My Oh My, POLITICO Sure Has A Lot Of Corrupt Journolisters On It's Staff

By Gary P Jackson

It's no secret that POLITICO is a biased news organization. The online polictical blog is as progressive as they come. Very agenda driven. In our reporting we have already addressed the fact that Journolist members are solidly entrenched inside POLITICO's upper levels. Something Roger Simon, who calls the website home, tried to downplay.

John Nolte over at Big Journalism isn't buying it, and has a simply marvelous retort:

You say MSM, I say Politico. You say corrupt, I say Politico.

Today, Politico’s Roger Simon was kind enough to almost scold JournoList for its lasting effect on his precious little profession of journalism. At one point, he and the scrupulously non-partisan Chuck “Fire Glenn Beck” Todd hold hands and commiserate over how this unfortunate JounoList thing is tarring “those of us who don’t practice activist journalism.” If Roger Simon wants to rebuild his precious little profession’s reputation, a good start might be asking his very own publisher some tough questions.

Politico might be an online publication, a part of the New Media, but when it comes to corrupted, left-wing arrogance they make the Washington Post look somewhat honest … somewhat. Part of the reason I reserve a special place in my heart to store up a unique resentment for all things Politico is due to the very fact that they practice their dark arts online. Like a toxic virus they spread over to the Internet where the right (by design) and the left (by accident) are trying to forever kill off the very thing Politico is — wolfish left-wing propagandists hidden in the sheeps’ clothing of “journalism.”

And yet these are the same bastards “journalists” who launched a smear attack on a private citizen for asking Their One a perfectly reasonable question, obsessed over Sarah Palin’s wardrobe (and yet ranked Obama being asked about his relationships with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers as a 2008 top-ten ”media blunder“), and though they occasionally find Levi Johnston worthy of note, Department of Justice whistleblower, J. Christian Adams, remained a ghost up until and including Ben Smith’s factually challenged Nothing-To-See-Here gift to his embattled president.

Oh, and did you know that some of Politico’s “journalists” were members of Ezra Klein’s now infamous JournoList, including Mike Allen, Lisa Lerer, and Mr. Ben “I-Got-Yer-Back-Barack” Smith?

And this little juicy nugget of fact raises a troubling question…

What Politico needs to disclose is exactly when their three employees joined JournoList, because now that we know what really was going on there, this Politico article reeks of a cover up.

Written by Michael Calderon in March of 2009 and titled “JournoList: Inside the echo chamber,” even at the time it was written, the thousand-plus worder ranked as another classic example of what Politico does best: write stories about why stories they don’t want covered aren’t worth covering. In other words, like Ben Smith’s Black Panther piece, this is how Politico spikes that which might damage the Leftist narrative.

While reading Calderon’s JournoList expose,’ you can practically hear the staged, self conscious yawn of a man trying to put across the false front that once again those crazy, paranoid right-wing conspiracy mongers have taken him away from oh-so important work to address this nothing-ness.

Calderon’s idea of “journalism” was to interview JournoList members such as Jeffrey Toobin, Eric Alterman,and Joe Klein, who each assure us in their own wrist-flicking way, Tell those silly right-wingers that no one’s pushing an agenda. In 2009 the piece was hilariously obvious in its biased and preordained objective to smoke-and-mirror away concerns about what Ezra’s little coven of left-wingers was up to. But reading it again in hindsight, it stinks to high heaven.

Deep, deep, deep in the article – long after the dull dutifulness of it all is supposed to kill your interest in clicking over to page two, Calderon finally gets around to admitting Politico’s Smith, Allen, and Lerer are members.

And herein lies Politico’s problem.

Now that it’s become crystal clear that at times JournoList was in fact a hotbed for left-wing ideologues to collude over how to kill stories that might hurt Obama, smear innocent conservatives as racist, coordinate lines of attack against Palin, and work directly with the Obama campaign, the question becomes:

What did Politico know and when did it know it?

Three Politico employees were members of JournoList, and yet in March of 2009, Politico published an article where JournoList members claimed nothing improper was going on there — which we now know wasn’t even close to the truth.

There’s only two explanations: Either Smith, Allen and Lerer weren’t JournoList members when this corrupt activity was taking place, or they were, and not only did they not disclose the improper activity but they allowed their employer to print a misleading story.

What did Politico know and when did it know it?

In a truly just world, all 400 plus members of Journolist would join the ranks of the chronically unemployed, but I digress.

Sadly, this is just more proof that it's almost impossible to trust any supposed news source in this country. I know a lot of folks, myself included, tend to frequent blogs and newsers that mostly agreee with our point of view, but we also need fair and balanced news sources that play it straight. Just the facts, no matter who it helps, or hurts. No agenda, just facts. Until this happens, America is in big trouble.

When consuming news these days, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan: Trust, but verify. And go easy on the trust part, and heavy on the verify part.

Panic From Journolist Over Sarah Palin's RNC Speech: "She's Golden" Now How Do We Destroy Her? Plus, Trig Trutherism To The Max

By Gary P Jackson

When Jonathan Strong and the Daily Caller started releasing information from Journolist, we knew it would get interesting, especially when it comes to Sarah Palin. Anyone who has watched the news since Sarah was introduced to the world has known the media has been going crazy trying to figure out how to stop her. They actually did a decent job of smearing her among casual, and mostly uninformed viewers. Many of the lies told stuck, at least for a time.

Today Strong shows us what this cabal of over 400 "mainstream journalists" and members of academia really thought:

Sarah Palin’s speech to the 2008 Republican convention impressed more than a few doubters, including even some members of Journolist, an online community for liberal journalists.

“This speech is gangbusters,” wrote Ari Melber of the Nation. “Her tone is pitch perfect.” Adele Stan of the Media Consortium agreed: “Palin is golden.”

The exuberance appeared to unnerve the Guardian’s Michael Tomasky. “People get a hold of yourselves!” Tomasky wrote to his fellow Journolisters. “It’s a very good speech with good lines. But there’s very little substance.”

Rebecca Traister of Salon wrote to say she was grateful for Tomasky’s message. (“This is a reassuring sentiment, since at the moment, I feel like we’re in End Times.”) But the rest of the country apparently didn’t agree. Polls a few days later showed Obama’s lead in the race had narrowed to virtually nothing.

Palin’s speech had been remarkably effective. This troubled members of Journolist. On Sept. 8, 2008, five days after Palin’s national debut, some members of the group discussed producing coordinated propaganda designed to wound Palin and boost Obama.

At an appearance in Colorado immediately following the convention, Palin had remarked that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had “gotten too big and too expensive for the taxpayers,” a point that seems commonplace now, but that at the time struck some as controversial.

Ryan Avent, then a freelance blogger for the Economist, now an editor there, complained that Obama’s supporters were missing a chance to attack. “If we were the GOP, we’d be taking this opportunity to shout long and loud how unprepared Palin is—‘She doesn’t even know what Fannie and Freddie are…in the middle of a housing crisis!’….That’s the difference in the game as played by us and by them.”

Michael Tomasky responded: “So why aren’t Dems doing that? Just wundrin’.”

Luke Mitchell, then a senior editor at Harper’s magazine, asked Tomasky if his paper would be able to help: “Michael – Isn’t this something that can be fanned a bit by, say, the Guardian?”

Tomasky didn’t think it would work. “The Guardian? You’re kidding right? Remember the Clark County letters?” he wrote, referring to a failed attempt by the Guardian to elect John Kerry in 2004 by asking Britons to write letters to voters in a pivotal Ohio county.

Mitchell replied: “Fair enough! But it seems to me that a concerted effort on the part of the left partisan press could be useful. Why geld ourselves? A lot of the people on this list work for organizations that are far more influential than, say, the Washington Times."

“Open question: Would it be a good use of this list to co-ordinate a message of the week along the lines of the GOP? Or is that too loathsome? It certainly sounds loathsome. But so does losing!”

Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, the founder of Journolist, quickly jumped in: “Nope, no message coordination. I’m not even sure that would be legal. This is a discussion list, though, and I want it to retain that character,” he wrote.

Mitchell replied: “Fair enough, Ezra! The list is great at as it is and I didn’t mean to suggest anything out of bounds. I am still curious about the reluctance of the left media to organize, though. The message discipline on the right seems to be one of its key advantages.”

David Roberts of Grist seemed to scold Roberts for his idea: “Just read past messages on this list, Luke. Everyone here is a /journalist /or an /independent analyst/. Their job is to /say what they think/, not to support Obama. Suggest that they focus on more electorally helpful — and equally true — messages, and they will bridle.”

Yet almost immediately after writing these words, Roberts sounded somewhat less than independent himself, referring to the Obama campaign as “we”: “I’m not bashing,” he wrote. “I’m guilty too. I just despair. We’re going to lose again, for all the same damn reasons.”

