…..[And Thomas Friedman Shows Liberals How to Whine.]

I’m sure that most of you are aware that Glenn Beck broke several major stories during the past week that had significant outcomes. For starters, there is the Van Jones story (Van Jones was Obama’s Green Jobs Czar) that he had been following for weeks (see embeds below).

After Beck’s many exposes on Van Jones, Gateway Pundit wrote a blog about how Jones was a 9/11 truther, and Glenn Beck further publicized the story (see Beck discuss Van Jones being a truther at about four minutes into the embed below).

Then, after Glenn Beck ran the 9/11 truther story, Van Jones resigned (or to quote The Huffington Post, “Glenn Beck Gets First Scalp”).

[By the way, Byron York also has an excellent column regarding the MSM’s lack of coverage of the Van Jones scandal. (see exert and embed below—H/T theblogprof).

From a Nexis search a few moments ago:

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0. Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0. Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0. Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0. Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.

Also, last week, Glenn Beck ran several stories about the National Endowment for the Arts acting as a propaganda arm for the White House. I wrote a diary that includes all of the specific details about the scandal. However, you can also view the embed of Beck discussing the matter below with blogger Patrick Courrielche who first broke the story on the blog Big Hollywood.com.

Now, sure enough, as soon as Glenn Beck ran with the NEA story, Yosi Sargent resigned as communications director for the NEA, or was reassigned to another post (H/T Moe Lane).

And finally, this past Thursday and Friday, Glenn Beck reported on the latest ACORN scandal that involved two college age bloggers (James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles), from Big Government.com, going into a Baltimore ACORN office dressed as a pimp and a prostitute. At the Baltimore ACORN office, they recorded two ACORN employees attempting to help them commit tax fraud and buy a house so that they can smuggle in underage, El Salvadorian girls to work as prostitutes in their brothel. Oh, and they also did the same thing at a Washington DC ACORN office as well. (See embed below of Beck reporting on this story).

Oh, and here is one more thing on the latest ACORN scandal. Below is a video of Glenn Beck tallying the coverage—or lack of coverage—by the MSM (H/T Steve Foley).

Now, this latest ACORN scandal is a big story because Barack Obama got his start in politics as a lawyer and a community organizer for ACORN, and because ACORN has received over fifty-three million dollars via the tax payers since 1994, and now stands to get as much as eight billion dollars in federal funds from the stimulus package. So, do you know what this means boys and girls? It means, literally, that ACORN, which appears to be a criminal enterprise, can receive billions with a B from the stimulus package, but the children in Washington DC who want a voucher to go to school are SOL (see video below—H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air). Chew on that for a while.

Furthermore, this is not ACORN’s first scandal. For instance, they are under investigation by the FBI for registering over 400,000 fraudulent voters. And finally, another reason that this story is a big deal is because ACORN was also scheduled to take part in the 2010 census, but the Census Bureau backed out of the deal after Glenn Beck reported on ACORN’s latest scandal.

Oh, I almost forgot to tell you. The ACORN employees in both the Baltimore and DC videos were all fired after Glenn Beck publicized the original stories from BigGovernment.com.

Now, as previously alluded to, the MSM, particularly The New York Times, didn’t cover the Van Jones scandal, The NEA scandal, or this week’s most recent ACORN scandal. However, the NYT has covered ACORN in the past. I kid you not. Well, one of their reporters tried to cover the Obama campaign’s connections to ACORN, but was shut down. (H/T Ed Morrissey of Hot Air—see embed of Bill O’Reilly below).

To be fair, the NYT’s public editor, Clark Hoyt, did write an op-ed offering a bunch of mealy-mouthed excuses as to why the Times killed the story—none of them very convincing. Here is my favorite one—

“Despite denials all around, maybe there will turn out to be a story about the Obama campaign and Acorn, but it would involve fairly technical violations of campaign finance law that experts told me are difficult to prove.”

