By Adrienne Ross - www.motivationtruth.com

On September 29th, I posted an article called "Public School Library Propagates Falsehood that Governor Palin Banned Books." (See video at the end.)

To recap:

I was walking on my way to the weight room this evening when I stopped dead in my tracks after taking a few steps past the library. I backed up and took in the display in the window, which includes various books, quotes, and poetry about reading and book banning. Only one person's picture is a part of the display--and that person is Governor Palin. It was included in an old article called "Sarah Palin, aspiring book banner?" which was published in the LA Times a year ago. That article makes up a homemade poster that says, "Sarah Palin + Banned Books = Censorship."

Listen, I'm not talking about a local area library. I'm talking about a public school library, where they use this week to demonize Palin as the enemy of free thought, reading, and exploration. Nevermind the plethora of information out there that she never sought to ban books but had asked a general question of a librarian to discover how she would deal with censorship. Nevermind the numerous times Governor Palin has herself stated she never sought to ban books. And nevermind the fact that some of the books on the list, like Harry Potter, hadn't even been published yet! No, facts aren't important.

[...]

On the left and right of the display in the library window is the poem "Manifesto" by author, Ellen Hopkins. In the poem, Hopkins blasts "zealots, biggots, and false patriots," for their desire to censor. This poem is the official poem of this year's Banned Books Week--and Governor Palin's picture is the centerpiece!

What gives them the right to place this attack in the library window? Who approved the display--or who overlooked it? Am I the only person who walked by and saw it? What impression does it give our children? What impact will this have on their vote in a few years? I am livid, as I should be. This is absolutely unacceptable behavior.

[...]

My approach tomorrow? I will go into the library with the facts and present them respectfully. I will ask that Governor Palin's picture and the article be removed. If that is denied, I will request they hang another article next to it--which I will graciously provide--that refutes the falsehoods. If I do not get anywhere with the librarian, well, I'll go to the next level. It is my hope that my talk with the librarian will suffice, but we'll see what happens.


So what has happened? Many of you have contacted me to find out what became of the situation. Time has transpired, but please know that I haven't been sitting around for the last couple weeks. I have actually been very much in the thick of things, battling this situation and standing up for the truth--the truth about Governor Palin, yes, but more importantly, truth for our kids who deserve as much in an educational setting.

So let me take you step by step through this situation.

Tuesday evening, September 29th:
I notice the display.

Wednesday morning, September 30th:
First thing in the morning, I enter the school library with articles that state the truth about the book banning accusation that surfaced during the 2008 campaign. I respectfully address the falsehood. The librarian acknowledges that Governor Palin never banned books, but states that she believes Palin wanted to ban books. Therefore, she feels justified in hanging a poster, which she admits she personally made, that links Governor Palin to banning books. She, too, is respectful, but she refuses to remove Governor Palin from the display. Even after over 20 minutes of conversation, she will not budge--only says she'll do more research. During the conversation I suggest putting up, alongside her display, the articles that I have that state the facts.

Wednesday afternoon:
A co-worker comes to see me because the librarian emailed her a link to the blog I wrote about the display. (Apparently the librarian came upon it in her research.) We engage in conversation regarding the issue.

Wednesday, later in the afternoon:
I haven't heard more from the librarian, and I seek out the principal. I ask him if we can have a meeting about the issue, and I fill him in briefly. I explain that Governor Palin's picture was in the midst of a display with a poem calling out "bigots, zealots, and false patriots." I also tell him the banned books lie was dealt with a year ago. He cuts me off, says a meeting isn't necessary, and that he will take the display down "right now." He tells me he has not seen the display. At this point, I think the falsehood is dealt with and all will be well--responsible action taken.

Wednesday, before the end of the day:
I receive an email from the principal stating he has seen the display, has talked to the librarian, and if I need to talk to him further, give him a call. At this point I realize he has not directed the librarian to remove Governor Palin from the display. I call his office, but he is in a meeting. I stop in to see him before I leave work, but he has left. I go by the library--and there the dishonest display remains. (How many students have been lied to by now?)

Thursday morning:
I drop by the principal's office to talk to him. I spend about a half hour discussing the issue with him. I explain that I didn't want to have to come to him, that I was hoping the librarian and I could have resolved it. He has a copy of the article that she posted and says she told him that because Governor Palin is "provocative," she wanted to use her to draw the kids in. I explain that as an educational institution, it is absolutely necessary that we draw kids in with the truth, not lies that amount to defamation. I also say that the librarian has admitted that Governor Palin never banned books, yet is insisting on keeping the display up. I use the example that President Obama is also provocative and that there are many opinions of him, for example the birth certificate issue, but that to put up a display that said, "President Obama + No Birth Certificate = Illegal Alien" or something like that would not only be unfair to him, but it would be unfair to our students. I point out that this is clearly an attempt to demonize Governor Palin and to indoctrinate our students--and neither has a place in a school. He doesn't say much throughout our conversation, just looks at me and allows me to speak. I reiterate that Governor Palin never, ever asked for books to be banned, and that it is on record that no books were ever banned from the Wasilla Library. I have the evidence with me. I mention also that at this point the display has been up too long, hundreds of students have seen it, and the responsible thing would now be to take down the display and post the truth. If we are going to be in the business of educating, it's important to use facts--and when we mess up, just correct it. It's that simple. As the meeting is winding down, he eventually says, "I will speak to her." When I ask if he will ask her to remove the misinformation about Governor Palin from the display, he simply repeats, "I will speak to her." When I ask, "Will you let me know the decision about the display?" he answers, "I will speak to her." I then say, "Well then, I'll follow up," and I leave his office.

Thursday, after school ended and most staff had left:
I walk by the library to see if the display is as it has been. It is unchanged.

Friday morning:
I email the principal to state that the display was still up as of Thursday evening, and that since this is the last day of Banned Books Week, the responsible thing to do in our quest for teaching young adults the truth is to put up a display that states the fact that Governor Palin never banned books. I write that our children deserve as much and that it is our responsibility not to cause even one of them to be misled. I receive no response.

Friday, well after school had ended:
I walk by the library and see that the display is down. I pretty much expected this since Banned Books Week is over. Another display for Day of the Dead is up. I then decide to go to the Administrative Suite to see if the superintendent is still there. He is. I explain the situation to him--and he appears very supportive. He had not been aware of the situation and seems concerned that something of this nature would be displayed in our school. I express that it is not only flat out dishonest, but it is unfair to the students we are committed to educating. He is especially interested in the fact that the librarian has acknowledged that she knows Governor Palin never banned books. I state that the responsible thing to do now is to put the truth up, as we have displayed a lie to hundreds of students in the past week in an attempt to demonize one person and advance a political agenda. My point to him is this: if that wasn't the motivation, why wouldn't she put up someone's picture who actually had banned books? I tell him that I want the truth to be displayed where the lie was for all our students to see, that this is the only responsible action. I state that the only thing that would keep someone from doing so is pride. He suggests that what I'm asking is reasonable but that he wants himself, the principal, librarian, and me to meet. I leave his office feeling good about the meeting and believing we will do the educationally responsible--and moral--thing.

Monday, October 5th:
At the end of the day, I email the superintendent about where things stand in terms of setting up a meeting about displaying the facts. I state that I would really like to get this out of the way.

Tuesday:
I pass the superintendent in the hall in the morning. He states that we will have a meeting and thanks me for the reminder email.

Wednesday and Thursday:
I receive emails from the principal and his secretary about meeting with him. These emails amount to: I state that we have already met privately and that I would like to have the meeting the superintendent and I discussed--with everyone present. I send emails to all involved stating again that I'd like to do the responsible thing and correct the wrong by displaying the truth for our students. I email my times of availability to meet during the day or after school. I receive an email from the principal's secretary stating he can meet eight days later. I respond by stating that date is too far away and perhaps something will open up sooner. The principal emails that it is very difficult to arrange a meeting that fits everyone's schedule and would let me know when something opens up. I send him a "thank you" email.

Friday:
At the end of the day, as I am co-teaching a class, I receive a phone call from the principal's secretary stating the superintendent, principal, and librarian are waiting for me to attend the meeting. Apparently there was some miscommunication because I had never been notified that the meeting was arranged. I leave the class in the hands of the co-teacher and go to the meeting.

Meeting:
I am asked to share my concern again. The superintendent expresses his viewpoint, which is that this should have been taken care of when I first went to the librarian. In other words, the display should have simply been taken down, as I came respectfully and directly to the librarian. The librarian states that she wanted to draw the kids' attention to Banned Books Week and Governor Palin could do that. When asked if it worked, she says that it did work, that many students came in to ask questions and to borrow books. There is a lot of discussion, which boils down to my stating that it is dangerous to use people and lies to shape the thinking of children. The superintendent voices his concern about the display and states that it should have come down, but says that he isn't sure he wants to become like a newspaper and retract what was up. I maintain that as educators this is the right thing to do. After all, the librarian herself said that many students took note of the display and discussed it. I express again that using only one person's picture--and someone who never banned even one book--to be the poster child of a display about "bigots, zealots, and false patriots" is unacceptable. I say that the librarian is entitled to think Governor Palin wanted to ban books, but she is not entitled to take that thought to the next level and present it as fact, which is exactly what a poster that says "Sarah Palin + Banned Books = Censorship" and an article about it does. I also state that if she thinks the governor wanted to ban books, then maybe she should wait until "People I Think Wanted to Ban Books Week" to put her in the midst of a display! When the superintendent asks the principal what he feels about the retraction display I am requesting, the principal doesn't commit one way or the other, just states that he understands both sides. The superintendent hears from the librarian, who asks if I am requesting displaying the truth in my classroom. I say, "No, in the same place the misinformation was." (Why would I put it in my classroom? I have nothing to retract, and the affected students aren't in my classes, as I teach in the connected junior high school, not the high school.) She goes on to say that my addressing it to "the whole world" on my blog and Twitter page should suffice, and the library is her classroom. The superintendent states that what I write or do outside of school is not his concern but the school is. She says in no uncertain terms she doesn't want the display I am proposing and that something else is already displayed in that space. I tell her that I understand that teachers like things in their rooms that represent them to a certain extent; however, this cannot come at the expense of providing our students with the truth. The meeting winds down and I am told that after I leave, the three of them will discuss the issue further and a decision will be made.

Monday, October 12th:
Columbus Day--no school.

Tuesday:
I email the superintendent and ask what decision he reached. I thank him for his attention to the matter. I don't get a response.

Wednesday:
No response

Thursday, end of the day:
I email the superintendent again and state that, having not heard back from him, I will assume he has decided not to approve a display that will provide our students with the truth to correct the falsehood they have been given.

Friday, today:
No response

Surely it is clear that I went above and beyond to do things properly in this situation. I never wanted to go to anyone in the district but the librarian. I never wanted to go over her head. That is simply not my heart. However, I do believe that it is becoming more and more important for people to stand up for what's right. In too many situations, like in New Jersey, students are being indoctrinated to almost reverence the president. The reverse of that seems to have taken place here, with a door being opened for students to despise Governor Palin. Neither is appropriate.

Even more upsetting than the demonization during Banned Books Week of one person who never banned books is the failure to act to correct it. It's easy to take the back door approach, to say, "What can we learn from this?" and never re-educate those who were miseducated. It's much more difficult--albeit responsible--to correct the misinformation. I have been teaching for fourteen years. I cannot say that I have done everything right all the time. No way. But I have at times had to humble myself before my students and apologize when I have done them wrong--and our students were done wrong here, as was Governor Palin.

To be clear, I wasn't asking for a display that stated, "I lied! Sarah Palin never banned books. I made that up, purposely misinformed kids, and demonized someone to promote a political agenda." I could have asked that because I believe the facts show that this is exactly what took place. However, all I was going to display was a poster that stated the fact that Sarah Palin never banned a book and an article with a few quotes. I told them I have the official word from the Town of Wasilla written on their own letterhead.

If we had simply done the right thing, the display would have been up and down by now. I believe that a person without an agenda would not have objected to correcting the display--for the sake of the students, if nothing else. But we're not stupid. This was no honest mistake. And who pays the price for something like this? Our children do, of course. They get lied to, and their impression of a public figure gets tainted. Wasn't that the point, though?

I have personally done all I can on my end to hold people accountable in this situation and to ask for assistance from those who have the power to provide it. As I told you when this first happened, I will let you--the concerned public--know how it turned out. I asked you to be patient and not to react before the wrong had a chance to be righted. You obliged, and I thank you. I wish I could tell you now that your patience amounted to the defamation and misinformation being corrected. All this time later, it has not.

I place no further demands on your patience.

To See Video Of Adrienne Discussing Her Experience On Eddie Burke Radio Show (You Tube Clip) Go To www.ceciliatrent.blogspot.com

In the wake of the liberal onslaught to indoctrinate our school children, from the recent outrage at Barack Obama's address to school children which initially was accompanied by curriculum asking students how they could help Barack Obama, to the present controversial images of second graders being taught songs proclaiming the praises of Obama, it is so refreshing and comforting to read a letter from one young conservative student who attends a liberal Southern California college, to his senator, Democrat Dianne Feinstein, on his concerns about Health Care Reform. This is one youg man that has managed to stay true to his conservative ideals despite the aggressive agenda in our schools and colleges to indoctrinate our youth. God bless him.

September 15th, 2009

Senator Feinstein,

I am writing in regards to the proposed Health Care Reform that is at hand in Washington DC. It is apparent that health care is a definite concern for the American people. Many Americans are stuck between a rock and a hard place because of the lack of health care available to them. Some may be in between jobs and cannot afford health care and others may be unable to find someone to insure them because of their existing medical conditions. Especially in this time of uncertainty in our economy, something must be done about our health care system. I am here to express my genuine concern by asking you to please vote against the new Health Care Reform.

Change is definitely something that needs to happen, but it does not mean more government handouts. We have seen the change that has already happened in the White House. We have seen the failed government bailouts and stimulus packages. Why are we then persuaded that government health care will work when it has failed us time and time again, especially most recently under this administration? What should be done? Lowering costs of Medicare and the like and giving the people options to choose health care providers will drastically improve the state that we are in. Why can’t we enhance the options being offered in the health care market and let the companies battle it out to see who can compete to bring in the most customers to their programs?

President Obama says that national health care will open the doors for competition between the health care providers. Unfortunately, this does polar opposite. This government program shuts down other health care providers. Big companies will not bother spending money on providing their employees with health care when they can save that money and let the government pay for it, thus driving the health care industry to nothing leaving the citizens with no choice but government health care.

My father was an immigrant from El Salvador. When he and my mother wed, he did not have medical insurance. Nobody gave him any insurance for free so he did what needed to be done. My father worked three different jobs while simultaneously attending a community college full time in order to receive his associate’s degree. He then was able to land a job that gave him amazing health benefits. What would have happened if the government gave him health insurance for no cost? There would be absolutely no incentive to work hard, receive an education and provide for his family in order to achieve this goal of health coverage. Government handouts do not make productive citizens; it only makes citizens dependent on the government. Nothing in this world is free, nor should it be. This is the American way. This is the American dream of working hard as my father did and many others in this great nation to achieve a goal; this long and hard pursuit of happiness that our Constitution is based on.

Senator Feinstein, please consider the options laid out clearly at http://www.cprights.org. There are other options besides Obama’s proposition to make health care available to everyone. Be my voice and the voice of other citizens of California and vote against the Health Care Reform.

Thank you for your time and your service,

Robert M Hernandez
Student At California State University, Long Beach Ca

We have changed the date of the FIRE DAVID LETTERMAN RALLY from
Monday, June 15 to Tuesday, June 16.

The time and place remains the same: 4:30 pm to 6:30 pm on the
sidewalks outside of the Ed Sullivan Theater, which is located at
1697 Broadway in New York City.

If you live within a 4 hour drive of New York City, please make
an effort to attend this event. You can RSVP on our Facebook Event,
located at:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?sid=fd6d71fa207c952b5bcc233e1bb63...
7311092&ref=search

Please bring your own signs (be creative but PG rated!) to the event.

Also, for the technologically oriented please bring:

1. Video cameras
2. Laptops equipped with Wi-Fi and Webcams

We are going to try and send out some live Video Skype of the
Tuesday event. If you are Video Skype capable, please
email your skype id to me at michaelpatrickleahy@gmail.com .
We want to see if we can your live feed of the event
to selected new media outlets.

You are one of more than 3,500 people who have signed the letter
we will be sending to CBS, telling them we won't
be purchasing products sold by sponsors of David Letterman's
Late Show until he is fired. Your help over the next
few days is critical to the success of this project.

Please take some time on Sunday to email all your friends and
invite those who live near New York City to attend
the Tuesday FIRE DAVID LETTERMAN RALLY. Also, please promote our
site http://www.firedavidletterman.com by tweets
on Twitter, phone calls to local talk radio hosts,
postings on your blogs, and comments on other websites and
blogs.

In addition, Monday should be a great day to call the talk radio
programs to promote the Tuesday rally. Wonder who will be the
first one on this list to make it on Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity, or Glenn Beck?

I will personally be promoting the Tuesday event on Tammy Bruce's
radio program Monday at 12:30 pm EDT, and don't forget that
our own project colleague John Ziegler will be talking about the rally and other
breaking issues on Monday during his 11 am to 1 pm PDT radio program on
1260 AM, KGIL in Los Angeles.

Details of the Tuesday rally, including names of speakers,
will be announced at a press conference to be held in
New York City at 1 pm EDT on Monday. Laureen Cummings and
Gwendolyn Lindsey-Jackson will be speaking at the press
conference. In addition, we currently anticipate that a representative
of a New York City based women's rights organization will also be
speaking at the press conference.

We have a great team to field press inquiries.

Gwendolyn Lindsey-Jackson, attorney, John Ziegler, radio talk show
host and producer of the documentary Media Malpractice, and
New York State Assemblyman Brian Kolb have all agreed
to be the "point people" to field press inquiries, effective immediately.
You can find their contact e-mails at our website,
http://www.firedavidletterman.com.

Gwendolyn Lindsey-Jackson, Laureen Cummings, and Anna Barone will serve
as our on-site leadership team during the rally itself on Tuesday.

Thanks for all your help ! If you have any ideas or suggestions,
please feel free to send me an email with your thoughts.

Best Regards,

Michael Patrick Leahy

By William R. Collier

Jr. Representatives Virginia Foxx (North Carolina) and Eric Cantor (Virginia), both of whom happen to be Republican, spoke out in short speeches on the House Floor about the nomination of Dawn Johnsen for the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.

The controversial nomination of extremely divisive nominees, especially in the area of abortion, by the Obama Administration continues to rely on party loyalty over principles which individuals claimed to hold when they ran for election, including many Democrats who claimed to be in the center or even center-right.

Many amongst the 51% of Americans who call themselves Pro-Life have been monitoring this nomination and are surprised to see that little real bipartisan opposition seems to be emerging. While the partisan support for radical pro-abortionists has enabled President Obama to nominate individuals who are extremely out of sync with moderate Pro-Choice advocates and Pro-Life advocates, who together include over 80% of the population, efforts are being made to bring the record of such nominees out before the public eye.

The nomination of Dawn Johnson has been opposed by The Susan B. Anthony List, which manages and funds Team Sarah, which sent a message in a recent email from SBA to its members as follows:

President Obama has nominated Dawn Johnsen to serve as an Assistant Attorney General to determine what is or isn’t Constitutional. Dawn Johnsen is an extremely divisive figure.

She has worked for the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. She was the legal director for the National Abortion Rights Action League. She has compared pregnancy to slavery.

She has argued that the government should strip the Catholic Church and other religious denominations of their tax exempt status because of their pro-life advocacy. She believes that a pre-born child has no separate existence apart from the mother.

She has compared pro-life protesters to the Ku Klux Klan. She was heavily involved in the authorship of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would repeal every state and federal restriction on abortion. Johnsen has a long track record of intolerance to positions conflicting with her pro-abortion agenda. Type your name and contact information at the links below, and hit "Enter", to be taken to a page to write your Senators today. Tell them to vote against Dawn Johnsen nomination!

The SBA also provided a link for people to find out how to contact their Senators here:

http://www.sba-list.org/c.ddJBKJNsFqG/b.4179747/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?aid=11949

While some analysts have posited the idea that the Johnson nomination, on the hills of the Sebelius nomination that was passed largely along party lines but with some notable Republican defections, may face a more organized opposition and run into greater trouble, the discipline of the Democratic Party in keeping members in line has been strong, despite their election campaign rhetoric claiming to be in the center or even claiming to be conservatives, as Virginia's Jim Webb did in order to get elected in 2006.

The inability of the opposition to clearly speak with one voice and to get their message to the People directly, past a media filter that increasingly looks to some to be suspiciously similar to the talking points out of the Democratic Party and its front groups, has up until now allowed the Obama administration to fly under the public radar but, increasingly, online activists, including Team Sarah members, are finding their voice and their means of getting that voice out.

The probability is that as more and more voices are raised, each nomination of a radically divisive figure that holds extremist views that are out of sync with the mood and sentiments of the People, increases the risk of a long-term backlash that could bode ill for every Democrat who claimed to have been "moderate" or "centrist" but who voted, rubber stamp style, for whatever the Party asked them to vote for.

http://sarahpalinblog.typepad.com/sarah_palin/2009/05/dawn-johnsens-nomination-depends-on-partisan-support.html

Posted By Cecilia Trent

Posted by: Tim Graham
4/30/2009 4:13:09 PM

At President Obama’s 100-day press conference on Wednesday night, White House correspondent Jeff Zeleny became a mini-celebrity – or a national laughingstock – for asking President Obama how he was surprised/troubled/enchanted/humbled over the first 100 days. The Times itself seemed embarrassed by the question. The press conference was relegated to page A-19, with the headline "Obama Voices Concern on Pakistan and Defends Interrogation Memo Release." Nine paragraphs in, Zeleny and Helene Cooper acknowledge the "light moments," but don’t acknowledge they were a gift from Zeleny and the Times:

There were a few light moments, particularly when Mr. Obama was asked what has surprised, troubled, enchanted and humbled him in the past 100 days. "Wait, let me get this all down," he said, taking out a pen.

Why the passive "mistakes were made" phrasing? Then Zeleny and Cooper provided all the president's answers to the multi-part softball, including: "He called himself enchanted by American servicemen and women, and their sacrifices they make, although he allowed that ‘enchanted’ might not be the exact characterization."

The story briefly mentioned Obama's town hall meeting in Missouri, but ignored his mockery of the protesters with the tea bags and the networks that don’t like him very much.

This was Zeleny's question: "During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?" This is not a question one would associate with a Gray Lady, a prestigious daily. It sounds more like an question from Access Hollywood.

On The Caucus blog, political reporter Adam Nagourney collegially declared Zeleny’s puffball his favorite question of the night when the press conference was over:

Besides my favorite question – yes, the enchanting one from Jeff – the president was discursive on torture, offered his medical counsel to a country worried about the flu, was reflective about the political meaning of Senator Specter’s defection, and lent his view of the dramatic expansion of government on his watch. That said, he did not make any jaw-dropping news, which was probably his intention. He also didn’t make any obvious mistakes, and for this president, no surprise there. He was also more lively and engaging than he was at the previous news conference.

