Conservatives, Honest Liberals Opposed FCC Newsrooms ‘Study’

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai

In a Feb. 10 op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who occupies one of the Republican seats on the commission, broke the news that the Obama Administration was planning to place inquisitors in the newsrooms of television and radio stations across the nation.

Titled the “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the FCC program proposed to send researchers into TV and radio newsrooms to interview reporters, editors, and station managers about how they decide which stories to cover… or not cover.

As Pai described it, the stated purpose of the CIN was to “ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about ‘the process by which stories are selected,’ and how often stations cover ‘critical information needs,’ along with ‘perceived station bias’ and ‘perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.’” As a guideline for their research, the FCC planners selected eight major categories for their investigators to delve into:

1) Emergencies and risks – immediate and long term;

2) Health and welfare – local health information and group specific health information;

3) Education – the quality of local schools and choices available to parents;

4) Transportation – available alternatives, costs, and schedules;

5) Economic opportunities – job information, job training, and small business assistance;

6) The environment – air and water quality and access to recreation;

7) Civic information – the availability of civic institutions and opportunities to associate with others; and

8) Political – information about candidates at all relevant levels of local governance, and relevant public policy initiatives affecting communities and neighborhoods.

In addition, the FCC identified two broad areas of critical information needs associated with each of these categories: 1) Those fundamental to individuals in everyday life; and 2) Those that affect larger groups and communities.

But this is all pretty boring stuff.  If the FCC was interested in conducting a study on which topics and which stories were most likely to put TV viewers and radio listeners to sleep, it’s pretty clear they were really onto something.  There have always been much more interesting stories to report.

Although everyone but the fascist thugs of the Obama Administration and the brain-dead rank-and-file of the Democratic Party were immediately horrified at what the FCC proposed, for the first time in history conservatives and the lawyers of the American Civil Liberties Union threw their arms around each other.  The thought of someone marching into the newsrooms of television and radio stations and demanding to know how they conducted their business was roundly denounced by conservatives and honest liberals alike.

Jay Sekulow, of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative public interest law firm, cautioned:  “The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech.”

Without doubt, Sekulow had the Obama administration in mind when he cautioned us against “repressive regimes?”

Commentary magazine equated the proposed FCC study to the dangers of, say, a federal shield law.  The principal danger of a shield law is that, in order to legislate protections for a specific group… i.e. the “press”… it is first necessary to define that group.  Therefore, the government would be placed in the position of deciding who is a journalist and who is not.  As Commentary suggests, “The government could easily play favorites and have yet another accreditation – not unlike an FCC license – to hold over the heads of the press.”  Given the Obama Administration’s unprecedented use of the IRS to thwart its political opponents, is there any doubt that a shield law in their hands would be a very dangerous thing?

Commentary concluded that it is such rules that the FCC’s CIN calls to mind.  It opens the door to increased government scrutiny of the press, with an implicit threat to a broadcaster’s license.  It does so under the guise of “public service,” “quality control,” “fairness,” and other terms that usually hint the government is up to no good.  Left unchallenged, the CIN would support the premise that “news judgment is the FCC’s business.”

The FCC quickly issued a statement saying that Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler was in agreement that “survey questions in the study directed toward media outlet managers, news directors, and reporters overstepped the bounds of what is required.”  An FCC spokesman added that “any suggestion that the FCC intends to regulate the speech of news media or plans to put monitors in America’s newsrooms is false.”

However, what is most noticeable about all of the moral indignation directed at the FCC’s CIN program, whether from the left or from the right, is that it is all premised on the notion that we actually have a free press in the United States when, in fact, we do not.  Few conservatives, the most “underserved population” of all, would deny that because of many decades of leftish propagandizing by the mainstream media, any opportunity to get inside the newsrooms at the major networks to expose them for the charlatans they are would be far too tempting to ignore.

For example, in 2004, CBS newsman Dan Rather created a national stir when he charged that George W. Bush had been AWOL during a part of his service in the Texas Air National Guard.  Unfortunately for Rather, the documents used to support his charge turned out to be forgeries.  The documents, which Rather claimed were memos from one of Bush’s senior officers, contained superscript characters which were not available on typewriters at the time.  In truth, the documents that Rather hoped would ruin Bush’s reelection chances were created on a modern computer using Microsoft Word software, and artificially aged to make them appear authentic.

