Obama has the best propaganda machine since Joseph
Goebbels
The Press Is AWOL
Byron York did a Nexis search on the
Van Jones controversy, on
September 4, 2009. Here are the results:
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.
If
you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even
all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy
involving Obama's Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and
Innovation, your response would be, "Huh?" If you heard that that
adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions
in the recent past, your response would be, "What?" And if you
were in the Obama White House monitoring the Jones situation, you would
be hoping that the news organizations listed above continue to hold the
line -- otherwise, Jones, who is quite well thought of in Obama circles,
would be history.
Sometimes,
propaganda is what you don't report.
The New York Times Misrepresents The Facts
It's no surprise that
the media are in the tank for Barack Obama,
but the willingness of the New York Times to simply misrepresent the
facts -- while pretending to act as a fact-checker! -- is pretty
breathtaking. You may think the Times is an outlier, if not a joke, but
I suspect that many more news outlets are prepared to follow the Times'
lead in flat-out misreporting the facts, if that's what it takes to get
Obama elected.
There's a May 5th Times' story, "On McCain, Obama and a Hamas Link." It takes John
McCain to task for pointing out that Hamas has endorsed Obama. The Times
reporter, Larry Rohter, says that John McCain has "again portrayed the
Democratic contender as being the favorite of Hamas, the militant
Palestinian group." Of course, this is not McCain's "portrayal;" it is
an indisputable fact that Hamas has endorsed Obama and has said that it
hopes he will be elected. But the paper's most egregious error, in its
campaign "fact check" column, is yet to come.
Rohter notes that charges and counter-charges have gone back and forth
between the McCain and Obama campaigns, but Rohter judges that McCain is
mostly at fault:
But important nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos,
particularly on Mr. McCain’s side.
McCain, Rohter writes, is guilty because he says that Obama has
advocated "unconditional" meetings with Iran's President:
[I]n a fund-raising letter sent out in April, a spokesman for Mr. McCain
wrote: "We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins
kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional
talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad."
That, the Times says, is wrong.
But, who you gonna believe -- well, here's the video -- is the Times lying --
is Obama's Campaign lying -- you decide.
Not good enough? How about the fact that Obama's web site
contains this statement --
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who
supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without
preconditions.
Obama's Plan To Desecrate 9/11
Obama is behind a cynical, coldly calculated political effort to
erase the meaning of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from the
American psyche and convert 9/11 into a day of leftist celebration and
statist idolatry.
This effort to reshape the American psyche has
nothing to do with healing the nation and everything to do with easing
the nation along in the ongoing radical transformation of America that
Obama promised during last year's election campaign. Obama signed
into law a measure in April that designated 9/11 as a National Day of
Service, but it's not likely many lawmakers thought this meant that day
was going to be turned into a celebration of ethanol, carbon emission
controls, and radical community organizing.
Obama's plans were
outlined in an August 11, 2009, White House-sponsored
teleconference call run by Obama ally Lennox Yearwood, president of the
Hip Hop Caucus, and Liv Havstad, the group's senior vice president of
strategic partnerships and programs.
On the August 11th call,
Yearwood and other leaders kept saying repeatedly that they wanted 9/11
to be used for something "positive," "forward-leaning," and
"productive," said a source with knowledge of the teleconference.
The plan is to turn a "day of fear" that helps Republicans into a
day of activism called the National Day of Service that helps the left.
In other words, nihilistic liberals are planning to drain 9/11 of all
meaning.
"They think it needs to be taken back from the right,"
said the source. "They're taking that day and they're breaking it
because it gives Republicans an advantage. To them, that day is a
fearful day."
"Choose you this day whom ye will serve." That may be from the
Bible's Book of Joshua, but it could be from a book of Barack Obama.
Kathryn Lopez
asks, is that hyperbole? Only slightly, unfortunately.
In U.S. Department of Education materials surrounding the first
national presidential address to public-school students, children were
encouraged to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help
Obama. After some genuine and vociferous backlash, the Obama
administration took back some of these recommendations for recruiting
students to the cause that is Barack Obama.
But the pullback came
around the same time that an elementary school in Utah was scheduled to
show students a
video parade of celebrities pledging allegiance to Obama, and to the
liberalism for which he stands. In this video, various tabloid
types seeking to "Be the Change" vow to "smile more" and "love more."
Other plans include "to be the voice for those who have no voice"; and
to not always flush the toilet, for the sake of the planet; "To pledge
allegiance to the funk, of the United Funk of Funkadelica"; and, most
audaciously, "To free one million people from slavery in the next five
years." Yes, it was a bit of a mix.
The culmination of the
whole mess, however, was very clear; to "pledge to be of service to
Barack Obama . . . to be a servant of Obama and all mankind."
Rational people would argue that the head of a republican government
serves the people who elected him, not the other way around. But
reason does not live in an era of vague feelings.
The video was
produced and directed by noted thespian and liberal scold Demi Moore and
her husband Ashton Kutcher, who recently told Reuters: "There's an
assumption that this one man is going to take on his new job full-time
and somehow wave a magic wand of change, and I don't believe that to be
true. I think that we have to be the leaders, and that's not
celebrities -- I think that we as citizens have to be leaders of the
movement that we want to create." Evidently, in order to get
people to be the change, you have to get to them early, when they're in
public school. "We're all in this together," one celeb declared.
Would that have only been the case when George W. Bush was president?
Instead, examples of celebrity service during that era took the form of
actress Cameron Diaz (who makes an appearance in the Moore pledge video)
declaring on the Oprah Winfrey show during the 2004 election: "If you
think that rape should be legal, then don't vote. But if you think
that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what
happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should
vote."
What the heck is she talking about? Abortion,
obviously, once you cut through all the craziness. It's safe to
say Diaz wasn't into presidential servitude back then.
The
school indoctrination stories have been airing at the same time as
revelations, on the right-leaning Web site Big Hollywood, of a
government body organizing an artistic propaganda machine. Film
producer Patrick Courrielche was invited by the National Endowment for
the Arts to join a conference call sponsored by the NEA, the White House
Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve, the organization
created by Obama to promote volunteer service. The stated purpose
of the call was "to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on
core areas of the recovery agenda -- health care, energy and
environment, safety and security, education, community renewal."
A few days after the call, Courrielche noticed that the starry-eyed
Rock the Vote campaign, whose "mission is to engage and build the
political power of young people in order to achieve progressive change
in our country," sent out an e-mail declaring: "We can't stand by and
listen to lies and deceit coming from those who are against reforming a
broken system...Young people demand health care now."
Unsurprisingly, Rock the Vote is in favor of a public component to said
health care.
A representative for Rock the Vote was on the NEA
conference call. He picked up the orders.
These have been
tough times for Obama. With a majority in Congress, and an adamant
imperative that his health-care reform will should be done, he had to
let summer recess in Washington come and go without his commands
fulfilled. You can understand wanting to use every resource
available to him.
Aristotle said that art completes what nature
cannot bring to a finish. Perhaps Obama's NEA might say that art
completes what democracy isn't obedient enough carry out.
The
problem is that, if the National Endowment for the Arts exists -- which
some of us think has always been regrettable in a nation that has more
than enough private resources and enthusiasm to support the arts without
need of government support -- it is not at the political service of a
politician. It's not meant to be an extension of his
communications office.
The video, the Department of "Political"
Education directives, the secular crusading ... these are alarm bells.
An emptiness exists, created by a tyrannical reign of elite secularism.
And self-declared servants of Obama may not realize this yet, but it's a
void that ultimately can't be filled by hollow rhetoric and bureaucratic
disasters.
We are a culture that understands art as an
elevation, not as a campaign tactic. And there is a higher
authority than the Resident of the United States whom you're still free
to pledge service to if you so choose.
Obama "Appointed By God"
Obama was "appointed by God," we are instructed by a man boasting
academic credentials.
Writing in the Orlando Sentinel,
Jeremy Levitt, "associate dean
for International Programs and a
distinguished professor of international law at Florida A&M
University College of Law in Orlando," makes this case at the conclusion
of a rambling attack on critics of ObamaCare and the right in general:
I would remind the far right what the Apostle
Paul wrote, " ... there is no authority except from God, and the
authorities that exist are appointed by God." Hence, Obama is
the U.S. president and leader of the Free World because he was
appointed by God.
Thomas Lifson
wonders how much criticism this statement will encounter on the
left, from the militant atheists and church-haters?
How many
Obama supporters actually believe this "distinguished professor"?
Criminney! Reader "JH" just emailed me
another one. The
perpetrators of this outrage are so proud of their "song,"
they even have a website, complete with
the words, and additional pictures of the children subjects. Here's their
email.
I'm sure they'd love to hear what you have to say about their
wonderful, wonderful work.
This is wrong on so many levels. This is
nothing more than the brainwashing of children -- and these children
haven't even reached the age of reason yet. It's just not wrong,
it's criminal. Everyone involved with these outragous videos
should be fired.
Just imagine what goes on in these classes
when the cameras are off?
Here is the email
to the principal of the B. Bernice Young Elementary School, Dr.
Denise King, and here's Mrs. Carol Zulla's, the vice-principal's,
email.
Americans Say Media In Tank For Obama
Much of the Mainstream Media has a low opinion of the American
people -- just like Obama. They believe them to be mindless cattle
who are easy to influence. To the MSM, it was propaganda that got
us into the war on terror, and it is their job to use propaganda to get
us out. The problem with that theory, is that the American people
are not dumb. They mistrust government and ask lots of questions
which is why people tend to gravitate toward the conservative point of
view. And one thing's for sure they see through the Mainstream
Media's act.
The latest update of the Sacred Heart University
media poll asked people about their attitudes regarding the Mainstream
Media. Most Americans felt that the media is not neutral, it tries
to influence public opinion and policy. They feel that most media
has a STRONG liberal bent, Fox news is the most accurate of news
services, they don't want one red cent spent on bailing out the
Newspaper Industry, and the media is in the tank for Obama.
• 86.6% strongly and somewhat agreed
that the news media have their own political and public policy positions
and attempt to influence public opinion.
•
85.3% strongly and somewhat agreed that the news media have their
own political positions and attempt to influence public policies.
• 83.6% agreed that national news
media organizations as very or somewhat biased.
• 89.3%, agreed the national media
played a very or somewhat strong role in helping to elect Obama.
• 69.9% agreed the national news media
are intent on promoting the Obama residency.
• 56.4%, agreed that the news media
are promoting Obama’s healthcare reform without objective criticism.
Capitol Hill Switchboard Used For Partisan Purposes
Warner Todd Huston says this certainly can't be legal… can it?
If you
call the switchboard for Congress, the number you'd call to be put
through to your Congressman or Senator's office, you get a short message
selling Obama's healthcare policies before being transferred to the
switchboard operator. This should be the sort of story the Old
Media would investigate fully. But will it?
How can this
even be legal? After all, this isn't the Democrat Party hotline we
are talking about here. It is the main phone number representing
all of Congress, not just Obama and his nationalized healthcare
policies. I repeat, this is the phone number for all of Congress,
not an activist's number to sell Democrats and their policies.
While it lasts, try it yourself and you'll see. The number is
1-800-828-0498.
Here is the transcript of the message you'll
hear:
Thank you for calling your Representative and
your Senators.
Please urge them to vote yes on health
insurance reform. Because the American people can no longer wait for
more choices, lower costs, and coverage we can count on.
After this little message the phone rings once again and
is patched through to the switchboard operator.
Here is the
audio that I recorded just in case the Obama administration does the
"transparent" thing and makes this message disappear down the memory
hole.
I have to say,
this message is frightening. We can't even call our representatives
without being hit over the head by the socialized healthcare message. Not to mention the fact that the message is a arguably untrue. A good
argument can be made that ObamaCare will not give us "more choices,"
ObamaCare will not "lower costs," and ObamaCare will not give us better coverage.
