The DesJarlais campaign did not dispute the contents of the transcript first reported by the Huffington Post, but condemned the circulation of “desperate personal attacks.”
“This is old news from the last election cycle that Tennesseans have already widely rejected,” spokesman Robert Jameson said in an email.
“Since the congressman’s opponents cannot attack him on his independent, conservative and pro-life record in Congress they have once again resorted to pure character assassination,” he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...24a6a0-1300-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_story.html
$16 Million of Warren Donations from Sites Lacking Foreign Donor Protections
The Boston Globe reported today that Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren raised $12.1 million for her campaign in the 3rd quarter ending September 30, 2012. That brings the total raised to $36 million. Yet more than 40% of these funds--an estimated $16 million--have come online via two websites that do not have industry-standard protections and are vulnerable to fraud and illegal foreign national donations. Warren made her reputation as an anti-fraud advocate for consumers.
The Boston Globe reported today that Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren raised $12.1 million for her campaign in the 3rd quarter ending September 30, 2012. That brings the total raised to $36 million. Yet more than 40% of these funds--an estimated $16 million--have come online via two websites that do not have industry-standard protections and are vulnerable to fraud and illegal foreign national donations. Warren made her reputation as an anti-fraud advocate for consumers.[ Catholic Bishops calling Biden a liar, they got that one right... Oh, and Biden is a Roman Catholic, lol ]
Catholic Bishops Slam Biden Remarks
Catholic Bishops Slam Biden Remarks
AP
[h=1]Fact Check: Obama's Top Ten Worst Lies in the Second Presidential Debate[/h]
69
3
269
Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip
by Joel B. Pollak 17 Oct 2012, 4:31 AM PDT 26 post a comment
[h=2]The Second Presidential Debate featured repeated claims by each candidate that the other was not telling the truth--as well as at least one claim of fact by the moderator that turned out to be false. There were even questionable claims by the audience itself. Here are the top ten worst lies told during the Second Debate:[/h] 10. "I told you I would cut taxes for middle-class families, and I did. I told you I’d cut taxes for small businesses, and I have." President Barack Obama has made this claim repeatedly during the campaign, but it is not true, as even the liberal Huffington Post acknowledges. The few tax cuts that Obama did enact--such as the temporary payroll tax holiday--were short-term, or conditional. Furthermore, as the Romney campaign has often pointed out, Obama has raised many taxes on the middle class, including the infamous Obamacare "penalty," and his taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" would hit small businesess.
9. "...[H]e was asked, is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver....And he said, yes, I think that’s fair." Obama was referring to Romney's recent 60 Minutes interview. But the transcript reveals Obama was not telling the truth. Romney was not saying it was fair that higher income should be taxed at a lower rate. He was referring specifically to the principle that capital gains should be taxed lower than other income because it has been taxed once already--a principle, incidentally, that Obama agrees with in his own tax policy.
8. "He called the Arizona law a model for the nation." Obama tried to knock Romney's immigration policy while at the same time accusing him of flip-flopping on the issue. But as Romney pointed out, he was referring specifically to the e-Verify part of the law--the requirement of instant verification of workers' legal status. That provision is even favored by unions. Obama made it seem Romney praised the law as a whole--which he had not. He went on to say that he himself objected to the provision that allowed police to check suspected illegal immigrants' documentation--but that provision survived a challenge at the Supreme Court.
7. "I want to make sure our timekeepers are working here." For the third debate in a row, the Democratic candidate complained that he is not receiving as much time to speak as the Republican. And for the third debate in a row, the Obama/Biden ticket actually spoke for longer--much longer--than the Romney/Ryan ticket, a testament to the ability of the incumbents to pressure the moderators, and the susceptibility of the left-leaning moderators to such pressure. Obama received a full three minutes more time in last night's debate--and the percentage difference was even higher at one point in the proceedings.
6. "They rely on it for mammograms." Obama attacked Romney's proposal to cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood by claiming that the organization provides mammograms to women to help prevent breast cancer. It's been a repeated claim made by the left for months. The problem is that it's just untrue--and even left-leaning mainstream media fact-checkers have acknowledged that. What is perhaps worse than Obama's misleading claim about mammograms is the unsupported implication that Romney wants to deny life-saving health care to women--a cheap shot to which Romney was given a real chance to respond.
5. "You can ship jobs overseas and get tax breaks for it." We have heard the same lie for eight years from Obama. In 2004, he ran for U.S. Senate from Illinois on a promise to end such tax breaks. He did it again when he ran for President of the United States in 2008. And yet he has never done anything about it--because there are no such tax breaks. There is merely a deduction that companies can take for moving, even within the U.S.--and which helps offset the double taxation of U.S. businesses abroad, which would make American companies less competitive. Repealing it would ship jobs overseas, actually.
4. "And the production is up....What you’re saying is just not true." Obama contested a claim by Romney that production of oil and gas is down on federal lands. He even accused Romney of not telling the truth. But Romney was right--exactly right, down to the percentage decline. Furthermore, Obama's claim that he has been increasing oil and gas production on federal lands flies in the face of recent policy decisions, such as closing off a large part of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to further development. Obama has tried to take credit for expansion on private lands, while opposing expansion wherever possible.
3. "In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?" The false premise from a member of the audience was especially egregious because her question had been selected in advance by the moderator. The supposed wage gap between men and women for the same work is largely a myth. As Diana Furchtgott-Roth pointed out: "Women make about 95 percent of what their male counterparts earn, if the male counterparts are in the same job with the same experience."
2. "He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open." After Obama accused Romney of wanting American auto manufacturers to go bankrupt, Romney pointed out that Obama had, in fact, taken the auto companies through bankruptcy. Obama's retort was to accuse Romney of wanting to take the companies bankrupt in order to put them out of business--a blatant lie. Romney actually suggested in his famous 2008 op-ed: "In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check."
1. "He did call it an act of terror." The worst untruth told by a moderator in presidential history. Candy Crowley's intervention in favor of Obama caused the president's cheering section to burst into applause, in violation of the rules, and there was little that Romney could say in response. But she was wrong--Obama's reference to "acts of terror" in his Sep. 12 statement was in a general, abstract sense, and came long after he had described the 9/11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions as demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. Even Crowley seemed to realize what she had done: it wasn't long before she walked back her own comment.
69
3
269
Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip
by Joel B. Pollak 17 Oct 2012, 4:31 AM PDT 26 post a comment
[h=2]The Second Presidential Debate featured repeated claims by each candidate that the other was not telling the truth--as well as at least one claim of fact by the moderator that turned out to be false. There were even questionable claims by the audience itself. Here are the top ten worst lies told during the Second Debate:[/h] 10. "I told you I would cut taxes for middle-class families, and I did. I told you I’d cut taxes for small businesses, and I have." President Barack Obama has made this claim repeatedly during the campaign, but it is not true, as even the liberal Huffington Post acknowledges. The few tax cuts that Obama did enact--such as the temporary payroll tax holiday--were short-term, or conditional. Furthermore, as the Romney campaign has often pointed out, Obama has raised many taxes on the middle class, including the infamous Obamacare "penalty," and his taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" would hit small businesess.
9. "...[H]e was asked, is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver....And he said, yes, I think that’s fair." Obama was referring to Romney's recent 60 Minutes interview. But the transcript reveals Obama was not telling the truth. Romney was not saying it was fair that higher income should be taxed at a lower rate. He was referring specifically to the principle that capital gains should be taxed lower than other income because it has been taxed once already--a principle, incidentally, that Obama agrees with in his own tax policy.
8. "He called the Arizona law a model for the nation." Obama tried to knock Romney's immigration policy while at the same time accusing him of flip-flopping on the issue. But as Romney pointed out, he was referring specifically to the e-Verify part of the law--the requirement of instant verification of workers' legal status. That provision is even favored by unions. Obama made it seem Romney praised the law as a whole--which he had not. He went on to say that he himself objected to the provision that allowed police to check suspected illegal immigrants' documentation--but that provision survived a challenge at the Supreme Court.
7. "I want to make sure our timekeepers are working here." For the third debate in a row, the Democratic candidate complained that he is not receiving as much time to speak as the Republican. And for the third debate in a row, the Obama/Biden ticket actually spoke for longer--much longer--than the Romney/Ryan ticket, a testament to the ability of the incumbents to pressure the moderators, and the susceptibility of the left-leaning moderators to such pressure. Obama received a full three minutes more time in last night's debate--and the percentage difference was even higher at one point in the proceedings.
6. "They rely on it for mammograms." Obama attacked Romney's proposal to cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood by claiming that the organization provides mammograms to women to help prevent breast cancer. It's been a repeated claim made by the left for months. The problem is that it's just untrue--and even left-leaning mainstream media fact-checkers have acknowledged that. What is perhaps worse than Obama's misleading claim about mammograms is the unsupported implication that Romney wants to deny life-saving health care to women--a cheap shot to which Romney was given a real chance to respond.
5. "You can ship jobs overseas and get tax breaks for it." We have heard the same lie for eight years from Obama. In 2004, he ran for U.S. Senate from Illinois on a promise to end such tax breaks. He did it again when he ran for President of the United States in 2008. And yet he has never done anything about it--because there are no such tax breaks. There is merely a deduction that companies can take for moving, even within the U.S.--and which helps offset the double taxation of U.S. businesses abroad, which would make American companies less competitive. Repealing it would ship jobs overseas, actually.
4. "And the production is up....What you’re saying is just not true." Obama contested a claim by Romney that production of oil and gas is down on federal lands. He even accused Romney of not telling the truth. But Romney was right--exactly right, down to the percentage decline. Furthermore, Obama's claim that he has been increasing oil and gas production on federal lands flies in the face of recent policy decisions, such as closing off a large part of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to further development. Obama has tried to take credit for expansion on private lands, while opposing expansion wherever possible.
3. "In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?" The false premise from a member of the audience was especially egregious because her question had been selected in advance by the moderator. The supposed wage gap between men and women for the same work is largely a myth. As Diana Furchtgott-Roth pointed out: "Women make about 95 percent of what their male counterparts earn, if the male counterparts are in the same job with the same experience."
2. "He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open." After Obama accused Romney of wanting American auto manufacturers to go bankrupt, Romney pointed out that Obama had, in fact, taken the auto companies through bankruptcy. Obama's retort was to accuse Romney of wanting to take the companies bankrupt in order to put them out of business--a blatant lie. Romney actually suggested in his famous 2008 op-ed: "In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check."
1. "He did call it an act of terror." The worst untruth told by a moderator in presidential history. Candy Crowley's intervention in favor of Obama caused the president's cheering section to burst into applause, in violation of the rules, and there was little that Romney could say in response. But she was wrong--Obama's reference to "acts of terror" in his Sep. 12 statement was in a general, abstract sense, and came long after he had described the 9/11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions as demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. Even Crowley seemed to realize what she had done: it wasn't long before she walked back her own comment.
[ liberal rag going under, not enough sheep to read the sheep shit... ]
GOING OUT OF PRINT
7:53 am: Newsweek will shift to online-only publication after 80 years, with Dec. 31 as last print issue. More
GOING OUT OF PRINT
7:53 am: Newsweek will shift to online-only publication after 80 years, with Dec. 31 as last print issue. More
[h=1]CNN Managing Editor Sends Staff Email Defending Crowley[/h]
744
6
799
Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip
by Ben Shapiro 17 Oct 2012 464 post a comment
[h=2]Late this afternoon, TMZ reported a leaked email from CNN Managing Editor Mark Whitaker to the staff of CNN, defending disgraced second presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley. It’s a full-throated list of Barack Obama talking points. Here’s the email:[/h]
Let's start with a big round of applause for Candy Crowley for a superb job under the most difficult circumstances imaginable. She and her team had to select and sequence questions in a matter of hours, and then she had to deal with the tricky format, the nervous questioners, the aggressive debaters, all while shutting out the pre-debate attempts to spin and intimidate her. She pulled it off masterfully.
The reviews on Candy's performance have been overwhelmingly positive but Romney supporters are going after her on two points, no doubt because their man did not have as good a night as he had in Denver. On the legitimacy of Candy fact-checking Romney on Obama's Rose Garden statement, it should be stressed that she was just stating a point of fact: Obama did talk about an act (or acts) of terror, no matter what you think he meant by that at the time. On why Obama got more time to speak, it should be noted that Candy and her commission producers tried to keep it even but that Obama went on longer largely because he speaks more slowly. We're going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time.
This is ridiculously biased, partisan, and stupid – or, as CNN might put it, brilliant.
Start with the line that Crowley did a good job “under the most difficult circumstances imaginable.” This wasn’t the Battle of the Bulge. It was a presidential debate. And Crowley put herself at the center of attention with repeated interviews, declarations that she would exceed her role, and finally, an ass-kissing for President Obama worthy of Chris Matthews. Whitaker’s elaboration on her role is simply absurd. Selecting questions is not difficult. Neither is the format. Debaters are supposed to be aggressive. And the notion that she “shut out the pre-debate attempts to spin and intimidate her”? Laughable. Obama intimidated her during the debate into repeating her false fact check of Mitt Romney on Libya.