Nevertheless, the networks and major print media devoted hundreds of hours of airtime and countless lines of newsprint to the bogus story.  It would have been interesting to learn how the networks decided to spend that much time and effort on the phony Bush AWOL story.

Conversely, just three years later, when it became evident that Sen. Barack Obama would be a viable Democratic candidate for the presidency, legal scholars complained that, because Obama failed to meet the basic requirements to be a “natural born Citizen,”  as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, he would be ineligible to serve.  And although there was ample evidence to support the charge, the mainstream media all but ignored the story.

And when the Maricopa County, Ariz., Cold Case Posse, under the direction of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, provided irrefutable proof that the long form birth certificate uploaded to the White House website on April 27, 2011, was a poorly crafted forgery, that his draft registration card was a forged document, and that his Social Security number was stolen and would not pass a simple Social Security Administration E-verify test, the left-leaning newsmen of ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC looked the other way.  They simply ignored the story.

It would be interesting to have editors, producers, and reporters at our major networks explain why a few days absence by George W. Bush from his Air National Guard duty station should be a major national news story, while the constitutional ineligibility and the forged documentation of the country’s first black president deserved nothing more than to be swept under the rug.

These are not isolated incidents; they happen every day of the week, on every conceivable kind of issue, foreign and domestic.  The only constant is the fact that the reporting is almost always slanted in favor of liberal/socialist orthodoxy and against traditional conservative views.

Given that so much of the Obama Administration invites favorable comparison to Hitler’s Third Reich, it was only to be expected that the FCC’s CIN study would quickly attract comparisons.  Marilyn Assenheim, writing at Minutemen News, suggests that, “What (Obama) is establishing is a redo of historical absolutism.  The German National Socialist government could not have aspired to better.”

Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, reminds us that “Arbitrary power is ugly and vicious, regardless of what pious rhetoric goes with it.  Freedom is not free.  You have to fight for it or lose it.”  Further, he asks, “But is our generation up to fighting for it?”

Humorist Frank J. Fleming has said“I think Obama is learning.  By the end of his presidency he’ll have gone from less than useless to achieving parity with uselessness…  In America, we love rooting for the underdogs, so maybe a gigantic decline in our nation is just what we need to believe in ourselves again.”

Perhaps a close brush with fascist dictatorship will be enough to wake us all up to the realities of the terrible dangers Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi represent.

Paul R. Hollrah is a two-time member of the Electoral College and a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate and the New Media JournalHis blog is found at OrderOfEphors.comHe resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct '11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May '13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct ’11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May ’13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

A Look Inside Barack Obama’s Head Would Prove Interesting

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

Paul R. Hollrah

Paul R. Hollrah

In the Aug. 18, 2011 edition of American Thinker, writer Matt Patterson published an article titled, “Obama: The Affirmative Action President.”

The article began this way:

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.  How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.  He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator. 

Barack Obama Caricature by Political GraffitiLooking at Obama from a distance, Patterson provides an accurate picture of how any objective observer might see him.  But how does Obama see himself?  Putting ourselves inside his skin and inside his head would be a far more interesting and instructive exercise.

Just imagine a young black man living in a family of all white people… mother, grandfather, and grandmother… after having been deserted by his black father.  Just as welfare recipients come to resent the hand that feeds them, it is easy to see how a young black man growing up in a white family, his skin color a constant reminder that he was “different,” would come to resent his white parent and grandparents… and by extension, all white people.

Obama stressed his struggle with self-identity in his book, Dreams From My Father.  Regarding white people, he said, “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”

In describing the man who gave him the only job he ever held outside the halls of government, his job as a “community organizer” in south Chicago, he said, “There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe.  And white.”

By the time he entered college, Obama was fully committed to the racial divide between blacks and whites.  Of his years as a student at Occidental College, he wrote, “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names… I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own.  It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.”

