When a story regarding the Trayvon Martin death appears, it is almost universally accompanied by this image:

It is of a Trayvon Martin years younger than he really was. And it’s not accurate. Dan Linehan has done some sleuthing and found a much different picture of Trayvon Martin than the one being forced down our throats. The real Trayvon Martin is being scrubbed as you read this.

This is a more recent image of Trayvon Martin

And so is this:

Twitter

It seems that Tray was also on Twitter, but his account seems to have been recently deleted by his family or friends.

His screen name was “@NO_LIMIT_NIGGA, as you can see from the twitpic account screenshot above. He was also a member of a twitter hash group #team4dat.

At first, I was skeptical that anyone would maintain an account with that sort of derogatory slur in the title, but after doing some research, it’s apparent that it was Trayvon’s account.

The account was in existence long before the shooting occurred a few weeks ago, and was deleted only recently, there are still dozens of references to @NO_LIMIT_NIGGA in google’s cache.

The associated twitpic account matches the account name and is still online at the time of publication. Most of the pics were uploaded months ago, so this account was associated with Trayvon long before the shooting took place.

Several of Tray’s friends have been very open about referring to Trayvon using that account as well. His cousin, who is quite active on Twitter, refers to Trayvon more than a dozen times using the @NO_LIMIT_NIGGA nickname.

See also here and here

Apparently the account has been terminated but Google has lots of cached references.

Trayvon referred to himself as “Slimm” in his Twitter account and his Facebook account.

He had friends in gangs, if he was not in one himself, and there is a question as to whether Martin was active in the drug trade.

On Facebook on February 5th, his friend posts on his wall asking to talk business. Trayvon says he doesn’t have a phone available and his friend says, “Damn were u at a nigga needa plant.”

George Zimmerman, on the other hand, doesn’t warrant the same treatment. The picture the media offers all the time is this one:

We don’t get to see George as a 13 year old. We don’t even get to see George nicely dressed.

George Zimmerman refers to himself as “Hispanic”, but the media has created a new ethnicity for George Zimmerman- the “white Hispanic.”

As Linehan notes, there has been extensive investigation by the media into Zimmerman but there has been little to none into Trayvon Martin.

Exit questions- Why is the media so afraid to accurately portray Trayvon Martin as he really was? Is it because people would stop wondering why George Zimmerman took an interest in him? Why did the media need to create the “white Hispanic” label for George Zimmerman?

Finally-if George Zimmerman is a “white Hispanic”, is Barack Obama a “white black”?

UPDATE by Curt

The Daily Caller obtains Trayvon Martin’s tweets

UPDATE by Curt

New Black Panther Party leader arrested in DeKalb Co.

UPDATE by Curt

NEW BLACK PANTHERS OFFER $1 MILLION FOR ZIMMERMAN’S CAPTURE

Obama sycophant Soledad O’Brien got into a tussle with Joel Pollak of Breitbart.com and had her head handed to her as she tried desperately to dissuade viewers of the truth- that Barack Obama was heavily influenced by the radical Bell.

In her conversation with Pollak she at first appeared not to know what Critical Race Theory actually was while at the same time she was sure Pollak was wrong. From somewhere she came up with a definition that happened to be curiously similar to the one found in Wikipedia. Soon after the Wikipedia page for CRT was changed repeatedly and so often that it came under editorial lockdown.

TheDC also previously reported that an editorial lock was placed Monday on the Wikipedia article about Critical Race Theory itself, following a separate “edit war” which followed a CNN debate between O’Brien and a Breitbart.com editor. While O’Brien insisted on-air that Critical Race Theory was not a backlash against perceived “white supremacy,” the theory’s Wikipedia article mentioned white supremacy in two different sections — including a definition of Critical Race Theory from UCLA.

O’Brien was so flummoxed that she invited another liberal professor to attempt to rewrite history at CNN, which caught the eye of Skook.

There is nothing wrong with being a sycophantic fan of a writer, but the problem becomes apparent when the fan is passed off as an objective analyst; unfortunately, for Soledad, she was humiliated and became a laughingstock, along with her employer, the Obama Propaganda Bureau, CNN.

CNN has now decided to do battle with the forces that have no reservations against calling the racist Derrick Bell, a racist, by rewriting or blunting the message of the racist mentor of President Obama and trying once again to repackage the vile message of racism under a pretense of scholarly circumlocution.

The story of our president and the endemic racism of his associates is ongoing with many surprises.

Michelle Malkin asked the question “What’s the Matter with Soledad O’Brien?”

When viewers took to Twitter to pepper O’Brien with follow-up questions about critical race theory, the CNN star had a twit fit. She invited a liberal professor, Emory University’s Dorothy Brown, on her television show to back her up and then lashed out: “See? That was our critical race theory 101. Stop tweeting me. We have moved on, people.”

Not so fast, sister.

Turns out that O’Brien, a Harvard grad, has a rather emotional connection to Bell. As documented at my new Twitter curation/aggregation site Twitchy.com, O’Brien tweeted that it was a “rough day” for her when Bell passed away last fall. She wrote that she had “just started re-reading” one of his books and mourned again: “RIP Prof. Bell.” O’Brien also shared tributes to Bell from fellow Harvard prof and friend of Obama Charles Ogletree. That’s the same Professor Ogletree who bragged that he “hid” the Obama/Bell video during the 2008 campaign.

O’Brien failed to disclose her pro-Bell bias to viewers before her segments.

O’Brien also failed to disclose that the liberal prof who denied on her show that critical race theory had aaaaaanything to do with bashing America as a white supremacy-ruled government actually wrote the exact opposite. In one of her own books, Brown asserted that the purpose of CRT was to “highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color.” Oops.

But this wasn’t the first time O’Brien tried to shield her viewers from the truth. Far from it.

In January she flailed away at Newt Gingrich when Gingrich tied Saul Alinsky to Barack Obama.

Click here to view the embedded video.

She actually has the audacity (to coin a term) to try to tie Alinsky to the Tea Party.

Transcript:

O’BRIEN: Ok first of all, nothing wrong with getting ideas at Harvard and Columbia by the way. But also people listening are like, “Huh, who is Saul Alinsky?” Well, the Speaker mentions Saul Alinsky often especially when he is talking about President Obama and what Speaker Gingrich believes to be his radical liberal beliefs.

So we wanted to ask, who’s Saul Alinsky? He’s a guy who was born in Chicago in 1909. He was a community organizer, just like a young Barack Obama in Chicago as well. He spent his life helping minorities in poor neighborhoods exert their political force by organizing them to get to the polls.

But Alinsky is probably best known for a book that he wrote which is called “Rules for Radicals.” And he is referring to Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and he wrote this, “The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the haves to hold power.” “Rules for Radicals”, his book is written for the have-nots on how to take it away.

President Obama has never said that he was influenced by Alinsky. In fact, he was 10 years old when Alinsky passed away. And in doing our research, we found this. Alinsky’s organizational tactics haven’t only influenced Democrats. In fact, his practices have been linked to some conservatives and his tactics have been used with great success by the Tea Party.

Former House Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey admits he has been influenced by Alinsky, saying, quote, “What I think of Alinsky is that he is very good at what he did, but what he did was not good.” And in an interview with “The Financial Times,” the head of FreedomWorks which is aligned with the Tea Party, said regarding Alinsky’s work, “We don’t organize people to turn up at these town hall meetings, but we tell them about the meetings and we suggest good questions they could asks – ask, I mean, not asks.

Sounds like something Alinsky might do. The problem, perhaps, that Newt Gingrich has with Alinsky and the reason he is trying to link him to President Obama wasn’t really Alinsky’s organizational skills but the book outlining how the have-nots could take power from the haves. So we will be sure to ask the former Speaker that next time we get a chance to talk to him about that.

Did you catch it?

“President Obama has never said that he was influenced by Alinsky.”

Duh.

Obama has never said he was influenced by Bill Ayers or Bernadine Dohrn either.

But the facts tell us otherwise:

• Obama first learned Alinsky’s rules in the 1980s, when Alinskyite radicals with the Chicago-based Alinsky group Gamaliel Foundation recruited, hired, trained and paid him as a community organizer in South Side Chicago. (Gamaliel’s website expressly states it grew out of the Alinsky movement.)

• In 1988, Obama even wrote a chapter for the book “After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois,” in which he lamented organizers’ “lack of power” in implementing change.

• Gamaliel board member John McKnight, a hard-core student of Alinsky, penned a letter for Obama to help him get into Harvard Law School.

• Obama took a break from his Harvard studies to travel to Los Angeles for eight days of intense training at Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation, a station of the cross for acolytes.

• In turn, he trained other community organizers in Alinsky agitation tactics.

• Obama also taught Alinsky’s “Power Analysis” methods at the University of Chicago.

• During the presidential campaign, Obama hired one of his Gamaliel mentors, Mike Kruglik, to train young campaign workers in Alinsky tactics at “Camp Obama,” a school set up at Obama headquarters in Chicago. The tactics helped Obama capture the youth vote like no other president before him.

• Power would no longer be an issue, as Obama infiltrated the highest echelon of the political establishment — the White House — fulfilling Alinsky’s vision of a new “vanguard” of coat-and-tie radicals who “work inside the system” to change the system.

• After the election, his other Gamaliel mentor, Jerry Kellman (who hired him and whose identity Obama disguised in his memoir), helped the Obama administration establish Organizing for America, which mobilizes young supporters to agitate for Obama’s legislative agenda using “Rules for Radicals.”

• Obama’s favorite rule is No. 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.” You see that in his attacks on “fat cat bankers,” “greedy health insurers” and “millionaires and billionaires.” He also readily applies Alinsky’s fifth rule of “ridiculing” the opposition.

“Obama learned his lesson well,” said David Alinsky, son of the late socialist. “I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing.”

I did not know that Obama was specifically indoctrinated at an Alinsky re-education camp. That’s something people ought to know.

But he’s never said he was influenced by Alinsky, right, Soledad? Nothing to see here, just move along.
Except- if that’s the case, why are they hiding everything?

The videotape of Obama praising and hugging his America-bashing, Constitution-trashing law professor Derrick Bell isn’t the only evidence that’s been hidden from the public. A 1998 video of Obama praising the late Marxist agitator Saul “The Red” Alinsky alongside a panel of hard-core Chicago communists also exists. Yet it, too, has been withheld.

So has a 2003 video of Obama speaking at a Chicago dinner held in honor of former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi. Anger at Israel and U.S. foreign policy were expressed during the private banquet.

Why have Obama’s remarks and actions during the controversial event been suppressed? Perhaps it’s because the radical Khalidi — a close friend and neighbor of Obama, who held a 2000 political fundraiser in his home for him — has strongly defended the use of violence by Palestinians against Israel, while expressing clearly anti-American views.

If there’s nothing to hide, why keep these tapes under wraps? Why not release them?

Obama’s supporters pretend there’s nothing all that radioactive about Khalidi or Alinsky, who authored the Left’s bible, “Rules for Radicals.”

But if Alinsky is not a problem, why did Obama disguise the name of his radical Alinsky trainer Jerry Kellman in his memoir? And why did he also try to shield from readers the identity of his Alinsky mentor John McKnight, who wrote him a letter of recommendation to Harvard?

If his Alinskyite indoctrination is of no concern, why did Obama leave out his weeks-long training at Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation in Los Angeles? This station of the cross for Alinsky acolytes is strangely missing from all 500 pages of his tediously detailed memoir.

For that matter, the late Alinsky is not cited by name in either of the president’s autobiographies, even though leftist activists confess this father of community organizing had a powerful influence on Obama.

Moreover, if communist Frank Marshall Davis wasn’t a controversial factor in Obama’s life, why did Obama also mask his identity in his first memoir? If listening, spellbound, at the feet of a known subversive isn’t a red flag, why keep his real profile a secret?

Obama also couldn’t find room in “Dreams From My Father” to mention the most striking thing about his father’s politics. Obama Sr. was a pro-Soviet socialist, who as a government economist wrote a communist tract for Kenya in 1965.

