taken the bait, does not.

Via MediaIte:

Video: Raciss Bird Disrespects Obama in Rose Garden

The Daily Caller's Neil Munro wasn't the only one who didn't heed Barack Obama's words in the Rose Garden yesterday.

Pay attention to the insubordinate bird at the :12 mark and you can hear the bird call Obama a liar:



h/t Fox Nation

Video: Rep. Joe Walsh tells it like it is on O'Reilly

Folks, this is the kind of view that the majority of conservative Americans want expressed by their political leaders. The truth is controversial and Rep. Joe Walsh speaks it here.

It sure would be nice to hear the Republican nominee talk like this. Why? Because Walsh is right and being right shouldn't be subservient to political cowardice.

Via MediaIte:

Audio: Trump jumps back into the Birth Certificate debate

Few would argue that Donald Trump played a key role in Obama releasing his long form Birth Certificate last year. Once it was released, Trump faded from public view on that issue a bit. Now, a couple of weeks after Breitbart released evidence that Obama's literary agent published a bio that said the then future president was born in Kenya, Trump is now using it to bring his profile to the fore again.

Via the Right Newz / CNBC:



Of course, George Will's performance on ABC's This Week during which he referred to Trump as a "bloviating ignoramus" will do little more than one thing - keep Trump in the news.



Trump then proceeded to go directly after Will via twitter.

Via New York Post:

Trump hit back later Sunday, tweeting, "George Will may be the dumbest (and most overrated) political commentator of all time. If the Republicans listen to him, they will lose."

Just days before he is set to headline a Las Vegas fundraiser with Romney, Trump made headlines by saying in an interview published Friday that he still does not believe Obama was born in the US -- even after the White House released a long-form birth certificate last year showing the president was, in fact, born in Hawaii.

Later Friday, Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom sought to distance the candidate from Trump's comments, telling CNN that Romney "accepts that President Obama was born in the United States."

Will may also have a more personal reason for disliking Trump, as the polarizing mogul called him a "totally overrated fool" and a "hack" during a March interview on "FOX & Friends."

Considering how vehemently Andrew Breitbart avoided the issue of Obama's birth certificate, it's mildly ironic that a Breitbart story is giving Trump a second wind on the issue. The Breitbart story may be breathing new life into the Birther movement.

Hannity stakes his (weak) public position on Islam

There are several reasons why high profile individuals do not speak the truth about something. It can be tactical or it can be for career preservation. Wikileaks all but proved it is rarely out of ignorance. Enter Sean Hannity. He has publicly stated his position that Islam is not the problem. Instead, it is "RADICAL" Islam.

Logan's Warning at Right Side News got into a twitter battle with the talk show host and made this patently apparent. Interestingly, it was Hannity who ultimately blocked LW because he apparently wasn't prepared to logically defend his position after LW quoted very specific verses.

Hannity ducked the verses, told me there are “different interpretations” and threatened to block me on Twitter.

I told him that is leftist talk, and asked him to show me just ONE version that does not call for the dominance over non-Muslims. Of course he did not respond.

He definitely did not like being challenged. But I was not going to bow to him because he is on TV. The truth is more important! The argument ended with Hannity ignoring all the facts I had sent him, and him stamping his feet as he stated he will NOT say Islam itself is the problem.

Then he blocked me.

Yes, Logan's Warning doesn't have the public profile that Hannity does so it's definitely more difficult for Hannity to take such a position. It was also difficult for Winston Churchill to take the position he did against the Nazis; he took it anyway - at great expense - until the time was right. Just because doing the right thing may be more difficult for Hannity than it is for LW doesn't make it any less right. Churchill stated very uncomfortable realities from a much higher public position than that held by Hannity.

We're rapidly approaching the point where everyone will have to choose sides. If you're not on the side of Islam, you will have to be on the side of Neville Chamberlain or Winston Churchill. Hannity has historically been very critical of Chamberlain. Considering his stance on Islam, Hannity may need to stop doing that if he is to avoid justified charges of hypocrisy.

Here is Hannity's recent interview with Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is promoting a book. If Hannity had Rauf on his show to expose the imam's true intentions, it would have been a good move. Instead, the talk show host only helped the radically deceptive imam sell more books while pushing his deceptive agenda.

Hannity has unfortunately staked his very Chamberlain-esque position.

It's really kinda sad. It's also tragically ironic because Hannity has said countless times that journalism died in 2008.



h/t Free Republic

Video: Jay Carney has a Brain Freeze; no ice cream involved

Fox News Channel's Wendell Goler could easily have gotten the same reaction from Jay Carney had he spoon fed him some sherbet straight out of a freezer set at close to absolute zero on the Kelvin scale.



h/t Weasel Zippers

Geraldo: if Trayvon 'had taken that damn hood off his head...'

Well, you gotta give credit to Geraldo for not bowing to political correctness when it comes to his opinion of Trayvon Martin's hoodie but when it comes to defending his position with Martin family attorney, Ben Crump, you gotta give him low marks. Geraldo came up empty when Crump said that Mark Zuckerberg wears a hoodie too.

First up, during an appearance on O'Reilly on May 18th, Rivera said in response to the 7/11 surveillance video of Trayvon showing the teen in a hoodie, that Martin was dressed in 'thug wear.'



A couple of days later, Geraldo had Crump on his show. Crump went after Geraldo for focusing on Trayvon's attire and Geraldo didn't have have a response.

Norfolk's WAVY targets Bill O'Reilly over Black on White attack

This is a continuation of the story about two white reporters for a local Norfolk, VA newspaper being beaten by several black men. Bill O'Reilly and his guy in the field - Jesse Watters - reported on this earlier in the week. One of the men featured in that report was the editor for the Virginian-Pilot, Denis Finley, who came off in the O'Reilly segment as being reluctant to find out what happened in the beating.

When I reached out to Finley, he asserted that O'Reilly got the story wrong and blew it out of proportion. One of the claims by Finley was that there was no evidence of the attack being racially motivated.

Now, a television in Norfolk - WAVY - is targeting O'Reilly's coverage of the story while echoing the sentiment of Finley. O'Reilly's point in response to WAVY's reporting is that instead of going after him, they should spend their time getting to the truth about the beating. At one point in this segment, O'Reilly reports that his staff reached out to WAVY News Director, Jim Gilchriest for an appearance on the show and that Gilchriest declined.

Via Fox News:



O'Reilly also spoke with Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli about the case. Presumptively, Cuccinelli appeared on the show because O'Reilly's report that aired two days earlier was not flattering to the AG. Cuccinelli, who is running for Governor of Virginia next year, holds his own in this exchange but O'Reilly raises some very good points.

Do you call this one a draw?



Via Fox

Video: Lying Press Secretary says, 'I never lie'

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (Barker) spoke at a scholarship luncheon recently and told a a lie to the young crowd in attendance. He said, "I never lie."

Is it me or was Mr. Carney short of breath when he said that? Isn't that a sign of lying?

Via Washington Free Beacon: