Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts

Monday, April 06, 2009

He has healed our relations with the Arab Street, brothers and sisters!


Remember how the mainstream media ceaselessly marketed the proposition that Barack Obama would heal relations between the U.S. and the "Arab Street"?

Arab commentators make no secret of their relief that Bush is finally leaving, and Arab leaders must privately be breathing a sigh of relief to see the exit of the man whom many admit as having been both the worst American president and the closest friend the Israelis ever had since setting up the Jewish state in Palestine in 1948.

It seems that was as much a crock of manure as everything else the MSM hawked regarding Obama.

Demonstrators protest at Taxim square in Istanbul on Sunday April 5, 2009 against the visit of US President Barack Obama. The posters read 'Obama go home'. President Barack Obama arrives in Ankara Monday for a two day visit to Turkey. (AP/Ibrahim Usta)

Change!


Sunday, April 05, 2009

Online ad revenue set to eclipse newspaper print ads


From Silicon Alley Insider:



Hat tip: Patrick Ruffini's Twitter feed.

Saturday, April 04, 2009

Death March


Ask not for whom the bell tolls, Bill Keller. It tolls for thee.

The decrepit New York Times Company is threatening to "shut down" The Boston Globe unless the newspaper's unions immediately agree to $20 million in additional concessions. John Hinderaker points out the obvious hypocrisy.

The Times endorses Big Labor's legislative agenda pretty much down the line, but when it comes to its own business operations, it can't help noticing that antiquated union contracts threaten its very existence. We've advocated bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler for exactly that reason. Maybe the Times, too, should take advantage of Chapter 11 to rid itself of unsustainable union contracts. And then maybe the Times' owners, managers, editors and reporters should re-think their commitment to the destructive left-wing agenda of the labor unions

Dare to dream, John, dare to dream. Times Editor Keller is going down with his ship.

The Sun-Times Media Group -- which owns the venerable Chicago Sun Times and nearly 60 other newspapers -- filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Tuesday.

Last week, The Washington Post announced that it will seek an unspecified number of voluntary buyouts. Despite thousands of requests from disgruntled readers, Richard Cohen has -- thus far -- declined to accept the offer.

Also last week, after a series of unsuccessful efforts to shore up finances, The New York Times laid off 100 workers, slashed salaries by 5% and announced plans to require two-week unpaid vacations (i.e., furloughs). That measure came after a sale and lease-back of its newly-constructed, 52-story Manhattan headquarters; a suspension of its quarterly dividend; and acceptance of a $250 million loan from Mexican financier Carlos Slim.

The McClatchy Co. -- owner of The Miami Herald -- announced it would cut 1,600 jobs (15%) and slash its dividend in an attempt to regain its economic footing.

The recent announcements are only the latest in a series of newspaper closings. Denver's Rocky Mountain News, Seattle's Post-Intelligencer and The Christian Science Monitor have completely shut down print operations. The Denver paper has ceased operating altogether.

Late last year, the Tribune Company, which owns The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune, filed for bankruptcy protection; it was a capitulation to a monstrous debt burden of $12 billion.

Liberals are having a hard time determining why their newspapers are going out of business, why their radio shows fail to attract audiences, and why their cable stations -- combined -- can't muster an audience to match that of Fox News.

APRIL 1 2009 CABLE NEWS VIEWERSHIP
Total Viewers: (L +SD)
Total day: FNC: 1381 | CNN: 599 | MSNBC: 430 | HLN: 337
Prime: FNC: 2687 | CNN: 909 | MSNBC: 991 | HLN: 635

Is Bill Keller really that stupid?

No. Just like Barack Obama, Keller is an ideologue, not a businessman.

By December 1, 2009, the print version of the Times will have joined the cavalcade of defunct New York city newspapers. You can mark that in your calendar. And report on it, if any pro journalists are reading along with us.

Update: How does the New York Times review the best-selling book in the country?


By ignoring it. In the two paragraphs of the "review", there was nary a mention of anything in the book.



Wednesday, April 01, 2009

You're such a Naiman!