I
just cannot see how this is legal, and even if it is legal it is gauche
and not right. Can the message for the Congressional switchboard be used
for partisan purposes? I just can't see it being legal.
Naturally, the big question here is if the Old Media will report this? If a Republican president or a Republican controlled House and Senate
were to sponsor such a phone message on the Capitol Hill switchboard,
one would think that the Old Media would lose its collective mind that a
general government service was being used for partisan purposes. One
might rather imagine that the media would fall into a feeding frenzy
over such a thing were it to occur with the GOP in controlling power.
I received a single email
suggesting this may be a scam. However, I called the number myself
before posting this item. The operator who answered was very
annoyed, and suggested that she would put me through to my rep (So.
Boston's Steve Lynch). I said that would be useless, connect me
with any Republican, and she put me right through to the Republican
Congressional Committee.
The Obama Show
Matthew Continetti says it's time to change the channel.
Unemployment is close to 10 percent. The government is
embedded in the auto, banking, housing, and insurance sectors.
Obama's domestic agenda hangs in the balance. Things aren't rosy
on the global front, either. Public opinion has turned against the
war in Afghanistan just as a major decision on troop levels must be
made. The Iranians are busily working to obtain nuclear weapons.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains as intractable as ever.
It's a dangerous world at an uncertain time, and last week Obama
responded by going on the Late Show with David Letterman.
It's
all too apparent: Faced with the choice, Obama prefers the comforts of
celebrity to the duties of leadership. In addition to Letterman,
there was his appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno last March
and his running commentary in the ESPN broadcast booth during baseball's
All-Star game last July. You might imagine a lame-duck making such
media appearances, but not one barely nine months into his term.
Obama clearly sees himself as a sort of salesman-in-chief, and considers
endless speechifying and interview-giving as the best way to further his
agenda. The adoring crowds, raucous applause, and obsequious press
coverage that accompany his appearances are cherries on top.
So,
in order to pressure Congress to act on health care and "call out" all
the lying racist, nihilist cynics who stand in his way, Obama delivered
his major address to a joint session of Congress on September 9.
He followed that up with giant "Si Se Puede" rallies in Minnesota,
Pennsylvania, and Maryland and a dizzying turn on five Sunday morning
news shows. Amazingly, Obama has also found time in September to
deliver a speech to the nation's schoolchildren; give major addresses on
the financial crisis and climate change; and contribute remarks at
Walter Cronkite's funeral. The month isn't even over yet, and the
salesman-in-chief has become a poor imitation of the late pitchman,
Billy Mays.
Patrick
Courrielchereceived a call from his cousin. He’d been
hearing some chatter from the family about something happening with a
series of NEA articles that I’d
written for Big Hollywood and wanted to find out from the horse’s mouth
what was going on. His question was simple and concise.
"What did the White House do wrong," he asked.
"The White House attempted to use federal agencies for
political gain," I blurted out.
Obama with former NEA Communications Director Yosi
Sergant
And that is
The Big Truth in a nutshell.
A moment of clarity hit me, and as with most eureka moments, a path of
how to explain this big truth came into sight. The full story
needed to be told -- includingpossible collusion, the
White House’s novel mode of operation, and the eventual cover-up
-- to fully understand and illuminate the government’s intention with
their arts effort.
Up until now, I have not discussed
Sergant’s former job in the White House Office of Public Engagement,
where Buffy Wicks currently resides, because the story had to develop to
understand the significance. I also haven’t discussed the email
that I received from Michael Skolnik, the moderator of the call,
immediately after the publication of the
original conference call article
-- an email that attempted to revise history and the role of the NEA and
the White House in the meeting. And what has yet to be discussed
is the White House’s recent ability to set up an
ArtistCorps, brought into
existence with less than 20 words in the Serve America Act.
(more…)
Jarrett’s Ministry of Culture
Conservative journalists have exposed the Obama administration’s
attempts to politicize the National Endowment for the Arts. Andrew
Breitbart’s website has detailed two conference calls in August aimed at
recruiting artists to shill for health care "reform" and environmental
legislation. However, it has been overlooked that an NEA official
and numerous employees in Valerie Jarrett’s office hosted an earlier
meeting on May 12 to enroll "artists" in advancing its political agenda
– and to get their input in shaping it. Both aspects are troubling, as
the invited participants included several of Van Jones’s ideological
fellow travelers, three people who claimed the CIA sells crack in
minority neighborhoods, a Jewish lesbian who confessed to having "a
little crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ," representatives of the SEIU and
the Tides Foundation, a publisher who dubbed 9/11 "a major piece of
performance art conceived by" a jihadist with "an artist’s mind," a
director who wrote 9/11 was tied to Ronald Reagan’s withdrawal from
UNESCO, and the "former International Spokeswoman for the Universal Zulu
Nation."
The evidence shows the heavy involvement of Valerie
Jarrett’s office -- and possibly Jarrett herself -- the participants’
explicit understanding they were to promote Obama’s legislative agenda,
and the administration’s acceptance of those whose beliefs are at least
as radical as those of Van Jones.
The furor began when word
leaked out then-National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) communications
director Yosi Sergant invited Patrick Courrielche and
74 other artists to
participate in an August 10th conference call supporting the United
We Serve Program. Sergant invited his readers to "celebrate how
the arts can be used for a positive change!" The call’s organizer,
Michael Skolnick said (as administration officials listened in) that
artists who had worked to elect Obama must continue "to support some of
the president’s initiatives…to push the president and push his
administration." Sergant then emphasized, "I would encourage you
to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the
environment…." (Read the
full call transcript.)
However, it was one of Valerie
Jarrett’s employees, Deputy Director of the Office of Public Engagement
Buffy Wicks, who was most explicit about the call’s partisan goals.
She told the participants, "we’re going to come at you with some
specific asks here." She did this because, "We’re actually running
the government. We need your guys’s help to promote this."
No, this is not a joke. I
Googled (News) to make sure this one was on the level -- it is.
Barack Obama was
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to
strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the
Nobel Committee said in Oslo today.
The Nobel Committee
awarded Obama his Peace Prize after only 11 days in office.
Obama says he's humbled.
Why are you laughing?
Obama, 48, last year was elected on a platform of extracting the
U.S. from the Iraq war (which he
hasn't) while increasing focus on an eight-year conflict in
Afghanistan (which he hasn't).
All U.S. forces are scheduled to be withdrawn from Iraq by 2011 (which
they won't), after the 2003 the U.S.-led invasion to topple
Saddam Hussein.
Obama is the third occupant of the Oval Office
to be awarded the prize, following Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 and
Woodrow Wilson in 1919. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter won in
2002.
What the hell has
Obama done to even be considered for this award -- it's a disgrace --
but when one reads the list of presidential honorees -- Wilson, Carter
and Obama -- it kinda makes sense -- three losers!
The bloom was
off the Nobel Rose when they gave the thing to Yasser Arafat.
Even 4th-Worlders are saying it's a joke.
Liaqat Baluch, a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a conservative
religious party in Pakistan, called the award an "embarrassing joke."
"Obama has a long way to go still and lots of work to do before he
can deserve a reward," said Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri. "Obama
only made promises and did not contribute any substance to world peace.
And he has not done anything to ensure justice for the sake of Arab and
Muslim causes."
Issam al-Khazraji, a day laborer in Baghdad,
said: "He doesn't deserve this prize. All these problems -- Iraq,
Afghanistan -- have not been solved... The man of 'change' hasn't
changed anything yet."
White House Admits They Control News Media
Gina's blog at Sodahead
reports Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news
media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the
press unless it was "controlled," White House Communications Director
Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped
conference.
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press
anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn.
"One of
the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for
our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message
out without having to actually talk to reporters," said Dunn, referring
to Plouffe, who was Obama's chief campaign manager.
"We just put
that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to
Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we
controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it," Dunn said.
Dunn: "Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a
huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover
what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying
it, what the tactic was -- making the press cover what we were saying."
Anita Dunn's husband
is Obama's personal attorney -- he's the guy that's keeping Obama's bona
fides hidden from the American People -- and she's Obama's mouthpiece
and a proud admirer
of Chairman Mao -- it's a tight little bunch.
Obama Fumbles On Monday Night Football
Kyle Smith says his propaganda has seeped into everything.
Remember that time President Bush interrupted the Emmy telecast to tell
people we should support reform of Social Security before it bankrupted
the country?
Neither do I. Yet when I tuned in to watch
"Monday Night Football" this week to check out the Miami Dolphins’
Wildcat offense, I didn’t expect to see Obama taking the direct snap and
trying to pound his political message into the end zone.
Where’s
the flag for illegal procedure? Obama is popping up everywhere but
Cialis commercials. How long before we have to watch him and
Michelle holding hands in matching bathtubs as they lecture us about
executive compensation schemes?
With the full blessing of the
media, Obama is still in election mode, and I say: If elections
persist more than 24 months, it’s a problem. Especially when the
networks are giving him free time to air what amount to campaign
commercials.
Jonah Goldberg says that Rocco Landesman, the head of the National
Endowment for the Arts, didn’t get the memo, literally.
On
September 22, stung by controversy over the administration’s effort to
turn the arts community into proselytizers of its very special brand of
hope and change, the White House issued a stern warning to all
government agencies: Keep politics out of the arts.
The
White House denied that was ever the intent. Many in the media, as
is their wont, took the Obama administration at their word.
But
not the website Big Government (which broke the story) and the
Washington Times. They demonstrated that from the earliest days of
the presidential transition, Barack Obama’s political operation sought
to entrench the arts community in its "outreach" operations. Bill
Ivey, Obama’s transition adviser on the arts, admitted in June: "I
wanted to see some real connection between administration objectives and
the capacity of all the cultural actors in government. I made some
progress. I got some agreement."
That "progress" mostly
came in the form of enlisting arts groups -- groups that received
stimulus money -- in Obama’s national-service agenda.
Three days
after Landesman was confirmed as the head of the NEA, his communications
director, Yosi Sergant, told NEA grantees in a conference call: "I
would encourage you to pick something, whether it’s health care,
education, the environment -- you know, there’s four key areas that the
corporation has identified as the areas of service."
Two days
later, a host of arts organizations endorsed Obama’s health-care plan:
"We call on Congress to pass: A health-care reform bill that will
create a public-health option.... There is little time to
waste...." Of the 21 groups signing the statement, 16 had recently
received grants from the NEA or were affiliated with organizations that
had.
Sergant was thrown under the bus, and the September 22 memo
put an end to the story for the supportive media.
The Lid blog
reports on a new set of National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) emails that have been released, linking
the White House directly to the NEA scandal.
Four weeks ago, Big
Hollywood posted an
audio of a conference call in which Obama administration officials
asked "grant recipients to plug Barack Obama’s domestic agenda."
At least six federal laws and regulations were violated when then–NEA
communications director Yosi Sergant and White House Office of Public
Engagement deputy director Buffy Wicks tried twisting the arms of
artists and arts groups interested in getting federal arts grants to
produce government propaganda.
To protect the scandal from
expanding further, the White House threw Sergant under the bus, denied
that they were involved issued new guidelines for the NEA and promised
that it will never, ever, cross my heart, ever happen again.
Last
week, Judicial Watch, announced it had obtained
documents from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) through the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) related to the NEA's controversial
August 10 conference call encouraging artists to create work that
promotes the Obama agenda. The first set of documents were
internal NEA correspondence involving disgraced former NEA
Communications Director Yosi Sergant, who resigned over the scandal, and
former actor, star of House and current Associate Director of the White
House Office of Public Engagement, Kalpen Modi.
They indicate
that the call was part of a specific White House Arts Policy to use the
NEA as propaganda tool.