The folks at Investors.com have it nailed:

Some argue that linking him to this vast underground network of radicals is “guilt by association.” Actually, it’s guilt by participation.

Obama at one point was an employee of the radical shakedown group Acorn, and later trained its goons in Alinsky agitation tactics. He also worked with Pentagon-bombing Marxist Bill Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund, where the two comrades doled out cash to other radical groups.

In other words, Obama didn’t just rub elbows with radicals, he operated as a one. It’s now plain he and his fellow travelers are intentionally suppressing information that could provide the voting public a clearer link between the incumbent and radicalism.

Obama’s new campaign infomercial, ironically titled “The Road We’ve Traveled,” is just another attempt to suspend disbelief before the election.

Darn right. This next election is a litmus test of the intelligence of this country. Soledad O’Brien has already failed.

In the wake of Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” there has been no end to furor. The Washington Post, in full piety mode:

IN A DEMOCRACY, standards of civil discourse are as important as they are indefinable. Yet wherever one draws the line, Rush Limbaugh’s vile rants against Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke crossed it. Mr. Limbaugh is angry at President Obama’s efforts to require the provision of contraception under employer-paid health insurance and the White House’s attempts to make some political hay out of the policy. His way of showing this anger was to smear Ms. Fluke, who approached Congress to support the plan, as a “slut” seeking a government subsidy for her promiscuity.

So what do they recommend?

What we are saying is that Mr. Limbaugh has abused his unique position within the conservative media to smear and vilify a citizen engaged in the exercise of her First Amendment rights, and in the process he debased a national political discourse that needs no further debasing. This is not the way a decent citizen behaves, much less a citizen who wields significant de facto power in a major political party. While Republican leaders owe no apology for Mr. Limbaugh’s comments, they do have a responsibility to repudiate them — and him.

WaPo wants the Republican Party to repudiate Limbaugh.

In an astonishingly honest article, Kirsten Powers elucidates a litany of abuse on the part of the left wing media:

During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.

Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.
Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batshit crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)

Chris Matthews’s sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.” He asked a guest if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief—or does it make a case against it?” At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.

Matthews has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even “capable of thinking” and has called Bachmann a “balloon head” and said she was “lucky we still don’t have literacy tests out there.” Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene, who is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in 2011 that Matthews
“is a bully, and his favorite target is women.” So why does he still have a show? What if his favorite target was Jews? Or African-Americans?

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don’t show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

Please read the entire thing.

Don Surber adds more:

What about President Obama? He has never repudiated Bill Maher for myriad of similar offenses including calling Sarah Palin the C-word and the T-word. Instead of demanding that Bill Maher apologize, Barack Obama accepted a million bucks from him. Just what will Bill Maher get in the second term from President Obama for that million?

In fact, liberals rallied around the free-speech rights of Bill Maher when he praised the 9-11 hijackers as heroes and added, “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away… Staying in the airplane when it hits the building — say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.”

So there it is, clear as day. The new decency standards.

If you’re a conservative commentator, call a woman a “slut”, you need to apologize and Republicans are supposed to repudiate you.

If you’re a liberal commentator and you call a woman a “c*nt”, a “dumb twat” and proclaim that the 9-11 hijackers are heroes, not only do you not have to apologize, Barack Obama will take a million dollars from you.

And Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will appear on your show!

If the President of the United States can embrace misogyny, then so should we all.

Exit question- If Obama called Sandra Fluke after Limbaugh’s comments, why didn’t he call Palin after Maher’s comments?

Keep an eye out for the following Obama pet poodles:

Ezra Klein, Greg Sargent,Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Frank Bruni, Arianna Huffington, Josh Marshall, Faiz Shakir and Joy Reid.

They were summoned to the White House and they were given their marching orders.

Make everything about racism.

An all-star list of progressive and liberal media folks came to the White House today to chat with President Obama over coffee in the Roosevelt Room.

The group chatted with the president about economic messaging, his agenda for 2012, the various campaign arguments against different GOP candidates, the desire among some Democrats for him to highlight his foreign policy accomplishments, fighting corporate influence and the “crappiness” of the Senate filibuster , as one attendee put it.