Robert Naiman unintentionally produced the funniest April Fools Day story of the year. Unfortunately, it was published at The Huffington Post on Monday and it was supposed to be a real opinion piece. And it's funnier than delivering an atomic wedgie to a Mullah.

I would love to put Naiman on the streets of Tehran for an afternoon. Not to see that he gets hurt, of course, but as a simple experiment. I would call it Reality confronts naivete. It would get ugly and, if he survived, he'd come back with an IQ at least 35 points higher. But I digress. Naiman's story at PuffHO asserted that only his twelve-step program could heal U.S. relations with Iran. Hush! Let's listen in:

Establish a US interests section in Tehran. - That worked out well for our hostages -- oops, I mean our Embassy officials -- after the fall of the Shah. It took 444 days and the election of a President with a spine to secure their release. And there are at least three Americans who are currently missing in Iran.

Tell you what, Naiman: I nominate you to head up that section. And I promise to lend my full support. I'll even put up a free banner ad on my blog for you.

Guarantee multiple entry or expedited re-entry visas for Iranian students and scholars - Cunning! Steven Salinsky, writing in The New York Sun, reports that DHS already has its hands full monitoring all of the Iranians who appear to be performing reconnaissance for terrorist attacks here in the U.S.:

It was reported that America expelled two Iranian security guards employed by Tehran’s U.N. offices on June 29, after the mission was repeatedly warned against allowing its guards to videotape bridges, the Statue of Liberty, and New York’s subway system. This was the third time the Iranians have been caught in such activities, which could be connected to the sites mentioned in potential plans to attack America.

Naiman also had this delightful brainstorm:

While we're at it, we could authorize direct airline flights between Tehran and New York.

I am not making this stuff up. Flights from Iran to New York with hundreds of passengers cheering "Death to America!" It's the super-happy-fun-terror charter!

Acknowledge Past Misdeeds - In other words: apologize, appease and simper. I just have two questions: do Democrats understand how laughably pathetic that makes them look, year after year? And: do they really think that looking weak will -- for the first time in history -- inspire a round of Kumbaya, group hugs and free unicorn rides... thereby bringing peace?

Demonstrate U.S. Innocence of Iranian Accusations ("The belief is widespread among Iranians that the U.S. instigated Saddam Hussein to invade Iran in 1980. If it's not true, let's show that it's not true. Perhaps Jimmy Carter, who was President at the time, could put this matter to rest."): Consider -- Jimmy Carter, who couldn't convince Iran to release our hostages after it invaded our sovereign territory, will now convince Iran we're "innocent" of all charges. He's convincing, that Carter!

Affirm no U.S. policy of "regime change" - and they'll believe it! Because Robert Naiman said so!

Affirm that Iran has the right to the peaceful enrichment of uranium - Okay... we'll give 'em uranium. And we'll let 'em fly planes straight to New York City. I really can't see how that strategy could go wrong.

Affirm that the US has no problem with Hamas or Hizbullah if they become nonviolent political parties. - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA!!! This has gotta be some of the best satire I've ever read! It's gold, Jerry, pure gold!

...our leaders look silly in the Middle East when they accuse Iran of "supporting terror," when it's obvious to Middle Eastern publics that the practical definition of "terror" in this context is "people we don't like." Obviously, it's tautologically true that Iran "supports terror," since it "supports" Hamas and Hizbullah and we've issued fatwas that these are terrorist groups. But the same logic would make Pakistan, the United States, Israel and Colombia "state sponsors of terror." The description is arguably accurate in each case, but it's no way to begin a conversation.

Naiman -- you're starting to bore me. The old moral equivalence play. It's tired, it's stupid and it's been debunked by every great philosopher throughout history.

You're saying that Iran -- which hangs homosexuals, flogs women for displaying their hair, and promotes suicide bombing of civilians throughout the world -- is morally equivalent to the country that defeated Nazism, Communism, Baathism and slavery, thereby freeing hundreds of millions of people to pursue their dreams.

Yeah. Those countries sound equivalent.

Hey! I've got a new word for an ignorant, uneducated putz: a "Naiman".

Yep, he's a real Naiman, alright.


Monday, March 23, 2009

Monday, March 16, 2009

The 9/11 monument in New Jersey you never heard about


Gee, our crack mainstream media must have accidentally dropped this story behind the vending machine.