Difficult to prove? DIFFICULT TO PROVE?! Two college aged kids dressed up like a hooker and a pimp and got ACORN employees to try to help them out with an underage prostitution ring, yet a story about ACORN is DIFFICULT TO PROVE?! I seriously can’t believe what I am reading. You mean to tell me that two young bloggers could pull this kind of sting off, but the NYT or 60 Minutes can’t? Really?!!!

Oh, and here are two other ACORN stories that the NYT has covered in the past. In October 2008, right before the presidential election, the NYT ran a story about how the Obama campaign was seeking a special prosecutor investigation into whether or not the FBI investigations of voter fraud committed by members of ACORN were politically motivated. (POLITICALLY MOTIVATED?! REGISTERING MICKEY MOUSE TO VOTE?!) And, the NYT also wrote an op-ed about ACORN which said the following—-

“In recent weeks, the McCain campaign has accused the group of perpetrating voter fraud by intentionally submitting invalid registration forms, including some with fictional names like Mickey Mouse and others for voters who are already registered.

Based on the information that has come to light so far, the charges appear to be wildly overblown — and intended to hobble Acorn’s efforts.”

HOBBLE ACORN’S EFFORTS?! My head is about to explode right now. I sure hope that the McCain campaign (or anyone else for that matter) was trying to hobble ACORN’s efforts to commit voter fraud, tax fraud and assist in aiding child prostitution rings.

Now, if someone read only The New York Times (and maybe one or two other MSM newspapers), there is a plethora of other items that they would be misinformed about. For instance, a typical NYT’s reader would know how much money the RNC spent on Sarah Palin’s clothes, and that Joe the Plumber’s first name isn’t really Joe and that he owes some money in back taxes (see original NYT column here). However, he or she wouldn’t know about any past or present ACORN scandals—except that the mean old FBI is “politically targeting” poor little ACORN.

Also, the typical NYT’s reader would know all about John McCain’s supposed affair with a lobbyist—except that the story was total bs, and the Times had to print a retraction (and they got sued by Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist in question).

Oh, and the typical NYT’s reader would know about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy (in fact, he or she would know about it three times over, because The New York Times ran three front page stories in one day about her pregnancy), but they would have absolutely no idea that former presidential candidate and Democratic VP nominee, John Edwards, had an illegitimate child. Of course, Clark Hoyt, the NYT’s public excuse maker, uh—I mean public editor, did write another op-ed full of mealy-mouthed excuses about why John Edwards illegitimate child was less important that Bristol Palin’s pregnancy (three times over), but it just sounded pathetic. (You would think that the man would get tired of making retractions and ridiculous excuses, and would thus get his paper to actually cover real news instead of being a propaganda arm for the Obama campaign/administration, but I digress.)

Not to mention, the typical NTY’s reader would think that people who objected to Barack Obama speaking to school children are “RAAACISTS!” who had a problem with Obama telling their kids to “study hard and stay in school”—when, in fact, they were concerned about the Obama Administration’s ridiculously partisan lesson plan. Furthermore, he or she would not know that Congressional Democrats investigated and held hearings when George H.W. Bush spoke to school children (and George H.W. Bush didn’t have the ridiculous “lesson Plan” that the Obama Administration had either).

And finally, the average NYT’s reader would not have heard about the Van Jones scandal until after his resignation, and would not have heard about Reverend Wright until six months after the original story broke (H/T Byron York—read his excellent column). Today, The New York Post has a column that stated the following regarding the NYT’s failure to cover the Van Jones story—

“This is not an excuse,” the managing editor of The New York Times said after offering the following excuse for completely missing the Van Jones story, except in a blog post: “Our Washington bureau was somewhat short-staffed during the height of the pre-Labor Day vacation period.”

Pathetic, huh?

However, the typical NYT’s reader would know about Congressman Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) 2007 NoDoze habit. (I’m not kidding.) In fact, the following is the first line from the Joe Wilson NoDoze column—-

“Here’s a headline and, no, it doesn’t come from The Onion:”

“Wilson took caffeine pills in 2007.”