The following are
excerpts from the email correspondence:
Using Tax Money To Push Obama Agenda
WashingtonExaminer.com
reports that buried in the interior appropriations bill headed to
Obama's desk is a big spending increase for a controversial agency that
his White House staff aims to use as artistic cover for creating
political propaganda. The National Endowment for the Arts's annual
spending goes from $155 million to $167.5 million, the most since the
Clinton administration. A mere $12 million in a budget with $1.4
trillion in deficits might seem trifling. But documents obtained
by Judicial Watch via a Freedom of Information Act request leave no
doubt that Obama aides meant to put those tax dollars to work paying
"artists" to create posters and other propaganda paraphernalia
supporting the Obama agenda.
As The Examiner reported Friday, the
documents made public by Judicial Watch include a series of e-mails from
White House associate director of public engagement Kalpen Modi, whose
boss is Valerie Jarrett, director of the Office of Public Engagement and
a close Obama confidant. Modi worked with then-NEA communications
director Yosif Sergant planning an Aug. 10 telephone conference call
hosted by Sergant. The purpose of the call, moderator Michael
Skolnik explained at the outset, was to encourage participants "to get
involved in things that we're passionate about as we did during the
campaign but continue to get involved in those things, to support the
president's initiatives ..." Skolnik, political director for
hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons, told conference participants that he was
asked "by people in the White House and folks in the NEA" to organize
the call, which was joined by officials representing 21 arts groups
around the country.
Judicial Watch unearthed e-mail between
Sergant, Modi and Buffy Wicks, deputy director of the White House public
engagement office. Wicks campaigned for Obama in Missouri in 2008,
and before that worked for an ACORN-like activist group known as Wake-Up
Wal-Mart that was funded by the United Food and Commercial Workers
Union. Use of government time, equipment and facilities in
planning the conference call may violate the Anti-Lobbying Act, which
says "no part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress
shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used
directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement,
telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device,
intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a
jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or
oppose by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy,
or appropriation. ..." Sergant resigned from the NEA following
disclosure of the Aug. 10 conference call. Why are Modi and Wicks
still on the White House payroll?
Buffy Wicks ran
Obama’s Missouri campaign and the "Obama Truth Squad." Along with
two of St. Louis' high-profile prosecuting attorneys, Wicks'
Truth Squad threatened anyone who dared to disseminate
information that they didn't like about the then-candidate Obama.
One year ago on September 23rd, KMOV Channel 4 in St. Louis reported
that St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCullough and St. Louis Circuit
attorney Jennifer Joyce joined a high-profile group of law enforcement
officials (including Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer) threatening
to invoke "Missouri ethics laws" against anyone the prosecutors
determined had spread misleading information about Obama.
Obama
has shown that he has no problem using goon squad tactics, whether the
goons come from the SEIU or the halls of justice.
Obama Lunches With ObamaMedia
Michael Calderone
says Obama met with several journalists for lunch today at the White
House, according to a source with knowledge of the event.
The
attendees for Friday’s lunch were as follows: CNN's David Gergen,
Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Howard
Fineman, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker, POLITICO's
Mike Allen, NPR/ Fox's Mara Liasson, Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall
and New York Times trio David Brooks, Andy Rosenthal, and Gail Collins.
Also on hand were administration officials: David Axelrod, Anita
Dunn, Bill Burton, and Robert Gibbs.
The off-the-record lunch
lasted about two hours, and included a green salad, halibut and a pear
fart for dessert (excuse me "tart"
-- I couldn't help myself)
Obama's had several
meetings with columnists, editors and reporters since shortly before
inauguration. Early on, there was a conservative columnist dinner
at George Will's house, followed by a meeting with liberal and moderate
writers the next day. Just two weeks ago, Obama met with a group
of mostly liberal columnists and cable personalities.
Obama and the Obots continue to
compromise the American press, who have lost all sense of journalistic independence.
The ObamaMedia are now working directly for Barack Obama.
They are now promoters of his agenda, and defenders of his questionable
background.
Obama’s Great Leap Forward
When Barack Obama was campaigning in 2007, his backers frequently
compared him to former president John F. Kennedy. After a year in
office, however, Obama’s words and actions align more closely with
China’s despotic Chairman Mao than with JFK’s.
When Mao Tse Tung
conquered China in 1949, his secret goal was to dominate the world.
When Obama was elected, many started referring to him as "President of
the World." Both Obama and Mao had carte blanche to set out a path
of radical change.
As part of his strategy, Mao informed his top
echelon, "There has to be a personality cult…it is absolutely
necessary." With the aid of the state media, Mao crafted an iconic
image of himself as the savior of the common man.
Propaganda was everywhere -- including
the fields where workers could listen to messages from Mao as they
worked.
Sound familiar?
In 1958, Mao kicked off what he
called The Great Leap Forward, an extraordinarily creative intervention
in China’s economic development. Mao planned to abolish wages and
put society on a non-cash basis. He then set about abolishing
private property.
The ownership of tools, animals, and other
means of production were taken over by the state -- in the name of the
people. Just as the ownership of the auto, banking and insurance
industries of today have been taken over by Obama's government.
Chairman Mao, in the name of the people, also took over China’s health
care. The "state" determined who would receive this essential
service. The elderly were moved into "houses of happiness" so that
they could be looked after -- by the state. Much like the proposed
government takeover of America’s health care today.
Chairman
Mao’s government also plunged the country into a deep debt by
drastically increasing spending on the development of heavy industry.
But the state-sponsored industry that developed was not only
non-productive, it ended up wasting money and resources on a massive
scale without producing anything of value. Much like the bloated
government behemoth Obama’s policies are producing today.
Mao,
through a cult of personality and firm control of the levers of
government, had the ability to impose his own version of reality on
China. Just as Obama has today.
Those who ignore the
lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
John Lillpop says for nearly two full years now, the American people
have been force-fed a steady diet of propaganda as to the formidable
genius and superior intellect of one Barack Hussein Obama.
According to the mainstream media and other liberal sources, Obama’s
superior intelligence was more important than the fact that, at age 46,
this savant from Chicago had no practical problem solving experience and
no accomplishments to his credit when he decided to seek the presidency.