Those there included the Washington Post‘s Ezra Klein and Greg Sargent, MSNBC anchors Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Hayes, the Nation’s editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, the New York Times‘ Frank Bruni, and stars of the interwebs Arianna Huffington, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, Faiz Shakir of ThinkProgress and Joy Reid of The Reid Report.

Back in May I wrote that the 2012 election would have a racism theme dominating it and it’s here in full force. Not stopping for even a cup coffee following the meeting, Josh Marshall sprang into action.

Donald Trump may have left the Republican Party, but he’s staying put in his role as the right’s racial conspiracy theorist-in-chief. On Wednesday, Trump tweeted his endorsement of the latest bit of holiday cheer from the extremist ant-Obama right. As the story goes on more than one conservative blog this week, Obama declined to offer an official statement marking Christmas, but made sure to get one out celebrating Kwanzaa.

This tale is as blatantly racial as it is demonstrably false, and it comes in the grand tradition of accusing Obama of supporting Ramadan over Easter and the old Trump favorite that Obama got into the Ivy League because he’s not white, not because he’s smart.

TPM, via WZ

Marshall joins the dutiful left wing Obama zombie parade already at work. Racism has already reared its ugly head at vanden Heuvel’s Nation, Sargent’s Plum Line, and Klein Wonkblog.

That they are Obama’s pet poodles is all well and good but no one ever ought to insult them by associating the word “journalist” with any of them.

That would be wrong. They’re poodles.

A couple of days ago on PMSNBC Mark Halperin blurted out the truth about Barack Obama. He said Obama “was kind of a dick.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Predictably, PMSMBC suspended Halperin, probably the second after they got the call from the White House, saying

Mark Halperin’s comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable. We apologize to the President, The White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst.

The Media Research Center put together a collection of quotes that don’t get you suspended from PMSNBC, including:

“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!…You, sir, have no place in a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The lot of you are the symbolic descendants of the despotic middle managers of some banana republic to whom ‘freedom’ is an ironic brand name, a word you reach for when you want to get away with its opposite.”

— Olbermann addressing Bush in a “Special Comment” on Countdown, February 14, 2008.

and

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “Russ Feingold wants to censure the President, the Vice President…”

Left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore: “Good idea….Personally I’d like to see a perp walk coming out of the West Wing of the White House.”

Matthews: “Do you think they’re guilty of war crimes?”

Moore: “Absolutely….I think we need a trial, in this country, where Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush would be brought up on charges for causing the deaths of so many people….”

Matthews: “It’s interesting if you go back….the Nuremberg Trials weren’t about the genocide, it was about waging an aggressive war. I love reading some of that language. It’s interesting.”

— MSNBC’s Hardball, July 23, 2007

Whoopi Goldberg tied George Bush to Nazis and producers of The View did not object.

Dana Loesch had some good thoughts on this event:

I’m curious as to whether or not the Obama administration ever privately admonished members of its party when they said similar, if not worse, about American voters? I never heard any public admonishment of Nancy Pelosi when she suggested that tea partiers were Nazis; or of Representatives John Lewis and Andre Carson when they slandered grassroots voters with a debunked and offensive accusation; or when Janet Napolitano put everyday grassroots Americans on the DHS watch list (I could go on at length but we’ll stop here); which makes me wonder if the White House did so privately. Regardless, we never received an apology.

Excuse me if I disregard the left’s outrage, the same side that screamed obscenities at a 14-year-old as she spoke during a pro-Walker Wisconsin rally; the same side who blamed the Tucson massacre on conservatives before the networks could accurately report whether or not Gabrielle Giffords’ was still alive (an action which caused Arizona tea partiers and Sarah Palin to get a wave of death threats). You all on the left act surprised at how much your #newtone has grown!

The thing is, Barack Obama is a dick. And much worse.

In Dickens’ Oliver Twist, Mr. Bumble is told “the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction”. To that Bumble replies “If the law supposes that, the law is a ass—a idiot.”

The press is also a ass. Specifically, the NY Times, WaPo, the LA Times and mostly, Politico.