Well, I’ll tell you what sounds like a headline from The Onion—the fact that after a week of hellacious scandals directly and indirectly involving the Obama Administration, The New York Times’ blog decides that reporting on some little-known congressman’s past NoDoze habit takes precedent over all other events, just because he inappropriately heckled President Obama during his recent healthcare speech (for which Wilson has since apologized).

On a side note, The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman, as well as Tom Brokaw, seemed quite angry about Glenn Beck’s expose of Van Jones, because they both threw hissy fits on Meet the Press last Sunday and Mr. Friedman said that the internet is an “open sewer that needs filtering”. And, Mr. Brokaw said that “People believe everything that they read on the internet”. The delicious irony here is that both of these men are defending a man (Van Jones) who apparently believes everything that he reads on the internet! (H/T theblogprof.)

Notice how neither Mr. Friedman, nor Mr. Brokaw, can point to any falsehood reported by Glenn Beck, or found on the internet, with regard to Van Jones. They both just sit there and throw temper tantrums, and Mr. Friedman rants on about how “everybody is a photographer, filmmaker or a journalist/blogger”.

Well, after reading Mr. Friedman’s recent column about China, I find the views he espoused on Meet the Press to be most enlightening. In his column, Mr. Friedman wrote the following—

“One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.”

Hmmm—that’s interesting. I wonder if Mr. Friedman is aware that they arrest bloggers in China? Probably so, but that’s pretty much par for the course for liberals. They are all for freedom of speech if it’s their freedom of speech—otherwise, talk radio and the conservative blogosphere are “open sewers that need to be filtered”.

And finally, I can tell that both the conservative and the liberal elite are scratching their heads and wondering aloud, “What exactly is Glenn Beck’s appeal?” Yesterday, on This Week, I heard David Brooks (the NYT’s token “conservative columnist”) say that Glenn Beck’s viewers are “the fringe”. Well, there is no way that Beck would be able to get the high ratings that he gets if his viewers were nothing but “the fringe”. No, his viewers now consist of conservatives, moderates and, dare I say, some liberals who want to know exactly what in hell is going on with their country. Simply put, Glenn Beck’s appeal is that he actually breaks news and tells people things that other news organizations won’t. Yes, Beck is prone to crying jags, he is known to wear lederhosen and he can be over the top with some of his rants (even his friend Jonah Goldberg admits this). However, he tells people what is really going on—so even if they find him obnoxious (I don’t, but I realize that some do), they will sit through it, because they are sick to death of all of the Obama cheerleading and they want some real, honest to goodness news. Funny tidbit here—I saw a diary the other night on Daily Kos titled, “Wake up Obama: Beckism is Winning!”. Well if by “Beckism”, he or she means “telling the truth and not cheerleading for Obama”, then yes, “Beckism” is winning, because MSNBC’s numbers are in the toilet and The New York Times is now a junk bond.

So, in conclusion, after Barack Obama won the election, I admit to initially having felt overwhelmed by the Obama-loving media and to thinking that we were fighting an impossible, uphill battle. I don’t feel that way any now. I’m not beaten down anymore—I actually have hope. After the recent successes of Glenn Beck and the conservative blogoshpere, as well as the incredibly high turnout for the DC tea party, I actually feel optimistic. I mean, in all three of the scandals that Beck targeted this week (Van Jones, NEA, and ACORN) , someone either had to resign or was fired. I think that this is because people are tired of all of the Obama cheerleading and they are now paying attention (even Camille Paglia calls the MSM a bunch of “liberal lemmings”). To quote our own EPU, “The Ents are waking up”. Right now, I can’t help but be reminded of Aragorn’s awesome speech in “Lord of the Rings” where he says, “A day may come where we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. This day we fight!” I say, this day, we fight like hell—and let’s win!!

