This morning on ABC’s “This Week”, Obama lackey David Plouffe faced off against Karl Rove in the ongoing health care debate. Ladies and gentlemen, it was vicious—Plouffe didn’t stand a chance against Rove. In fact, Rove ate his lunch—and that’s putting it politely. For every campaign talking point that David Plouffe regurgitated, Karl Rove swung back hard with actual facts, figures, statistics and calculations. Plouffe was basically reduced to a rubble of transparent Obamaisms. Rove must have sensed that he had Plouffe backed into a corner, because he went so far as to demand that Plouffe “stop throwing around epithets and deal with the facts”. I guess the moral of the story is that when all is said and done, pixie dust and unicorn farts are no match for real knowledge, facts and cojones.

PS—I don’t know about you all, but after watching that train-wreck of a debate (for Plouffe anyway), I’m currently having visions of President Obama nervously pacing around the Oval Office and chain smoking while Rham Emanuel is simultaneously uttering creative and never before heard profanities. Have a happy Sunday!

Richard Cohen seems to be experiencing some buyer’s remorse in regard to Barack Obama. Last week in a column, Mr. Cohen lamented that Barack Obama has lost much of the “moral clarity” that he had when he was running for president. To be specific, Mr. Cohen wrote the following—

“But to reread the speech is also to come face to face with an Obama of keen moral clarity. Here was a man who knew why he was running for president and knew, also precisely, what he personified. He could talk to America both as a black man and a white man — having lived in both worlds. He could — and he did — explain to America what it is like to have been a black man of Wright’s age and what it is like even now to be a black man of any age.”

Gee—I didn’t think that was a qualification to run for president (maybe a qualification to be a motivational speaker), but I digress.

Then, after admitting that he had been the one “In my set” to have some reservations about Barack Obama (even though he wrote nothing but glowing columns about Obama pre-election), Mr. Cohen wrote the following—

“Somehow, though, that moral clarity has been dissipated. The Obama who was leading a movement of professed political purity is the very same person who as president would not meet with the Dalai Lama, lest he annoy the very sensitive Chinese. He is the same man who bowed to the emperor of Japan when, in my estimation, the president of the United States should bow to no man. He is the same president who in China played the mannequin for the Chinese government, appearing at stage-managed news conference and appearances — and having his remarks sometimes censored. When I saw him in that picture alone on the Great Wall, he seemed to be saying, “What the hell am I doing here?” If so, it was a good question.

The Barack Obama of that Philadelphia speech would not have let his attorney general, Eric Holder, announce the new policy for trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other 9/11 defendants in criminal court, as if this was a mere departmental issue and not one of momentous policy. And the Barack Obama of the speech would have enunciated a principle of law and not an ad hoc system in which some alleged terrorists are tried in civilian courts and some before military tribunals. Where is the principle in that — what works, works? Try putting that one on the Liberty Bell.”

Furthermore, Maureen Dowd also seems to be experiencing some buyer’s remorse in regard to vigorously supporting Barack Obama. In a recent column (where she actually has some nice things to say about Sarah Palin), Ms. Dowd writes the following—

“If we could see a Reduced Shakespeare summary of Obama’s presidency so far, it would read:

Dither, dither, speech. Foreign trip, bow, reassure. Seminar, summit. Shoot a jump shot with the guys, throw out the first pitch in mom jeans. Compromise, concede, close the deal. Dither, dither, water down, news conference.”

Now, I find Mr. Cohen and Ms. Dowd’s change of heart towards President Obama to be a bit curious. I mean, anyone with a seventh grade education and a mouse could have found out that Obama would “dither” and “concede” when it came to Afghanistan and would go out of his way to project weakness to the rest of the world. I mean, Obama had the most left-wing voting record in the Senate, he openly bragged in debates about his willingness to meet with dictators and shut down Gitmo, and he never even held one hearing on Afghanistan as a Senator despite chairing a subcommittee on NATO, so I’m not sure what else these two could have expected.