His IQ is so extraordinary, they said, that he was entitled to
step into the most powerful position in the world with only the Audacity
of Hope on his resume, and the word CHANGE on his lips and loaded into
his teleprompter.
Barack Obama was the messiah, the One, the
Healer, all things good and glorious rolled into one clean and
articulate ball of genius that would save the world, America, and all of
mankind from eight years of W. and the Republicans.
Unfortunately, the American people bought into this bull excrement and
elected an enthusiastic agent of CHANGE who was, and is, exactly
clueless about the real world.
For the nightmare now residing at
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we can thank mainstream media and the Democrat
party, and the 69 million people who voted with their hearts rather than
their brains.
After less than a full year in the presidency,
Barack Obama has distinguished himself as the most overrated and
unqualified president in American history.
Nancy Morgan points out a question that's making the rounds of
conservative talk shows lately: "What has Obama accomplished so
far?" The question is asked of Obama supporters and the answers
range from "abolishing lobbyists" to "securing world peace" to "lowering
taxes."
One thing all answers have in common: They are all
grounded in perception as opposed to reality.
Obama has
accomplished the amazing feat of convincing millions of Americans that
black is white, that cold is hot, that the bad economy is the fault of
George W Bush, and the only things standing between America and peace on
earth are those darn Republicans and greedy capitalists.
As
author Thomas Sowell points out in "Is Reality Optional," social history
in the last 30 years has been a history of replacing what worked with
what sounded good. And no-where is this more evident than in the
"change" Obama is foisting on the American people.
The empty
rhetoric of "social justice" and "compassion" is convincingly and
successfully being used to justify ever more ludicrous social policies,
which just happen to come with a huge price tag and more government
control.
Ignored by the left and the media, however, is the
inconvenient fact that every single policy promoted by Obama and passed
by congress has been a dismal failure. From the jobs "stimulus" package
that has cost taxpayers a whopping $236,436 per job created -- to the
the "cash for clunkers" -- to the $61 billion bucks taxpayers just lost
through the AIG and auto industry bailout.
Add in the $75 billion
mortgage relief program to stem the largely government caused
"foreclosure crisis." This program has
helped a grand total of 31,000 borrowers to date, a paltry 4% of the
760,000 who have applied.
Despite the dismal failures of these
policies, Obama and his cohorts continue advocating more of the same.
As Dr. Sowell points out, "The anointed are often wrong but never in
doubt."
The Post & Email
reports that in the aftermath of yet another insult to our allies
via the refusal to participate to the traditional events surrounding the
award of the Nobel Prize including a dinner with the King, on the
pretenses that the recipient was a very busy, sitting "President,"
responsible for not one, but two, wars and facing the worst economic
crisis "EVAHHH," the White House is quietly organizing yet another
vacation for the Obamas.
They would have you believe that nothing
has been decided yet, when in fact the logistics of booking their 13 day
vacations in Hawaii, from December 23 to January 3, are in full swing,
and the invitations for the entourage are out!
Yesterday,
December 10, AFP's Laurence Haim, the only French-Press-accredited,
White House correspondent, revealed that she had received an email
inviting her and a guest to stay for the duration of Obama’s trip to
Hawaii, at a Hotel next to the Obamas’ vacations spot. Her
revelations were aired on the French TV leading evening news program.
To listen to the program in French, go to the 20:00 mark in
this broadcast.
According to Haim, the entire corps of White
House correspondents, domestic and international has been invited (with
a guest of their choice), to follow the Obamas under the sun at the
American taxpayer expense.
In times when the American people are
facing a bleak and sobering Christmas, when millions have lost their
jobs and homes, the Obama Court is relocating to a Hawaiian paradise on
the public dime. And to insure the cooperative silence of the Main
Stream Media, it is bribing the lackeys of the press, with lavishing and
outrageous favors.
This would be cause enough to raise eyebrows,
but since when is 13 day vacation outside of the mainland U.S.A.
accpetable the "President" of a nation at war?
I guess Christmas
at home in Chicago or New Year at Camp David does not fit the standards
of the Grandiose Obamas.
Probably not Historic enough!
State Control?
The Radio Equalizer says anyone wondering why an increasing number
of conservatives now use the term "state-controlled media" (which
originated with Rush Limbaugh) to refer to television networks and
newspapers, here's one that drives the point home.
During his
syndicated radio show Friday, libtalker and MSNBC host Ed Schultz
relayed to listeners how he observed "Morning Joe" Scarborough and Mika
Brzezinski take feedback directly from the White House during their
program last week.
Schultz appeared on Thursday's Morning Joe and
directly challenged Obama's David Axelrod on the current version of the
health care bill under consideration in Congress. Interestingly,
this particular segment has since generated a great deal of attention
elsewhere, given the defensive nature of the White House advisor and the
supposed conflict between the far left and the administration:
Is
it really possible that the White House has a direct line to MSNBC's
hosts, communicating with them during their live broadcasts? Now
THAT'S state control!
And do MSNBC staffers actually carry out
the administration's commands? In this case, they certainly made
room on short notice for a lengthy segment featuring Axelrod, there to
rebut comments made by Howard Dean and other recent guests.
TakingSides.com
notes that Obama finally made a public statement about the terrorist
attack on Flight 253 that occurred on Christmas Day. It was not
remarkable in its content including statements such as "This was a
serious reminder of the dangers that we face and the nature of those who
threaten our homeland," and "We will not rest until we find all who were
involved and hold them accountable." What was interesting was the
timing of the statement coming three days after the actual event and
only after much criticism of Obama's silence on the matter.
Perhaps most interesting of all was the way some in the liberal media
combined objective news reporting with custom made excuses for Obama's
latest misstep.
According to an
article in The New York Times, "Mr. Obama’s remarks to reporters
were the first public comments he has made since arriving here Thursday
and the first since a Nigerian man tried to set off explosives aboard a
flight approaching Detroit on Friday" -- completely factual and
objectively stated.
