A Conservative Perspective On: *Current Events* *Sports* *Movies and TV* *Popular Culture* Follow Me On Twitter: @drawandstrike
Friday, June 22, 2012
The 'Fluke'ing' Of The
Public Continues!
CNN Portrays
Washington Lobbyist
As 'Undocumented
College Student'
Duped by a clever lobbyist? Or playing along willingly?
One of the favorite underhanded tricks the MSM uses is deceptively presenting some sympathetic figure to drive a narrative they want to emphasize to their viewers.
One problem: with the advent of the New Media, deceptively palming off a person as something they're not is getting harder than ever.
Several months ago, a reproductive rights activist who specifically chose to attend Georgetown U because it's insurance didn't cover birth control was trotted out by the Democrats to address the Congress as some kind of ordinary college student. Because they waited too long to trot out this show pony, Fluke didn't actually get to testify before Congress about the terrible burden of being forced to pay for her own birth control.
That led to a press conference staged by Democrats to make it LOOK like she was giving some kind of testimony before Congress:
Here's the intrepid Sandra Fluke, not testifying before Congress.
As usual, the street theater comes apart when you take a closer look.
Ms. Fluke carefully studied Georgetown's policies before enrolling. She carefully noted that contraception was not provided in insurance coverage. And then she carefully enrolled at Georgetown anyway.
She enrolled there anyway to deliberately pick a fight with the administration and get them to change their religion to suit her.
They have refused to do so, and so I understand she's now some kind of victim because of this.
Ah. OK, got it. So at first she was just a '23 year old coed'. Then she was a '23 year old coed who also happened to be a 'reproductive rights activist'. Then she was a '23 year old coed who also happened to be a 'reproductive rights activist' who carefully investigated Georgetown's policies and decided to enroll specifically to fight the University over contraception insurance.
And now? The '23 year old coed' who also happened to be a 'reproductive rights activist' who carefully investigated Georgetown's policies and decided to enroll specifically to fight the University over contraception insurance turns out to be.............30 years old. And working as a women's reproductive rights activist before she decided she wanted to go to college.
All Georgetown U had to do to make Sandra happy was
cease to be Catholic or something. No biggie.
The great thing is, this kind of street theater doesn't stand up nearly as long as it used to. It used to be months and months, sometimes YEARS before the public figured out how it had been played. Usually after some reporter in a news magazine did some digging after the issue was all over, and then wrote a book about it.
Fluke was exposed as anything but a ordinary 23-year-old co-ed struggling to pay for birth control while attending a $23,000 per year law school while the issue was still being discussed.
You're not supposed to remember that the Dem's got caught
red-handed engaging in street theater with Sandra Fluke. No,
the only real takeaway is that Rush called her a 'slut'.
This greatly impacted the facts of the issue, though Rush Limbaugh's 'slut' joke ended up being turned into the 'real story'. The Dems were caught red-handed using a plant to try to generate sympathy for a difficult sell. They knew aside from the very real RELIGIOUS problem with this, most Americans would also have a problem creating a brand new entitlement funded by the government, so trotting out a show pony with a sob story was a great way to make anybody who resisted the ploy look like a hard-hearted mean skin-flint.
Just this week, CNN was caught using this tactic AGAIN.
Ann Coulter proved right again: Dem's use crying, hysterical victims -
After being asked if Romney might have suspected she was ambushing him, she told Political Pulse that she works for DRM Capitol Group, a Washington-based lobbying group that appears to exist specifically to push for the DREAM Act, according to the group’s website. In fact, DRM’s website statement about Romney includes this sentence: “Undocumented youth will escalate our actions against Mitt Romney until he supports the President’s new immigration policy.”
Once more, a sympathetic show pony is trotted out with a ready-made sob story to sell a narrative the Democrats & their MSM media mouthpieces want the public to embrace.
Watch the inevitable spin begin! OK sure, SHE'S fake, but
the ISSUE she's illustrating is real, so STFU, wingnutz!