Unemployment is brutally high, Obama is doing nothing about jobs, the EPA is carrying out Obama’s edict to make electricity rates skyrocket, the stock market is tanking, the economy is grinding to a halt. What does Politico find important?

Their continued effort, along with the NY Times, WaPo, and the rest of the idiot media, to destroy Sarah Palin.

A commenter at Bill Jacobson’s blog wryly notes

The Washington Post thinks it’s “harassment” to request Michael Mann’s files from the University of Virginia (their Memorial Day editorial http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harassing-climate-change-researchers/2011/05/27/AG1xJMEH_story.html) but it’s cool with requesting and obtaining and asking for citizen-journalists to go through 24,000 of the State of Alaska’s emails involving Sarah Palin.

Have a look at some of the stories that dominate Politico today and they all center the same thing:

Long-lost Palin surfaces in emails

Palin emails: No bombshells
By MOLLY BALL | 6/11/11 7:10 AM

The bitter disappointment is palpable. And the list of hot stories goes on:

Many of the highly-anticipated messages deal with the mundane business of government.

- Palin emails show media distrust
- Family didn’t want special treatment for son
- Palin praised Obama for ‘flip-flopping’
- Bush joked with Palin on VP buzz
- Palin sought meeting with Obama aide
- Commissioner pitched Fey head-to-head
- Gingrich advised Palin on PR

And there was this bombshell:

Palin, staff were excited when McCain named her to the ticket (via Glenn)

The left wing media is quite selective in who it wishes exposed and embarrassed. The LA Times won’t release a video of Barack Obama feting a Jew hater in 2008. CBS won’t release the full content of an open mike conversation Obama exchanged with donors. They attempt to eviscerate Palin yet they offer full protection to Obama. Politico has a long history of Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Apparently not satisfied with the truth, Politico enlisted two authors to fabricate a Palin quote out of thin air in another effort to smear Palin. They wrote:

Will Sarah Palin’s intensifying rivalry with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) cause the former Alaska governor to run for president?

The first female Republican vice presidential nominee clearly believes she is the one who has paid the heavy dues by bearing the brunt of the “liberal elite” attacks to help build the tea party, social conservative wing of the GOP.

Palin’s bus tour had some of the hallmarks of a primal scream: “I built this constituency, not Bachmann, not anyone else,” she said. Looking at it through her eyes, she has a point.

Palin never said it. They made it up. They put those words in her mouth.

When they were caught in the lie, Politico was quick to defend it as an “innocent mistake.” If Politico didn’t such a long history of Palin bashing one might entertain the notion that it was a mistake, but that simply doesn’t hold water.

Paul Goldman is former chairman of the Virginia democrat party and Mark Rozell is a Professor at George Mason University, so the odds of his being anything other than a liberal are about zero. The two collaborated previously in an article about Barack Obama which the word “obsequious” doesn’t come close to describing.

A president needs the public to trust him to take the country in the right direction. This connection is not a product of office work but a work of art.

Obama, a brilliant and successful policy wonk in the Oval Office, is overexposed. But the skinny guy with a left-hand jump shot who plays hard, shoots the breeze with the guys, marvels at a beautiful wife able to outshine him and cherishes two adorable daughters who can melt his heart is underexposed.

Yet once again, Sarah Palin has defeated them. She has allowed the press to show just how demented it has become. She has amply demonstrated that the left wing media have devolved into paparazzi. Politico is nothing more than tabloid journalism fully immersed in the Barack Obama tank. The same media that hounds Palin mercilessly has no interest in the absence of Barack Obama’s records.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made this point in 2008, saying “Our investigation suggests Senator Obama could have had his records archived so that they are available to the public, but, to this day, he does not want a complete paper trail of his time in the Illinois State Senate. Where are his office records?”

This continued persecution of Sarah Palin is going to backfire. The press may unwittingly do something Sarah Palin might not have been able to do on her own. In their mendacious efforts to destroy her the press may just rehabilitate Sarah Palin’s image into that of a genuine Presidential candidate.

You go, girl.

