Fascinating Details of the Unfolding ACORN Scandal

Part 1:


Part 2:

What's Wrong with California is Wrong with America

George Will explains in great detail some of the key reasons why California is bankrupt: in a sentence, public sector greed and corruption is destroying the state. And where goes California, so goes America. :-(

Update: Amy Alkon shares her own personal story of the insanity in California schools.

Mark Steyn [Rightfully] Mocks the New Stimulus Programs

The Left's greatest fantasies are quickly becoming reality in America. Mark Steyn slices & dices the absolute bureaucratic stupidity that is Obama's America. Here's a snippet:

Ever since last November, many Americans have been ready for free health care, free day care, free college, free mortgages – and, once you get a taste for that, it's hardly surprising you're not ready for gainful employment.

Vernon, California: Corruption Central

I bet you never knew that there was a tiny, separate incorporated city just south of downtown Los Angeles. I didn't either!

It's called Vernon and had a population of 91 (ninety one) in 2000.

This article in Forbes is a real eye opener!

Hard to believe that such a place could still exist in America today!

Obama Administration Corrupting DHS

Jonah Goldberg has published an excellent article documenting how Obama & co. have already politicized and corrupted the Department of Homeland Security.

Susan Roesgen: Poster Girl for Unethical Journalists Inc.

This is a follow-up video to the earlier one, showing what happened after Roesgen's hit piece. I defy anyone to explain how "Susan Roesgen" and "Ethical Journalist" can be used in the same sentence.


Mark Hemingway shares his thoughts on this despicable "reporter". (That last word has to be in quotes.)

Further Blatant Media Bias: The Boston Globe

Michael Graham reports

Yet Another Example of What Journalism Has Devolved Into

Susan Roesgen is NOT a reporter. She's a "prime example" of how "journalists" have given up any semblance of impartiality and instead are just de facto spokespeople for the Obama Administration.

I do hope that YouTube lasts for a long, long time because videos like this will be prime exhibits for historians to document the corruption and downfall of the once honorable profession of journalism.

---

I have a suggestion for Saturday Night Live: Do a spoof of her Roesgen in 1776, asking the citizens of the colonies why they were revolting. How difficult would it be to envision her screaming, "What are you protesting for?! The King of England has given you so much!"

---

Update: Here's a subsequent interview with the man, whose name is Norm.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" - The Who

The United States of America was founded in 1776 because the hard working citizens of what was then a colony of England, grew tired of unaccountable, irresponsible government.

Today Tea Party demonstrations are occurring all over America. These are heartfelt protests against over-taxation by all levels of government. Make no mistake, the protests are also against both the Democrats and the Republicans.

And how does the Obama Administration, purported to be more open to dialogue than ever before, respond? By coordinating with the Homeland Security Department they now control and issuing a new document a few days ago entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment". If you think the timing of this is mere coincidence, you're in more denial than Larry Craig thinking he's straight.

Even some people back in Jolly Olde' England are aware of how insipid this is. Imagine if this were occurring in a different country: A government controlled security agency, with more power than the police, releases a highly politicized report a week before scheduled citizen tax protests, insinuating that some of these protestors may be "Right Wing Extremists". This is the kind of thing that occurs in places like North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and the old USSR and has served as a highly effective way to shut up opponents, even if such opponents are protesting peacefully and democratically.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. 233 years later, Americans are facing a very similar tyranny once again. Scary times ahead.

Quick Snapshot of the American MSM

I found this piece on The Corner to be extremely enlightening:

Fox News vs. MSNBC [Peter Wehner]

Kathryn, I wanted to piggyback on your link to the Ari Fleischer vs. Chris Matthews exchange. I thought Ari destroyed Matthews, and did so in a calm, factual, reasoned way. Matthews is loud, obnoxious, terribly ill-informed, and has a crush on Barack Obama — all of which are reasons why Matthews is perfect to host a program on MSNBC. I can’t help but notice, by the way, that the ratings for primetime shows on Fox News have skyrocketed during the Age of Obama. According to the latest ratings, Fox has the six top-rated cable news shows — hosted by Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bret Baier, Shepard Smith, and Greta Van Susteren — each which draws 2 million viewers or more (Van Susteren drew a few dozen viewers short of 2 million). MSNBC’s top-rated shows rank ninth (Rachel Maddow) and eleventh (Keith Olbermann), with Olbermann drawing just over 900,000 viewers. And Chris Matthews doesn’t crack the top eleven rated programs. Perhaps this is evidence that MSNBC, which during the last few years have existed on embers of hate and resentment, is increasingly passé; Bush Derangement Syndrome is less interesting when Bush has left the stage. Secondly, the number of people who watched Ari slam Matthews could roughly fit in the size of a football stadium.

Chris Matthews long ago became a joke; what seems clear is that he’s an increasingly obscure one.

03/12 04:21 PM

---

In case you're interested to see a perfect example of why so few people are watching Chris Matthews, try to watch this video:

Question: Does any reasonable person unequivocally believe that Matthews is NOT in the employ of the Obama administration? Perhaps not through direct payments right now but some other favors perhaps?

---

On a possible bright note, a columnist named Ross Douthat has been hired by the New York Times. What's remarkable is that he is supposed to be a conservative. I've not heard of the gentlemen but several people at NRO seem to think highly of him. I'll reserve judgment until I read several columns of his in The Times.

One thing for sure: If the law were ever changed and Mark Steyn was elected President of the United States
then Ross Douthat could serve as a good double:
White guys with beards: The new face of conservative Americans?!? :-)

Sarah Palin Speaks Out About The Corrupt MSM

In an interview for the forthcoming documentary "Media Malpractice" Governor Sarah Palin, for the first time at length, takes on the media coverage of her and the 2008 campaign. Historians will look back at the 2008 American Election Campaign and note it as a low point in the once great history of journalism.

Another Inconvenient Truth

Canada's corrupt mainstream media refused to ask The Messiah (aka Barack Obama) even one difficult question. Yet they're always quick to condemn Canada's Oil Sands. Click on the image above to read more.

Sarah Palin's Clothes vs. Barack Obama's Pork

Has anyone else noticed that the same MSM that was obsessed with Sarah Palin's wardrobe budget (estimated to be upwards of $150,000) has absolutely no curiosity whatsoever for how the so-called stimulus funds are going to be spent?

Barack Obama's current "stimulus" package (aka "PorkFest") is sitting at $820,000,000,000. That is Five Million, Four Hundred and Sixty Six Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty Seven (5,466,667) times more money . . . and yet the the vast majority of the MSM chooses to not question how any of it will be spent.

And those same members of the MSM have the audacity to tell us that they have no particular political bias!

More Paper Shuffling at the CBC

After a very long time I received a response to a complaint I lodged against the CBC's Don Newman. And it was written by a person who doesn't even know how to use apostrophes. Perhaps she's part of a Grade 10 Journalism Intern program they have running?! If you wish to read in chronological order then start from the bottom.

---

Dear Ms. Kinch,

I am not remotely satisfied with your response. You are simply stating the CBC "company line". I understand your situation though because failure to do so would eliminate your employment there. Sadly, my tax dollars just paid for your time to write me a completely worthless letter. I will refrain from making future legitimate complaints for it is purely a waste of time, energy, and money.

Sincerely,

Robert Werner

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Cynthia Kinch wrote:
February 3, 2009

Robert Werner
Vancouver, British Columbia

Dear Mr. Werner:

Thank you for your e-mail of December 5 addressed to Vince Carlin, CBC Ombudsman. Since CBC Newsworld is part of my remit, I would like to reply. Please accept my apologies for the delay in doing so.

You wrote to draw our attention to interviews done by Don Newman, CBC News Senior Parliamentary Editor, over the preceding week. They are highly partisan …despicable, divisive and downright dangerous, you wrote.

Let me begin by saying that I sincerely regret that you are disappointed in CBC. I can assure you that the CBC prides itself on the excellence of its journalism. We take very seriously any assertion that our journalism is inaccurate, biased or unfair, or in any way fails to meet the rigorous criteria set out in the CBCs Journalistic Standards and Practices. Where criticisms are justified, we take immediate corrective action.

However, in this case - and I say this with respect - I strongly disagree with your assessment of our coverage and of Mr. Newman. Let me respond first to the several examples of the shortcomings you found.

