“The biggest challenge that I think we have right now in terms of this divide is that the country receives information from completely different sources.” — Obama
What is funny is that Obama made this interview partly about “fake news,” which is ironic. THE BLAZE explains why:
…Obama then continued:
Good journalism continues to this day. There’s great work done in Rolling Stone. The challenge is people are getting a hundred different visions of the world from a hundred different outlets or a thousand different outlets, and that is ramping up divisions. It’s making people exaggerate or say what’s most controversial or peddling in the most vicious of insults or lies, because that attracts eyeballs. And if we are gonna solve that, it’s not going to be simply an issue of subsidizing or propping up traditional media; it’s going to be figuring out how do we organize in a virtual world the same way we organize in the physical world. We have to come up with new models.
Absent from Obama’s take on “fake news” was the fact that the very magazine he was speaking to had just been found guilty of, in fact, publishing fake news. Earlier this month, the very same magazine Obama dubbed as “good journalism” was found guilty of defamation for an article written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely.
Her article titled “A Rape on Campus,” appeared in the December 2014 issue of Rolling Stone and centered around a woman named “Jackie” and an account of a vicious gang rape at the University of Virginia. The story unfortunately turned out to be, well, fake news. The jury in the case found the story was written with reckless disregard for the truth and that Erdely was guilty of false reporting. Rolling Stone and Erdely were ordered to pay $3 million in damages to an administrator at the school who filed the suit….
* Love this quote: “Her claims to be a ‘queer Muslim’ are probably part of an act designed to fit into as many victim categories as humanly possible,” Adams elaborates. “Sometimes I wonder whether LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Thespian. So much drama, so few letters in the alphabet.”
(Above Video) The caller notes that the narrative is that the Islamic State would have still come to power even if we kept troops in Iraq. Which is true, they would have still come to existence, in Syria. But Iraq would not have lost any cities or territories if we still had a presence in Iraq. The caller mentioned a force of 10,000 troops, it would have been closer to 30,000 troops. And having a base of operations in country would have allowed the administration to deal more effectively with the Islamic State in Syria (flying sorties, and supporting quick reaction [spec-ops] units activity), and the like.
(Above Video) Megyn Kelly Destroys Jen Psaki who can’t get off talking points.
(Above Video) Larry Elder (and Paul Bremer) dismantle older as well as new mantras flying around via our friends on the left. In the interview that is the centerpiece of the segment[s] here via Larry Elder, Erin “Monkey” Burnett gets all of her talking points smacked down. The only thing Miss Burnett accomplished was showing her bias/sarcasm well.
Here Bremer educates Erin with facts she knew, but refuses to deploy in her logic because it would ruin her defense of her Master Obama, “The planning in 2011, leaked very heavily from the Pentagon and the White House was to keep 20 to 30 thousand troops after 2011, the White House leaked that it wanted to only keep 3,000 troops, then they said to al-Maliki not only do we want a Status of Forces Agreement but you have to get it through your Parliament. So for the first time, to my knowledge, since 1945, we have 84 SOFA agreements around the world, we were telling the host government how to they proceed in approving that Status of Forces Agreement. That put al-Maliki in an impossible situation.”
….A dandy little edit here by the Free Beacon, via Ace. I know I’ve linked it before but the piece you want to read as accompaniment is Iraq hawk turned dove Peter Beinart lamenting all the ways Obama screwed up post-Bush American policy in the country. O wants you to believe at the end of the video here that he pushed hard to keep a residual American force inside Iraq for counterterrorism (i.e. counter-ISIS) operations but it’s simply not true. He didn’t push hard for it; when Maliki initially resisted his demand that U.S. troops be granted immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, O took that as his cue to pull everyone out. And that wasn’t the only time he indulged Maliki’s dumbest impulses. The story of the U.S. vis-a-vis Iraq after 2009, writes Beinart, is a story of disinterest and disengagement:
The decline of U.S. leverage in Iraq simply reinforced the attitude Obama had held since 2009: Let Maliki do whatever he wants so long as he keeps Iraq off the front page.
