American Glob

Obama said in his own words Sunday said that he paid no attention to Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor rally in DC.

Did you believe him?

I wasn’t sure until I read this bombshell from the Washington Examiner which exposes an email from Arne Duncan, the United States Secretary of Education to his staff, urging them to attend Al Sharpton’s counter event. Do you still think Obama was ignoring Beck’s event?

President Obama’s top education official urged government employees to attend a rally that the Rev. Al Sharpton organized to counter a larger conservative event on the Mall.

“ED staff are invited to join Secretary Arne Duncan, the Reverend Al Sharpton, and other leaders on Saturday, Aug. 28, for the ‘Reclaim the Dream’ rally and march,” began an internal e-mail sent to more than 4,000 employees of the Department of Education on Wednesday.

Sharpton created the event after Glenn Beck announced a massive Tea Party “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial, where King spoke in 1963.

The Washington Examiner learned of the e-mail from a Department of Education employee who felt uncomfortable with Duncan’s request.

I don’t blame the employee for feeling uncomfortable. Can you imagine if you were an MSNBC watching liberal and your boss sent you an email urging you to attend Glenn Beck’s event? How would you feel?

No depth of manipulation seems to be too low for Obama and the crowd of Chicago corruptocrats surrounding him.

They employ tactics which are much worse than anything their supporters railed loudly against under the George W. Bush administration.

Hat tips to ZIP and Matt Drudge.

Unless you were planning to vote for Obama in 2008, you might have wondered if some members of the liberal media were actively trying to destroy Sarah Palin on a personal and political level from the moment John McCain announced her as his running mate.

Guess what… You were right.

In the hours after Sen. John McCain announced his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate in the last presidential race, members of an online forum called Journolist struggled to make sense of the pick. Many of them were liberal reporters, and in some cases their comments reflected a journalist’s instinct to figure out the meaning of a story.

But in many other exchanges, the Journolisters clearly had another, more partisan goal in mind: to formulate the most effective talking points in order to defeat Palin and McCain and help elect Barack Obama president. The tone was more campaign headquarters than newsroom.

The conversation began with a debate over how best to attack Sarah Palin. “Honestly, this pick reeks of desperation,” wrote Michael Cohen of the New America Foundation in the minutes after the news became public. “How can anyone logically argue that Sarah Pallin [sic], a one-term governor of Alaska, is qualified to be President of the United States? Train wreck, thy name is Sarah Pallin.”

Not a wise argument, responded Jonathan Stein, a reporter for Mother Jones. If McCain were asked about Palin’s inexperience, he could simply point to then candidate Barack Obama’s similarly thin resume. “Q: Sen. McCain, given Gov. Palin’s paltry experience, how is she qualified to be commander in chief?,” Stein asked hypothetically. “A: Well, she has much experience as the Democratic nominee.”

“What a joke,” added Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker. “I always thought that some part of McCain doesn’t want to be president, and this choice proves my point.  Welcome back, Admiral Stockdale.”

Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation noted that Obama’s “non-official campaign” would need to work hard to discredit Palin. “This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn’t say – very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here – scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away …… bang away at McCain’s age making this unusually significant …. I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against [Obama].”

Ryan Donmoyer, a reporter for Bloomberg News who was covering the campaign, sent a quick thought that Palin’s choice not to have an abortion when she unexpectedly became pregnant at age 44 would likely boost her image because it was a heartwarming story.

“Her decision to keep the Down’s baby is going to be a hugely emotional story that appeals to a vast swath of America, I think,” Donmoyer wrote.

Politico reporter Ben Adler, now an editor at Newsweek, replied, “but doesn’t leaving sad baby without its mother while she campaigns weaken that family values argument? Or will everyone be too afraid to make that point?”

Read it all.

I sincerely hope the “JournoListers” know that an ever growing number of Americans are going to the polls this November with them in mind.

UPDATE: This sums it up pretty well.

Turns out, pretty much everything you’ve heard about liberal bias in the media is true. The Daily Caller has proof that shows liberal “journalists” conspired to use the government to shut down FOX News.

God forbid there’s ONE news network in America that appeals to conservatives…

The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”

But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”

John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”

I want to know if the Obama Administration was in on this.

Remember the fall of 2009 when the White House attacked FOX News, saying it wasn’t a real news organization? Where did that idea come from?

Could this Journolist scandal be worse than Watergate? Yes it can.

See the video below from fall 2009 where former Obama Communications Director Anita Dunn, a big fan of Chairman Mao, accuses FOX News of being an arm of the Republican Party.

Projection much, Anita?