An 'undocumented college student' crying over mean ol' Mitt's immigration stance turns out to be a paid employee of a Washington lobbying firm! Imagine that!
Anybody think CNN got played here, or were they doing the playing?
UPDATE: Just occurred to me: Hidalgo admitted to Political Pulse that she works for a Washington lobbying firm. Is she really an undocumented worker then? They hired her illegally? The only way this story would get better would be if she turned out to really be a legal citizen PRETENDING to be an illegal.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Stupid New Liberal
Talking Point:
Obama's Fast & Furious
Gun Walking Program Was
JUST LIKE
Bush's Operation
Wide Receiver!
"I have no idea what's in those Fast & Furious documents, I've never
read them, I didn't know anything about the program, and no,
you can't see them & WHY ARE YOU ASKING SO MANY QUESTIONS?"
After President Obama waited until the 11th hour to suddenly declare Congress could not see Dept. Of Justice documents [that Holder wasn't turning over anyway] related to Operation Fast & Furious because he was claiming Executive Privilege, Liberals realized attempts to contain and downplay this scandal until after the election in November is now officially over.
Holder's been found in contempt of Congress after stonewalling for a year and a half over who designed, authorized, and then disavowed any knowledge of the ATF's Fast & Furious program, even after it's been shown to have resulted in over 300 deaths.
"After our careful internal investigation, we've discovered we're either
a bunch of incompetent boobs or I'm in deep, deep trouble.
Can I have that letter back?"
At issue is a letter the DOJ sent to the Congressional Committee, a letter purporting to sum up a very careful internal DOJ investigation, in which it was claimed nobody at the DOJ had any knowledge of the F&F program and certainly did not know about, much less authorize, the deliberate walking of thousands of high powered firearms over the border to Mexico's incredibly violent drug cartels.
Between 3 and 2 1/2 years ago, the huge uptick in violence in Northern Mexico was getting major US news coverage. As bad as it had been, all of a sudden there was a huge new explosion of deaths, with gun battles growing even bloodier and more frequent.
And now we know why: The ATF had been instructed to walk thousands of firearms across the border to these drug cartels.
And then Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was shot to death with a F&F gun in Arizona.
This guy is still dead. & the DOJ isn't talking.
It was like somebody flipped a switch.
All of a sudden the rapidly escalating gun violence in Northern Mexico ceased to be news as far as the MSM was concerned. While the violence continued to grow worse - today it's even worse than it was 2 years ago - the Old Media over here has no interest in covering it with the exception of the most outrageous and gruesome mass murders - such as 35 dead people found under a bridge in Vera Cruz:
The more common 'ordinary' events like 7 people being shot to death in one cartel related attack gets passed over without comment since that level of violence is now so commonplace.
It's been proven thus far that the death toll from the Fast & Furious gun walking program is over 300 and counting. We may never know exactly how many people were shot to death with guns the ATF deliberately put into the hands of these violent criminals, but thus far we do know about 300+.
Who came up with Operation Fast & Furious? Who authorized it, signed off on it? Congress has been looking into this for a year and a half, and is still no closer to any answers than they were when they started. Eric Holder continues to insist nobody at the DOJ authorized the ATF to launch this operation, and then went on to claim - under oath and in written documentation - that nobody at the DOJ even KNEW guns were being walked over to Mexico.
And that has now been proven to be a lie. That letter that the DOJ submitted to the Congressional Oversight Committee claiming nobody over there knew a thing about guns being sent over the border was quickly withdrawn when the facts came out.
In other words, evidence showed people at the DOJ did know about F&F and they DID know guns were being sent to these cartels. They lied to Congress. Perjury was committed.
Just the other day in testimony before Congress and also in a letter, Holder claimed Bush's Attorney General Mike Mukasey had been fully briefed on F&F. THAT too was found to be not true, and so the DOJ just withdrew that letter also.