On December 12, 2011, just days before the final U.S. troops departed Iraq, Maliki visited the White House. According to Nasr, he told Obama that Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, an Iraqiya leader and the highest-ranking Sunni in his government, supported terrorism. Maliki, argues Nasr, was testing Obama, probing to see how the U.S. would react if he began cleansing his government of Sunnis. Obama replied that it was a domestic Iraqi affair. After the meeting, Nasr claims, Maliki told aides, “See! The Americans don’t care.”
In public remarks after the meeting, Obama praised Maliki for leading “Iraq’s most inclusive government yet.” Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, Saleh al-Mutlaq, another Sunni, told CNN he was “shocked” by the president’s comments. “There will be a day,” he predicted, “whereby the Americans will realize that they were deceived by al-Maliki … and they will regret that.”
And now the day has come. Remember that the next time O walks out to the podium and acts indignant about Maliki clinging to power.
One more bit, this from Dexter Filkins, on just how much of a fight O put up in demanding a residual troop presence:
President Obama, too, was ambivalent about retaining even a small force in Iraq. For several months, American officials told me, they were unable to answer basic questions in meetings with Iraqis—like how many troops they wanted to leave behind—because the Administration had not decided. “We got no guidance from the White House,” Jeffrey told me. “We didn’t know where the President was. Maliki kept saying, ‘I don’t know what I have to sell.’ ” At one meeting, Maliki said that he was willing to sign an executive agreement granting the soldiers permission to stay, if he didn’t have to persuade the parliament to accept immunity. The Obama Administration quickly rejected the idea. “The American attitude was: Let’s get out of here as quickly as possible,” Sami al-Askari, the Iraqi member of parliament, said…
A real conservative walks with us. Ronald Reagan read National Review and Human Events for intellectual sustenance; spoke annually to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Young Americans for Freedom, and other organizations to rally the troops; supported Barry Goldwater when the GOP mainstream turned its back on him; raised money for countless conservative groups; wrote hundreds of op-eds; and delivered even more speeches, everywhere championing our cause. Until he decided to run for the GOP nomination a few months ago, Trump had done none of these things, perhaps because he was too distracted publicly raising money for liberals such as the Clintons; championing Planned Parenthood, tax increases, and single-payer health coverage; and demonstrating his allegiance to the Democratic party.
Its called a “moral bank account,” Reagan spent years involved in the conservative movement before running. Trump has just “changed”… but wants single-payer health care (more left than Obama-Care), wanting to put his extremely left wing-sister on the Supreme Court, etc.
Prager explains this to the first caller in this two call upload:
The “A Time for Choosing” speech given by Reagan in 1964 could never be made by Trump:
However, I agree with George Will that this delineation with the common man of what a Republican “is” versus “isn’t” is past it’s time of any fruit:
On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” while discussing the National Review’s special edition in opposition to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, conservative commentator George Will said it might be too late.
Will said, “General Douglas MacArthur said that in war, every disaster can be explained in two words ‘too late.’ The question is whether the conservative wing of the Republican Party, AKA the Republican wing of the Republican Party, is beginning too late to rally against Mr. Trump.”