Politics or Poppycock has a series of photos depicting a monument to the victims of 9/11 in Bayonne, New Jersey. He writes, "I'm stunned. I have never heard, seen or read anything about this. Isn't it wonderful to live in a country where the media controls what we should know?"

The monument is a gift to the people of America from the citizens of Russia signifying the importance of the war against global terrorism.

Oops. That face may be one of the reasons our beloved mainstream media "forgot" to report the story.

The impressive teardrop monument is truly striking.

The victims of 9/11 are inscribed on a memorial wall.

Perhaps some enterprising reporter could let us know exactly what year this monument was installed.

They'll just have to remember not to call the hijackers "terrorists" or "enemy combatants", because President Obama doesn't permit that.


Linked by: Anchoress, Clark County, Paul Ibrahim and Wizbang. Thanks!

Hat tip: Contrairimairi.



Sunday, March 15, 2009

Here comes the Fairness Doctrine in a new disguise!


Radio Magazine alerts us to a recently introduced piece of legislation that represents the first step of a renewed attempt to wipe out conservative talk radio.

In late February, you may recall, the Senate voted 87-11 to ban the FCC from reinstating the ill-named "Fairness Doctrine". A better name for it would have been the "Censorship Doctrine", because its goal was plain: crush conservative voices in the only significant public medium in which they are heard. By forcing stations to "balance" their most profitable shows with poor performers like the abysmal Air America, radio would return to the days of broadcasting only news and music.

Why did the Congressional Democrats give up so easily?

Knowing that the Censorship Doctrine was wildly unpopular, even with some in their own party, they executed a feint. They simulated killing the Fairness Doctrine while simultaneously initiating an effort to solidify control over all media, Hugo Chavez-style.

That strategy is represented by the Local Community Radio Act of 2009, introduced in the House as HR 1147 (the bill has since been referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce).

Claiming that industry consolidation has reduced local programming, the bill utilizes arguments from the Low-Power FM (LPFM) coalition. LPFM may in fact be a worthy cause, allowing smaller entities to create niche radio stations. Consider it the FM spectrum's equivalent of the worldwide web.

That said, the legislation could set the stage for something more ominous. Consider this portion of the bill:

As a result of consolidation of media ownership, there have been strong financial incentives for companies to reduce local programming and rely instead on syndicated programming produced for hundreds of stations. A renewal of commitment to localism--local operations, local research, local management, locally originated programming, local artists, and local news and events--would bolster radio’s service to the public.

The localism facet of the argument is used by the left as a rhetorical device and is employed where the Censorship Doctrine failed. Progressive blog Think Progress featured a series of posts under the aegis "The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It".

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management...

...Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.

The inevitable result will be local boards -- consisting of bureaucrats, community agitators like ACORN, statists, and others -- who would "approve" content.

They would also hold the keys to licensing of not only low-power -- but also conventional FM -- stations. And a shorter license renewal period also has been discussed.

In short, the LPFM tenets are sound, but the ideology behind them -- pushing the bill inexorably forward -- is that of statism.

To get a sense of the future under the "Localism" dictates, simply imagine you're in Venezuela. With an ideologue in charge, albeit a more dapper version of Hugo Chavez.

Today's left consists of those more interested in suppressing free speech than in learning (or teaching) the Bill of Rights. Some may be too naive to realize it, but they are setting the stage for tyranny.



Wednesday, March 11, 2009

MSNBC: rate Obama's performance


As of this moment, MSNBC's poll is still live.

The report card thus far ain't good.



Fox debuts interactive Special Report segment


After today's Fox News Special Report, the network debuted an Internet-only feature. The panel stuck around for an extra twenty minutes and answered chat messages and tweets.


Special Report Live will be a Wednesday-only feature. During the segment, the page displayed two panes. The left side represented a live feed of the panel answering questions based upon the chat and the tweets. The right side was a live chat window.


The effect was neat, but could definitely use some fine-tuning.

* The rules were unclear. Some of my chat messages were "promoted" to the chat window, others disappeared into the bit bucket forever. There was no explanation for why certain messages (e.g., someone shrieked "Charles for President!!!!!!!") were promoted while others were not.