So this is TWICE now that the DOJ supposedly made a careful investigation, then reported it's findings to Congress.....and then ended up having to retract it.
They are either grossly incompetent or they are hiding something.
So in light of the fact Holder has now been found in contempt, and President Obama has shielded the DOJ's documents on Fast & Furious from Congress by claiming Executive Privilege, what exciting new talking point have the Liberals formed to explain why all of this doesn't mean anything?
They've gone back to a failed program from when Bush was President that was called 'Operation Wide Receiver'.
Needless to say, there are key difference between how Wide Receiver was done and how Fast & Furious was carried out. Katie Pavlich points out the obvious after the Associated Press messed up the story and ran with factually incorrect information:
The federal government under the Bush administration ran an operation that allowed hundreds of guns to be transferred to suspected arms traffickers — the same tactic that congressional Republicans have criticized President Barack Obama's administration for using, twofederal law enforcement officials said Tuesday.
When Bush, a Republican, was president, the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Tucson, Ariz., used a similar enforcement tactic in a program it called Operation Wide Receiver. The fact that there were two such ATF investigations years apart in separate administrations raises the possibility that agents in still other cases may have allowed guns to "walk."
The problem is, the "same tactic" under heavy criticism by the House Oversight Committee was not used under President Bush. Operation Fast and Furious started in Fall 2009 and was an offshoot of the Project Gunrunner program implemented under the Bush Administration. Project Gunrunner started as a pilot program in Laredo, Texas and went national in 2006.
Project Gunrunner involved the surveillance of straw purchasers buying weapons, but those purchasers were immediately apprehended before crossing back into Mexico or tranferring arms to dangerous criminals. Shortly after Obama took office, Operation Fast and Furious allowed straw purchasers working for Mexican drug cartels to purchase mass amount of weapons in the United States and then take them back to Mexico in addition to allowing them to be lost at stash houses and tranferred to dangerous cartel members.
ATF agents who have testified before Congress about the program said the idea was to "trace" those weapons, but the tracing ended up being a total failure as GPS batteries ran out and thousands of guns were lost in Mexico and only found at final violent crime scenes. Did both operations allow for straw purchasers to buy guns under ATF/DOJ surveillance? Yes, however, the key difference between Operation Fast and Furious under Obama and Project Gunrunner under Bush is that under Obama guns were allowed to go back into Mexico without interdiction or arrests.
Nice going there, AP!
And you know what? The AP is hardly the only one making false claims about Wide Receiver letting guns deliberately walk into Mexico. Look what the Washington Post did here:
Andrew McCarthy points how laughable it is to try to equate ATF agents on the scene engaging in surveillance of an illegal gun purchase with the gun walking of Fast & Furious:
It was left to Republican Senators Charles Grassley and John Cornyn to lay bare some crucial distinctions between to two ATF operations. Wide Receiver actually involved not gun-walking but controlled delivery. Unlike gun-walking, which seems (for good reason) to have been unheard of until Fast & Furious, controlled delivery is a very commonlaw enforcement tactic. Basically, the agents know the bad guys have negotiated a deal to acquire some commodity that is either illegal itself (e.g., heroin, child porn) or illegal for them to have/use (e.g., guns, corporate secrets). The agents allow the transfer to happen under circumstances where they are in control — i.e., they are on the scene conducting surveillance of the transfer, and sometimes even participating undercover in the transfer. As soon as the transfer takes place, they can descend on the suspects, make arrests, and seize the commodity in question — all of which makes for powerful evidence of guilt.
Senator Schumer’s drawing of an equivalence between “tracing” in a controlled-delivery situation and “tracing” in Fast & Furious is laughable. In a controlled delivery firearms case, guns are traced in the sense that agents closely and physically follow them — they don’t just note the serial numbers or other identifying markers. The agents are thus able to trace the precise path of the guns from, say, American dealers to straw purchasers to Mexican buyers.