Last night, Michelle Bernard, who is the CEO of the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative women’s group founded in 1992, decided to write a diary for Redstate.com endorsing the DC voucher program. Well, Ms. Bernard’s diary was actually quite good—she made a rational and eloquent argument for school choice. However, my problem is with Ms. Bernard herself, not what she stated in her diary. You see, during the 2008 election cycle, Ms. Bernard was a relentless shill for Barack Obama, and was a regular guest (actually still is) on propagandistic programs on MSBNC such as Hardball, Keith Olberman’s show and Rachel Maddow’s show. Therefore, I couldn’t believe that she had the unmitigated gall to come on Redstate and lecture us about school choice, when she had been unapologetically shilling for Obama throughout the entire presidential election, and it was President Obama and the Democrats that killed the DC voucher program! (H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air—watch the informative video below.) Furthermore, is she not aware that elections have consequences—or does she think that they are all about unicorn farts, pixie dust, and who gives you a “thrill up your leg”?

Anyway, because of my outrage towards Ms. Bernard’s obvious hypocrisy, I decided to write a comment on her blog (you can read it in the link—it is the first one in the comments section). Well, several regular Redstate readers then suggested that I turn my comment in Ms. Bernard’s blog into a diary (specifically Cold Warrior, Civil Truth and SoFiMil). I have decided to take their advice, and so I pasted my original comment to Ms. Bernard below—and I threw in a few things that I forgot to mention in the original comment as well. Now, here it is—

Dear Ms. Bernard,

So, do you think that we don’t know how to use the interwebs around here?

…Because anyone with a mouse or a TV could figure out that you are one great big Obama shill–even worse than Chris-”thrill up my leg”-Matthews. (See exhibit A, B, and C below).

Oh, and at 5:20 in this video, we can all watch you trash Cindy McCain and imply that her “claws are coming out”. I think that must be a common Obama campaign talking point in regard to women who are opposing him in some way, but I digress.

By the way, I think that it’s great that you are for school choice, but then if that is so, you were certainly shilling for the wrong candidate, because Obama and the Democrats squelched the DC voucher program. (I guess they thought that funding the the study of pig odor in the stimulus bill was more important.) Aren’t you at all aware that elections have consequences? Furthermore, I don’t care what conservative women’s forum that you claim to be the head of, even The Daily Howler mocked your supposed “conservatism” and noticed how much you gushed over Obama. (See excerpt below).–

“Who is Michelle Bernard?

On the surface, the question is easily answered. At present, Bernard is CEO of the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative women’s group founded in 1992. (According to Wikipedia, the IWF grew out of an ad hoc group created to support Clarence Thomas.) The groups directors emeritae include such conservative stars as Lynn Cheney, Wendy Gramm, Midge Decter and Kate O’Beirne. To peruse the group’s web site, just click here.

The IWF, like many such groups, is founded as a non-partisan 501(c)(3) group. As such, the group does not endorse candidates. But it does promote a range of conservative causes.

All that is well and good—and Michelle Bernard is the group’s CEO. Which leads us to a puzzling question: As a major conservative, why is Bernard appearing on Hardball so often—to gush about Obama?

Bernard’s remarkable Hardball run began on Thursday, January 24. Since then, she has become a frequent guest on the propagandistic program. Here is the list of dates on which she has appeared:

Thursday, January 24 Friday, January 25 Monday, January 28 Tuesday, January 29 Wednesday, January 30 (regular program) Wednesday, January 30 (special post-debate program)

Tuesday, February 5 Tuesday, February 12 Wednesday, February 13 Thursday, February 14 Tuesday, February 19 Tuesday, February 26

Tuesday, March 4 Wednesday, March 5 Tuesday, March 11 (regular program) Tuesday, March 11 (special post-primary program) Wednesday, March 12 Friday, March 14 Tuesday, March 18

According to Nexis, Bernard has appeared nineteen times since January 24, an eight-week period. During that time:

• She has almost never been identified as a conservative.
• She has repeatedly and effusively praised Obama.
• She has never been asked why she, as a leading conservative, is promoting the Democratic Party’s most likely presidential nominee.”