MSNBC has actually admitted they are in the tank for Obama and that he is above ‘their’ critical analysis; a fact that we have known and discussed since the 2008 campaign. The fact that they manipulated a national election with their dishonesty alludes their consciousness and they still make efforts to justify their dishonesty by the supposed purity of their Socialist agenda. To portray their news casting as objective is a serious breach of the public trust and becomes increasingly dishonest and immoral because of their intentional reluctance to investigate the fraudulent or non-existant qualifications of the first president to be elected under false pretenses or at least pretenses that can’t be substantiated.

They don’t care what Obama does wrong, they will never criticize him or his policies: he is a Black liberal and not to be criticized under any circumstances. How could they justify their existence as a propaganda bureau if they called attention to Obama’s failings?

You may rest assured, that they will intensify those efforts that were ignored on Obama towards any challengers in 2012 and with that surreptitious tactic, regain their lost integrity.

If anyone ever doubts the bias within the MSM or State Directed Media, simply play this video to help them realize the truth.

At The Beast “Murphy” posted the transcript of the juvenile punking of Governor Scott Walker and closed with this:

So there you have it, kids. Government isn’t for the people. It’s for the people with money. You want to be heard? Too fucking bad. You want to collectively bargain? You can’t afford a seat at the table. You may have built that table. But it’s not yours. It belongs to the Kochs and the oligarch class. It’s guarded by Republicans like Walker, and his Democratic counterparts across that ever-narrowing aisle that is corporate rule, so that the ever-widening gap between the haves and the have-nots can swallow all the power in the world. These are known knowns, and now we just know them a little more.

“These are known knowns.”

Curiously, Walker said nothing that he hadn’t said in public already. This is a great article on Walker.

Now, about being Koch’s whore.

At Powerline John Hinderaker skewers NY Times reporter Eric Lipton for a shoddy piece of reporting on the Koch brothers and their connection to Scott Walker. Somehow, Scott Walker in Wisconsin is doing the bidding of the Koch brothers who live in Wichita.