We have all been confronted on occasion by challenges for which we felt totally unprepared…  challenges that appeared insurmountable.  That being the case, it is all the more mystifying how a man of Obama’s meager background and experience could believe that he should be seen as a viable candidate for president of the United States.  How could a young man, such as Patterson describes, suddenly see himself in that role, knowing that he has never run so much as a sidewalk lemonade stand, knowing that he has no qualifications whatsoever for the job?

What must it be like to one day look into a mirror and say to the person reflected therein, “You’re a pretty good looking guy.  You were lucky enough to grow up in the tropics, in Hawaii and Indonesia, and even though your parents and grandparents weren’t wealthy, you were lucky enough to go to a private prep school and Ivy League colleges on someone else’s dime.  You spent several years working with black activists on the streets of Chicago and you spent a few years as a back-bencher in the Illinois state senate.  Hey!!  You’re something really special!  You should run for president of the United States.”  What sort of man could have that conversation with himself… and do it with a straight face?

Fortunately for Obama, there was an oversupply of pent-up white guilt within the ranks of the Democrat Party.  And in spite of the fact that party leaders knew him to be not only unqualified, but ineligible as well, he was the sort of “rock star” politician who would appeal to white liberals and young white Democrats.  It mattered little that he would be incapable of governing; all they cared about was that he would look good before the TV cameras and that he could read convincingly from a teleprompter.  They would put the necessary words in his mouth.

But, of all of Obama’s current responsibilities, his relationship with the military is where he appears to be most out of place and ill at ease… a pair of brown shoes at a black tie ball.  In neither of his memoirs does he give the slightest hint that he ever considered enrolling in the ROTC programs at either Occidental College or Columbia University.  Yet, just 16 years after graduating from Harvard Law School, he stood before the American people and proclaimed that he felt capable of serving as commander-in-chief of the largest and most powerful military machine in the history of the world.  What sort of outsized ego would that require?

Those of us who’ve placed our lives on the line as members of the uniformed services can’t help but experience a stomach-turning revulsion each time we see Obama bounding down the steps of Marine One on the south lawn of the White House, flashing a sloppy half-salute at the well-turned out young Marine standing at the base of the stairs.  Any normal person of Obama’s background and experience would feel an overwhelming sense of inadequacy.  But what goes though Obama’s mind?  And what goes through the minds of those young Marines?

The United States Marine Corps Color Guard, Silent Drill Platoon and Ceremonial Marchers executes movements on the parade deck during the first Marine Barracks Washington evening parade of the season May 1, 2009.  (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Richard A. Bliss)

The United States Marine Corps Color Guard, Silent Drill Platoon and Ceremonial Marchers executes movements on the parade deck during the first Marine Barracks Washington evening parade of the season May 1, 2009. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Richard A. Bliss)

To serve as a member of the Silent Drill Platoon and Color Guard at the 8th & I Street Barracks in Washington… the Marine contingent responsible for guard and escort duty at the White House… is a much coveted assignment in the Marine Corps.  But it would be interesting to know what went through the minds of all those young Marines when they first learned that Barack Obama,  a man who was too cowardly to wear the uniform of the U.S. military, a usurper who was ineligible to serve in the office, would be occupying the White House for at least the next four years.  How could they bring themselves to salute a man so undeserving of their respect?

Most Marines would rather take their chances on the field of battle in Iraq or Afghanistan than to suffer the embarrassment of standing in the rain next to Barack Obama, dressed in spiffy blue-white dress uniform, holding an umbrella over the usurper’s head while he addressed a small group of fawning sycophants in the White House Rose Garden.

And while it is easy to understand the revulsion felt by the men and women of the enlisted ranks, what goes through the minds of long-serving generals and admirals, their chests covered with row upon row of medals and service ribbons, evidence of their long service to God and country,  when they are forced to salute him and address him as “sir” or “mister president?”  What sort of colossal ego does it take for such an unremarkable man to expect that kind of treatment from men and women of real accomplishment?

What all of this tells us is that what motivates Barack Obama is far more than a super-inflated ego, far more than pathological narcissism.  He is, as some have described him, a “total incognito with zero accomplishment.”  But even that does not describe how Obama sees himself, what goes on inside his head.  Instead, we can only conclude that Obama’s opinion of himself is simply beyond human comprehension.  Just as the human mind is incapable of comprehending the infinite nature of the universe, neither can the human mind comprehend the boundaries of what Barack Obama appears to see in himself.