Unless you’re a big fan of Obama, you probably remember thinking during the 2008 presidential campaign that many members of the media were doing more than just reporting. In fact, you might have even thought that they were actively trying to get Obama elected.

Well, Tucker Carlson and the Daily Caller have acquired the archives of Journolist and guess what… You were right.

It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.

The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air rightly notes:

Gee, doesn’t that sound familiar?

Based on these stunning revelations from The Daily Caller, can we finally put to bed the stupid notion that anyone who disagrees with Obama must be a racist?

Can we also acknowledge something many of us suspected all along… That the useless MSM has a liberal agenda and is officially an extension of the Democrat Party?

How desperate is CNN for ratings? This desperate….

Want your own TV news show? Just run for public office on a sanctimonious pro-law enforcement campaign and then get caught repeatedly cheating on your wife with a HOOKER!

Washington (CNN) – Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and 2010 Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Kathleen Parker will co-host a new hour long CNN primetime news program starting in the fall as the nation prepares for the 2010 midterm election, the network announced Wednesday morning.

The yet-to-be-named “roundtable discussion” program will air at 8 p.m. ET replacing Campbell Brown.

Why Kathleen Parker agreed to this is beyond me.

NOTE: The formula described above only works if you’re a Democrat.

Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

Ben Shapiro at BIG Hollywood tells of a child pornography charge that might spell years in prison for gossip blogger and noted asshole, Perez Hilton.

Carrie Prejean couldn’t be reached for comment… Details HERE.

MORE: News Busters notes that Perez Hilton is already losing advertisers.

And just like in the John Edwards case, it’s a gossip rag that breaks the news…

Al Gore’s split from wife Tipper after 40 years of marriage was a shock to everyone who thought theirs was the ideal marriage. Now Star can exclusively reveal that the former Vice President was having an affair with Larry David’s ex-wife — for the past two years!

In the June 28 issue of Star, on sale Wednesday, we report that Al and Tipper’s breakup didn’t come as much of a surprise to one Hollywood player — Laurie David. Star has learned that Al has been having an affair with Laurie, who divorced Seinfeld creator and Curb Your Enthusiasm star Larry David in 2007 amidst reports she was cheating with the caretaker of their Martha’s Vineyard summer home.

“Al and Laurie went from friends to lovers,” an insider tells Star. “It couldn’t be avoided.”

The Huffington Post wishes you would curb your enthusiasm.

The White House continues to deny any wrong doing in the case of Joe Sestak who claims claimed that he was offered a high level government job to drop out of the recent Pennsylvania primary.

Now we learn that this isn’t so much an exception but perhaps the rule…

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration dangled the possibility of a government job for former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff last year in hopes he would forgo a challenge to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, officials said Wednesday, just days after the White House admitted orchestrating a job offer in the Pennsylvania Senate race.

These officials declined to specify the job that was floated or the name of the administration official who approached Romanoff, and said no formal offer was ever made. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not cleared to discuss private conversations.

Isn’t that interesting?

BONUS: Guess who’s skipping Obama events in Pennsylvania.

Larry Kane is the reporter who blew the lid off this story by asking Joe Sestak a simple and direct question in an interview for Comcast News. Kane was interviewed by Sean Hannity last night and revealed new details. Check it out…

Larry Kane offers more insight on his blog:

When the taping stopped, Joe Sestak looked surprised .

“You are the first person who ever asked me that question.”

And that was true. But why was I the first. There was buzz about this story since last summer. A few days before the February 18th taping of Voice Of Reason for The Comcast Network, I was advised by two reliable sources that someone in or close to the White House had dangled a high level job offer to Sestak, to give a clear path to Senator Specter for the nomination. I thought it would be a good thing to pose the question to Sestak in the upcoming interview.

Read it all here.

California Rep. Darrell Issa appeared on Fox News Sunday yesterday and had some choice words for the Joe Sestak job offer scandal, now known as “SestakGate.”

A California congressman who called it an “impeachable” offense for the administration to offer Rep. Joe Sestak a job in exchange for his quitting a Senate bid said Sunday the cover-up, as usual, appears worse than the crime.

Republican Rep. Darrell Issa said the explanation for the Sestak affair — that former President Bill Clinton offered the Democratic congressman an unpaid position on an advisory board if he would drop his challenge against party-switching Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter — is not plausible because as a sitting congressman Sestak couldn’t have served on a presidential commission.

“It’s a crime because they’ve admitted that they offered this position … So that begs the real question. Do we believe this is a further cover-up because he’s — they’re now talking about a job that President Clinton himself should have known Sestak couldn’t take? ” he said.

“They’re now coming up with a nonplausible answer,” Issa said.

Video by Freedom’s Lighthouse.