Let me get this straight. In the eyes of the Left…
…criticism of Planned Parenthood means something like the shooting in Colorado “was bound to happen”…
…but chants where people describe police as ‘pigs’ and call for them to be ‘fried like bacon’ doesn’t lead to attacks on police…
…when an event by Pamela Geller is targeted by an Islamist shooter, it is “not really about free speech; it was an exercise in bigotry and hatred” and the attempt to kill her means she has “achieved her provocative goal”…
…while at the same time, investigators contend we may never know what motivated a 24-year-old Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez to kill four Marines and a sailor in an attack on Chattanooga’s U.S. Naval and Marine Reserve Center last July…
…a shooting by a diagnosed schizophrenic, who believed that grammar was part of a vast, government-directed mind control effort, is characterized by the Southern Poverty law Center as having views that are the “hallmark of the far right and the militia movement”…
…while the shooter who opened fire in the lobby of the Family Research Council in downtown Washington in 2012, who planned to target the Traditional Values Coalition next, does not spur any need for a broader discussion or societal lessons about the demonization of political opponents…
…a California killer, who was treated by multiple therapists and already had police checking on him after posting disturbing YouTube videos, is a reflection of “sexist society”…
…but there’s little reason to ask whether the Oregon shooter’s decision to target Christians reflects a broader, societal hostility to Christians, or whether it reflects his personal allegiance to demons…
…When white supremacist Dylann Roof committed an act of mass murder in an African-American church, Salon declares “White America is complicit” and the Washington Post runs a column declaring, “99 percent of southern whites will never go into a church, sit down with people and then massacre them. But that 99 percent is responsible for the one who does”…
…but the Roanoke shooter’s endless sense of grievance and perceptions of racism and homophobia in all of his coworkers represents him and him alone…
Do I have all that right? And does that make sense to anyone?
Even liberal Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz understands that the explosion of social justice on college campuses is fascism:
I don’t want to make analogies to the 1930s but we have to remember that it was the students at universities who first started burning books during the Nazi regime. And these students are book burners. They don’t want to hear diverse views on college campuses….
When I went to speak at Johns Hopkins University, there were protests. It was said that because I won’t acknowledge that Israel commits crime against the Palestinians, I am, quote, “harassing students” and violating the ethical standards of John Hopkins University. By expressing my opinion, I am harassing students. This has become a very serious problem not only in American universities, but in universities around the world, as well. And it is influencing and having a terrible impact on the education of students….
You have to call these things what they are. Double standard, hypocrisy, bigotry, McCarthyism and the fog of fascism is descending quickly over many American universities.
I hate to break it Dershowitz… his boy Obama has made it worse (but he realizes that now). Mmm… I LOVE the book title BTW! It made me laugh out loud. I also wish to note Megyn Kelly was channeling her inner “sista” for a moment.
Some points out of ten posted by The American Spectator: “Ten Things You Need to Know From Last Night’s GOP Debate”
1.Carly Fiorina won. And by “won,” I mean “both debates.” She wasted everyone on stage at the “Happy Hour” kids’ table debate, managed to goad the DNC into creating her very own sexist meme, shut down Chris Matthews, and basically Ronda Rousey’ed the whole night. She punched yesterday in the face. Not a single man in the following debate seemed even remotely capable of delivering her knockout performance, and that’s something to be proud of. With a field of sixteen (eighteen? twenty? eighty?), the initial, Fox News debate — on friendly territory — was essential to solidifying your position among the front runners. Fiorina did that without hesitation. Others, in this case perpetual disappointment Rick Perry,spent the time he should have spent preparing for the debate using his surrogates to manage expectations, and made Bobby Jindal look charismatic by comparison, and Bobby Jindal is the human equivalent of notebook paper.
4.Megyn Kelly asked hardball questions of the prime time debaters, which earned her a spate of terrible Facebook fan page commentary and the honor of being called a “bimbo,” a sentiment which Donald Trump immediately endorsed. Which is convenient for Donald Trump, since he made it through the entire debate without endorsing a single policy, except, perhaps, a national program to relocate Rosie O’Donnell to an inaccessible private island. On that, he is likely to earn widespread support. But while the Donald spent the greatest amount of time yammering, among the candidates, he actually said very little. Except that you should be concerned that he intends to run third party. Which is fine. We always need more candidates to confuse elderly Floridian voters.
6. For the first time in history, observation linked Ted Cruz to Mike Huckabee, which is an intriguing development. Post-debate Luntz polling revealed that those souring on Trump were moving “back” to Cruz and Huckabee, neither of whom made a spectacular showing last night, but definitely share some of Trump’s “anti-establishment” credentials (if there is a such thing). It may turn out that the primary impetus behind Trump’s popularity was simply that neither Cruz or Huckabee had yet hit the trail — certainly Cruz seems to consider Trump his stalking horse — but if neither Cruz nor Huckabee can capitalize on the eventual Trump disengagement, the connections will sink all three. Personally, I see this as no loss. You may differ. In which case, feel free to call me a closeted liberal in the comments section as usual.