Ed Kilgore of the Progressive Policy Institute, another supposedly “independent analyst,” did the same, even outlining specific talking points: “It requires no particular strategic genius or ‘message coordination’ to recognize that we and the Obama campaign have the next two months to demonstrate that McCain and Palin represent the status quo party, the status quo ideology, and status quo policies,” he wrote.

While other members of the group debated whether to coordinate a pro-Obama message – or, more precisely, whether to concede that such a message was being coordinated — Todd Gitlin of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism had already made up his mind. Gitlin, whose job is to train the next generation of America’s most elite journalists, wrote this impassioned plea on behalf of the Obama campaign:

“On the question of liberals coordinating, what the hell’s wrong with some critical mass of liberal bloggers & journalists saying the following among themselves:

“McCain lies about his maverick status. Routinely, cavalierly, cynically. Palin lies about her maverick status. Ditto, ditto, ditto. McCain has a wretched temperament. McCain is a warmonger. Palin belongs to a crackpot church and feels warmly about a crackpot party that trashes America.

“Repeat after me:

“McCain lies about his maverick status. Routinely, cavalierly, cynically. Palin lies about her maverick status. Ditto, ditto, ditto. McCain has a wretched temperament. McCain is a warmonger. Palin belongs to a crackpot church and feels warmly about a crackpot party that trashes America.

“These people are cynical. These people are taking you for a ride. These people are fakes. These people love Bush.

“Again. And again. Vary the details. There are plenty. Somebody on the ‘list posted a strong list of McCain lies earlier today. Hammer it. Philosophize, as Nietzsche said, with a hammer.

“I don’t know about any of you, but I’m not waiting for any coordination. Get on with it!”

In an interview, Gitlin conceded he was noting the “features of McCain and Palin most worthy of highlighting towards the end of defeating them.” He said he had never advocated “bending facts” to get Obama elected.

Amazing stuff huh. Gitlin, who teaches journalism claims he wasn't for "bending facts" to get Obama elected, but as we know now, none of the Journolisters had a problem with covering up facts about Barack Obama and his radical associations, or branding anyone who dared bring them up a racist!

Obviously Ezra Klein, the creator of this group, was doing a bit of CYA here. "Now boys, you know we shouldn't coordinate." (wink-wink) From there everyone went back to what they were doing. One thing is obvious, Sarah's incredible speech put the media on the defensive. In fact, she called them out during her speech. Pretty obvious that while the media adopted the "Palin is stupid" mantra, for public consumption, in private, they knew she was anything but.

This proves beyond a doubt the old adage: The media will point out who they fear the most, by who they attack the hardest. Reagan was treated the same.

The Daily Caller also released the raw e-mails from this group concerning Sarah's new son, Trig, and how this bunch dove neck deep into "Trig-trutherism" the sick thought that Trig was actually Bristol's baby, not Sarah's. This was a rumor started by one of Barack Obama's hand picked Alaska Mafia members, Jesse Griffin, who along with The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, has turned "Trig Trutherism" into a cottege industry. Strong has 15 pages of e-mails discussing this nonsense. That these people would spend that much time discussing this shows you the type of mentality we are working with here.

To be fair, many of these Journolisters said leave it alone, and others suggest different ways to "get her" like the fact she had her photo taken with wounded soldiers. "That would hurt her with her base" said Mark Kleiman who is Professor of Public Policy in the UCLA School of Public Affairs.

If nothing else, reading these e-mails is a good look into the moonbattery that exists among the nation's media. Check 'em out here.

Dude, You Couldn't Carry Governor Palin's Shoes, Much Less Her Resume'

By Adrienne Ross - www.motivationtruth.com

Now that The Daily Caller has exposed the Journolist group for their collaborated effort to destroy Governor Palin on the day Senator McCain announced her as his running mate, members of the lamestream media are spinning to cover their tails. David Corn of Politics Daily is one such yahoo. Rather than admit that deciding to affect an election by scheming and lying about one candidate while covering up the buttocks of another is just, well, nasty, he points his finger at Palin as if she had no reason to take umbrage at the media's behavior. In typical Lefty fashion, Corn attempts to turn the tables and writes a hit piece called "Palin's Shocking Admission: Not Tough Enough to Be President."

He rants:

Sarah Palin can't expect anyone to take her seriously as a presidential candidate -- not after what she said this week.

In recent days, the former Alaska governor and Tea Party fave has been on a tear against Journolist, a list-serv for nearly 500 journalists, policy wonks and academics, most of whom are self-identified liberals working for self-identified liberal outfits. The participants on this off-the-record e-mail chain promoted their work, debated politics and policy (occasionally quite sharply), and traded and tested ideas for articles and columns. Last month, The Daily Caller, a conservative website, began running articles based on Journolist archives it somehow obtained. Some conservatives immediately denounced Journolist as a secret cabal that established a party line for the dreaded liberal media.

[...]

Palin's blast revealed deep ignorance. Journolistas were generally not prominent MSMers. And the few prominent journalists who were part of Journolist were mostly already known as commentators of a liberal bent. Yet Palin was pretending that Journolist was evidence of an MSM cabal. Worst, she tweeted, "forget freedom of speech and freedom of the press if these yahoos ever get their way in America."

During an interview with The Daily Caller, she went further, calling Journolisters "sick puppies" -- as she reacted to another article on the now-defunct list-serv revealing e-mail messages sent the day John McCain surprisingly picked Palin to be his running mate. In these e-mails, several participants -- including two Mother Jones reporters who worked for me at the time -- pondered why McCain had picked Palin and what would be an effective critique of her. That liberal reporters would privately discuss how best to criticize a conservative politician whose policies they oppose does not strike me as shocking. In fact, I am certain that during the 2008 campaign journalists at conservative media outfits talked among themselves about how best to puncture Obama.

So is David Corn arguing that Governor Palin showed deep ignorance because she expected liberal journalists to behave ethically? Perhaps he has a point there--if he's saying that many have shown of late to be incapable of ethical behavior. Surely he isn't making the case that liberal journalists are supposed to purposely impact an election, is he? He blasts the Governor for commenting on the sick puppies' sessions brainstorming "how best to criticize" a candidate. He couldn't possibly be equating criticizing a politician with campaigning to destroy one, could he? Does he think we're that stupid? David Corn, rather than revealing any ignorance on Governor Palin's part, places his own on display.

Furthermore, to excuse the behavior of his group, he points his crooked finger at conservative media outlets, saying he is "certain" they plotted to hurt Obama. Well, Mr. Corn's certainty means absolutely nothing. Where are those emails? Where's his proof? Where are the articles exposing conservatives for such despicable behavior? I imagine if these things existed, we'd all have heard about it by now--if not before, certainly after the Journolist emails became public knowledge. So, I'll just make an educated guess and say they don't exist, and since they don't, David Corn has no leg to stand on. He's simply talking out of his butt to divert attention from the real issue.

Final note to this loon: Governor Palin is not tough enough to be president? Dude, you couldn't possibly stand up under the weight she has endured--wife, mother of five, hunter, running a city, governing a state, energy expert, VP nominee, Tea Party activist, and survivor of the likes of you who conspire daily to pick away at the toughness you say doesn't exist. Dude, you couldn't carry the Governor's shoes, much less her resume'. Go sit down 'cause we don't take you seriously.

If you can stomach it, the full Corn-y article is here.

Now contrast that yahoo's article with this IBD editorial:

Media Bias: Ever wonder why 2008 VP candidate Sarah Palin was so ridiculed before much was known about her? Turns out liberal journalists engaged in a coordinated smear campaign to aid the Democratic ticket.

When we talked with Alaska's then-governor in the summer of 2008 about plans to develop her state's energy resources, she came across like most other Alaskans we've met — frank, down-to-earth, colloquial, but more than technocratically knowledgeable about the energy field.

The issue then for Gov. Palin was how to balance the development of Alaska's bountiful resources with its near-pristine environment. She also wrestled with how to create a healthy business climate in a state with a history of political corruption involving oil companies.

We detected a sense of duty as Palin spoke of bringing natural gas to the Lower 48, and we were impressed with the way she spoke authoritatively about Alaska's polar bear population and compassionately about the well-being of native Alaskans. We also interviewed longtime nonpolitical Alaskan bureaucrats who raved about working with the governor and praised her executive ability.

Sound like the Sarah Palin you read about when she was chosen as John McCain's running mate that fall? Hardly.

Suddenly Palin became a backwoods Christian fundamentalist hillbilly with five kids who couldn't possibly be who she said she was. Her intelligence was attacked, her accomplishments belittled, her verbal slips ridiculed, her family's privacy invaded and her clean record smeared with accusations of corruption, all of which proved false.

Now it's clear what was really going on. On Thursday, the Daily Caller published exchanges from a private forum called JournoList that showed how 400 top mainstream reporters and their activist buddies conspired in an attack against Palin the minute she entered the presidential race.

The piece goes on to explain what we have come to learn from the good work of The Daily Caller--which I highlighted here--how Journolist purposely protected their man, President Obama, and tried to rip Governor Palin to shreds.

But somehow David Corn thinks that such actions were acceptable and that Palin is a wimp for having the nerve to speak out against it. Somehow he doesn't see anything wrong with this smear campaign designed to dupe the American people. Pretty sad for someone so "progressive" to be so stupid. But I'm all about helping a brother out, so I will. The IBD article goes on to say:

There are so many things wrong with this, we hardly know where to start. Nominally competitors, these supposedly impartial media mavens colluded in a way that would put airline or insurance officials in the dock for anti-competitive practices. They engaged in activism instead of fact-finding and mixed incestuously with activists whom they also should have been covering impartially.

Worst of all, they deprived millions of Americans of the information they needed to size up this new face on the political scene and determine if she really was a candidate who represented their interests.

That still remains to be done — and the country is poorer for it.

Read the full IBD article here.

I hope Corn gets it now, but something tells me he doesn't--and that's exactly the problem with the lamestream media. For too many of them, the end justifies the means--regardless of the damage done to people, families, and the American public--all of whom deserve better.

(h/t Josh Painter and C4P)

The Day Journalism Died

By Gary P Jackson

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment I U.S. Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791

We are blessed as a nation. Our founders recognized that all men we born with certain unalienable rights. Rights granted to us by Nature’s God, our Creator. The purpose of the United States Constitution is to protect the citizens of our Republic from a government that would restrict or try to take away our rights. We all know the Marxist-progressive movement, now headed by Barack Obama, has been trying to usurp our Constitution, and enslave the people, for decades, but that’s another discussion for another time.

Along with freedom of speech, freedom to worship as we please, and the freedom to assemble, a free and honest press is one of our most sacred rights. In fact, a free and honest press is essential for this Republic to survive. Without it, people can’t trust the information they receive and can never trust their government. 

Moreover, a free and honest press should serve as a watchdog. Our media should keep an eye on our government, no matter who is in charge, and hold them accountable when they run astray. They should not be cheerleaders for one side or the other. Just the facts.

This is not to say there isn’t a place for opinion journalism. In fact, part of a free press is it’s ability to have a robust debate of ideas. The problems occur when opinion media, and just plain old yellow journalism, mix with so-called "straight" reporting.

The first time most of us heard of Journolist was when someone anonymously outed Dave Weigel, a supposed reporter who worked for the Washington Post. Weigel, whose job was to cover Conservatives for the paper, was best know to our readers for siding with Sarah Palin’s deranged stalker, Joe McGinnis, and trashing Sarah for not being happy she had a freak of nature living next door to her.

What we learned was Journolist was a formal e-mail list where many of the nation’s prominent "journalists" collaborated on stories, strategized against Conservatives, and shot the bull.

Someone, evidently angered by something Weigel had done, outed him, and many of the incredibly nasty e-mails he had written. This painted Weigel as a really hateful Marxist-progressive, who obviously was incapable of covering Conservatives properly because of his incredible hatred of them. In the end, WaPo showed Weigel the door.

By outing Weigel though, the first rule of Journolist was broken: Never talk about Journolist!

You ask any Conservative on the street and they will tell you there is massive bias in what Sarah Palin calls the "Lamestream Media." Anyone who paid attention during 2008 saw that the media covered up absolutely every negative thing about Barack Obama, often times refusing to even report some incredibly serious defects in the man.You can credit the media for helping Obama become President.

At the same time, the media went into overdrive trying to absolutely destroy Sarah Palin. This unprecedented effort is still underway today. Our readers are well aware of the part Obama played in this, as he had his closest advisers recruit bloggers, who were then given access to the media, to spread hate and lies at warp speed. We also know Obama’s people recruited a bunch of nerdowells to continually harass her as Governor, filing dozens of bogus ethics complaints. This is well documented, and you can read more here.

There’s one more thing though, that hasn’t gotten as much play. Remember the heavily edited Katie Couric interviews. The ones that were edited to make Sarah Palin look as stupid as possible? Well, creative editing isn’t the only thing that went on there.

