Once the SEIU said they were going to send their enforcers to townhall meetings this was inevitable.
The key info from the link:
Shortly thereafter, violence erupted, where there were 2-3 big goons came out and started pushing those in line, and roughing up one in the corner (see top left screen) as well as another being put in a choke hold. Directly in front of the gentleman in the plaid type shirt, is one of them in a flower print. (eleven o’clock from the camera phone in the scene.) To right of the phone, another in a white shirt. Keep your eye on him, as he then goes for the choke hold on one of the people.
For all Pelosi’s complaints about protesters bearing swastikas, it’s pretty easy to see which side is actually employing brownshirts.
Remember all those “independent” ethics filings against Sarah Palin? We were told they were all private citizens who were just concerned about good government. Turns out: not so much:
This is the Kos crowd coordinating with first the Obama campaign and now administration trying to smear Sarah Palin repeatedly.
Remember this the next time they tell you they’re not afraid of her, that’s she just some dumb snowbilly, and that they’re realling just laughing at her.
Yeah. That’s why they brought an Alaskan guy into Obama’s inner circle to coordinate attacks against her. But remember, they’re not afraid of her at all.
Naturally this has him up in arms about corporate censorship of the news. But Greenwald intentionally avoids the huge elephant in the room: GE’s use of its media networks to push its corporate interests. If I asked you to name the cable network best known for its sycophantic coverage of the Obama administration, which one would you choose? MSNBC, of course. And which network recently hosted an entire day of basically sitting on Obama’s lap and asking him to tell them a story? NBC.
Who owns both of these networks? GE.
So it’s pretty safe to say that GE is uniquely pro-Obama. But why? Obama’s anti-business policies and regularly scheduled class warfare against CEOs wasn’t exactly a closely-held secret to anyone who actually did their pre-election homework, and there’s no way GE didn’t do its homework before going all in for Obama. So then what could explain the obvious bias?
How many other ways is GE in bed with the Obama administration? I found these in about 10 minutes of Googling. How much could an actual news organization with dedicated reporters actually dedicated to finding out the truth uncover?
Their TV audience is dwindling quickly on both networks, and GE knows it. Why not go out with a bang and use their control of those networks to promote its other lines of business? And if that means getting in bed with the Obama administration in order to corruptly obtain highly lucrative government contracts, why not?
Especially when pundits like Gleen Greenwald are so eager to look the other way so long as GE keeps pimping for Barack Obama…
The real reason for stacking townhalls only with his supporters and for staged questions at press conferences is very simple: Barack Obama, is not now and never has been, capable of dealing with hostile questions. He has always gotten testy whenever challenged, and if there’s one thing a president cannot be it is short-tempered. It’s the reason the media has treated him with kid gloves throughout his time on the national stage: they know how he will react if they ask a question that is too “in his face” and they have a vest interest in making sure the public that they fooled into voting for him never actually gets to see what’s behind the mask.
Dan Balz got quite the scoop when he his hands on an Axelrod memo which points out just how obvious a character flaw this is:
Axelrod also warned that Obama’s confessions of youthful drug use, described in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” would be used against him. “This is more than an unpleasant inconvenience,” he wrote. “It goes to your willingness and ability to put up with something you have never experienced on a sustained basis: criticism. At the risk of triggering the very reaction that concerns me, I don’t know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch. You care far too much what is written and said about you. You don’t relish combat when it becomes personal and nasty. When the largely irrelevant Alan Keyes attacked you, you flinched,” he said of Obama’s 2004 Senate opponent.
Emphasis mine. Even Axelrod must admit that Obama “flinched.” And, as I have long told those around me, as soon as his net approval goes negative we are going to see more and more of this testy defensiveness from Obama. Look for him to severely dial back his public appearances and willingness to take questions, not for fear of overexposure, but because his handlers are going to want to limit the opportunities for him to commit the gaffe of saying what he really thinks in a moment of anger - as he did in the Gates-Crowley incident.
Andrew McCarthy of National Review does yeoman’s work in this article about Barack Obama. As he points out, both Barack Obama and the Democratic Party - as well as their enablers in the media - have gone to an awful lot of trouble to obfuscate even the most basic biographical information about our current president.
If for no other reason than the sake of history, the public has a right to know these small mundane pieces of information about the man who represents us before the world. The question is: why don’t we?
If there is one consistent message coming from the Democratic Party today, it is that the so-called “public option” for ObamaCare is NOT, repeat NOT inevitably going to lead to a single-payer system. Any claims that it is are, of course, just Republican lies and spin.
I guess that the inside-the-Beltway crowd still hasn’t figured out that their way is the wrong way. The base tried to tell them in November when they stayed away from the polls - resulting in Democratic victories in previously uncontested Red states. But they’re so disconnected from voters that even messages like that and the Tea Party demonstrations have made only the most superficial impact on them.
Palin excites the conservative base. Even if D.C. Republicans don’t think she’s a viable candidate for 2012, they should embrace her for the simple reason that their base does. Until the Beltway crowd figures out that slipping anonymous quotes to the media in exchange for invitations to the right dinner parties isn’t going to get you votes at the ballot box, they’re condemned to repeat their losses of 2006 and 2008.
Obama’s most important constituency, the media, are showing signs of restlessness with his brazen lying about the effects of his “stimulus.”
Could it be that The Annointed One has finally gone too far? With all these people out of work, there’s only so much lying that the media can cover. The latest reports show that the true unemployment rate is 16.4%, and Obama’s not giving the media a sufficiently plausible explanation to give their readers/viewers as to why it keeps getting worse instead of better.
If Obama loses the media, his presidency is effectively over.