* Some stats would be nice. How many folks were connected simultaneously?

* Use of crowdsourcing to drive the chat would help. Let the users vote on which chat messages are "promoted" to Brett's chat window.

Bottom line, the segment was entertaining and enlightening. The interactive features appear to be a window into the future: the confluence of IP and television.

It's been a long time coming.


Update: When will Keith Olbermann try his hand at this new medium?



Monday, March 09, 2009

Why watching CNBC could destroy your life


It's August 2007. The Dow Jones Industrial Average sits at the 13,000 mark.

What did CNBC's talking heads recommend?

Ned Riley - says he's retired, living off of his portfolio and is 75% to 80% invested in stocks. Claims the U.S. market and even banks stocks are "attractively priced" and will generate 9 to 11% annually for the next ten or fifteen years. Grade: F-. Had you followed Riley's lead, you would have been completely wiped out.

Vern Haden - hard to pin down because he spews the usual platitudes, but basically posits that investors should stay the course. Grade D.

Peter Schiff - called the credit market meltdown perfectly, but whiffed on commodities, interest rates and the dollar. His call on gold was spot on ("spot on" -- get it?). Grade C+.

Lesson learned: the advice from CNBC's talking heads appears to be considerably worse than using darts to select stocks.


Hat tip: Market Oracle.


Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Rick Santelli shreds Mortgage Plan on Kudlow


A must-watch video.

As Larry Kudlow points out, the direct criticism of Santelli by the White House is nearly unprecedented. It points to an insecure administration with a weak case, and which is hemorhagging popular support on a daily basis.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Fairness Doctrine vs. Pelosi's House Fairness Rules


Word on the street this evening: Barack Obama is not in favor of reinstating the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". That said, the fascistic efforts to silence conservative opinion aren't over. Not by a long shot.

Liberal watchdog groups like the ill-named "FreePress" are funding astroturf websites. Examples include Stop Big Media and Reclaim the Media. These sites rally support for government oversight and control of "corporate media giants".

Aside from egregious violations of the First Amendment, these efforts are thinly veiled attempts to create local Politburos that would have the power to pick and choose media content.

Their intent, while disguised, is crystal clear: shut down conservative talk radio and silence dissent. Got Stalin?

Pelosi Dismantles Congressional Version of Fairness Doctrine


More amazing than this direct assault on the Constitution is the following little-publicized story. Just last month, Nancy Pelosi changed House rules so that Republicans can't propose bills.

That's right: Pelosi and her ultra-partisan hacks destroyed the Congressional version of the Fairness Doctrine ("Pelosi Erases Gingrich’s Long-Standing Fairness Rules"):

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office...

The original House fairness rules were put in place under Republican control of the House, to ensure that the minority Democrats had a voice. The rules survived for 15 years. Now they're history.

See how it works?

It's easy to understand


When it silences conservative talk radio, Democrats favor the Fairness Doctrine.

And when it silences conservatives in Congress, Democrats oppose the Fairness rules.

What can one call it... but fascism?


Update: Hyper-partisan thug Waxman looks to extend "Fairness" to web.


Friday, February 13, 2009

Is Conservatism dead?


FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,494,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,658,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,370,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,305,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,190,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,847,000
CNN KING 1,761,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,485,000
CNN COOPER 1,286,000
CNN BLITZER 1,246,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,240,000

I guess not.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Now Bill Clinton is lobbying for the Fairness Doctrine


Chuck Schumer. Debbie Stabenow. Tom Harkin. Anna Eshoo. Dick Durbin. Diane Feinstein.

The list of prominent Democrats calling for The Censorship Doctrine seems to grow daily.

Now, impeached, disbarred ex-President Bill Clinton has weighed in.

Today, radio host Mario Solis Marich asked former President Bill Clinton if it was time for "some type of enforced media accountability."

"Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side," Clinton said, "because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous...."

Clinton said that there needs to be either "more balance in the programs or have some opportunity for people to offer countervailing opinions." Clinton added that he didn't support repealing the Fairness Doctrine, an act done under Reagan's FCC.

Unable to compete in the marketplace of ideas, liberals are reduced to censoring free speech.

Chavez- and Mugabe-style.

It represents utter disregard of the Constitutions's First Amendment.

It is flatly repugnant.

Such an effort to suppress political speech is criminal and must be stopped.


Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Will their online sites save newspapers? Not so much.


The newspaper in printed form is swiftly approaching obsolescence, as evidenced by Detroit's decision to curtail daily delivery.

One school of thought contends that online news sites will save the day, albeit at greatly reduced revenue levels.

Editor & Publisher has the bad news, which refutes that notion. Online news sites are rapidly deteriorating.

...most newspaper Web sites experienced a drop-off in the number of unique visitors [from November to] December. The same can be said for the average time spent per user... Politico and the Detroit News suffered. About four minutes were nicked off Politico’s average time spent from November to December while Detroit was down about 5 minutes.

The NYTimes.com shed about three minutes from November to December.

...Those sites where visitors lingered longer on average: Washingtonpost.com, Boston.com, SFGate.com, and the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, among others...

Site -- Dec. ’08 -- Nov. ’08
NYTimes.com -- 0:33:03 -- 0:36:32
USATODAY.com -- 0:15:26 -- 0:15:58
washingtonpost.com -- 0:15:02 -- 0:14:15

LA Times -- 0:07:36 -- 0:07:07
Wall Street Journal Online -- 0:10:48 -- 0:11:57
Chicago Tribune -- 0:07:27 -- 0:07:12

New York Post -- 0:10:44 -- 0:09:55
Boston.com -- 0:16:55 -- 0:13:27
SFGate.com/San Francisco Chronicle -- 0:14:44 -- 0:12:05

Chicago Sun-Times -- 0:06:14 -- 0:06:47
Politico -- 0:06:47 -- 0:10:45
The Houston Chronicle -- 0:19:20 -- 0:22:15

Atlanta Journal-Constitution -- 0:11:35 -- 0:11:08
The Detroit News -- 0:08:41 -- 0:14:02
Seattle Post-Intelligencer -- 0:08:34 -- 0:08:58

DallasNews.com - The Dallas Morning News -- 0:06:08 -- 0:06:10
Star Tribune -- 0:32:20 -- 0:20:32
The Washington Times -- 0:03:40 -- 0:03:46

Baltimore Sun -- 0:11:30 -- **
NJ.com -- 0:06:07 -- 0:06:37
MLive.com -- 0:08:40 -- 0:06:12

Editor & Publisher has the complete list.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

And on the fifth day, subpoenas were served related to Obama's senior staff


On Saturday morning, the list of subpoenas served by the U.S. Attorney's office in the Governor Rod Blagojevich case was made public. The list included one major surprise for the new administration.

A veritable "who's who" of Obama staffers, surrogates and affiliates were among those whose communications with Blago were served with subpoenas. Put simply, within one week of President Barack Obama's administration taking office, it is already under significant legal scrutiny that will -- at a minimum -- take precious time away from dealing with the country's monumental economic and foreign policy challenges.

And, once again, the mainstream media is AWOL, unwilling to report on this very newsworthy story.

Among those whose communications were served:

David Axelrod, Obama's "Karl Rove" and the biggest surprise on the list. Obama's team issued a report in December that said his staff had no "inappropriate contact" with Blago, so the inclusion of Axelrod is a bit of a shock.

Valerie Jarrett, Blago's "Senate Candidate 1", a real estate management executive and political hack of the first order. Her ties to failed and fraudulent real estate deals in Chicago were the subject of numerous investigations and should have instantly disqualified her for any public office.

Rahm Emanuel was already deeply involved in the case with some reports describing as many as 21 conversations with Blago's office during the period in question.

Tony Rezko, Obama's first advocate, fundraiser and adviser, was convicted last year on numerous charges related to kickbacks, and is now awaiting sentencing. Rezko is "cooperating with authorities, FBI Agent Daniel Cain said in an affidavit."

Other communications served include:

• Patricia Blagojevich, first lady
• River Realty, her former employer
• Friends of Blagojevich, the governor's campaign committee
• Citizens for Blagojevich, his former committee
• Robert Blagojevich, the governor's brother and campaign chairman
• Christopher Kelly, former adviser and fundraiser for governor
• Alonzo Monk, former Blagojevich chief of staff, now a lobbyist
• Milan Petrovic, lobbyist and campaign fundraiser
• John Wyma, former Blagojevich adviser, now a lobbyist
• Paul Rosenfeld, lobbyist
• J.B. Pritzker, wealthy Chicagoan whom Blagojevich might have considered to replace Obama in U.S. Senate
• Gery Chico, former Chicago school board president and one-time U.S. Senate candidate
• Doug Scofield, former Blagojevich adviser, now a consultant
• Scofield Communications
• Service Employees International Union
• Tom Balanoff, SEIU Illinois president
• Change to Win, an SEIU-affiliated activist group
• Sam Zell, owner of the Chicago Tribune
• Nils Larsen, an adviser to Zell
• The Chicago Tribune
• The Tribune Co., the newspaper's parent company
• Michael Vondra, owner of asphalt and construction companies
• Gerald Krozel, vice president of a concrete company
• John Johnston, president of Balmoral Park racetrack
• Fred Yang, Washington, D.C.-based Blagojevich consultant
• Garin Hart Yang Research Group, Yang's firm
• William Knapp, Washington, D.C.-based Blagojevich consultant
• Squire, Knapp & Dunn, Knapp's firm
• Doug Sosnick, political consultant

Blago's "Senate Candidate 3", Jan Schakowsky, was not served with a subpoena, but will have some questions of her own to answer in the days to come.

Let's recap, shall we? In the first week, Obama has not cut taxes -- the only proven way to revive the economy -- despite promising to do so for "95% of working Americans" (which was almost certainly a lie, but let's wait and see); signed an order to close Gitmo, certain to make America less safe; and promoted abortion on a global scale.

Oh, and most of his senior staff is under legal scrutiny.

I can hardly wait for week two.

Update: Thomas Lifson offers the critical thought experiment: imagine if Rove, and not Axelrod, had been the subject.

Update II: An eagle-eyed commenter points out that Blago's communications with Axelrod, Jarrett, et. al. were the subject of subpoenas, not the parties themselves. So noted and corrected.

Hat tips: Don Surber (for the title as well as the story) and Larwyn. Linked by: Thomas Lifson at the invaluable American Thinker, The Anchoress, SondraK, Protein Wisdom, Moonbattery, Hyscience, Atlas, Patriot Room, Dr. Sanity, Repurblican, Obambi, Urban Grounds, Black and Right, Proof Positive, Tory Dr. Roy, Crusader Rabbit, Amused Cynic, Liberal Rapture, River Daughter, The Real Barack Obama, CannonFire, DequalsS, Bill Baar's West Side and The Astute Bloggers. Thanks!

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

FISA Court and Holder rule in favor of Bush; slam Bathtub Boy


The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review — a special federal appeals court created by the 1978 FISA statute on matters of national security surveillance -- last week ruled that the President has unfettered constitutional authority to monitor international communications without court permission. In fact, the President can do so even when the communications of U.S. citizens are involved.

It understates the case to say the Bush administration has been slandered for asserting this power — accused of shredding the Constitution and violating the principle that no one is above the law (even as Congress put itself above the law — the Constitution — by enacting and trying to enforce a statute, FISA, that sought to diminish the president's constitutional authority). It was never true.

President Bush's Terrorist Surveillance Program — carried out by the NSA without court oversight, just as wartime presidents have always conducted national security surveillance without court oversight — always stood on strong authority, including a 2002 ruling from the same Foreign Intelligence Court of Review.  have argued in favor of the program's legality, here on NRO and elsewhere, more times than I can count.  (See, e.g., here, here, here, here and here).

Six months ago, presumptive Attorney General Eric Holder pilloried the practices as "needlessly abusive and unlawful."

But during last week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Holder was as slippery as a FALN bomb-maker's can of machine oil.

Mr. Hatch: "Back to my prior point, the President's inherent authority under the Constitution. Can that be limited by a statute? You're relying on a statute as though that's binding on Article II of the Constitution."