To the contrary, Fast & Furious involved uncontrolled deliveries — of thousands of weapons. It was an utterly heedless program in which the feds allowed these guns to be sold to straw purchasers — often leaning on reluctant gun dealers to make the sales. The straw purchasers were not followed by close physical surveillance; they were freely permitted to bulk transfer the guns to, among others, Mexican drug gangs and other violent criminals — with no agents on hand to swoop in, make arrests, and grab the firearms. The inevitable result of this was that the guns have been used (and will continue to be used) in many crimes, including the murder of Brian Terry, a U.S. border patrol agent.
In sum, the Fast & Furious idea of “trace” is that, after violent crimes occur in Mexico, we can trace any guns the Mexican police are lucky enough to seize back to the sales to U.S. straw purchasers … who should never have been allowed to transfer them (or even buy them) in the first place. That is not law enforcement; that is abetting a criminal rampage.
As Sen. Cornyn pointed out, there is another major distinction between Wide Receiver and Fast & Furious. The former was actually a coordinated effort between American and Mexican authorities. Law enforcement agents in both countries kept each other apprised about suspected transactions and tried to work together to apprehend law-breakers. To the contrary, Fast & Furious was a unilateral, half-baked scheme cooked up by an agency of the Obama Justice Department — an agency that was coordinating with the Justice Department on the operation and that turned to Main Justice in order to get wiretapping authority.
By the time Cornyn was done drawing this stark contrast between Wide Receiver and Fast & Furious, Holder was reduced to conceding, “I’m not trying to equate the two.”
In other words, Holder HIMSELF has already admitted how freaking stupid it is to try to say F&F = WR.
That doesn't mean the Liberals won't try, though. So here's a handy chart to point out the key differences between Wide Receiver and Fast & Furious:
Not only does Jon Stewart tell an audience inclined towards supporting Obama in November exactly why Operation Fast and Furious was so important to investigate, he also explains that the Obama administration has been refusing to cooperate with subpoenas, giving false information to Congress, and generally stalling for the last several months. On top of that, Stewart then skewers the same Democrats who blasted George Bush in 2007 for hypocrisy in defending Obama’s executive privilege claim in 2012. That’s a hell of a lot more information than NBC provided its viewers this week, that’s for sure:
Guess what? NBC News nightly broadcast with Brian Williams mentioned F&F to his viewers for the 1st time ever just last week. Thus far, now that he's been FORCED to cover it, Williams - like the NYT's - has dismissed F&F as a 'partisan politics', 'nothing to see here, folks, move along....' etc. etc.
Stewart then claims Obama's invoking executive privilege in this case is just like what Bush did himself. As Ed explains...........not exactly:
The issue in 2007 involved the use of non-delegable executive authority specifically granted under Article II to make political appointments — in the event, those of US Attorneys, who like all other political appointees serve at will at the pleasure of the President. As courts have ruled in Nixon and Espy, executive privilege applies in the exercise of non-delegable Article II powers as part of the separation of powers in the government. Operation Fast and Furious was conducted by a federal agency under powers delegated to the DoJ that are shared between Congress and the President. Furthermore, the subpoenas in this case relate to official misconduct and lawbreaking — not just the gunrunning but also false testimony before Congress. Presidents cannot claim executive privilege to shield documents in those circumstances, as Espyexplicitly states.
The White House spin isn’t working. Even Jon Stewart ridiculed it. Maybe NBC might consider following Stewart’s lead and report honestly on the story now.
When a comedian who's honest about the fact he's a 'fake newsman' does a better job of covering an important, controversial topic than a major news outfit like NBC News, you know the MSM is in trouble.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
MSNBC BeClowns
Itself Again:
Still Living In The Past
It wasn't THAT long ago MSNBC & NBC News got caught red-handed editing the audio of the Zimmerman 911 call. You may remember several people getting fired from their jobs over that one - 3 publicly.
Think MSNBC & NBC News learned their lesson from that debacle?