But Whitaker continues this virtuosic manifesto of idiocy. He says that the reviews of her performance were “overwhelmingly positive.” But they weren’t. Even Politico, which is on the Obama Christmas mailing list, ripped her over her Libya gaffe. So did the Washington Post. So, in fact, did Candy Crowley.
But according to Whitaker, who apparently reads his talking points from Media Matters each morning over a breakfast of non-fat organic yogurt and Kool-Aid, the only people who thought Crowley brutalized the debate were “Romney supporters.” Why? “No doubt because their man did not have as good a night as he had in Denver.
Thanks for that, Stephanie Cutter. Those objective journalists at CNN are doing a stellar job of keeping their biases hidden.
But it gets worse. Whitaker says that Crowley’s false fact check was “just stating a point of fact.” No, she wasn’t. She admitted as much later. So did much of the leftist, Obama-supporting media. She butchered the facts.
But it gets even worse. Whitaker on the dramatic time imbalance in favor of Obama: “On why Obama got more time to speak, it should be noted that Candy and her commission producers tried to keep it even but that Obama went on longer largely because he speaks more slowly. We're going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time.”
A word count?! If the number of words mattered more than the time count, Romney should have spoken incredibly slowly – he should have spoken at approximately two words a minute, then taken up 80 minutes of the debate. He’d have been gypped on time, according Whitaker – he’d only have spoken 160 words. If CNN is now going to account for speaking cadency, they’re punishing people who are articulate, and rewarding people who say “um” a lot. Call it Obama missing telemprompter affirmative action.
CNN’s a joke. Candy Crowley’s a joke. They’re perfect for each other.
744
6
799
Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip
by Ben Shapiro 17 Oct 2012 464 post a comment
[h=2]Late this afternoon, TMZ reported a leaked email from CNN Managing Editor Mark Whitaker to the staff of CNN, defending disgraced second presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley. It’s a full-throated list of Barack Obama talking points. Here’s the email:[/h]
Let's start with a big round of applause for Candy Crowley for a superb job under the most difficult circumstances imaginable. She and her team had to select and sequence questions in a matter of hours, and then she had to deal with the tricky format, the nervous questioners, the aggressive debaters, all while shutting out the pre-debate attempts to spin and intimidate her. She pulled it off masterfully.
The reviews on Candy's performance have been overwhelmingly positive but Romney supporters are going after her on two points, no doubt because their man did not have as good a night as he had in Denver. On the legitimacy of Candy fact-checking Romney on Obama's Rose Garden statement, it should be stressed that she was just stating a point of fact: Obama did talk about an act (or acts) of terror, no matter what you think he meant by that at the time. On why Obama got more time to speak, it should be noted that Candy and her commission producers tried to keep it even but that Obama went on longer largely because he speaks more slowly. We're going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time.
This is ridiculously biased, partisan, and stupid – or, as CNN might put it, brilliant.
Start with the line that Crowley did a good job “under the most difficult circumstances imaginable.” This wasn’t the Battle of the Bulge. It was a presidential debate. And Crowley put herself at the center of attention with repeated interviews, declarations that she would exceed her role, and finally, an ass-kissing for President Obama worthy of Chris Matthews. Whitaker’s elaboration on her role is simply absurd. Selecting questions is not difficult. Neither is the format. Debaters are supposed to be aggressive. And the notion that she “shut out the pre-debate attempts to spin and intimidate her”? Laughable. Obama intimidated her during the debate into repeating her false fact check of Mitt Romney on Libya.
But Whitaker continues this virtuosic manifesto of idiocy. He says that the reviews of her performance were “overwhelmingly positive.” But they weren’t. Even Politico, which is on the Obama Christmas mailing list, ripped her over her Libya gaffe. So did the Washington Post. So, in fact, did Candy Crowley.
But according to Whitaker, who apparently reads his talking points from Media Matters each morning over a breakfast of non-fat organic yogurt and Kool-Aid, the only people who thought Crowley brutalized the debate were “Romney supporters.” Why? “No doubt because their man did not have as good a night as he had in Denver.
Thanks for that, Stephanie Cutter. Those objective journalists at CNN are doing a stellar job of keeping their biases hidden.
But it gets worse. Whitaker says that Crowley’s false fact check was “just stating a point of fact.” No, she wasn’t. She admitted as much later. So did much of the leftist, Obama-supporting media. She butchered the facts.
But it gets even worse. Whitaker on the dramatic time imbalance in favor of Obama: “On why Obama got more time to speak, it should be noted that Candy and her commission producers tried to keep it even but that Obama went on longer largely because he speaks more slowly. We're going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time.”