Yet several lines later the same article
states: "Until now, Mr. Obama had tried to strike a balance between
signaling that he is on top of the situation and not drawing more
attention to it than it already was generating. Each day since
Friday, his staff accompanying him here in his home state put out
statements indicating that the president was holding conference calls
and requesting action of government agencies. But he declined for
three days to address it in public himself, cognizant perhaps of
warnings by some terrorism experts against elevating such incidents and
by extension their authors."
How do these supposed journalists
know that the president was attempting to strike such a balance?
Not even the usual "sources requesting anonymity" are cited for this
information. And is it a journalist's job to speculate what a
world leader might "perhaps" be cognizant of?
As Obama proves
time and again that he and his cronies are not up to the challenges they
face, the media outlets that worked so hard to help get him elected are
twisting their professional ethics beyond recognition in a desperate
attempt to defend his missteps, mistakes and miscalculations. They
are delivering not just the news but built-in excuses for those who are
making that news.
The writer's description of ObamaCare, "...a welfare policy breakthrough ...".
Bad timing though, his messiah is turning out to be a disaster.
Lead by Playing Golf -- Another Obama First
Constitutional Guardian doesn't want to be
distracted from the health care crime the Senate committed against
the American people on Christmas Eve, yet the Christmas day terrorist
attack in the skies over Michigan deserves our attention. Because,
in essence, it is part of the same problem.
Irresponsible
leadership.
Obama continued on with his Hawaiian golf vacation
for almost three full days before he took the time to inform the nation
that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was "an isolated extremist." Except
the problem is, he wasn't. He is a self confessed, Al-Quada-connected
terrorist. And to make matters worse, while Obama was enjoying the
links, his administration was busy circulating the Sunday news programs
saying things like: "the system worked." That from Homeland
Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, earning her the nickname:
Janet Incompetano. I hate to draw an obvious comparison but does
Janet Reno and Waco ring a bell?
And, may I ask where the
critics are that assailed President Bush during Katrina? Demanding
he end his vacation and return to the helm? Rest assured, they are
still with us, still peddling their form of editorial journalism at
places like The Washington Post, which declared Obama's un-response to
the terrorist attack: "low key." Below is an excerpt from the
Post's, December 27th report:
"President Obama has performed a difficult
but familiar balancing act over the past few days: ordering new
security measures in the wake of an attempted airliner attack
without excessively alarming the public -- or triggering an outcry
from civil liberties advocates.
He has done so almost
entirely out of sight. On vacation in Hawaii, tucked away in a
lush neighborhood where his family is renting a waterfront home,
Obama dispatched surrogates back in Washington -- chiefly Homeland
Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano and press secretary Robert
Gibbs, who appeared on the Sunday talk shows -- to reassure the
public and explain his approach.
Yet even as the president
avoided cameras and played golf and basketball over the weekend, his
aides were quick to explain how fully Obama minded the aftermath of
the Detroit case."
No longer can we call this editorial journalism. This pathetic
Pablum can only be called one thing: Propaganda. No where is the
word "terrorism" or "terrorist" used. No where is Obama's delayed
response challenged. No where is the Homeland Secretary's absurd
statement: "the system worked" denounced or even thoughtfully examined.
There is no outrage over his "lush" waterfront home or the fact that he
amused himself with golf and basketball instead of addressing the
American people in the aftermath of the terrorism.
The standards
traditionally used to measure not just President Bush, but all former
presidents no longer seem to apply. Ignore terrorists, ignore the
airline security of Americans, ignore the cold-blooded shooting of our
soldiers at Fort Hood, ignore the unemployed, ignore the Constitution,
public opinion, common sense economic policies and most importantly, the
truth and you will be hailed as "historic."
No
media bias here
-- bad timing though, his messiah is turning out to be a disaster
The writer's description of ObamaCare is interesting, "...a welfare policy breakthrough ..."
Lead by Playing Golf -- Another Obama First
Constitutional Guardian doesn't want to be
distracted from the health care crime the Senate committed against
the American people on Christmas Eve, yet the Christmas day terrorist
attack in the skies over Michigan deserves our attention. Because,
in essence, it is part of the same problem.
Irresponsible
leadership.
Obama continued on with his Hawaiian golf vacation
for almost three full days before he took the time to inform the nation
that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was "an isolated extremist." Except
the problem is, he wasn't. He is a self confessed, Al-Quada-connected
terrorist. And to make matters worse, while Obama was enjoying the
links, his administration was busy circulating the Sunday news programs
saying things like: "the system worked." That from Homeland
Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, earning her the nickname:
Janet Incompetano. I hate to draw an obvious comparison but does
Janet Reno and Waco ring a bell?
And, may I ask where the
critics are that assailed President Bush during Katrina? Demanding
he end his vacation and return to the helm? Rest assured, they are
still with us, still peddling their form of editorial journalism at
places like The Washington Post, which declared Obama's un-response to
the terrorist attack: "low key." Below is an excerpt from the
Post's, December 27th report:
"President Obama has performed a difficult
but familiar balancing act over the past few days: ordering new
security measures in the wake of an attempted airliner attack
without excessively alarming the public -- or triggering an outcry
from civil liberties advocates.
He has done so almost
entirely out of sight. On vacation in Hawaii, tucked away in a
lush neighborhood where his family is renting a waterfront home,
Obama dispatched surrogates back in Washington -- chiefly Homeland
Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano and press secretary Robert
Gibbs, who appeared on the Sunday talk shows -- to reassure the
public and explain his approach.
Yet even as the president
avoided cameras and played golf and basketball over the weekend, his
aides were quick to explain how fully Obama minded the aftermath of
the Detroit case."
No longer can we call this editorial journalism. This pathetic
Pablum can only be called one thing: Propaganda. No where is the
word "terrorism" or "terrorist" used. No where is Obama's delayed
response challenged. No where is the Homeland Secretary's absurd
statement: "the system worked" denounced or even thoughtfully examined.
There is no outrage over his "lush" waterfront home or the fact that he
amused himself with golf and basketball instead of addressing the
American people in the aftermath of the terrorism.
