First, They Came for Fox News

From the Rosett Report:

You don’t have to love Fox News to see how dangerous it is when the President of the United States gives his staff and advisers a green light to single out and denigrate by name a specific news organization. As we surely all know by now, this is what the White House has been doing to Fox.

The Sunday morning talk shows just brought us White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod opining to George Stephanopoulos, on ABC’s “This Week,” that Fox is “Really – not news — it’s pushing a point of view.” Axelrod advised that ABC and other non-Fox outlets take his cue and expunge Fox from the brethren of news services: “And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way.” Meanwhile, on CNN’s “State of the Union,” White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was hammering home the same message, that Fox “is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective,” and urging “More importantly is not have [sic] the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization… .”

This would be a very good moment for all those other news organizations — CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, the newspapers and the news web sites – to offer President Obama the perspective that it is utterly inappropriate for White House personnel to be opining publicly on the overall fitness of specific news outlets. The president has sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That includes protecting free speech, not dispatching White House staff and advisers to hold forth publicly as media critics denouncing news outlets they don’t like.

If errors of fact turn up in reporting, the White House is entitled to dispute them. But Axelrod and Emanuel were not disputing a particular piece of reporting. They were slamming wholesale a widely followed and highly informative news outlet, and denouncing it as not “legitimate.” (Full disclosure here: I have done consulting work for Fox, which has consisted of reporting and writing news stories under my byline for them from time to time since 2004. Further disclosure: In my own experience of putting in a lot of sweat to cover stories for Fox, this is an organization that cares plenty about news, about accuracy, and about substantiation in reporting. Here’s a link to a joint by-line piece I wrote with Fox News Executive Editor George Russell in 2005, which helped lead to the arrest of a former United Nations procurement officer, Alexander Yakovlev, and his guilty plea to federal charges of wire fraud and money laundering. Here’s a piece I wrote just last month for Fox, on how Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad personally recruited a now-convicted sanctions buster while visiting UN headquarters in New York. This wasn’t based on “perspective,” but on federal court documents).

The matter of deciding whether a news outlet has “a perspective” — and many do — is something that in a free country, if the country is to remain free, should be left to the private customer. There are legions of critics in the private sector who spend their time analyzing and debating which outlets provide the most reliable news, what’s entertainment, who’s opinionated, and how, and who’s not. They are easy to find. You can tune in, subscribe, and decide for yourself. These folks, like the media they criticize, are subject to the market test — in which private consumers freely make their own choices about what or whom they trust, what they pay for, what they pay attention to, and why.

Government personnel getting into this act is altogether different. These are people paid out of the public purse, and speaking under the imprimatur of public institutions — in this case the White House. Here they are, urging White House-favored news outfits to follow the White House lead, and ostracize a specific news outlet the White House doesn’t like. This is Banana Republic stuff, a stock tactic of pressure and intimidation. The effect of such stuff, as a rule, is not to promote accurate news coverage, but to cover up stories the government doesn’t want aired, and shut up critics.

Other news outlets — the CNNs, ABCs, NBCs, CBS’s, or for that matter the New York Times and the Globe-Post-Mercury-Etceteras, may not agree with opinions expressed on Fox. But they would be wise to remember that what goes around comes around. And if they don’t rally now around the idea that the White House has no business vetting, according to its own “perspective,” which news outlets are “legitimate” and which are not, then the legitimacy of all news outlets becomes a function of “point of view” held by the White House. Welcome to the road to China’s Xinhua News Agency and Russia’s Channel One TV.

Not Giving Up

Regular readers may be concerned about a slow-down in my posts recently. First there was that nasty flu issue. It took me out for a week. Last week was catch-up week for me. I had to make up lost time.

Like most of us in the blogosphere, this isn't a job for me. It's a passion, a hobby and a distraction. It's entertainment with a purpose.

It's also way down on my priority list. School, work, family and the occasional date usually have to come ahead of blogging.

Still, I want everyone to know that I'm not giving up. The blogs will continue on an as needed and as-able basis.

Now, more than every, conservatives must continue to fight.

Stimulus Saved 30,000 Jobs

The first direct stimulus reports showed that stimulus contracts saved or created just 30,083 jobs, prompting more Republican criticism of the$787 billion package.

The data posted Thursday was the result of the government's initial attempt at counting actual stimulus jobs. Obama administration officials stressed that data was partial -- it represented just $16 billion out of the $339 billion awarded -- but they said it exceeded their projections.

"All signs -- from private estimates to this fragmentary data -- point to the conclusion that the Recovery Act did indeed create or save about 1 million jobs in its first seven months, a much needed lift in a very difficult period for our economy," said Jared Bernstein, the chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden.

So, thirty thousand equals one million, according to Biden. These are the same guys who are telling us that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit and save us money.

I didn't make this up.

.... really.

Judge Rules Against Christian Convert

A 17-year-old girl who fled from her home, fearing her Muslim parents would kill her for converting to Christianity, must go back to Ohio, a Florida judge ruled Tuesday.

Judge Daniel Dawson ruled Ohio has jurisdiction over the case involving the teen, Rifqa Bary.

The teen is expected to be placed in foster care when she returns and will also be provided with psychiatric evaluations. Her parents will also receive psychiatric evaluations.

Rifqa can be back in Ohio as early as this week.

In an emotional interview with WFTV in Florida, Rifqa said she expects to be killed if she is forced to return to Ohio. "If I had stayed in Ohio, I wouldn't be alive," she said. "In 150 generations in my family, no one has known Jesus. I am the first. Imagine the honor in killing me."

A Florida investigation found no credible threats to Bary, and her farther, Mohamed Bary, said he has no intentions of harming his daughter.

This case is a tough one. The girl, who is nearly 18, is certainly old enough to decide her own fate. It's not like she was a 10-year-old child. Even though no "credible evidence" exists that she would be harmed, if her father or other relatives intended to kill her, I doubt any credible evidence of their plans would exist. What are they going to do, make a video saying "I'm going to kill Rifqa the next time I see her"? Of course not.

On the other hand, I know that people, especially teens can exaggerate.

Still, I don't think I would have sided with the parents on this one. She's old enough to make her own decision in this case.

Hating Obama's America

According to the left, I am now a member of a treasonous group. I cheered when President Obama and his newly made-over milquetoast wife made asses of themselves in Copenhagen while attempting to wheedle the Europeans into granting Chicago the 2016 Olympics. And I gnashed my teeth when the Nobel Prize Committee decided to fete Obama with the Peace Prize. So, that makes me an America-hater.

"Why, oh why, do conservatives hate America so?" asks Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, singling out Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as paradigmatic of the conservative "hate America" movement. "The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they concerned, couldn't possible do anything right, and thus is unworthy of any conceivable recognition."

No, Eugene, that isn't the problem for us. Here's our problem: President Obama seeks an America that resembles modern France far more than the free and prosperous America our forefathers fought and bled and died for. President Obama's America is not America: It is the United Nations writ large, with socialist redistribution at its center and moral relativism at its core. I root against President Obama's America because I don't want to see it become a reality. And the only way it will become a reality is if President Obama is able to make it a reality.

And so I root for events that drain away Obama's political capital.

I rooted against him when he visited Copenhagen to bring the Olympics home. That's not because I opposed the Olympics going to Chicago -- a Chicago Olympics would have been great. I rooted against Obama because if he had achieved his goals with regard to the Olympics, too many Americans would have thought that such success somehow legitimated his agenda here at home -- an agenda totally at odds with all notions of constitutionality, limited government, and liberty of enterprise and thought. By winning in Copenhagen, he would have raised his chances of ramming through his domestic and foreign policy programs -- and that's the last thing I want to see.

I was enraged when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. That's not simply because I think he didn't deserve it, though he clearly doesn't. It's because the Peace Prize was just another sop to Obama's inflated ego. It was a blatant attempt by the "world community" to hand Obama a personal consolation prize for his fiasco in Copenhagen. It was their attempt to screw his courage to the sticking place, to reinforce his self-inflicted perception that he is a world leader destined to direct America toward a more global future. The Nobel Committee gave Obama the Peace Prize because he has already demonstrated real commitment to undermining American strength on the world stage, and they want to see him follow through on that commitment.

In short, I don't root against President Obama because I hate America. I root against President Obama because I hate his vision for America.

It is those like President Obama who see America as a dark and dangerous place that requires earth-shaking change along European lines. It is those like President Obama who feel that Americans are nothing special -- and that America is nothing special. As Obama himself put it: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." In other words, America is not exceptional -- it's just because we live here that we feel it is. And the American people are not exceptional -- they are merely Greeks or Brits or Russians or Chinese or Frenchmen born within our borders, with values no better or worse than their foreign compatriots.

Obama's belief in America's unexceptionalism -- his view that America's government, not her people, is the formative force in her values; his view that the American people bear the stain of racial, sexual and military guilt; his view that America must abandon her scrupulous adherence to equality of opportunity in favor of equality of result, traditional morals in favor of alternative ethics, and liberty of enterprise in favor of redistributionism -- that set of beliefs is antithetical to what makes America great.

So yes, I hate Obama's America. Because Obama's America isn't America -- it's the European view of America, implemented from high office. Opposing the total redefinition of America isn't anti-American; it's patriotic. And opposing those, like Obama, who push for that drastic redefinition, isn't "hating America" -- it's fighting in favor of the America that ended slavery, built the greatest economic empire in world history and liberated tens of millions around the globe. If that isn't patriotic, I don't know what is.