Oh, and how could I leave this little gem out. The Daily Howler also quoted you as having said the following with regard to Barack Obama’s famous speech on race after his twenty year stint in Reverend Wright’s church became public knowledge.—-

I think that this is probably the most important speech that I have heard in my lifetime. I would say this is probably the best speech and most important speech on race that we have, that we have heard as a nation since Martin Luther King`s “I have a dream” speech. Every single word was riveting.

Really??! I mean, I hate to sound like Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler, but really???! The best speech since Martin Luther King? Are we talking about that same speech on race where Barack Obama threw his grandmother under the bus by implying that she was a closet racist and where he compared Geraldine Ferraro to Jeremiah Wright? Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t remember Martin Luther King taking potshots at people (especially not the woman who raised him) during his “I Have a Dream” speech, but I digress.

FYI–All of your buddies at MSNBC and NBC post on the Daily Kos and Huffington Post. I think that you took a wrong turn and turned right when you should have turned left. Hopefully, If you decide to visit us here again, you will be capable of offering us a reasonable explanation with regard to how you could shamelessly shill for a candidate whose policies you seem to disagree with.

Oh, and one more thing. Welcome to Redstate.

Sincerely, Susannah

PS—I think it’s extremely telling that you never responded to me or to anyone else who posted a comment on your blog.

PPS–Please tell Lawrence O’Donnell that we all think he’s a nutter. Thankies.

That sound you hear is the sound of glass breaking and of liberal’s heads exploding. Yeah, I know—every pundit and Obama supporter in the MSM is perpetually waxing ecstatic about how “articulate” he is. And, many of his supporters will point to the following speech/video as evidence of his being quite the wordsmith.

My, that sure is pretty (if you can ignore all of the celebrities looking weirdly into the camera)! Man, that Obama sure can deliver a speech that other people write and that he memorizes ahead of time and then reads off of a teleprompter. You see, Barack Obama’s uncanny ability to powerfully deliver a speech makes him a great orator. By the way, the definition of the word orator is as follows—

An eloquent and skilled public speaker.

However, I would like to perform a social experiment and take away President Obama’s teleprompters and his prepared speeches, and put him in, say, a town hall setting discussing health care where random people can ask him spontaneous questions. OK—let’s see how he does shall we? (H/T Cassy Fiano).

My oh my, that Obama sure is a silver-tongued devil isn’t he? I mean, it’s really common knowledge that most children suffering from asthma attacks are little drunks, so everyone knows that we should give them a breathalyzer first to check their blood alcohol level before we treat them, right? OK—to be fair, let’s give the man another chance and see if he redeems himself during this next town hall about health care. (H/T Ed Morrissey of Hot Air).

“Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers.”

Ouch—that’s gonna leave a mark. I don’t know about any of you, but I’ve never heard of the AMA recommending painkillers as a treatment for an arrhythmia. Furthermore, during that video when Obama goes on about “unnecessary tests” (you know, those pesky things that doctors use to help diagnose patients’ diseases), I can’t help but be reminded of a hilarious quote from a column by Mickey Kaus of Slate titled, Obama as Health Care Salesman: He Sucks!—

Later on he tells people that they are foolish to prefer brand name drugs to generic drugs, and to want multiple medical tests. “If you only need one test, why do you want five tests?” Stop clinging to your tests! You’re worse than those people in Pennsylvania.

Alright, alright—I’ll give President Obama one more chance. I know, let’s take a listen to his recent press conference on health care where random reporters asked him unrehearsed questions. Well, during the first half of the press conference, President Obama basically said a whole lotta nothin’. Then, towards the very end of the press conference, the President uttered the following gem (H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air)—

Is it over? Can I look now? Oh my goodness, that was painful. I seriously felt sorry for the President. I mean, the man actually implied—nay stated—that pediatricians are unnecessarily taking children’s tonsils out for money. Not to mention, that was the same press conference where President Obama said that Sergeant James Crowley and the Cambridge Police “acted stupidly”. So, Obama gives this long press conference on health care, and all people remember is that he attacked family docs and cops. Shudder.