In an interview with Transport Minister John Baird, you wrote, Mr. Newman was antagonistic, rude and utterly dismissive …objecting to most everything he said. Although you did not say so, I expect you are referring to an interview broadcast at about 6:30am PT (9:30am ET), on Thursday, December 4.

Regrettably you were not specific about the shortcomings you found, so it is difficult for me to reply in any detail.

It is fair to say that John Baird is a respected Conservative cabinet minister. He is articulate, outspoken, a skilled debater and a staunch defender of the government. Within minutes of the Prime Ministers arrival at the Governor Generals residence Thursday morning, Mr. Baird was in the foyer of the House of Commons making himself available to reporters, including Mr. Newman. He was there to sell the governments point of view and he put the case skillfully and in unmistakable language.

But Mr. Newman or any other CBC journalist would fail in his responsibility if he simply offered Mr. Baird a platform to express his views. Of course, he encouraged Mr. Baird to explain his point of view, clearly Canadians are interested, and it is CBCs obligation to give them the opportunity to hear it. But it is also an interviewers responsibility to test those views and that is what Mr. Newman did. That is part of the give and take of an interview: politicians understandably want to present (spin) their point of view in the most favorable way, while it is a journalists task to question assumptions, to challenge, to point out there are other views.

Of course, that is not always easy to do. Politicians in this age of communication understand the media like never before. They are practiced and usually trained in how to focus their message, convey it succinctly and skirt difficult questions until time runs out. A journalist who persists may be seen as rude, arrogant or disrespectful when that is certainly not his intention.

Nor do I believe it was the case here. I can tell you that a careful viewing will find the two men smiling at each other on a number of occasions during the interview, including at the end when they exchanged pleasantries and shared a laugh. Mr. Baird certainly appeared to take no offence, nor, as I said, did Mr. Newman intend any.

You contrasted Mr. Newmans objections to Mr. Baird with the fact that he did not object to the outrageous comment by Liberal MP Derek Lee comparing the Prime Ministers request to prorogue Parliament to the burning of the Reichstag in 1933.

Just after 8am PT (11am ET) that morning, Mr. Newman interviewed Mr. Lee, the Liberal MP from Scarborough - Rouge River and chair of the Liberal Partys Toronto caucus. Mr. Newman introduced him as an expert on Parliamentary procedure and committee procedure and asked what he made of the extraordinary events of the previous few days.

Mr. Lee replied:

…the main issue is confidence of the House. That runs through everything. In history youve had other governments that have tried to turn out the lights in Parliament. I think it happened in Germany once when somebody tried to burn down the Bundestag [sic].

A hyperbolic comparison, no doubt. But as I am sure you will recall, it was a time of hyperbole on all sides. Mr. Lee went on to explain that in his view the Prime Minister is essentially asking the Governor General to adjourn Parliament, not something that she does. The Governor General can accede to a request to prorogue, he added, but it would be tantamount to shutting off the lights in Parliament and shutting down Parliament. Although he couched it in inflated language, Parliamentary experts argue the distinction is a significant one. Rather than asking for prorogation, he suggested the Governor General take the Prime Ministers request under advisement until the following Tuesday, the day after the scheduled vote of no-confidence. That is Mr. Lees opinion, of course.

It is CBCs mandate, part of its obligation under the federal Broadcasting Act, to carry different points of view on controversial matters of public interest and concern like this one. Indeed, allowing the expression of the widest possible range of views is at the heart of the notion of fairness and balance in journalism. However, it is not the CBCs obligation to determine what views are acceptable (a truly dangerous notion for any broadcaster), but only to present differing views fairly and accurately affording Canadians the opportunity and the information they need to make up their own minds about the nature or quality of the views expressed. No doubt Canadians would draw their own conclusions about Mr. Lees comparison as the writer of the National Post article you drew to our attention did (Losers and bigger losers on Parliament Hill: A week in which nobody impressed the public - December 4).

You also pointed to what you feel is Mr. Newmans very one-sided diatribe initially posted on December 5 on CBC NEWS.CA under the headline, The coalition crisis and the lessons learned.