9.Marco Rubio “won” the debate itself, which is great for Marco Rubio because it’s high time he’s taken seriously as a candidate. He’s good looking, he’s got a great background story, he’s nuanced on policy and the media already hates him so much they pay for people to scour through hours of footage of Miami Zoning Commission hearings. And now he seems like he could take on the so-called “heavy hitters” he was supposed to be crushed by. Frankly, it would be fun to see him take on Carly in a one-on-one. We’d all be better for it, too.
In this segment Mark Levin deals with one of the main quotes Trump was accused of. Mind you, I am not a fan of Trump, but, the cheapness FOX displayed when they could have asked more serious questions was disappointing to say the least.
There seems to have been an issue a few years ago with Salon.com’s author, Scott Eric Kaufman, that the blog American Power dealt with and showed Scott’s lies in that matter. I am starting to think he doesn’t like good looking women… Kelly only now in his purview of taste… or distaste?
The same Baltimore state’s attorney who basked in the national spotlight after arresting sixofficers in the death of Freddie Gray, who died after being arrested in a police drug crackdown, was behind the order for the police crackdown in the first place, internal documents Baltimore Police memos show.
About three weeks prior to Freddie Gray’s death, Baltimore city state’s attorney Marilyn Mosby instructed police to target the intersection where the controversial encounter began with “enhanced” drug enforcement efforts, defense attorneys for the six officers charged in the case revealed on Tuesday.
In a March 17 email, the division chief of Mosby’s “Crime Strategies Unit,” Joshua Rosenblatt, outlined the instructions he was apparently given about suspected drug dealing:
“State’s Attorney Mosby asked me to look into community concerns regarding drug dealing in the area of North Ave and Mount St,” he wrote.
Thanks to PowerLine for the h/t for this interview, to which they mention ~ the three segments are rolled up into one at PowerLine:
…Kelly is without doubt the best interviewer on television. I don’t think there is a close second. She needed to bring all her skills to bear in the course of the interview last night (and I think she did so live).
Mitchell did not make for an an easy interview. He was guarded and angry. Kelly worked hard to get Mitchell to open up and bring the subject to life. Watching the interview, I thought Kelly would need to waterboard Mitchell himself to get him to open up. Nevertheless, the interview comes alive at about 18:00 and really takes off in the third segment (beginning at 22:48).
Quotable quotes: “I do not mind giving my life for my country, but I do mind giving my life for a food fight for political reasons between two groups of people who should be able to work it out like adults.”
“Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has the opportunity to address the charges against him, but I don’t.”
“[The Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats’ report] shows al Qaeda and the al Qaeda 2.0 folks, ISIL, that we’re divided and that we’re easy targets, that we don’t have the will to defeat them because that’s what they know. In fact, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told me personally, ‘Your country will turn on you, the liberal media will turn on you, the people will grow tired of this, they will turn on you, and when they do, you are going to be abandoned.”
A constitutional law expert warned Congress during a hearing Wednesday that America has reached a “constitutional tipping point” under the watch of President Barack Obama.
Jonathan Turley, professor of public interest law at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., said the legislative branch of the U.S. government is in danger of becoming irrelevant in the face of continued executive overreach.
“My view [is] that the president, has in fact, exceeded his authority in a way that is creating a destabilizing influence in a three branch system,” Turley said. “I want to emphasize, of course, this problem didn’t begin with President Obama, I was critical of his predecessor President Bush as well, but the rate at which executive power has been concentrated in our system is accelerating. And frankly, I am very alarmed by the implications of that aggregation of power.”
“What also alarms me, however, is that the two other branches appear not just simply passive, but inert in the face of this concentration of authority,” he added….