Blogger Michelle Malkin gave Zeleny her Drool Bucket of the Day award:

He could have, I dunno, pressed Obama for details about how and why his administration spooked and freaked out countless New Yorkers this week for the sake of an alleged photo op update.

But no, New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny decided he was going to be Perry Como and sing "Some Enchanted Evening."

Which makes sense, of course, given the New York Times’ $2 million financial stake in hawking Obama-themed merchandise.

From Timeswatch.org

Posted by: Tim Graham
4/30/2009 4:13:09 PM

At President Obama’s 100-day press conference on Wednesday night, White House correspondent Jeff Zeleny became a mini-celebrity – or a national laughingstock – for asking President Obama how he was surprised/troubled/enchanted/humbled over the first 100 days. The Times itself seemed embarrassed by the question. The press conference was relegated to page A-19, with the headline "Obama Voices Concern on Pakistan and Defends Interrogation Memo Release." Nine paragraphs in, Zeleny and Helene Cooper acknowledge the "light moments," but don’t acknowledge they were a gift from Zeleny and the Times:

There were a few light moments, particularly when Mr. Obama was asked what has surprised, troubled, enchanted and humbled him in the past 100 days. "Wait, let me get this all down," he said, taking out a pen.

Why the passive "mistakes were made" phrasing? Then Zeleny and Cooper provided all the president's answers to the multi-part softball, including: "He called himself enchanted by American servicemen and women, and their sacrifices they make, although he allowed that ‘enchanted’ might not be the exact characterization."

The story briefly mentioned Obama's town hall meeting in Missouri, but ignored his mockery of the protesters with the tea bags and the networks that don’t like him very much.

This was Zeleny's question: "During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?" This is not a question one would associate with a Gray Lady, a prestigious daily. It sounds more like an question from Access Hollywood.

On The Caucus blog, political reporter Adam Nagourney collegially declared Zeleny’s puffball his favorite question of the night when the press conference was over:

Besides my favorite question – yes, the enchanting one from Jeff – the president was discursive on torture, offered his medical counsel to a country worried about the flu, was reflective about the political meaning of Senator Specter’s defection, and lent his view of the dramatic expansion of government on his watch. That said, he did not make any jaw-dropping news, which was probably his intention. He also didn’t make any obvious mistakes, and for this president, no surprise there. He was also more lively and engaging than he was at the previous news conference.

Blogger Michelle Malkin gave Zeleny her Drool Bucket of the Day award:

He could have, I dunno, pressed Obama for details about how and why his administration spooked and freaked out countless New Yorkers this week for the sake of an alleged photo op update.

But no, New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny decided he was going to be Perry Como and sing "Some Enchanted Evening."

Which makes sense, of course, given the New York Times’ $2 million financial stake in hawking Obama-themed merchandise.

Posted by Cecilia Trent

From Timeswatch.org

Posted by: Tim Graham
4/30/2009 4:13:09 PM

At President Obama’s 100-day press conference on Wednesday night, White House correspondent Jeff Zeleny became a mini-celebrity – or a national laughingstock – for asking President Obama how he was surprised/troubled/enchanted/humbled over the first 100 days. The Times itself seemed embarrassed by the question. The press conference was relegated to page A-19, with the headline "Obama Voices Concern on Pakistan and Defends Interrogation Memo Release." Nine paragraphs in, Zeleny and Helene Cooper acknowledge the "light moments," but don’t acknowledge they were a gift from Zeleny and the Times:

There were a few light moments, particularly when Mr. Obama was asked what has surprised, troubled, enchanted and humbled him in the past 100 days. "Wait, let me get this all down," he said, taking out a pen.

Why the passive "mistakes were made" phrasing? Then Zeleny and Cooper provided all the president's answers to the multi-part softball, including: "He called himself enchanted by American servicemen and women, and their sacrifices they make, although he allowed that ‘enchanted’ might not be the exact characterization."

The story briefly mentioned Obama's town hall meeting in Missouri, but ignored his mockery of the protesters with the tea bags and the networks that don’t like him very much.

This was Zeleny's question: "During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?" This is not a question one would associate with a Gray Lady, a prestigious daily. It sounds more like an question from Access Hollywood.

On The Caucus blog, political reporter Adam Nagourney collegially declared Zeleny’s puffball his favorite question of the night when the press conference was over:

Besides my favorite question – yes, the enchanting one from Jeff – the president was discursive on torture, offered his medical counsel to a country worried about the flu, was reflective about the political meaning of Senator Specter’s defection, and lent his view of the dramatic expansion of government on his watch. That said, he did not make any jaw-dropping news, which was probably his intention. He also didn’t make any obvious mistakes, and for this president, no surprise there. He was also more lively and engaging than he was at the previous news conference.

Blogger Michelle Malkin gave Zeleny her Drool Bucket of the Day award:

He could have, I dunno, pressed Obama for details about how and why his administration spooked and freaked out countless New Yorkers this week for the sake of an alleged photo op update.

But no, New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny decided he was going to be Perry Como and sing "Some Enchanted Evening."

Which makes sense, of course, given the New York Times’ $2 million financial stake in hawking Obama-themed merchandise.

Posted by Cecilia Trent

From Timeswatch.org

Posted by: Tim Graham
4/30/2009 4:13:09 PM

At President Obama’s 100-day press conference on Wednesday night, White House correspondent Jeff Zeleny became a mini-celebrity – or a national laughingstock – for asking President Obama how he was surprised/troubled/enchanted/humbled over the first 100 days. The Times itself seemed embarrassed by the question. The press conference was relegated to page A-19, with the headline "Obama Voices Concern on Pakistan and Defends Interrogation Memo Release." Nine paragraphs in, Zeleny and Helene Cooper acknowledge the "light moments," but don’t acknowledge they were a gift from Zeleny and the Times:

There were a few light moments, particularly when Mr. Obama was asked what has surprised, troubled, enchanted and humbled him in the past 100 days. "Wait, let me get this all down," he said, taking out a pen.

Why the passive "mistakes were made" phrasing? Then Zeleny and Cooper provided all the president's answers to the multi-part softball, including: "He called himself enchanted by American servicemen and women, and their sacrifices they make, although he allowed that ‘enchanted’ might not be the exact characterization."

The story briefly mentioned Obama's town hall meeting in Missouri, but ignored his mockery of the protesters with the tea bags and the networks that don’t like him very much.

This was Zeleny's question: "During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?" This is not a question one would associate with a Gray Lady, a prestigious daily. It sounds more like an question from Access Hollywood.

On The Caucus blog, political reporter Adam Nagourney collegially declared Zeleny’s puffball his favorite question of the night when the press conference was over:

Besides my favorite question – yes, the enchanting one from Jeff – the president was discursive on torture, offered his medical counsel to a country worried about the flu, was reflective about the political meaning of Senator Specter’s defection, and lent his view of the dramatic expansion of government on his watch. That said, he did not make any jaw-dropping news, which was probably his intention. He also didn’t make any obvious mistakes, and for this president, no surprise there. He was also more lively and engaging than he was at the previous news conference.

Blogger Michelle Malkin gave Zeleny her Drool Bucket of the Day award:

He could have, I dunno, pressed Obama for details about how and why his administration spooked and freaked out countless New Yorkers this week for the sake of an alleged photo op update.

But no, New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny decided he was going to be Perry Como and sing "Some Enchanted Evening."

Which makes sense, of course, given the New York Times’ $2 million financial stake in hawking Obama-themed merchandise.

Posted by Cecilia Trent

The LIberal Left Is Seriously Raching On This One

From Media Research Center

Posted By Cecilia Trent

Response to Swine Flu?

     MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer on Tuesday morning speculated as to whether supposed obstructionism by congressional Republicans may end up hampering the response to the swine flu outbreak. Talking to Republican strategist Tucker Bounds and Democratic strategist Peter Mirijanian in the 10 AM EDT hour, she asserted: "Let me ask you, Health and Human Services Secretary has not been confirmed. You have a missing director of the CDC. The surgeon general is not there."

     Specifically addressing Bounds, Brewer quizzed: "Do you, Tucker, think that Republicans are in any way to blame for standing in the way of those important positions -- when you're facing swine flu -- from being filled?" Bounds, of course pointed out that Democrats control both the Senate and the House. As for the CDC, Obama has not even nominated a candidate. Regarding the position of Surgeon General, Dr. Sanjay Gupta was considered, but took his name out of contention. No one has picked to fill the spot. See Politico: www.politico.com

     So, how, exactly, would Republicans be to blame? Brewer didn't say.

     In an odd non sequitur, Brewer began the question on Republican culpability by musing, "A viewer just e-mailed me here and he said he just saw this bumper sticker called- that says 'Republicans No Everything.' And no was N-O."

     [This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Tuesday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

     The MSNBC host also announced that "Rush Limbaugh is blaming President Obama for swine flu." She then proceeded to play the following clip, which obviously seems like a joke and not an actual accusation by the popular talk show host: "Everywhere Obama is spreading Obamaism, there is a deadly disease taking place either in the T.A.R.P. community or in the newspaper business. Obama goes to Mexico, they have an earthquake. Obama goes to Mexico, pig flu."

     Brewer then taunted, "Wow! Tucker, would you like to respond on behalf of conservatives everywhere?"

     To be fair, Brewer did discuss Democratic criticism of GOP Senator Susan Collins for removing $800 billion from the stimulus bill that would have gone to fight a flu pandemic. Brewer noted, "Peter, do you think it's fair to point the finger at Susan Collins? After all, Senator Schumer also called the flu pandemic money porky?"

     A transcript of the April 28 segment, which aired at 10:14 EDT, follows:

     CONTESSA BREWER: Yeah, some of that finger pointing, Tamron, is directed at Republican Senator Susan Collins, the moderate Republican from Maine led the effort to remove more than $800 billion to fight a flu pandemic- fought to remove it from the stimulus bill. John Nichols at The Nation today calls Collins a "no nothing" and accuses her of irresponsibly playing politics. Republican strategist Tucker Bounds and Democratic strategist Peter Mirijanian are here with me now. Peter, do you think it's fair to point the finger at Susan Collins? After all, Senator Schumer also called the flu pandemic money porky?
     PETER MIRIJANIAN (Democratic strategist): Yeah. I mean, to give Senator Collins the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure she regrets that now. You know, there was no way to foretell this was out there. But, I just think that there has to be an abundance of caution when it comes to this. I mean, you know, we live in a world where everybody, you know, flies all over the place and these diseases are transmitted. So, this is serious stuff. So, to look at it just as a budget item that could be cut and it's unnecessary I think she probably regrets that decision today.
     CONTESSA BREWER: You know, it's interesting the people who are finger pointing today- Rush Limbaugh is blaming President Obama for swine flu. Let me play it.
     MIRIJANIAN: I'm surprised.
     RUSH LIMBAUGH: Everywhere Obama is spreading Obamaism, there is a deadly disease taking place either in the T.A.R.P. community or in the newspaper business. Obama goes to Mexico, they have an earthquake. Obama goes to Mexico, pig flu.
     BREWER: Wow! Tucker, would you like to respond on behalf of conservatives everywhere?
     TUCKER BOUNDS (Republican strategist): Uh, no, you know, I really wouldn't. I think that's a radio host weighing in. What I think here is that we have serious issues that surround the response to this. And I think that the politics of it, they're really not mature yet. I think that the politics and the political debate that surround the response to this swine flu really will stem from the management of how we're able to respond nationwide once we get a better handle on what the actual response is going to be from the Obama administration. Right now, they've been trying to perpetuate a calmness. I think that's smart. But I think we're going to have to wait and see how the politics play on this, save Rush Limbaugh. I mean, his radio show is every day. He's forced to wade into these waters regardless. I don't think that represents Republican politics.
     BREWER: You know, a viewer- A viewer just- A viewer just e-mailed me here and he said he just saw this bumper sticker called- that says "Republicans No Everything." And no was N-O. Let me ask you, Health and Human Services secretary has not been confirmed. You have a missing director of the CDC. The surgeon general is not there. Do you, Tucker, think that Republicans are in any way to blame for standing in the way of those important positions- when you're facing swine flu- from being filled?
     BOUNDS: Well, look, Governor Sebelius is going to be confirmed today. I think that the Obama administration could be doing more to get their nominees confirmed. They control both houses of
     Congress, the House and the Senate. So, I don't think it's a good time to lay blame on anyone's hands. But, I think what we're going to see, and I'll say it again, is that the politics and the political debate that surround this issue are going to get more divisive as the issues of management become more mature. At this point, we're in such an infant stage of where this issue really is, it's hard to weigh in on a political perspective.
     BREWER: Peter, given this could- has the potential, we're not there yet and certainly we could avoid a pandemic. This has the potential of being a very serious for the Obama administration, how much is riding on how effectively he and his team address it?
     MIRIJANIAN: Well, certainly the American public wants to see the administration taking action and taking all the kind of precautions, not signaling there should be any reason to panic, but that we should take precautions and safeguard against it. Look, let me go back to what Tucker said. I mean, the fact of the matter is, as Tucker knows, in the Senate any one senator, if they really choose to do so can hold up a nomination. The fact that Sebelius' nomination is now troubled because of her views on abortion, you know, shocks me because you know, I think the average American, again, looks at this and says why should the head of the largest health agency, the most important health agency in the country, should their nomination be held up over one's personal views on abortion rights? So, I mean, yeah, Republicans run the risk they become obstructionist on areas of widespread public health concern. That's the problem. And that's why, although we can give Senator Collins the benefit of the doubt, you know, if you're a partisan Democrat, you can make hay over this.

-- Brent Baker

From Media Research Center

Exposing Media Bias

Posted by Cecilia Trent

Insensitive Twits In DC Terrorize Manhattan.

From BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8021830.stm

Posted by Cecilia Trent

The White House has apologised after a low-level flight by a presidential jet and a fighter plane sparked panic among New York City office workers.

The half-hour flight triggered the evacuation of a number of office buildings in the city.

Pentagon officials said the fly past - a photographic exercise not involving President Obama - had been co-ordinated with city and state authorities.

No general public notification was issued in advance.

"While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, it's clear that the mission created confusion and disruption," Louis Caldera, director of the White House military office, said in a statement.

"I apologise and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused."

New Yorkers were startled as the planes flew over the city's harbour

Correspondents say many New York residents are still scarred by the September 2001 attacks when airliners ploughed into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he was "furious" about the incident, criticising those responsible for failing to warn the public.

"The good news is it was nothing more than an inconsiderate, badly conceived and insensitive photo op with the taxpayers' money," said Mr Bloomberg.

The Boeing 747 jet is one of two planes known as Air Force One when the US president is aboard.

I just love Michelle Malkin. She tells it like it is.
Posted By Cecilia Trent
From CNS.com

Wednesday, April 29, 2009
By Michelle Malkin
Come on, who’s surprised? The White House-engineered photo-op of low-flying Air Force aircraft that caused terror in New York City this week epitomizes the Age of Obama. What better way to mark 100 days in office than with an appalling exercise in pointless taxpayer-funded stagecraft?
 
The superficiality, the unseriousness, the hubris, the obliviousness to post-9/11 realities: They were trademarks of the Obama campaign, and they are the tattoos on his governance.
 
He never leaves home without his teleprompter. All the Obama world’s a stage. Or a world ready to be staged.
 
So is it any wonder he would staff his White House military office with a clueless paper pusher who saw nothing wrong with spending inordinate government resources—and re-creating 9/11 havoc—to update Air Force One publicity shots? And who planned, believe it or not, to do the same in Washington, D.C., next month, where the 9/11 jihadists murdered 53 passengers and 6 crewmembers on board American Airlines Flight 77, and 125 military and civilian personnel inside the Pentagon?
 
All for some publicity shots.
 
No one should be shocked. Remember: Barack Obama is the frivolous man who concocted his own presidential-looking Great Seal before he was elected. An ego big enough to publicly display a ridiculous “Vero Possumus” (“Yes, we can” in Latin) motto and a regal eagle with the Obama campaign logo emblazoned on its chest is an ego capable of far more reckless things.

Obama orchestrated a grand photo-op in Berlin, Germany, to declare his world citizenship at the Siegessäule—the Victory Column—a soaring monument of arrogance championed by Adolf Hitler and Third Reich architect Albert Speer. He manufactured his own Open Temple of The One in Denver for the Democratic National Convention last summer, replete with fake Greek columns.
 
Since taking office, Obama has remained in perpetual campaign mode, idling in 9/10 gear. The photo album has filled up quickly with megalomaniacal moments. When his massive pork-filled stimulus package was in trouble, he ran to Ft. Myers, Fla., for a carefully choreographed revival meeting with his most ardent supporters. “It is such a blessing to see you. Oh! Gracious God, thank you so much!” one young booster exclaimed.
 
The president’s famous embrace with another questioner—homeless woman Henrietta Hughes, a perpetually unemployed drifter looking for a handout—turned up on the White House online retrospective of the stimulus bill victory. (Missing: The photos of hundreds of thousands of Americans who took to the streets in Tea Party protests to oppose this massive act of generational theft and expansion of the entitlement state.)
 