Again, it is difficult for me to reply in any detail, since you were not specific about the partisanship you found. However - although CBC NEWS.CA is not part of my remit - I can tell you that in this case Mr. Newman, an award-winning journalist and host of CBC Newsworlds POLITICS, widely regarded as a must-watch program in Ottawa, offered his analysis and insight into the extraordinary events that took place over the first week of December. Under CBCs Journalistic Standards and Practices journalists are free to reach conclusions on their own based on facts. As Mr. Newman did here.

Finally, you suggested that Mr. Newman does not meet the criteria for fair and balanced reporting, set out by former CBC News Publisher John Cruickshank in a letter posted on September 29 under the headline, We erred in our judgment. While Mr. Cruickshanks letter emphasized the importance to every news organization of including opinions, it focused on the reasons a recent opinion column by writer Heather Mallick was inappropriate and should not have been posted on the CBC News site. He was not referring to reporting. Again with respect, I can assure you that there is nothing in Mr. Newmans work that would even remotely match Mr. Cruickshanks description of Ms. Mallicks column.

On a broader front, I can also assure you that by any measure, the CBCs journalistic code of ethics is considered to be rigorous, comprehensive, and detailed. It is formulated in our own handbook of Journalistic Standards and Practices, which stresses lack of bias in reporting. It is distributed to our journalists, producers, editors and managers at all levels of the Corporation in Canada and abroad. We expect them to be familiar with and follow it scrupulously. If you wish to read it, it is also publicly available on the CBC website.

Thank you again for your e-mail. I hope my reply has reassured you of the continuing integrity of CBC News.

It is also my responsibility to inform you that if you are not satisfied with this response, you may wish to submit the matter for review by Vince Carlin, CBC Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and impartial body reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program compliance with the CBC's journalistic policies. Mr. Carlin may be reached by mail at the address shown below, or by fax at (416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at ombudsman@cbc.ca

Sincerely,


Cynthia Kinch
Director, CBC Newsworld
P.O. Box 500, Station A,
Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6

cc. Vince Carlin, CBC Ombudsman






Cynthia Kinch
Director, CBC Newsworld
Phone: 416-205-6408

Please note my email address has changed to cynthia.kinch@cbc.ca
thanks


>>> CBC Ombudsman 07-Dec-08 4:33 PM >>>
Dear Robert Werner:

I write to acknowledge your e-mail which I am sharing with Jennifer McGuire, interim Publisher of CBC News, along with the request that your concerns be addressed.

Yours truly,

Vince Carlin
Ombudsman, CBC

Dear Mr. Carlin:

As you very well know, our great country has gone through the most
significant constitutional crisis of our lifetime. To say that it was, and
still is, an extremely serious situation would be the understatement of the
millennium. The actions of Don Newman throughout all of this have been
nothing short of despicable, divisive, and downright dangerous. If he were
merely an editorial pundit then I could offer little objection. But a major
portion of his role at the taxpayer supported CBC is to be a fair & balanced
moderator. In this capacity he earns an 'F'.

His behaviour has been nothing short of highly partisan in support of the
Coalition and against the Conservatives. Examples are aplenty. Let me
provide you two. On the one hand he was antagonistic, rude, and utterly
dismissive of Conservative MP John Baird in the recent interview with him.
On the other hand, here's a description of what transpired when he
interviewed Liberal MP Derek Lee:

Big Loser: Derek Lee. CBC was desperate to fill air time as they waited for
Stephen Harper to finish his chat with Michaelle Jean, so they made the
mistake of interviewing Lee, who promptly compared Harper's request to
suspend Parliament to the burning of the German Reichstag by the Nazis in
1933. Yeah Derek, they're exactly alike: a party of murderous thugs burning
Parliament to the ground is just like the Prime Minister driving to Rideau
Hall to request a temporary halt in proceedings while he prepares a budget.
How astute of you to spot the similarities.

Source:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/04/winners-and-losers.aspx

It is imperative to note that Mr. Newman did not object to this outrageous
comment whatsoever. Yet, he seemed to have no problem objecting to most
everything said by MP Baird. Would viewers be wrong to conclude that Mr.
Newman actually shares a similar view as MP Lee that Stephen Harper's recent
actions are comparable to those of Adolf Hitler's Nazis in 1933? I ask this
question not flippantly but absolutely literally.