When Barack Obama proclaimed in his June 4, 2008, nomination acceptance speech that, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,” most of us laughed because we knew that just the opposite was true.  But there were many who actually believed him and were inspired by his soaring rhetoric.  What those of us who laughed knew, intuitively, is that what appeared to be bravado was actually a cover for nothingness.

What best describes Barack Obama is a brief two sentence quotation from Eric Hoffer, the renowned longshoreman/philosopher, who said, “Our greatest pretenses are built up not to hide the evil and the ugly in us, but our emptiness.  The hardest thing to hide is something that is not there.”

Yes, Barack Obama is an evil man and the political philosophy that guides his every word and deed are truly ugly.  It is that evil and that ugliness that Obama seeks to hide by his bravado and his pretentiousness; it is the emptiness of his promise of hope and change that is at the heart of his pretentions.

And while a majority of Americans still find Barack Obama to be “likeable,” an even larger majority have come to see that there is no real substance to him.  As Hoffer tells us, “The hardest thing to hide is something that is not there.”   Where Barack Obama is concerned, there is no there, there.

Paul R. Hollrah is a two-time member of the Electoral College and a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate and the New Media JournalHis blog is found at OrderOfEphors.comHe resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct '11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May '13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct ’11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May ’13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

CNN Political Ticker Blog Removes, Replaces Article Critical of ObamaCare

Late Monday night, I saw a Facebook friend had shared a link to an article on the CNN Political Ticker blog featuring the headline, Woman cited by president as Obamacare success story loses insurance.   When I clicked on the link, I found the story was “Not Available” and shared my findings — and my suspicion that someone at CNN bowed to pressure from the White House — in the slightly-shaky video below.  And it didn’t end there!

During the wee morning hours Tuesday, CNN put another article about Jessica Sanford, the Washington state woman at the center of this controversy, up on its website — but under a headline that did not highlight the fact she could no longer afford insurance under Obamacare (i.e., Woman cited by president as Obamacare success story frustrated by sign-up process).  I was unable to determine whether the text of the new article is the same as that of the original.  NOTE:  If anyone has a link to a site with the text of the original article, please post the link in the comments section.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct '11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May '13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct ’11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May ’13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Journalism, Secrets and the Public’s Right to Know

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

On Sept. 28, 2005, after nearly three months behind bars, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was released from a federal detention center in Alexandria, Va.  Miller was sent to jail on July 6, 2005, after refusing to divulge a source when questioned before a federal grand jury looking into the alleged leak of CIA employee Valerie Plame’s identity by senior White House officials.  She was freed after receiving an unconditional release of confidentiality from her source, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, a principal target of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation.

Since the term of the federal grand jury was to expire on Oct. 28, just 30 days later, Miller would have been freed at that time.  However, prosecutors could have charged her with criminal contempt of court at that time if she continued to defy the special prosecutor.

In an Aug. 2, 2005, article, Judith Miller in Jail: Principle vs. Politics, Washington Post writer Richard Cohen had this to say:

Before Judith Miller of the New York Times went to jail for not revealing her sources, I offered her my services.  I suggested that she tell me her source and then, once she was in jail, I would reveal that I knew, and the special prosecutor would jail me as well… but not before I told another journalist.  After four score and seven of us were in the calaboose, the prosecutor would… like the British facing the indomitable Gandhi… collapse before our moral force and leave us to honor our solemn commitments as we have done since time immemorial.  I now know my plan would have failed…

What caused Cohen to predict failure was the sudden realization that “… too much of the press would still be writing about how Miller deserves her fate.”  He said, “It is a squalid sight.”

Two recent news stories give us cause to reflect on the “moral force” and the “solemn commitment” that Cohen spoke of… the “solemn commitment” that requires journalists to root out and report the truth, no matter how difficult or dangerous, and the “moral force” that requires them to satisfy the people’s right to know, even when what they must report may be totally in conflict with their own personal values or beliefs.