NOT A CHANCE.
Here's what aired yesterday on MSNBC, with Andrea Mitchell reporting:
Heh. Yeah. That super-rich out of touch guy, Mitt Romney, what did you expect? What an IDIOT this guy is, eh? Why, as Andrea helpfully points out, this helps show that Mitt is as out of touch as George H.W. Bush was when he was 'amazed' by a simple grocery store scanner!
Except of course, as anybody who's looked into that knows, the 'totally AMAZED!!!! by a simple grocery store scanner' story itself was totally bogus:
Guess what happened? Somebody had actually watched Mitt's entire speech that day. AND IMMEDIATELY KNEW WHAT MSNBC had done. So they put the raw video up on YouTube.
Where.............SURPRISE!!!!.............a Conservative blogger saw it and compared it to the video MSNBC ran.
Here's what Mitt actually said. Compare the video below to how MSNBC presented it in the highly edited clip above:
Within just several HOURS MSNBC's attempt at a 'Romney is way out of touch' narrative based on their deceptively edited video had been blown up all over the internet.
Hey, Obama's Palace Guards in the Media, little NEWSFLASH for you here: YOU ARE LIVING IN THE PAST. You really really need to stop doing that.
You've had it proven to you time and again you CAN'T get away with this BS any longer. I realize since you're not very intelligent coming up with new tricks to deceive the public might be a real stretch for you, but you're simply going to have to apply yourself & come up with something.
The internet is too vast, the information that can be obtained almost instantly now is too broad to continue trying this stupid "We'll just deceptively edit this video & spin it & our stupid viewers will never catch on" schtick.
You'd think they'd have learned this lesson after they deceptively edited a Tea Party rally video to hide the race of the black guy that brought a legally carried rifle to the rally so they could talk about...................WHITE RACISTS.
That particular attempt at deception didn't even last 1 full day thanks to Newsbusters & Noel Sheppard.
The New Media is up and running now. It's found it footing, and it's figured out many of the Old Media's clever tricks. It can now blow up the Old Media's narratives often on the SAME DAY they try to roll them out.
This IS progress, but more remains to be done. The next step is, instead of reacting to the Old Media and spending much of our time just exposing their latest lies, is to leave them behind in the dustbin of history.
We're working on it.
UPDATE: Hat tip to Elizabeth Scalia, who blogs as The Anchoress [@TheAnchoress] for tweeting this epic rant by a long-time defender of the Mainstream Media who, as she puts it, just had his last nerve fried by this latest duplicity.
Today, we have Andrea Mitchell’s spectacularly lame followup to “criticism of the Romney clip edit” — which amounted to Ms. Mitchell saying, with a sigh and a frown, “Oh, bother. Fine. Here’s what we left out.” She failed to acknowledge what the “criticism” entailed; she neglected to point out how the editing misrepresented the event being covered; and she offered nothing resembling an apology or an admission of responsibility for something that was, as a matter of fact, irresponsible.
I’m tired. Truly. I’ve grown weary of trying to defend the indefensible and explain the inexplicable. For years, people have stomped their feet and pounded their fists and snorted “Liberal media bias!” and I’ve always tut-tutted and shooshed them and said, “No, no. Calm down. They meant well. It was just a misunderstanding. A mistake. These things happen.” I spent over 25 years working in the oft-reviled Mainstream Media and I saw up close and personal how the sausage was made. I knew the people who wielded the knives and wore the aprons, and could vouch (most of the time, anyway) for their good intentions.
But now?
Forget it. I’m done. You deserve what they’re saying about you. It’s earned. You have worked long and hard to merit the suspicion, acrimony, mistrust and revulsion that the media-buying public increasingly heaps upon you. You have successfully eroded any confidence, dispelled any trust, and driven your audience into the arms of the Internet and the blogosphere, where biases are affirmed and like-minded people can tell each other what they hold to be true, since nobody believes in objective reality any more. You have done a superlative job of diminishing what was once a great profession and undermining one of the vital underpinnings of democracy, a free press.