Another Kodak moment from the stimulus campaign exposed Obama’s hype of the spending boondoggle’s effects. Using a Caterpillar plant and workers as a backdrop, Obama grandly promised that if the stimulus passed, Caterpillar would rehire laid-off workers. It made front-page headlines. After the photo-op: Caterpillar’s own CEO refuted the bogus promise and last week posted its first quarterly net loss in 16 years. After the signing, it finally dawned on pliant media outlets that the stimulus money was stupendously wasteful, and the job creation estimates, bogus. No pictures of those epiphanies.
 
Obama’s photo-ops abroad have been more unsettling: Bowing and scraping before Saudi King Abdullah, trashing America as “arrogant” (talk about a pot and kettle moment) in front of adoring French and German students, chumming it up with Venezuelan thug-in-chief Hugo Chavez. These are the defining images of a stunt(ed) presidency blind to our enemies and in a perpetual state of (re)pose.
 
Obama appointed Leon Panetta, a chief of intelligence with no intelligence experience. He gave us Hillary Clinton, a secretary of state who cackled about the Somali pirate hijacking and laughed off serious questions about the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation techniques. He installed Rosa Brooks, a radical George Soros-trained ideologue, as a top Pentagon adviser. He came close to embracing Charles Freeman as top U.S. intelligence analyst—a jihadi-sympathizing conspiracist who blamed America for 9/11.
 
And he appointed Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary who can’t get her facts straight about the 9/11 terrorists, pooh-poohed our immigration laws, disseminated a hit job on conservatives and veterans as right-wing extremist threats, and redefined acts of terrorism as “man-caused disasters.”
 
“Man-caused disaster.” That’s a perfect description of the Scare Force One torture photo-op that took place this week and an apt summary of the last 100 days. Say cheese.




Posted By Cecilia Trent

Wednesday, April 29, 2009
By David Espo, Associated Press
CNS Email
Posted By Cecilia Trent
Washington (AP) - Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter is a Democrat again, following a decades-long turn among Republicans. His defection that has the GOP warning about the perils of unchecked power only a few years after it controlled both the White House and Congress.
 
"The threat to the country presented ... by this defection really relates to the issue of whether or not in the United States or America our people want the majority party to have whatever it wants without restraint, without a check or balance," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Tuesday after Specter made his startling switch.
 
The move left Democrats with 59 votes in the Senate, and hoping that Al Franken can finally win a marathon recount in Minnesota and become their 60th. That's the number needed to overcome any Republican filibuster aimed at blocking President Barack Obama's ambitious agenda.
 
Even at their high point during President George W. Bush's presidency, when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, they were well shy of 60 seats in the Senate.
 
But they brought the Senate to the brink of a crisis in 2005, when their leadership claimed the rules permitted them to confirm conservative judicial appointees by simple majority after they failed repeatedly to muster the strength needed to overcome Democratic filibusters.
 
A bipartisan group of senators eventually intervened to defuse the crisis. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada was Democratic leader at the time, and McConnell was the second-ranking Republican in the Senate.
 
Specter was a Democrat until 1965, when he ran successfully on the Republican ticket for district attorney in Philadelphia. His switch Tuesday triggered something of a debate among Republicans, who lost not only the White House in 2008 but fell deeper into the minority in both the House and Senate.
 
Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of a few remaining GOP moderates in the Senate, called Specter's decision another sign that the Republican Party needs to move toward the center.
 
"Ultimately, we're heading to having the smallest political tent in history, the way events have been unfolding," she said. "If the Republican Party fully intends to become a majority party in the future, it must move from the far right back toward the middle."
 
Countering, McConnell said Republicans have a broad party. "We have not done very well in the Northeast the last couple of years. We haven't done as well any places as we would like to have done in the last couple of years," he said.
 
"We intend to be competitive on a nationwide basis. I do not accept that we are going to be a regional party. And we're working very hard to compete throughout the country," he said.
 
Democrats, savoring Specter's switch as they celebrated Obama's first 100 days in office, couldn't resist taunting their rivals.
 
"I welcome Sen. Specter and his moderate voice to our diverse caucus," Reid, the majority leader, said in a statement.
 
Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, head of the Democratic campaign committee, called the development "proof positive that the Republican Party is so out of touch with Americans that they're losing one of its most prominent leaders."
 
Specter told a news conference he did not intend to become an "automatic 60th vote" for Democrats trying to approve Obama's agenda of health care, energy and education by year's end. As evidence, he reaffirmed his opposition to legislation making it easier for workers to form unions, a bill that is a top priority for organized labor and backed by the White House and Democratic leadership in Congress.
 
No less an authority than Reid has attested to Specter's independence.
 
Specter "is always with us when we don't need him," Reid wrote in his 2008 autobiography, describing efforts to find Republicans willing to vote against the Iraq war.
 
Yet Specter cast one of only three Republican votes for the president's economic stimulus bill earlier this year, noting he concluded that without the legislation, the country ran the risk of an even deeper economic downturn than the one it is enduring.
 
At his news conference, Specter grew animated as he blamed conservatives for helping deliver control of the Senate to Democrats in 2006, a result he said made it impossible to confirm numerous judicial appointees of Bush.
 
"They don't make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party. I don't understand it, but that's what they said," he added.
 
The five-term senator repeatedly cast his switch as a decision of principle. But he also said his own pollster had told him his chances of winning a Republican primary in Pennsylvania next year were bleak.
 
Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., said that in a private meeting with Republicans, Specter "gave a purely political explanation. ... He said: 'I've looked at the polls. I can't win as a Republican, I can't win as an independent. The only way I have a shot is to be a Democrat.'"
 
As recently as late winter, Specter was asked by a reporter why he had not taken Democrats up on past offers to switch parties.
 
"Because I am a Republican," he said.
 
------
 
Associated Press writer Julie Davis contributed to this report.

Posted By Cecilia Trent