Before The Perky One interviewed Sarah, she sat down with long time Marxist-democrat Sam Nunn, and was heavily coached on just the right "gotcha" questions to ask. This is noteworthy because Nunn was reportedly on Obama’s shortlist to be Vice President, and became part of Obama’s transition team after the election.

Can you imagine if  Sean Hannity spent some quality time with say, Sarah Palin, working on the strategery of how to play "gotcha" with candidate Barack Obama? The outrage would be palpable, and yet, few if anyone bothered to report on the fact that Couric sat down with a member of Team Obama in order to craft an interview that would hurt their opponent’s chances!

That’s sort of big news, don’t you think? You can read more here.

Anyone paying attention knew that not only was the media biased toward the Marxist-progressive agenda, but in many cases were actually working with the Obama regime to advance that agenda. In many instances, members of the media have become little more than stenographers for Obama and the rest of the Marxists.

Ed Shultz even claims that the White House is constantly in e-mail contact with the MSNBC show, Morning Joe! We also know that several top anchors for the networks participate in daily conference calls with the White House communication’s staff.

Still, as much as one could just feel it in their bones that all of these people coordinated their efforts, there was no real proof until Journolist was outed.

It just so happens Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller has secured an incredible amount of information about Journolist, including e-mails that are being gone through, and released to the public.

The first revelation, was the amount of effort Obama’s media partners went through to kill the story of Reverend Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright, Obama’s racist, anti-American preacher of 20 years. Wright was one of Obama’s closer mentors, and the one who married him and Michelle. Obama even had his second ghost written book named for one of Wright’s infamous rants.

So inflammatory was Wright, the media knew they had to make sure America never saw this person. EVER.

From The Daily Caller:

Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright

It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.

The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, "Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?"

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. "George [Stephanopoulos]," fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is "being a disgusting little rat snake."

Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists."

Those are some big names in that pile. Notice how fast these Marxist-progressives rushed to play the race card, when no racism existed? This is straight out of Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals, and we all know these people worship Alinsky! They are doing the same thing now as they seek to paint all Tea Party Patriots as racists. It’s rather sad and pathetic. It’s also a disservice to every victim of real racism.

There’s more:

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: "Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people."

"Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on," Tomasky continued. "We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease."

(In an interview Monday, Tomasky defended his position, calling the ABC debate an example of shoddy journalism.)

Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, "why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?" Schaller proposed coordinating a "smart statement expressing disgust" at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.

"It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort," Schaller wrote.

Tomasky approved. "YES. A thousand times yes," he exclaimed.

The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, "I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input."

This is pretty shocking. These people actually wanted to make other journalists afraid to ask the tough questions, lest they be ostracized by their peers. This is rather evil. BTW, for those that don’t know, Media Matters was founded and is funded by Barack Obama’s boss, George Soros. Readers know all about George Soros and Crime Inc.!

Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be "Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha," Bernstein wrote.

In the midst of this collaborative enterprise, Holly Yeager, now of the Columbia Journalism Review, dropped into the conversation to say "be sure to read" a column in that day’s Washington Post that attacked the debate.

Columnist Joe Conason weighed in with suggestions. So did Slate contributor David Greenberg, and David Roberts of the website Grist. Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, helped too.

Journolist members signed the statement and released it April 18, calling the debate "a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world."

The letter caused a brief splash and won the attention of the New York Times. But only a week later, Obama – and the journalists who were helping him – were on the defensive once again.

Jeremiah Wright was back in the news after making a series of media appearances. At the National Press Club, Wright claimed Obama had only repudiated his beliefs for "political reasons." Wright also reiterated his charge that the U.S. federal government had created AIDS as a means of committing genocide against African Americans.

It was another crisis, and members of Journolist again rose to help Obama.

There is a lot more to this piece, and believe me, it will make your skin crawl. These are some sick puppies, truly hate filled losers. You can read the rest here.

Andrew Breitbart, who is creating a new gold standard for investigative journalism, had this to say:

Reporters at Pravda weren’t this insufferable

Journalists love whistleblowers. Just not when the whistle is blown on them. Journalists love transparency. As long as they’re not the ones being exposed.

No journalistic steadfast rule is unbendable when it comes to justifying and protecting the racket that is modern journalism, specifically, political journalism in the United States today. The ends justify the means for the Democrat Media Complex. They lie when they claim to be objective. They lie when they claim to be unbiased, because these so called "truth seekers" are guilty of engaging in open political warfare. And when the whistle is blown, they simply double down. "Journolist" — like Media Matters, but more insidious, if that’s possible — is an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle.