And there is one more factor, let’s face it: Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there – they oppose him not for his polices and political view but for who he is, an African American!
Liberals actually think Conservatives lie awake at night obsessing over the fact the current President is BLACK.
They really do think this way.
It really has nothing to do with the fact he's incompetent, arrogant, out of touch, over-reaching, engaging in frequent illegal and unethical behavior.
No, no, that's not the REAL reason Obama is opposed so vigorously.
This is what many Conservatives don't understand. There they are calmly and reasonably discussing a certain subject - let's say pension funds for unions, which are going to bankrupt many states before 2020 gets here if something isn't done - and all of a sudden the Liberal they are talking to will lean over the table and hiss "Why do you HATE working families?"
This is what it always comes down to . They are convinced evil motives drive Conservative policy. Therefore only evil people can adopt Conservatism. Based on this bedrock assumption, they will totally ignore any rational points you are making that count against the Liberal position and at all times keep trying to discuss your MOTIVES for daring to question the Collective Wisdom.
When they can't defeat your argument on the MERITS, they will switch to attacking your argument because it's based on WRONG MOTIVES.
"Sure things could have gone better for the President the past 3 years, but the only reason you are opposing him is his SKIN COLOR. Your opposition is motivated by RACISM and it is therefore invalid and reprehensible."
Your criticism/opposition to Obama & his policies is invalid because......RACIST!
Actor & Conservative blogger Adam Baldwin already wrote one of the definitive treatments on how the Left uses the PC word 'racism!' as a thought-terminating, discussion-ending cliche':
thought-terminatin' cliche' outta my sight.......NOW!"
So not surprisingly, almost immediately some on the Left began spinning that the 'REAL REASON' Daily Caller reporter Neil Munro interrupted Obama is.........racism!
An instantly formed talking point on the Left was that NOBODY had EVER interrupted a President giving a speech before. For longtime political junkies like me, this was a howler. Really? Never? & the only reason it would happen is racism?
OK then: meet the nation's First Black President: RONALD REAGAN
Have these people never seen Helen Thomas in action? She was only in the WH press corp for something like 45 years.
It's June and they're already rolling out the Race Card. Again. My. God. What a fun 5 months this is going to be.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
The Arrogance Of This
President Has Reached
Mind-Blowing Proportions
This is what a coward looks like:
"Are you going to take any questions?" "Not while I'm speaking."
[finishes speaking, then turns and quickly leaves, taking no questions from reporters]
Supposedly the big takeaway from the President's speech in the Rose Garden yesterday was that a very rude reporter interrupted Barack Obama while he was giving a speech.
"Excuse me sir, it's not time for questions."
And when the speech was over, apparently it
STILL wasn't the time for questions.....
If that's all you heard about, some rude guy not waiting until Obama was finished to ask a question, you missed the real story.
Yesterday, the President of the United States announced he was single-handedly re-writing the nation's immigration law without having to deal with niggling little details like the United States Congress or Supreme Court.
This is just the latest example of Obama doing an end-run around the other branches of the US Government and shredding the Constitution when it suits him for his own political gain.
NEWS FLASH TO THE WHITE HOUSE: The Executive Branch of the Federal Gov't does NOT have the power to single-handedly rewrite the nation's laws when it suits it. Writing and passing the nation's laws is the job of the Congress, with the Supreme Court checking to make sure those laws pass Constitutional muster. In fact, the job of the Executive Branch, contained right there in the oath of office, is to protect & defend the Constitution of the United States and see that the laws are enforced. The court challenges to this latest Obama over-reach won't be long in coming, but the fact we even have to go through this charade is frustrating.
"Yeah well I don't LIKE that law, I don't AGREE with that law, so
I'm CHANGING that law and you can't stop me!"