The Times is well known for its selective concern about money in politics. In the Times’s view, billionaires are more than welcome, as long as they contribute–as most of them do–to Democrats. Lipton tries to suggest that the Koch brothers are uniquely influential contributors.
~~~~

What’s more, of the top 20 donors, 12–more than half–are unions. Isn’t there an untold story here? Aren’t the Koch brothers lonely rebels who are trying to offset the monolithic power and unparalleled financial muscle of the unions, especially the public employee unions? Isn’t that what the Wisconsin story is really about?

Those nefarious Koch brothers have an interesting right wing agenda. They donated $20 million to the ACLU in order to try to fight George Bush’s Patriot Act. The Koch brothers support drug legalization, gay marriage, and reduced defense spending.

That reads like something straight of the Tea Party manifesto, doesn’t it?

Let’s take this “Koch Whore” analogy a little further.

Hinderaker notes that the Koch PAC contributed $43,000 to Walker’s campaign, and Walker raised more than $11 million in total. Now let’s take a look at who gave Barack Obama big money.

Goldman Sachs $994,795

I can’t help but wonder- if Scott Walker is a Koch whore for a paltry $43,000, does a million dollars make Barack Obama Goldman’s slave?

Note:

Goldman Sachs was a recipient of bailout funds, estimated to be between 3 billion and $13 billion. Then-Senator Barack Obama urged passage of the bailout bill during the time Goldman was handing Obama a million bucks.

While the rest of are suffering through a poor economy, how is Goldman Sachs doing?

Pretty darned good.

NEW YORK — Goldman Sachs reported blockbuster earnings of $13.39 billion for 2009 and said on Thursday that it kept compensation below the levels of its pre-crisis heydays.

Bonus Watch 2010: Goldman Sachs Pays Huge Bonuses And Gives Junior Bankers A 50% Salary Raise

Goldman Sachs bankers to receive $15.3bn in pay and bonuses

Goldman Sachs has set aside $15.3bn to pay its staff in 2010 – an average of $430,000 each – in a move that re-ignited the controversy over City pay and bonuses.

Their investment has paid off handsomely.

“The whole point of the bailout is to save Goldman Sachs,” said Christopher Whalen, head of financial advisory services for Institutional Risk Analytics. “The whole thing is so rancid and so hideous.”

How are you doing?

Sometimes there is a complete lack of balance in the world.

An 11 year old Arvada Colorado boy who was being treated for Attention Deficit Disorder was told by a teacher to draw pictures when he was upset instead of disrupting the class, so the boy did just that.

He was arrested and led away in handcuffs later in the evening for his drawing. He had drawn a stick figure picture of himself shooting a gun at four others and had written on it

“teacers must die” and “music sucks”

His therapist said that drawing was a means for the boy to vent his frustration. The boy’s teacher saw the drawing as the boy was throwing it out and sent the boy, “Tim” to the principal’s office. The school determined that he wasn’t a threat but the Arvada police wanted the boy arrested. They took him away in handcuffs, put him in a cell, fingerprinted him and kept him from his parents.

Unlike Jared Loughner, this boy has no prior unsettling history.

A juvenile assessment report shows he’s never been in legal trouble before and is at low risk to reoffend.

In 2007 a 13 year old Arizona boy was suspended for drawing a gun.

In 2010 an 8 year old Portland boy was suspended for possessing a 4 inch toy gun made for action figures.

One has to ask why children are held to higher moral and legal standards than are liberals.

Twitter death threats to Scott Walker

Twitter death threats to Sarah Palin

Twitter Sarah Palin Death Threats from Kim Hedum on Vimeo.

Not to mention putting Governor Scott Walker in cross hairs.

They don’t even get a detention.

And who could forget this heartwarming image?

How screwed up is a society which is so punitive to children yet so tolerant of death threats by adults? The answer clearly is that threatening those on the right is an acceptable norm.

The better question is “why”?

Abraham Lincoln is attributed with the following:

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

Clearly he had Democrats in mind.

Obama knows he can fool Democrats and the press all of the time. Sometimes they even fool themselves.

Obama knows well he got hammered in the recent election. Consequently, he sought to change his image and enlisted the assistance of a number of people. He has sought help on his “reinvention” from CEO’s, Ken Duberstein and David Gergen and Reagan biographer Lou Cannon. and has been reading the biography of Ronald Reagan.

You’ve got to hand it to Obama. He knew that as soon as he consulted with Reagan’s biographer, read Reagan’s biography and consulted with people who knew Reagan that the useful idiots in the press would fall over themselves comparing Obama to Reagan.

Time’s Mark Halperin has hailed Obama as “magnetic,” “distinguished” and “inspiring” — in one story. ABC’s Christiane Amanpour saw “Reaganesque” optimism and “Kennedyesque” encouragement — all in one speech. Howard Fineman, the former Newsweek columnist who now writes for The Huffington Post, said conductor Obama was now leading a “love train” through D.C.

The press has always been a lapdog for Obama, from Brian Williams’ bowing to the not-so-subtle homo-eroticism of Chrissie Matthews and David Brooks.

Andrea Mitchell castigated Republicans for even suggesting Reagan was a Republican.

“I mean, he said, ‘This is – -the sound you hear around my feet is the concrete breaking around my feet,’ whatever the exact words were,” she said. “People are trying – Republicans in particular, obviously trying to appropriate Ronald Reagan for their own political purposes now.”

Asserting that Reagan was a Republican and a Conservative takes……takes…….audacity.

Now with the press competing with each other in the Over the top Obama Obsequiousness Contest Obama himself can relax and deny that he is changing. He can deny trying to get to the center while the idiots convince America that he is.

Obama said something to the Chamber of Commerce that would have made Ronald Reagan shudder.

“If we’re fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports, the benefits cannot just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line.”

Obama right. Press wrong.

Time magazine, in its ongoing Obama rapture, offered this ridiculous cover

Donald Douglas knows what Reagan would really feel

And Big Fur Hat gives a glimpse behind the scenes

Michelle Malkin has a number of quotation contrasts, but I have a contrast of my own.

Obama believes that “only government” can solve the country’s ills.

Reagan believed something different.

“Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

You really can fool Democrats and the press all of the time.

And nothing captures the contrast between Reagan and Obama better than this