Talk radio and the Internet have allowed outsiders the ability to challenge a multiple generational shift from journalism being about the story, to journalism being crafted toward a partisan end. From Newsweek killing the Lewinsky story to the Swift Boat veterans (until the undermedia pressure got too big) to the Dan Rather implosion to the open attempt to keep the Al Gore masseuse story under wraps to the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter debacle to the Van Jones admission of missing the story to the networks ignoring the ACORN video footage to the media playing up trumped up charges of racism in the Tea Party — while ignoring exculpatory evidence to the mother of all media-as-political weaponry: the non-vetting of candidate Obama, the mainstream media has shown that it is in an ideological death spiral. And the ground is right here.

Read more here.

Sarah Palin has weighed in:

It’s encouraging for commonsense conservatives who are frustrated with media cover-ups and biases to see truth revealed.

Remember the infamous "JournoList" – the listserv chat group of hundreds of "prominent" mainstream media personalities? It seems The Daily Caller obtained copies of the JournoList email exchanges from the 2008 campaign having to do with the media’s coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, then candidate Obama’s pastor of 20 years. It’s everything you may have suspected.

Read more here.

Glenn Beck also weighed in. His discussion about Journolist starts at 5 minutes 30 seconds into the video.






Glenn Continues:





So where do we go from here? It’s obvious that you can’t trust the "Lamestream Media" any longer. You can’t trust the newspapers, you can’t trust the network news, or outlets like CNN and MSNBC. That leaves us with Fox, and the new media. And frankly, one should trust, but verify what you see there!.

I find myself reading international news more and more, as certain media in Great Britain, Canada, and even Russia have become more reliably honest than our own news sources. If you are reading this, it means you have a computer. Do what we do, if something doesn’t smell right to you, go and do some research. Bing is your best friend!

The one thing I try to do is research past the known left wing websites, and such, and try to get as close to the original source as possible. It’s even better if one can find things in their original text, or hear people’s own words.

We are blessed to live in an era where, if we work hard, we can find the actual truth, but we must be actively engaged. We can no longer lazily consume and digest the news. We must actively seek to separate the truth from the lies, and make our decisions based on the truth.

As I write this in the early morning hours, The Daily Caller has just published a second installment of what will almost assuredly be a series of articles based on the thousands of e-mails between those on the Journolist. We can’t wait to see what they have on these people regarding Sarah Palin!

Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News

If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.

But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, that isn’t what you’d do at all.

In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would "Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out" as Limbaugh writhed in torment.

In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. "I never knew I had this much hate in me," she wrote. "But he deserves it."

Spitz’s hatred for Limbaugh seems intemperate, even imbalanced. On Journolist, where conservatives are regarded not as opponents but as enemies, it barely raised an eyebrow.

In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for President Obama’s health care bill. For most people, the protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.

On Journolist, the question was whether the protestors were garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.

"You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?" asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. "Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s."

We must note that at this point the only violence that had occurred was when a bunch of purple shirted union thugs from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), acting on Obama's instructions to "punch back twice as hard," brutally attacked Kenneth Gladney, a black man, who they beat unconscious, while calling him a ni**ger. But of course, who cares about details when you are a bunch of dishonest swine like those who inhabited Journolist.

Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed. "They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state," Yeselson wrote. "This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency. Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts)."

Read more about these amazingly deranged hatemongers here.

It’s amazing to visualize the amount of hatred the left spews. It’s their nourishment. Their very oxygen. It also boggles the mind to hear this bunch of Marxists compare the American people to Nazis! Kind of funny when you consider that the word Nazi comes from Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialist German Workers' Party. Now who is it again that sides with the labor unions against American businesses and the American people?

It's doublely ironic that this bunch can call the American people Nazis, while at the same time plotting ways to convince the government to crush free speech, and shut down Fox News!

One doesn’t have look real hard into the early Nazi movement to see some serious parallels with the modern day Marxist-progressives and the Obama regime. We’ve went over this many times, and Thomas Sowell makes the comparisons quite nicely, which you can read here.

This leads one to more commentary, and a question. We know Marxist-progressives and their agenda are downright evil. Are these so-called "mainstream journalists" who make up the Journolist just as evil, or are they simply what the communists used to call "useful idiots"?

We may never know.