Obama seems to think if he doesn't agree with the law written & passed by the people's elected representatives in the Congress, he has the right to either totally ignore it or as in this case, actively rewrite it to suit himself.
By re-writing the nation's immigration law to
1. end deportation of illegal immigrants aged between 16 & 30 years of age, 2. allow these same illegal immigrants to apply for work permits
all on his own, Obama has just radically altered the nation's policy & there will be definite impact to this in a number of areas.
Daily Caller reporter Neil Munro, who became instantly famous for interrupting Obama yesterday, immediately seized on the most important impact of allowing what could be up to 800,000 young illegal immigrants to legally look for work in the US.
In a US job market where the fake 'official' unemployment rate has been over 8% for over 2 1/2 years [actual unemployment rate well over 12%], and the labor pool is actually shrinking as more people drop out of it, this is of course the PERFECT TIME to suddenly have 800,000 people who broke the law to get in here competing with US citizens for what few job openings can be found.
And if they are legally allowed to work here in the US now, if they can't find any work, does this mean they can now also legally file for unemployment & welfare benefits? That IS a valid question.
Naturally, Obama didn't want to have to answer ANY questions about the radical power grab he was making, OR messy questions about what this new policy would mean for the US job market.
Obama has done this several times before, used a Rose Garden speech to announce some big new policy or plan and then leave without taking any questions. That is CERTAINLY what he planned to do yesterday.
And Neil Munro was not having any of it. This reporter instantly seized not only on what a huge unconstitutional power grab this was by Obama, he also immediately realized what a negative impact this new influx of legal job seekers would have on the employment situation.
He knew Obama would never willingly take a question from a reporter that day about it. And quite frankly, it pissed him off. It's very true as you watch the video of the exchange, you can see Munro is agitated. I can think of a lot of smart people who could quickly grasp what Obama was doing getting pretty agitated about it.
"Yeah, I'll just walk out there & announce this new policy & then
leave without taking any questions about it."
So Neil Munro didn't follow the script. Obama was supposed to go out there, give this prepared speech, announce he's usurping Congresses' role in making the nation's laws, totally abdicating his own role of enforcing those laws, shredding the Constitution, plus creating a job situation in this country more confused & murky than ever, and then quickly turn and leave without taking any questions from the dozens of reporters there to cover the speech.
Liberals want you to be VERY VERY upset at Neil Munro because he did not follow the script.
You know what my take on it is? Thank God there are Americans still out there who won't take this BS lying down. Obama wanted to pull a fast one on the American people and not be called out on it by anybody. SOMEBODY IN THE MEDIA DECIDED TO ACTUALLY CONFRONT HIM ABOUT IT.
Isn't that the media's job? Haven't they spent decades claiming they are the watchdogs looking out for the rest of us & speaking the truth to power, etc. etc.? Wasn't that what Munro was doing?
The real point here is that Progressives want a LAPDOG MEDIA that will take quietly whatever Obama dishes out. Don't rock the boat. Go along to get along. Play along no matter how outrageous his behavior gets. Did this arrogant prick actually expect to go out there and singlehandedly rewrite the nation's immigration law, bypassing both the Congress & the Constitution for his own political advantage and NOBODY WOULD CALL HIM OUT ON IT?
Hey lap dog media: take a lesson from Neil Munro. THIS IS WHAT A WATCH DOG LOOKS LIKE.
Daily Caller Reporter Neil Munro: Just 1 of the over
2 dozen reporters assembled
for Obama's speech who's questions
Obama had no intention whatsoever of taking.
Maybe Neil Munro has been doing exactly that up until yesterday? Maybe Obama finally crossed that line in the sand where Munro can't look away any more and pretend he's not seeing what he knows he's seeing?
Yeah, so the big takeaway we're supposed to have from the speech in the Rose Garden yesterday isn't that Obama thinks he's some kind of King who can do whatever the hell he wants, Constitution be damned, no it's that some reporter didn't wait for Obama to finish his speech so Obama could leave without taking any questions.