However, I did a little digging into both Mr. Cohen’s and Ms. Dowd’s columns regarding President Obama, and what I found was quite interesting. In March of 2008, Richard Cohen wrote a column titled, “Taking the Call on Black Men” where he basically acknowledged that Hillary Clinton was more qualified to deal with national security issues, or the “3 AM call”, but that Barack Obama should be president instead, because he was more qualified “to take the call on black men in prison”. Why? Well, I’m not really sure. Mr. Cohen doesn’t say what Obama’s qualifications are in regard to dealing with disproportionately high levels of black men in prison, other than being black himself (which I don’t think is an actual qualification).

Furthermore, in November of 2008, right after Obama was elected president, Maureen Dowd wrote a column titled, “The Tracks of Our Tears” where she prattled on about how white people were finally talking to black people in Manhattan and about how she deigned to ask her “cute black mailman” what he thought about the election of Obama. (The Gawker mocked her boasting in that column that Gwen Ifil was her one black friend). Someone should inform Ms. Dowd that we bitter clingers in the south and middle America have been talking to black people long before Obama came along, but I digress.

So, now I’m going to be politically incorrect here and diagnose Richard Cohen and Maureen Dowd with a raging case of white liberal guilt. I mean, why else would someone so enthusiastically support a candidate that he or she has “reservations” about? Especially when said candidate’s campaign was, to quote liberal reporter John Heilemann, “a policy free zone”. It must be because of all of Barack Obama’s long years of legislative experience. Oh, wait a minute—I forgot. Barack Obama is an inexperienced neophyte with unsavory friends. Well, wait. Maybe it was the outstanding leadership on Afghanistan that Obama demonstrated when he was a US Senator. Oh wait a minute—I forgot. Barack Obama didn’t hold one hearing of his Senate subcommittee that he chaired on NATO forces in Afghanistan. Is it any wonder that he was “dithering” for so long about whether or not to send more troops into Afghanistan? Moreover, given the fact that both Mr. Cohen and Ms. Dowd seem to have serious disagreements with many of Obama’s decisions, white liberal guilt seems to be the only logical reason for their past vociferous support of him (and trashing of everyone else who ran against him).

Now, to be fair to Mr. Cohen and Ms. Dowd, a plethora of reporters and pundits suffered from white liberal guilt when it came to covering Barack Obama. Recently, Chris Matthews made a flaming ass of himself when he suggested that racism is at the heart of Sarah Palin’s support. To be specific, Mr. Matthews said the following—

“Well, they look like a white crowd to me,” later claiming, “I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing, in other words, white vs. other people.”

Three days ago, Glenn Beck ran the following story about a video that is currently being shown in schools across the country (see embeds below). The video is straight up liberal propaganda. For instance, the narrator uses a tank to symbolize our government, lies about how much of our tax dollars are going to the military, implies that capitalism is evil, lies about how much of our original forests are left, tells the children watching that, “We douse our pillows in neurotoxins”, and then states the following doozy—

“It’s the government’s job to watch out for us…to take care us us. That’s their job.”

Now, I know what you all are asking. Who made this video? Well, the narrator of the video is a woman by the name of Annie Leonard who is a former Greenpeace employee. However, as Glenn Beck stated above, this video is made by an organization called the Tides Foundation which is headed by a liberal activist named Drummond Pike. This organization is funded by George Soros and launders money from liberal donors to other liberal recipients in order to avoid a paper trail. Oh, and Wade Rathke is the Board Chairman of the Tides Foundation. Yeah, that Wade Rathke—the founder and chief of ACORN. By the way, that’s the same ACORN that Barack Obama’s campaign paid over $800,000 to and that Barack Obama worked for as a community organizer—and Obama represented them as their attorney in a 1995 motor voter case. And, finally, that’s also the same ACORN that, until recently, was scheduled to take part in the 2010 US Census and was scheduled to receive possibly up to eight billion dollars in the stimulus bill, and has received over fifty-three million dollars in federal funds over the years.

OK—now, I realize that liberals will reply to all of this information with the following retort—“Yes, this may all be true, but we can play this six degrees of Kevin Bacon game with any of the past presidents—all politicians have some sketchy friends.” To which I would reply, yes, most past presidents have had some sketchy friends (and I think that Beck can sometimes go too far with his conspiracy theories). However, no past president that I’m aware of has ever had any of their degenerate friends disperse propagandistic videos throughout the tax-payer funded public schools, have they?