To end this momentous week on a sour note, we get this very one-sided
diatribe from Don Newman:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/05/f-vp-newman.html

In the realm of Journalistic Ethics at the CBC, is there not a basic
requirement for your on-air staff to publicly disclose their clear biases
before engaging in an interview? If I'm not mistaken, on every business
program it is a mandatory requirement for all involved to fully disclose any
stocks they own and/or other company interests they may have related to the
discussion at hand. Let me assure you that in Mr. Newman's case, it is a
widely held belief of many CBC viewers I've spoken with that he has direct
loyalties to the Liberal Party of Canada.

To resolve this complaint to my satisfaction, any of the following would be
sufficient:

- Move Don Newman into a role solely as a pundit and clearly have the
words "Liberal Party Strategist" appear underneath his name each time he
appears.
- Require that all interviews he undertakes be done with a
conservative-leaning journalist as well, somewhat in the format of "Hannity
& Colmes" on Fox News in the U.S.

Finally, please note that my insistence for fair & balanced reporting from
Mr. Newman is in no way different from what your past head of CBC News, John
Cruickshank, publicly stated a little over two months ago:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/28/f-vp-cruickshank.html

I eagerly and respectfully await your response.


Sincerely,

Robert Werner
Vancouver, BC

Something You Won't See on the Regular News

Hamas using ambulances with UN insignia to transport their able-bodied soldiers:

What's the UN saying about this? Nothing
What's the MSM (Mainstream Media) saying about this? Nothing

Anti-Semitism Alive & Well at Reuters

Without a word of editorial comment, Reuters, spoke volumes with these 3 photos, presented in precisely this order (Palestinians, Jews, Palestinians) :



What "intelligent" person wouldn't come to the logical [Reuters] conclusion: "Jews are hideous, evil bastards who laugh and smile while Palestinian children are severely injured & killed and their homes are destroyed."

Those of us who can see through the propaganda, that's who. What couldn't escape my attention is how closely Reuters' portrayal of Jews is compared to what the Nazis in Germany did in the 1930's. Different medium, same end effect.

Note: This is not the first time Reuters has used photographs in their PR war against Israel.

S.E.C. Incompetence

I just heard a detailed accounting of how Bernie Madoff has been able to pull off his $50 Billion scam over several decades. You can listen to it here (tune to 36:00). Here's the article of the interview subject, Binyamin Appelbaum.

One critical part of the story that is not yet mentioned on Wikipedia is how a competitor of Madoff's named Harry Markopolos took a careful look at what Madoff was doing. He concluded it was a scam way back in 1999. So he informed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.), not just once, but multiple times. They ignored him repeatedly. Finally, in 2005 they did investigate Madoff and ... wait for it ... concluded that he was legit!

How on earth could the S.E.C. have failed to detect this massive crime? Was it just pure incompetence or was someone paid off?

This clearly had to be the rotten cherry on top of a year where the very roots of our entire financial system has been badly shaken.

---

Update: Sadly, one of the investors of Madoff, has allegedly committed suicide:

Corruption at Vancouver City Hall

Gregor Robertson promised Vancouverites a new era of good government, transparency, and accountability. So far he has done exactly the opposite. Is this the "Hope & Change" many were counting on.

There's a website devoted to following the hijinks at the city hall, which I'm going to add onto the sidebar.

Postscript on Joe the Plumber

Do you all remember the news stories about the illegal retrieval of Joe the Plumber's confidential info? Some people are finally paying the price.

The top person in the affair, Helen Jones-Kelley wrote this self-serving diatribe in her resignation letter: "My professional career, and the legacy of service I have established, has been, and continues to be, far too important for me to allow my reputation and my commitment as a servant leader to be disparaged. I also remain concerned for the safety of my family and myself."

She should count herself lucky that she isn't in jail right now. Ain't it the case that liberals always play the victim card when they're called out on their bad behaviour!

Prediction: I will not be at all surprised if she earns a plumb job somewhere within the Obama administration or the Democrat Party. For she did her job real well ... for them that is!

Scandal Before the Inauguration

THE bullish, foul-mouthed but effective Chicago arm-twister Rahm Emanuel has come under pressure to resign as Barack Obama’s chief of staff after it was revealed that he had been captured on court-approved wire-taps discussing the names of candidates for Obama’s Senate seat.

What can one say other than it's going to be an interesting 4 years!