Now, even though I have produced a plethora of evidence clearly demonstrating President Obama to be less than stellar when speaking off the cuff, I can guarantee that there are still numerous Obama supporters out there right this minute saying, “What do you mean? Of course he’s articulate! What about the”Yes We Can” speech?” Well, what about it? That powerful speech was written by a professional speech writer and that moving song was written and produced by will.i.am (a Grammy award winning song writer), and that video was directed by Jesse Dylan (a Hollywood director and Bob Dylan’s son). Barack Obama’s problem does not lie with giving rehearsed speeches. As previously stated, he is an extremely talented orator—and being a good orator is a skill that, like archery or horseback riding, improves with practice. Barack Obama’s problem lies with speaking off the cuff at press conferences and at town halls—in theses settings, he sounds like a bumbler.

So, when I hear Obama supporters and pundits in the MSM repeatedly refer to him as “articulate”, I can’t help but be reminded of that famous clip from The Princess Bride where Vizzini keeps using the word “inconceivable” over and over again, even though he clearly doesn’t know what it means (see embed below).

Well, when I hear Obama supporters use the word “articulate” to describe Barack Obama, I feel the need to reply to them in the exact same way that Inigo Montoya (brilliantly played by Mandy Patinkin) replied to Vizzini when he kept using the word “inconceivable” repeatedly—-

“You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

In fact, the definition of the word articulate is as follows—

Expressing oneself easily in clear and effective language.

You’ll have to forgive me, but in the above clips, Barack Obama comes across as anything but clear and effective.

Now, speaking of articulate, why don’t we take a look at a clip of John McCain’s town hall on health care reform from last week (see embed below).

Let’s see—Senator McCain is calm, confident, has a five point plan, a good mastery of the subject matter, and easily expresses himself using clear and effective language. By George, I’d say the man is articulate! And, he does it without a teleprompter, a speechwriter, a Hollywood director, “Yes we can!”, or pixie dust. Inconceivable!

Now, the six million dollar question here is, how can Senator McCain be such a poor orator (we’ve all seen the famous “green screen speech”), and yet be so articulate in his town halls? The answer is actually quite simple. As previously stated, being an orator is simply a talent or a skill that one can practice and master. However, to be articulate about a certain subject, one must have a mastery of those facts. And, John McCain has a mastery of the facts with regard to health care (or most things that he discusses in his town hall meetings), because he has years of EXPERIENCE as a Senator and as a legislator which has given him a vast amount of knowledge which he can draw upon spontaneously, if need be. However, Barack Obama is probably one one the most INEXPERIENCED people to run for president in the last hundred years, and he spent his entire time in the US Senate running for president. Ipso facto, it shouldn’t be all that surprising that Barack Obama isn’t very articulate once the teleprompter is removed, because he doesn’t really know what he is talking about in the first place.

So, in conclusion, Barack Obama is now finding out that “Yes we can!” can only take him so far. Now, it has kind of lost it’s oomph and is beginning to sound silly. Furthermore, voters are beginning to say, “Yes we can what? Elect you president? We’ve already done that. So now, what are you going to do for us?” And sadly, President Obama can’t tell them, because as previously stated, he can’t articulate any clear cut plans for fixing health care (or anything else for that matter), because he has no experience and hence, no real idea of what he’s talking about. Barack Obama’s incompetence and inarticulateness should not have been inconceivable to anyone—in fact, it was really quite predictable. However, what’s regrettable, and even lamentable, is the fact that millions of voters are just now coming to grips with this reality.

This diary is cross-posted on The Minority Report.