A word count?! If the number of words mattered more than the time count, Romney should have spoken incredibly slowly – he should have spoken at approximately two words a minute, then taken up 80 minutes of the debate. He’d have been gypped on time, according Whitaker – he’d only have spoken 160 words. If CNN is now going to account for speaking cadency, they’re punishing people who are articulate, and rewarding people who say “um” a lot. Call it Obama missing telemprompter affirmative action.
CNN’s a joke. Candy Crowley’s a joke. They’re perfect for each other.
[h=1]Media Suddenly Muted on Jobless Claims[/h]
138
2
290
Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip
by Joel B. Pollak 18 Oct 2012, 6:49 AM PDT 126 post a comment
[h=2]Last Thursday morning, the headlines on National Public Radio were jubilant. "Jobless Claims Drop To Lowest Level In More Than Four Years," they crowed. NPR's anchors repeated the news in their hourly and half-hourly updates. The sudden, seasonally-adjusted drop--from 369,000 to 339,000 new claims--was touted by NPR and the rest of the mainstream media as timely evidence of economic recovery under President Barack Obama.[/h] This week, jobless claims have soared to 388,000--a four-month high. NPR explained, correctly, that both changes were largely the result of the fact that California failed to process all of its jobless claims last week and therefore submitted an incomplete report that was rectified this week. But it did not bother to revisit its cheerleading from the week before, nor did it try to imply broader conclusions about the direction of the economy under Obama. The headline is: "Jobless Claims Take Sharp Jump: Rose By 46,000 Last Week."
Imagine if there were a conservative equivalent to NPR. The headlines this morning would have been full of dire conclusions of economic decline under Obama. But there is no media outlet that twists the truth to the right as much as NPR and other mainstream outlets twist it to the left. Fox News is muted this morning: its headline is "Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Rise to 388,000," a nod to the mainstream media narrative--for the last four years--that Obama is improving the economy and that any setbacks, no matter how large, are "unexpected."
That is the success of mainstream media bias--it has re-framed discussion to the extent that even conservative outlets feel an obligation to report the news in the left's terms. That is why everyone is discussing the jobless claims as a one- or two-week phenomenon rather than a four-year burden, which is what they have been.
138
2
290
Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip
by Joel B. Pollak 18 Oct 2012, 6:49 AM PDT 126 post a comment
[h=2]Last Thursday morning, the headlines on National Public Radio were jubilant. "Jobless Claims Drop To Lowest Level In More Than Four Years," they crowed. NPR's anchors repeated the news in their hourly and half-hourly updates. The sudden, seasonally-adjusted drop--from 369,000 to 339,000 new claims--was touted by NPR and the rest of the mainstream media as timely evidence of economic recovery under President Barack Obama.[/h] This week, jobless claims have soared to 388,000--a four-month high. NPR explained, correctly, that both changes were largely the result of the fact that California failed to process all of its jobless claims last week and therefore submitted an incomplete report that was rectified this week. But it did not bother to revisit its cheerleading from the week before, nor did it try to imply broader conclusions about the direction of the economy under Obama. The headline is: "Jobless Claims Take Sharp Jump: Rose By 46,000 Last Week."
Imagine if there were a conservative equivalent to NPR. The headlines this morning would have been full of dire conclusions of economic decline under Obama. But there is no media outlet that twists the truth to the right as much as NPR and other mainstream outlets twist it to the left. Fox News is muted this morning: its headline is "Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Rise to 388,000," a nod to the mainstream media narrative--for the last four years--that Obama is improving the economy and that any setbacks, no matter how large, are "unexpected."
That is the success of mainstream media bias--it has re-framed discussion to the extent that even conservative outlets feel an obligation to report the news in the left's terms. That is why everyone is discussing the jobless claims as a one- or two-week phenomenon rather than a four-year burden, which is what they have been.
[h=1]Obama Debate Coach Named Mao as Favorite Political Philosopher[/h]
189
15
485
Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip
by Ben Shapiro 17 Oct 2012 170 post a comment
[h=2]Everybody realizes at this point that one of President Barack Obama’s debate coaches is 2004 losing presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). But it’s been largely overlooked that another one of his debate coaches is Anita Dunn.[/h] You may remember Anita Dunn. She’s the former White House staffer who said this to a group of high schoolers in June 2009:
The third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices. You're going to challenge. You're going to say, "Why not?" You're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here's the deal: These are your choices. They are no one else's.
In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?" And Mao Zedong said, you know, "You fight your war, and I'll fight mine." And think about that for a second.
You know, you don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what's right for you. You don't let external definition define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.
And then Mother Teresa, who, upon receiving a letter from a fairly affluent young person who asked her whether she could come over and help with that orphanage in Calcutta, responded very simply: "Go find your own Calcutta." OK? Go find your own Calcutta. Fight your own path. Go find the thing that is unique to you, the challenge that is actually yours, not somebody else's challenge.
Yes, she said that Mao Zedong – Chinese communist dictator, murderer of 45 million of his own people during the Great Leap Forward and at least 65 million people overall, the man behind the creation of the giant gulag that is North Korea, the evil monster behind the wipeout of his nation’s intelligentsia, the disgusting creature who passed 50 million Chinese through Soviet-style gulags – is one of her two “favorite political philosophers.” Not Aristotle. Not Plato. Not John Locke. Not Thomas Jefferson. Not even Bill Clinton or Karl Marx.
Mao Zedong.
Will.i.am is ten times the political philosopher Mao was. His music is godawful. But at least it hasn't murdered tens of millions.
And this is the person Obama chose to train him for his foreign policy debate next Monday. Apparently Baghdad Bob wasn’t available.
When Dunn’s Mao speech was reported back in 2009, the Obama administration claimed Dunn was joking. Or that she was being ironic. The video clearly shows otherwise.
Dunn, the White House communications director at the beginning of Obama’s term, was one of Obama’s most controversial advisors. She attacked Fox News as “opinion journalism masquerading as news” while appearing on CNN. She dismissed both Bill Ayers and ACORN as non-stories. After Glenn Beck ran the video of Dunn talking about Mao in an October 2009 broadcast, she left the White House in November 2009.
Now she’s back. Just in time to walk Obama through his answers on foreign policy. How fitting for a woman who says that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao Zedung to be advising a president who has made our economy and foreign policy largely subject to the whims of communist China.
189
15
485
Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip
by Ben Shapiro 17 Oct 2012 170 post a comment
[h=2]Everybody realizes at this point that one of President Barack Obama’s debate coaches is 2004 losing presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). But it’s been largely overlooked that another one of his debate coaches is Anita Dunn.[/h] You may remember Anita Dunn. She’s the former White House staffer who said this to a group of high schoolers in June 2009:
The third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices. You're going to challenge. You're going to say, "Why not?" You're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here's the deal: These are your choices. They are no one else's.
In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?" And Mao Zedong said, you know, "You fight your war, and I'll fight mine." And think about that for a second.
You know, you don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what's right for you. You don't let external definition define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.
And then Mother Teresa, who, upon receiving a letter from a fairly affluent young person who asked her whether she could come over and help with that orphanage in Calcutta, responded very simply: "Go find your own Calcutta." OK? Go find your own Calcutta. Fight your own path. Go find the thing that is unique to you, the challenge that is actually yours, not somebody else's challenge.
Yes, she said that Mao Zedong – Chinese communist dictator, murderer of 45 million of his own people during the Great Leap Forward and at least 65 million people overall, the man behind the creation of the giant gulag that is North Korea, the evil monster behind the wipeout of his nation’s intelligentsia, the disgusting creature who passed 50 million Chinese through Soviet-style gulags – is one of her two “favorite political philosophers.” Not Aristotle. Not Plato. Not John Locke. Not Thomas Jefferson. Not even Bill Clinton or Karl Marx.
Mao Zedong.
Will.i.am is ten times the political philosopher Mao was. His music is godawful. But at least it hasn't murdered tens of millions.
And this is the person Obama chose to train him for his foreign policy debate next Monday. Apparently Baghdad Bob wasn’t available.
When Dunn’s Mao speech was reported back in 2009, the Obama administration claimed Dunn was joking. Or that she was being ironic. The video clearly shows otherwise.
Dunn, the White House communications director at the beginning of Obama’s term, was one of Obama’s most controversial advisors. She attacked Fox News as “opinion journalism masquerading as news” while appearing on CNN. She dismissed both Bill Ayers and ACORN as non-stories. After Glenn Beck ran the video of Dunn talking about Mao in an October 2009 broadcast, she left the White House in November 2009.
Now she’s back. Just in time to walk Obama through his answers on foreign policy. How fitting for a woman who says that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao Zedung to be advising a president who has made our economy and foreign policy largely subject to the whims of communist China.