Charles Johnson Goes Dan Rather

Charles Johnson not only repeats the malicious libel that Rush, in 1998, praised James Earl Ray, but when challenged in the thread, he goes all Dan Rather;

There will be no retraction. The quote is disputed, but it has not been proven false. And there are plenty of other racist quotes that you seem to be just gliding right past that are NOT disputed

Dan Rather still insists the documents haven’t been proven false and Charles Johnson is wondering who stole the strawberries.

Irony.

By the way, I don’t follow the NFL so can someone explain to me when a political litmus test was imposed for ownership? I mean, this is the National Felons League so they can’t be serious that made up quotes about Rush are the real reason for opposing him having ownership. Criminey, Keith Olbermann - Keith Olbermann - one of the foulest, brain-dead leftcult zombies on air chairs Sunday Night Football on NBC.

Though, Chris Matthews’ on-air assassination of Rush is giving Slobberman a run to the bottom.

So, when did sports go all McCarthy-ite?

ObamaCare Snowmentum

Take this for what it's worth. I'm not sure I agree with everything here, but it's an interesting read from patterico.

The establishment media and the Obama administration lavished the love on Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME) for backing the Baucus vapor bill in the Finance Committee. Snowe was not finding many admirers elsewhere.

On the Right, it was easy to find people who wanted to protest, or purge her from the GOP altogether. Allahpundit noted Snowe’s pompous egotism, even while acknowledging her vote was a no-brainer in terms of maintaining her influence.

However, Snowe’s vote — and continued leverage — was not exactly embraced on the Left. As FireDogLake’s Jon Walker put it:

Snowe’s support could signal a bad day for real reform.

Snowe has long been opposed to some of the most important elements of reform. I’m not just referring to her opposition to a real public option and her support for a worthless trigger proposal.

Snowe opposes a real employer mandate, and instead favors a disastrously stupid “free rider” provision. It could have serious consequences for low-income workers.

She is against giving the exchanges the power to negotiate with private insurance companies. This is a provision that should help keep down the cost of health care. It would save individuals money and the government money. Snowe fears it is too much government involvement. John Kingsdale, who runs Massachusetts’s exchange, called Snowe’s insistence that the exchanges not have the power to negotiate price with insurance companies a recipe for disaster.

Just today, during the committee hearing, she reaffirmed her support for “national plans.” This would allow health insurance companies to sell national plans in any states. Individuals state would lose the power to regulate these insurance plans sold in their states. The national plans would be exempt from all minimum benefit requirements mandated by the state legislature. This has been for a long time one of the top goals of the for-profit health insurance industry.

These are only the few changes that I know Snowe requested…

The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber adds:

[N]ow that Snowe has voted for the bill in committee, she can basically dictate the terms of the final bill… That’s because, if you alienate her during the forthcoming negotiations, her defection from the final bill would be disastrous. Just imagine the atmospherics of Olympia Snowe getting up on the Senate floor and saying she was so serious about passing health care reform she voted for it in committee, but that she can no longer support the bill because it’s moved too far to the left. It would be absolutely devastating.

Given the likelihood that the merged bill Sen. Maj. Ldr. Harry Reid plans to bring to the floor will end up more to the Left than the Baucus vapor bill, her committee vote is a nice CYA move with her constituents, and one Democrats may come to despise in the future more than Republicans do in the present.

Moreover, Snowe was not the only Senator crossing an aisle yesterday, as Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told Don Imus he would not support the Baucus vapor bill. TNR’s Jonathan Chait notes:

Connecticut is home to numerous insurance companies, and of course insurers have suddenly gone to war on health care reform. That may be a factor. My read is that Lieberman remains furious at the party for endorsing Democratic nominee Ned Lamont for the Senate in 2006 over Lieberman’s independent candidacy. Lieberman, of course, campaigned hard against Obama in 2008, and probably would enjoy the vindication of seeing Obama’s presidency fail

For months I’ve been predicting that the Democrats will pass health care reform because they’re not going to cut their own throat. But Lieberman is an independent. A failed Democratic presidency wouldn’t necessarily bring him down with it in 2012. It might even help. So I may have made a major error focusing on red state Democrats and overlooking Lieberman.

For a moment, savor the scenario in which the nutroots’ party purge of Lieberman could end up derailing their most cherished agenda item. Ed Morrissey downplayed this announcement, on the ground that Joe “wants an incremental approach rather than a comprehensive approach, specific to delivery.” But the Baucus vapor bill defines the most plausible conservative outcome. If Lieberman does not support the vapor bill, he may end up backing the GOP on the floor more often than Snowe.

In sum, the Dems (and the establishment media) gained a few days of Snowementum, but take a fair amount of risk in building her up for taking a vote they did not need to get the vapor bill out of committee. Meanwhile, one of the 60 votes the Dems will need in the full Senate announced he would not support a proposal more conservative than what they are likely to produce. On balance, yesterday’s news for the GOP was better than the establishment media would have everyone believe.