The standards
traditionally used to measure not just President Bush, but all former
presidents no longer seem to apply. Ignore terrorists, ignore the
airline security of Americans, ignore the cold-blooded shooting of our
soldiers at Fort Hood, ignore the unemployed, ignore the Constitution,
public opinion, common sense economic policies and most importantly, the
truth and you will be hailed as "historic."
Patterico says a woman has written the same letter defending Obama
to dozens of publications across the country, getting them published in
at least 42 newspapers in 18 states, as well as Politico.com, the
Washington Times, and USA Today. And the woman, Ellie Light, has
claimed residence in many of these states.
Think there might be
some phony Astroturfing there? At the Cleveland Plain Dealer,
Sabrina Eaton makes a nice catch:
Ellie Light sure gets around.
In recent weeks, Light has published virtually identical "Letters to
the Editor" in support of Barack Obama in more than a dozen newspapers.
Every letter claimed a different residence for Light that happened to be
in the newspaper’s circulation area.
"It’s time for Americans to realize that
governing is hard work, and that a president can’t just wave a magic
wand and fix everything," said a letter from alleged
Philadelphian Ellie Light, that was published in the Jan. 19 edition
of The Philadelphia Daily News.
A letter from Light in the Jan. 20 edition of the
San Francisco Examiner concluded with an identical sentence, but with an
address for Light all the way across the country in Daly City,
California.
Variations of Light’s letter ran in Ohio’s Mansfield
News Journal on Jan. 13, with Light claiming an address in Mansfield; in
New Mexico’s Ruidoso News on Jan. 12, claiming an address in Three
Rivers; in South Carolina’s The Sun News on Jan. 18, claiming an address
in Myrtle Beach; and in the Daily News Leader of Staunton, Virginia on
Jan. 15, claiming an address in Waynesboro. Her publications list
includes other papers in Ohio, West Virginia, Maine, Michigan, Iowa,
Pennsylvania and California, all claiming separate addresses.
She
has more houses than John McCain!
But there are a few more places
her little pro-Obama missive appeared, besides those documented.
Like . . .
Obama-Drooling Media
Joan Swirsky says, that's right, the Obama-drooling media created
their own lame-duck, and it wasn't only Katie Couric.
For the
past two years, when Obama was in campaign mode and after his Acorn- and
foreign-money-fueled election, the entire leftwing media debased what
once passed for legitimate journalism. With absolute consistency,
they:
• Failed
utterly to vet an inexperienced, document-concealing candidate (we
still haven't seen Obama's Illinois law license or an authentic
birth certificate).
•
Failed to investigate the veracity of aggrandizing information
spewed by Obama's spin doctors and then repeated their spin (they
still say, for instance, that he was a law professor, which he never
was).
• Failed to conceal
their stunning lack of objectivity through the soft-ball questions
they asked and, as Bernard Goldberg says, their "slobbering"
obsequiousness.
• Failed to
distance themselves from the leftwing radicals who see racism where
none exists -- and even echoed their paranoia!
• Failed to camouflage their
personal biases both for Obama and against any of his critics or
political opponents and competitors.
•
Failed to correct his virtual avalanche of lies, which John
Ellis has
catalogued in scandalous and chilling detail, saying that "the
accumulated weight of Obama's deceit is overwhelming....as a result,
this nation is now in a position where it cannot believe a word that
he says, and that amounts to an unprecedented crisis of confidence
in the Presidency."
Continue reading, "Tyranny of the American Media,"
here .
. .
The "Ellie Light" Scandal
Brent Bozell says the declining (or is it dying?) newspaper industry
has suffered another blow to its image as punctilious skeptic. So
much for the motto, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out."
It turns out a pile of American newspapers can’t manage to check out the
most basic information about people who are flat-out using their pages
to push political agendas.
A person with the name of "Ellie
Light" has been successfully published with the same letter in at least
68 newspapers defending President Obama -- defrauding the editors by
using local addresses. Reports have "her" published in two papers
overseas.
Who is "Ellie Light"? We know this much: "She" is
a fraud.
Is this an official White House or Organizing for
America campaign? Is it simply a dirty trick? Is this
brass-knuckles (and dishonest) politics from the DNC? Or an
unauthorized Obama groupie? Some investigating conservative
bloggers have found several candidates for the mysterious "Light" writer
that could be connected to Obama.
But the ObamaMedia won’t.
This story hurts Obama, so they’ll spike it. Count on that.
Gawker has confirmed
that the mysterious pro-Obama letter-writer is, in fact, a nurse named
Barbara Brooks from Kern County, Calif. Except now Brooks says
it's really her husband, Winston Steward (picture).
Did Reuters Yank Article Because It Was Too Truthful?
Big Journalism
says sometimes, the truth hurts. In the case of an article
published yesterday at 4:04 p.m. Eastern, it appears that Reuters
editors were afraid writer Terri Cullen’s adventure into truthful
journalism might hurt their news agency’s relationship with Barack Obama
-- so they yanked it.
Published under the headline "Backdoor
taxes hit middle class," the article opened by describing the Obama
Administration’s plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over
the next decade as relying "heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases
that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families."
Four hours and three minutes after it hit the wire, the story was
"withdrawn," apparently at the Administration’s urging, with a promise
that "a replacement story will run later in the week."
Why did
Reuters pull the story? One site cited a Reuters rep as saying the
piece was withdrawn "due to significant errors of fact" and "should not
have gone out." I think it was the language used in the article
that prompted Reuters to pull it. In particular, it was the series
of phrases shown below that, combined with the one mentioned above, must
have made the hair stand up on the back of Rahm Emanuel’s neck:
"…effectively a tax hike by stealth."
"middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor
increases."
Perhaps the largest contributing factor to the
article being yanked is a list of tax break provisions popular among
middle-class families that Obama might allow to expire:
* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the
option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local
income taxes.
* The $250 teacher tax credit for
classroom supplies.
* The tax deduction for up to
$4,000 of college tuition and expenses.
* Individuals
who don’t itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard
deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid.
*
The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that
amount was tax-free.
The last line of the story was, perhaps, the
proverbial "nail in the coffin" for the Reuter’s piece:
