Posted on 09/06/2009 9:09:25 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free
No mention of vetting or what Obama knew, just that Van Jones didn’t read the 9/11 petition carefully enough to know what he was signing.
***
Give me a friggin’ break - this from a Yale Law graduate ???
The NYT, WaPo, and ABC are somewhat concerned that one day they may be caught in a pile of steaming excrement needing to backpedal with their bare hands, so they are only up the President’s backside as far as the upper rectal area.
All of the rest of the papers and channels are so far up in Obama’s large intestine that there may not be a way out for them from any angle.
Great job, thanks
Low level and no vetting! How many billions was he in charge of?
I thought the same thing earlier today.
During the presidential campaign last fall, the nation's economic meltdown swamped any attempts by Republicans to portray Obama as having radical associations with figures such as his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.
Some conservatives, such as Fox's Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, have argued that Jones, an outspoken Bay Area black activist who once described himself as a communist, fit the same pattern.
Of course, it wasn't only the financial meltdown that KO'd attention to Obama's radical associations. It was the media cheerleading and the refusal of McCain to press the issue. The article concludes with the thought that all will be well when health care is passed, but still, at least a tiny glimmer of reality might be dawning for the non-Marxists in the media.
Exactly, and that is why this is about the MSM just as much as it is about Obama himself.
Obama has shown himself to be very thin skinned. He can’t keep his mouth shut when he or his policies are criticized. That’s why his mug is always on TV. Against the advice of his staff, he kept the Gates controversy brewing for days when he could have just let it drop.
By throwing people under the bus continually rather than ignoring the criticism, he keeps the stories alive and forces the DBM to explain what happened.
Are we supposed to be upset by being called "A$$hole" by an a$$hole. Sorry, Charlie...doesn't bother me one iota.! OTOH...
Are we supposed to believe that the totally inept "crackhead" POTUS (their description of Bush) was able to-- in only 8 months-- engineer and bring off a plan to fly two planes into the WTC and bring them down?
These radical Marxist a$$holes are also delusional!
I think Bernie Goldberg’s next book should be titled, “The Story Not Told...Until Now,” and expose the MSM and the people surrounding O.
Remember, this is NOT about the MSM. This is about Obama. The golden boy, the annointed one, the Messiah who can go no wrong, has now shown some incompetence in vetting his people.
You did a thorough job of proving that "the MSM" and Obama are joined at the hip, and now you say it is "not about the MSM?"That doesn't work. I certainly agree that it is about Obama - but whether you are at war with the "MSM" or not, it is at war with you. And your article shows that you have to know it.
I do not say that there is anything wrong with freedom of the press, to the contrary it is something that we should try again. We haven't had a free press since the Associated Press was instituted in the middle of the Nineteenth Century. The AP makes all its members part of the same union, destroying any ideological competition among them (squabbles among editorial pages notwithstanding). And that is why the AP is our enemy.
Here is what I mean when I say this is not about the media.
We need to focus on exposing the radical communists around Obama and join them to him, to deprive him of the support of the moderate people in the USA. When he loses their support, he will not be able to pass his communist agenda.
So I am talking about fighting a specific battle, and that is the one Glenn Beck is fighting by trying to educate people about Obama’s radical communist inner circle.
I am saying, let us focus on this golden opportunity to keep the pressure up on him and keep him on the defensive so he is reacting and not pushing his agenda, and deprive him of public support.
So it is not about going after the media at this time, unless you have ideas about how to make them report accurately on these issues. I don’t. The alternate media is going around them and their audiences are plunging. I see the MSM being less relevant as time goes on, and more people seeking out internet news from a myriad of sources.
This specific episode of Van Jones being forced out of the Obama administration is not about the MSM. We know they are biased and we know they will be useless and even combative. This is about keeping the pressure on the president. It is about forcing him to answer the question Glenn Beck wants him to answer:
Why did his close adviser, Valerie Jarrett, recruit a radical communist? Why are there so many other radicals surrounding Obama? If Van Jones wasn’t vetted and got through, how can we depend on his vetting at all? Shouldn’t he allow congress to re-vet all of his czars?
Etc. Stay no point.
I think there's no doubt that Obama can be a softer target than the Associated Press, but IMHO there is the outside possibility that the AP can be taken down (at least a notch or two) in court. Because at least according to one web site, the AP was held to be a monopoly by SCOTUS back in 1945. And there is a fundamental disjuncture between the principles of the Constitution - freedom and equality before the law - and the principles of the AP, which are that the only political discourse which matters happens in the pages of the members of the AP, and that nonmembers have no communication rights worth respect.We are up to our hips in the alligators from the Obama Administration, but the ultimate problem is the journalism monopoly which is the wire services generally and the AP in particular. I'm afraid we'll be stuck playing whack-a-mole indefinitely unless we defeat McCain-Feingold and the rest of the nonsense which proceeds from the assumption by the sheeple that "all animals are equal - the associated press animals are more equal.
I have an idea that I have posted before:
Conservatives in Congress need to start offering Amendments such as:
1.) No person in the executive branch, described as a “czar” by the President, will have the power to hire or fire anyone in the Federal Government.
2.) Every Cabinet Secretary, after having been confirmed by the Senate, will have the power to fire anyone in the Executive Branch who has ANY “czar” type responsibility in any particular branch of government. If that decision runs counter to the opinion of the President, that Cabinet Secretary shall STILL have the power to fire that “czar” and the President is, hereby, put on notice that the firing of ANY Cabinet Secretary, for such action, will automatically prompt a Congressional oversight hearing, and the President will NOT be able to fill that vacant Cabinet post until Congress is convinced that all problems have been corrected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.