In one case we have the June 14, 2012, Reuters story regarding the murder of a Mexican reporter.  According to Reuters:

Assailants kidnapped and killed a reporter who covered crime news in Veracruz State, the latest in a series of attacks on journalists in a relentless drug war across the country.  The reporter, Víctor Báez, who worked for the Mexican daily newspaper Milenio, was abducted as he was leaving his office in the town of Xalapa late Wednesday.

According to Reuters, “several journalists have left Veracruz State in recent months, fearing for their lives, but Báez had insisted on staying to continue his work.  He is at least the sixth journalist to have been killed in Mexico in the past two months.”

After being led to believe in journalism school that their intended profession was not a life or death pursuit, how many journalists would display the kind of courage and devotion to duty that Báez displayed?  And do we, as news consumers, have a right to ask journalists to risk their lives because we insist upon our “right to know?”  While we may have a “right to know,” none of us has the right to ask a journalist to risk his/her life because we assert a “need to know” about events in the most dangerous parts of the world.  Yes, journalists have a right to risk life and limb to cover a major news story, but the decision to do so must be theirs alone, not ours.

On the other hand, we have the case of New York Times reporter David Sanger, who reports not from the deadly streets of Veracruz State in Mexico or from the equally deadly precincts of Obama’s Chicago, but from the relative safety of an office in Washington. DC.  In a book titled “Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power,” Sanger has written about the serial leaking of top secret national security matters, all of which appear to originate in the White House, and all designed to create a faux image of Barack Obama as a real tough guy on the world stage.  In defending his top secret disclosures, Sanger has said, “No one from the White House, no one from the administration ever said to us ‘do not publish this.’

The fact that the White House has not complained about the Times’ reports only adds credence to the speculation that the Obama administration leaked the stories with a political end in mind.  Because the information that Sanger learned and disclosed is of such vital importance to the security of our nation, the most important question is not what was reported, but the identity of his source, or sources.

What is at issue in this instance is the disclosure of the U.S. role, in cooperation with the Israeli intelligence services, in the development and launching of the Stuxnet cyberwar virus, designed to thwart Iranian nuclear weapons development; the disclosure of Obama’s weekly participation in selecting drone targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan from a White House “kill list;” and the disclosure of the CIA’s role in recruiting the Pakistani physician who helped locate and identify Osama bin LadenAnd since Obama’s senior advisor, David Plouffe, has now assured us that Obama did not declassify any of the information disclosed, we can be safe in assuming that the disclosure of this information was, in each instance, an act of treason.

The material reported in Sanger’s book and in the pages of the New York Times are of such detail, including direct quotes from Obama and from members of his National Security Council staff, as to ensure that the leaks could only have originated, either directly or indirectly, with those who were present in the Oval Office or in the White House Situation Room… a relatively small number of people.  In an interview with POLITICO, Times managing editor Dean Baquet expressed dismay over the assumption that Sanger was given access to top secrets by a senior Obama official.  He said, “I can’t believe anybody who says these are leaks.  Read those stories.  They are so clearly the product of tons and tons of reporting.”

Of course, the alternative explanation is that the stories are not the product of “tons and tons” of reporting, but of a two or three hour memory-dump by one or two senior national security officials or campaign aides.

In an interview with Howard Kurtz, host of CNN’s “Reliable Sources” program, Sanger admitted that he had worked directly with administration officials.  He said, “This is a book about the totality of the national security strategy of President Obama, what’s worked and what hasn’t… How do you report a book about that without talking to people who were in the room?”

However, in his zeal to make a major journalistic splash, Sanger’s reportorial excess may have inadvertently planted the seeds of a scandal that will sooner or later make the Nixon Watergate scandal and the Clinton Whitewater scandals pale by comparison.

Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed two U.S. attorneys — Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland — to lead separate FBI investigations into the leaks.  Of the two, Machen has by far the most difficult assignment because, as a long-time Obama supporter and financial contributor, his work will be done under intense scrutiny by the press, the public, and the Congress.

In Congress, the outrage over the leaks has been non-partisan.  Sen. John McCain (R-AZ); Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee; Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CN), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee; Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and numerous others have called for the appointment of an independent counsel… a hard-nosed prosecutor with no political ties to the Obama administration.