However folks—this story about the above videos circulating in the schools is a big deal for several additional reasons (besides the obvious ones that I just laid out), the first of which is the Skool-Aid (H/T to our own $peciallist for the creative name)—i.e., the Obama Administration’s recent foray into public education. Our own Steve Foley and Caleb Howe have both reported extensively on this subject, and Michelle Malkin has as well.

Now, the typical New York Times 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 (which even Camille Paglia referred to as “imbecilic support materials”). Furthermore, he or she would not know that congressional Democrats investigated and held hearings when George H.W. Bush spoke to school children and that The Washington Post ran a scathing front page article about George H. W. Bush speaking to school children (and George H.W. Bush didn’t have the ridiculous “lesson Plan” that the Obama Administration had either). Below, Michelle Malkin walks us through some of the details of the Skool-Aid when she writes the following—-

Education Secretary Arne Duncan dispatched letters to principals nationwide boasting that “This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation’s school children about persisting and succeeding in school.” But the goal is not merely morale-boosting. According to White House event-related guides developed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Teaching Fellows, grade-school students will be told to “listen to the speech” and “could think about the following:”

*What is the President trying to tell me?

*What is the President asking me to do?

*What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?

• Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

After the speech, teachers will ask students:

*What do you think the President wants us to do?

*Does the speech make you want to do anything?

*Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?

Now, in a vacuum, the Skool-Aid wouldn’t look all that bad—well I take that back. It wouldn’t look great, but it wouldn’t have been ghastly either. However, let’s not forget that the Obama Administration, and their sycophants in the MSM, actively bragged about Barack Obama’s youth outreach program. In fact, in a 2007 WSJ article, Elizabeth Holmes wrote the following about the Obama campaign’s youth outreach program (H/T Sourcewatch)—-

“Many of you can caucus in Iowa,” Mr. Obama told scores of high-school students, via conference call, from around [Iowa in September 2007] for the kickoff of the weekly ‘BarackStar’ nights held for teens at the campaign’s 31 field offices. ‘I hope you realize how much power you have, potentially, to change the world.’”

The Obama campaign is also actively cultivating teachers, along with high-school principals, using them for entree to the youngest voters. Sometimes Obama aides try to hunt the adults down at home, begging for classroom time.”

Obama, “driven both by necessity, and his particular appeal … has a proverbial seat at the cool kids’ lunch table, with his appearance on the cover of Vibe and having met with the likes of rapper Ludacris. …

“So Rachel Haltom-Irwin, the campaign’s 25-year-old Iowa Youth Vote director, attends many of Sen. Obama’s appearances, building the campaign’s email database. At a stop in the tiny town of Guthrie Center, she approached the student band and passed around a sign-up clipboard.

“Under the heading of ‘BarackStars,’ the field offices hold weekly gatherings tailored toward teens and hand out information packets to be distributed back at school. …

“In Storm Lake, a picturesque town in northwestern Iowa, Sen. Obama’s team invited high-school teachers to bring students to a midweek event. The district accepted the invitation and provided a bus to transport 60 students. … ”

Teachers Elise Walz and Jenna Broghamer of West Lake High School in Iowa City “recently hopped one of many campaign-hired school buses to the Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola — an annual event sponsored by the state’s veteran Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin. In presidential campaign season, the event draws the top Democratic contenders.”

Furthermore, during the Democratic primary, several Democratic senators and high level Democratic politicians actively bragged about how their teenage children browbeat them into supporting Obama (in fact, I remember Claire McCaskill admitting on MSNBC that her seventeen year old daughter told her that she was a “slug” if she didn’t support Obama). At the time, The Washington Post wrote the following about this matter—

The youth movement behind Obama isn’t just bringing 18-year-olds to the polls — it’s also providing cover for their parents.

When Claire McCaskill, the Missouri senator, endorsed Obama earlier this month, she said it was the urging of her 18-year-old daughter that got her over the hump. When Caroline Kennedy announced her endorsement on Sunday, she also invoked her children as a reason: “I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own,” she wrote in her New York Times op-ed. “As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.”

Tuesday came Kathleen Sebelius, the governor of Kansas, who offered the most detailed attribution of all when she endorsed Obama during a visit to his grandfather’s hometown of El Dorado, Kansas — and which she then repeated during a big rally in Kansas City, Mo. She said that her two sons had been after her for a long time to endorse Obama, but for different reasons. Her elder, in law school, likes Obama for his message, “because he could bring people together”; her younger one likes Obama because he likes Michelle Obama. “He says that anyone who can get Michelle to marry him has to have something going for him.”

And finally, The AP recently wrote about how a political science professor from LaSalle University, named Mary Ellen Balchunis, thought that Obama should re-mobilize his youth support in order to pass his healthcare bill. The AP wrote the following about Balchunis’ thoughts with regard to young people below—-

Balchunis thinks the president could boost youth support on these and other issues — and get them influencing their parents, as they did in the election — if he mobilized and spoke directly to them, the way he did during the campaign. He could for instance, make use of the well-organized student groups that campaigned for him to push the issues of the day.

If he doesn’t, Balchunis thinks that also could have negative ramifications for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections, because those young voters will lose interest and won’t bother to show up at the polls. That’s what happened, she says, after her own young generation was initially excited about Bill Clinton when he was first elected president in 1992. Then, just two years later, Democrats lost control of Congress.

So anyway, my point is that it’s ridiculously unfair for the Obama campaign to actively recruit high school students and bus them in for caucuses, for Democratic bigwigs to wax ecstatic about how their children nagged them into voting for Obama, and for political science professors to imply that Obama could get his mojo back if he started recruiting high school and college kids again (many kids in high school will be in college in 2012)—but then, for those same liberals to turn around an yell “Raaacist!” when parents are upset about their children having to write an essay, after the President’s speech, about what they and their parents can do to help President Obama. (Translation—“Kiddies, you can vote for me when you turn eighteen, and be sure to nag your poor parents into submission until then”.)

Moreover, the above propaganda video circulating through the schools that Glenn Beck recently played on his show further compounds people’s fear that the public schools are becoming a hotbed of liberal indoctrination for their kids—especially when teachers are making the children that they teach draw pro-Obama campaign art and sing in propaganda videos that would make Hugo Chavez proud (H/T Hot Air—see embed below).

Now, a second reason why the video (involving liberal propaganda in the schools) that Beck recently played on his show is a big deal is because of the recent scandal involving The National Endowment for the Arts. Glenn Beck also covered the NEA scandal in depth and I wrote about it in more detail in a diary here. The NEA scandal initially involved Yosi Sargent, the director of communications for the NEA, making a conference call to various artists encouraging them to participate in propaganda for the Obama Administration (the NEA is a tax-payer funded entity). Patrick Courrielche, a blogger for BigHollywood.com., told Beck that the NEA had sent out mass emails to many artists and bloggers, and that he had participated in a conference call with the NEA (that he recorded and that Beck played on his show) in which Yosi Sargent of the NEA said the following (see embed below)—

“We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally.”

And, Mr. Sergant also said this little gem—

“Take photos. Take video. Post it on your blogs. Get the word out. Like I said, this is a community that knows how to make a stink. Do it.”

OK—now given the fact that the NEA is an independent agency of the United States federal government (independent being the operative word here), the NEA shouldn’t be bringing ANYONE together to “speak with the government”. In the words of George Will, “I don’t know how many laws that breaks”.

However, this was not the end of th NEA scandal. Patrick Courrielche has now reported that Buffy Wicks, from the White House Office of Public Engagement, was the one who actually hosted the conference call, and that Yosi Sargent gave his little pep talk after she spoke. Mr. Courrielche recorded Ms. Wicks saying the following—

” I just first of all want to thank everyone for being on the call and just a deep deep appreciation for all the work you all put into the campaign for the 2+ years we all worked together.” “We won.” “I’m actually in the White House and working towards furthering this agenda, this very aggressive agenda.” “We’re going to come at you with some specific asks here.” “I hope you guys are ready.”

And then, Glenn Beck ran the story about the updated NEA scandal where he explained that Buffy Wicks used to be a union astroturfer who funneled hundreds and thousands of dollars to ACORN (see embed below).

Furthermore, Beck also added that Ms. Wicks is the lead White House official on Serve.Gov (an organization that is supposed to “encourage” volunteer work, though The Washington Times easily dispels that myth) which made that creepy “I Pledge” video (see embed below).

Oh, and now, Yosi Sargent has had to resign from the NEA, but Buffy Wicks still has her job of course.

Now you ask, how does the NEA scandal tie into the Skool-Aid and the recent school propaganda videos (that I embedded at the top of this blog)? Simple. All three are prime examples of how the Obama Administration, and far-left liberals in general, don’t really mind using propaganda and indoctrination—whether in the schools or using tax-payer funded organizations like the NEA—to push their agenda. Simply put, this is the same song, third verse.

And finally, there is one more reason why this propaganda video dispersed throughout the schools (along with the Skool-Aid and the NEA scandal) is a big deal. Several days ago, Glenn Beck did a story about Mark Lloyd, Barack Obama’s chief diversity czar for the FCC (I can’t quite figure out why the FCC needs a diversity czar). In the video that I’m about to show you, Mr. Lloyd is heard openly praising Hugo Chavez (but then again, Sean Penn routinely praises Hugo Chavez so this is really nothing new for the far-left), stating The Fairness Doctrine doesn’t go far enough (that’s the bill that Nancy Pelosi wants to pass in order to curtail the conservative media), and finally, Mr. Lloyd states that, “We’re in a position to say who is going to step down so that someone else will get power”. Seriously, between Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfleger, Van Jones, and now, Mark Lloyd, has Obama ever met a nutter that he doesn’t like? But, I digress.

So, now we are singing the same song, fourth verse. In a nutshell, this song basically states that the government and its allies can engage in open propaganda and indoctrination in our public schools, manipulate our tax-payer funded institutions for political purposes (such as the NEA), while simultaneously curtailing our freedom of speech and deciding who gets hired and fired. I don’t know about you, but I think that this song sucks. I say that we stop singing it. In fact, what’s so scary about the tune that the Obama Administration, and its buddies, seem to be humming, is that when I, and honest people on both sides of the aisle read about the details, we can’t all help but exclaim, “This doesn’t happen in America! This kind of stuff only happens in other countries—like Venezuela.” Well you know what, this shouldn’t happen in America—not if we have anything to say about it. I say that it’s high time that we, the sane people of America, start making our voices heard, and start singing louder than the bozos behind the the Skool-Aid, the NEA scandal, and all of these propagandistic videos. Enough is enough. It is time to make our voices heard. Here is where I take my stand.

(H/T Aaron Gardner)

Last night, I was watching the following exchange on The O’Reilly Factor with Chris Wallace and Bill O’Reilly, when Chris Wallace blasted the Obama Administration so hard that it made my jaw hit the floor. The reason why this surprised me so, is because Chris Wallace runs a very “fair and balanced” show and he usually keeps his personal opinions to himself—i.e., he is no partisan hack. Below is a list of criticisms that Wallace hurls toward the Obama administration:

—Both Bill O’Reilly and Chris Wallace call out Barack Obama for going on all of the other Sunday talk shows this weekend EXCEPT Fox News Sunday, which has the highest ratings. Wallace further points out that he has always been fair to the Obama Administration, that they “refuse to take yes for an answer”, and that “there is a certain childishness or pettiness” about their behavior.

—Chris Wallace also calls out David Axelrod for going on Face the Nation and denigrating the 9/12 tea party demonstrators by stating that, “They are not representative.” Wallace then adds, “This from the President who said that he wanted to reach out to all Americans?”

—Chris Wallace even hilariously points out that Bertha Lewis, the CEO of ACORN, will go on Fox News Sunday, but Barack Obama won’t.

—However, Wallace really burns the Obama Administration when he offers up the following zinger—

“These guys…everything is personal…everything. They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.” (See embed below).

Ouch!! That’s gonna leave a mark.

However, I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that the arrogant Obama Administration, and their pompous supporters, won’t use Chris Wallace’s honest critiques as an opportunity for some self-reflection (see Media Matters as exhibit A). No, they will probably continue to preach to the choir by having President Obama perpetually appear on networks whose ratings are in the toilet. Furthermore, the Obama Administration will probably continue on its quest to alienate swing voters by allowing Democratic leaders and their surrogates in the MSM to childishly attack Fox News and refer to its viewers, as well as regular Americans exercising their First Amendment rights, as “Raaacists!”, “The Mob”, “evil-mongers”, “Nazis”, “hooligans” and “teabaggers”. Heckuva job Obama Administration!

…..[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.