Mr. Holder: "Well, the President obviously has powers under the Constitution that cannot be infringed by the legislative branch. That's what I was saying earlier. There are powers that the President has delegated to him -- that he has -- and Congress does not have the ability to say, with regard to those powers, you cannot exercise them. There's always a tension in trying to decide where that balance is struck. And I think we see the best result when we see Congress interacting with the President, the executive branch interacting with the legislative branch and coming up with solutions . . ."

Mr. Hatch: "That still doesn't negate the fact that the President may have inherent powers under Article II that even a statute cannot vary."
...
Holder: "Yeah. There are certain things that a President has the constitutional right, authority to do, that the legislative branch cannot impinge upon."

Put simply, even Holder now admits that Presidents have constitutional powers that the legislature may not abridge.

So much for the shrill meme endlessly marketed by Democrats and echoed by their public relations arm, the mainstream media. To wit:

Bush is not above the law: New York Times Op-Ed (James Bamford):

...the president of the United States broke the law, committed a serious felony and violated the Constitution... Under his program, President Bush could probably be charged with wiretapping not 17 but thousands of people without having obtained a court order authorizing the taps as required by federal law, in violation of FISA...

In a hearing on Jan. 18 [2007], the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said, “For years, this administration has engaged in warrantless wiretapping of Americans contrary to the law... ”

His view was shared by the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, who said of Mr. Bush, “For five years he has been operating an illegal program.”

Or Bill Maher:

New Rule: Liberals must stop saying President Bush hasn’t asked Americans to sacrifice for the war on terror. On the contrary, he’s asked us to sacrifice something enormous: our civil rights... ...this administration has read your phone records, credit card statements, mail, Internet logs.. I mail myself a copy of the Constitution every morning just on the hope they’ll open it and see what it says.

Or Keith Olbermann, a man so unhinged even the left mocks him:

Olbermann's Special Comment on FISA: President Bush Is a Liar and a Fascist: If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business — come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend. You’re a fascist — get them to print you a t-shirt with “fascist” on it! What else is this but fascism? ...And if there’s one thing we know about Big Brother, Mr. Bush, is that he is — you are — a liar...

...You are a liar, Mr. Bush, and after showing some skill at it, you have ceased to even be a very good liar... You would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists… You would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people… You would not merely be guilty of stupidity… You would not merely be guilty of treason, sir… You would be personally, and eternally, responsible.

Or Elaine Cassel, author of The War on Civil Liberties (How Bush and Ashcroft Have Dismantled the Bill of Rights).

I felt compelled to share the story of how... the government was using the war on terrorism to circumvent precious liberties and rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights... [we can not] sit by and watch our freedoms dissolve under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Or miscellaneous socialists like Doreen Miller (don't all Marxists look alike?):

The [Patriot Act] eviscerates many of the protections of the Bill of Rights by allowing the Government to search people’s homes without a warrant, to monitor electronic communication without a warrant, to imprison citizens for 6 months without seeing a judge, and much more.

Or the brilliant diarists at Daily Kos:

I pray that George W. Bush burns in Hell!: I sit here and am depressed what we have become and the destroyed lives all because this pathetic man chose to defy our constitution... our people and our sense of moral decency. This horrible man will burn in hell. That would only be fair.

* * *

Now that Chimpy has been forever vindicated by the FISA review court -- and the presumptive Democratic Attorney General -- we'll patiently await apologies from the spectrum of unhappy Leftists and terror-supporters who range from the merely ignorantly to the patently deranged.

Got that, Bathtub Boy?

Your positive stock market news for the day


May I present the five-year stock chart of the New York Times Company?

Flash Headlines: Google to halt Print Ads program for newspapers:

Google will kill a program to sell newspaper advertising because it is not making enough money... Google will shut the Print Ads program on Feb. 28, the company said on its blog on Tuesday afternoon. The two-year-old service was designed to help newspapers make money by enticing Google advertisers to expand into print newspaper sales...

AllThingsDigital: A Study Plan for Carlos Slim: Learn Who’s Running the New York Times:

Carlos Slim Helu, who has ridden to the rescue of the New York Times with a $250m loan this week, professed to know little about the closest thing America has to a newspaper of record just six months ago.

‘Do you know the New York Times?’ the world’s second-richest man asked one visitor in July. ‘Do you know this guy [Arthur] Sulzberger and some woman called Janet [Robinson, chief executive]? What do you think?’”

To put things into perspective, this is the only guy the Times could recruit who even might invest in the failing enterprise.

Will Ms. Dowd please turn off the lights when she leaves the building?

Update: Schadenfreude

Sunday, January 18, 2009

An open letter to Paul Krugman (in comic book form)


Dear Mr. Krugman,

It was with great interest that I read your column of 15 January 2009 ("Forgive and Forget?") in which you advocate the prosecution of George W. Bush and Richard M. Cheney in order to "hold those who violate the Constitution accountable."

It's not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies... Does anyone seriously doubt that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into invading Iraq?

While your background as a constitutional lawyer is unquestioned, Mr. Krugman, perhaps we can take a moment to review your charges.

Consider Guantanamo Bay. The reason President Bush opened Guantanamo Bay is because of a Supreme Court decision in 1950. This decision, Johnson v. Eisentrager, was handed down by a Supreme Court dominated by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's selections. It barred federal civilian courts from hearing habeas petitions filed by German citizen combatants convicted of war crimes and imprisoned overseas by the U.S. military. That's what the Supreme Court said; a court that was truly of FDR's making.

That's why the President opened Guantanamo. Because he understood, as FDR and Truman understood, the importance of keeping activist lawyers and activist judges away from the war effort. This isn't about criminality. This is about war and national security.

We've heard so much about FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The FISA law could not -- and did not -- anticipate nanosecond communications mechanisms such as email, cell phones, satellite phones and the like.

It was a law written in the seventies. And the Bush Justice Department was extremely careful about intercepting international communications, carefully screening to whom and from whom.

To this day we have no examples of violations of civil liberties regarding either FISA or Guantanamo Bay. None!

So what does the Left do? They lie, they change the language. Suddenly, waterboarding is torture. Waterboarding: from which we gleaned information that saved American soldiers and protected American citizens. Because it's been described as torture.

Waterboarding was used by American troops in the Spanish-American War. It has been used by our troops, on our troops, in survival school for decades. It wasn't invented by this administration. But under this president, it became an issue.

George Bush never rounded up 110,000 people of a certain ethnicity, as FDR did during World War II.

FDR rounded up over one hundred thousand innocent Japanese-American citizens who had violated no laws, had committed no crimes.

After 9/11, the Attorney General looked at a list of expired visas, which he has every right to do. He called in those aliens whose visas had expired in violation of U.S. law to determine the reason for the expirations.

He did this because some of the 9/11 hijackers held visas that had expired.

But he didn't round up 110,000 Muslims -- or, to be roughly equivalent to that era -- 250,000 Muslims and put them in internment camps in the interior of the country like the great FDR did.

Yet Bush is said to be the greatest violator of civil liberties by you, Mr. Krugman, and the rest of the Leftist, anti-war mob.

As for Iraq? If Iraq was truly a "war of choice" -- as George Will stipulates -- how is that any different than other wars of choice America has waged that were absolutely in our national security interest?

Ever hear the phrase "Manifest Destiny"? This was the doctrine used in the first half of the nineteenth century under which we acquired most of the west and southwest portions of the country. Little states, you might have heard of them, like California and Texas. Over a third of the continental U.S. territory was captured and attached through U.S. military force. This doctrine was crucial to the preservation and improvement of this society.

That was a "War of Choice". And there have been others, all in our best interests, national security and otherwise.

Mr. Krugman, you've done an admirable job of reciting the ACLU's talking points:

• That our country was involved in widespread torture? A flat-out lie.
• Or that our country violated the civil liberties of its citizens? Name one. It's a flat-out lie.

President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are humble, strong, decent men who understood what 9/11 meant for this country.

You, sir, are a hypocritical buffoon who should seek immediate treatment for Bush Derangement Syndrome, along with thousands of your similarly afflicted sycophants.

Sincerely, Doug Ross


Update: Say hello to my little friend, Mr. Krugman: WSJ

Based upon: The brilliant Mark Levin, 1/14/2009.