It is not clear, as yet, whether Obama and Holder will feel sufficient public pressure to cause them to dismiss Machen and Rosenstein in favor of an Independent Counsel, but it is important for members of their own party, the only people they will listen to, to keep the pressure on.

The most recent independent counsel was Patrick Fitzgerald, of Chicago, who was assigned the task of learning who leaked the identity of CIA analyst Valerie Plame, and whether or not former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich had attempted to sell Barack Obama’s old senate seat.  In the former case, Fitzgerald won a perjury conviction against “Scooter” Libby because Libby could not recall precisely every word of every conversation he’d had years before, and in the latter case he won a conviction against a man who was a typical Chicago Democrat machine politician.  But what Fitzgerald may have lacked in ethics and prosecutorial discretion, he more than made up for in sheer tenacity.  We need a man like Fitzgerald digging around in Obama’s back yard.

The people have every expectation that we will ultimately learn who it was that leaked the top secret material that was disclosed for no better reason than to make Obama look tough.  What the special prosecutors will have to test is how Sanger will respond when he is brought before a grand jury.  When confronted with the choice of doing what he sees as his journalistic duty, or doing what he knows is best for his country, what course will he take?  Will he be guided by a “moral force” that calls him to honor his patriotic duty, or will he honor a “solemn commitment” to a traitor?  The people have a right to know.

Paul R. Hollrah

Paul R. Hollrah is a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate and the New Media JournalHis blog is found at OrderOfEphors.comHe resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma.  Click here to read more of Paul’s columns.

Be sure to pick up a copy of my first nonfiction book, “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.” and get ready for my second book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” due out this fall.

If Obama Was Honest Like the Folks at Twitter…

If Barack Obama was as honest as the folks at Twitter were on the final day of 2011 when their system was intermittently “Over Capacity” or having something go “Technically Wrong,” visitors to the White House website would encounter the image below each and every time they tried to visit.

The big difference between the Obama Administration and Twitter is that the folks who invented the 140-character missive are, unlike those at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, able to fix their errors.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right.  Follow me on Twitter @BobMcCarty. Thanks in advance for your support!

Tapper Challenges White House on Hoffa Remarks (Update)

Jake Tapper seems to have had enough with Jay Carney.  Yesterday, the ABC News White House correspondent let the president’s spokesman know it during a discussion about the apparent double-standard that exists when it comes to the use of harsh language about political opponents.

Mentioned during the Tapper-Carney “debate” above was a February 2008 campaign event in Cincinnati for then-Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during which radio talk show host Bill Cunningham referred to Obama by his full name, Barack Hussein Obama, prior to McCain taking the stage.  Afterward, then-Senator Obama demanded an apology from Senator McCain, and he got one, shown in the video below.

The double-standard-fueled showdown in the White House press room came one day after I reminded Americans of how, after hearing Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa call for a war on the Tea Party, President Obama seemed to forget what he had told an audience in Tucson eight months earlier:

“But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.” — Barack Obama, Jan. 12, 2011

Thanks, Jake, for getting the job done!

Hat tip:  Don Surber

UPDATE 9/7/11 at 11:26 a.m. Central:  During a WMAL radio broadcast this morning, White House Communications Director Dan Pfieffer offers a weak-kneed response to concerns about the president’s failure to distance himself from Hoffa’s anti-Tea Party remarks (see video below):

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!

‘Barack Uhhbama’ to Lay Out Libya Case to Nation (Update)

Americans will find out why U.S. troops are in Libya when President Barack Obama delivers a much-anticipated speech to the nation tonight.

Hopefully, tonight’s event will be less painful for Americans than some of the president’s previous oratorical adventures, such as the White House news conference March 25, 2009, during which the community organizer in chief uttered the word, “uhh,” 311 times in 47 minutes.  That earned him the nickname, “Barack Uhhbama.”

UPDATE 3/29/11 at 7:15 a.m. Central: Unfortunately, I was unable to watch President Obama’s address on Libya last night due to (insert some important reason here); therefore, I’ve decided to share the Associated Press video coverage of the event below.

FYI: If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!