Why is NPR still funded by taxpayers?

James O’Keefe has outed another organization for what it really is….not for what they have marketed themselves to be. Kudos to his efforts for continuing to expose the truth!

In a new video released Tuesday morning by conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe, Schiller and Betsy Liley, NPR’s director of institutional giving, are seen meeting with two men who, unbeknownst to the NPR executives, are posing as members of a Muslim Brotherhood front group. The men, who identified themselves as Ibrahim Kasaam and Amir Malik from the fictitious Muslim Education Action Center (MEAC) Trust, met with Schiller and Liley at Café Milano, a well-known Georgetown restaurant, and explained their desire to give up to $5 million to NPR because, “the Zionist coverage is quite substantial elsewhere.”

NPR is funded by taxpayer dollars yet, for years, has been a pseudo-mouthpiece for the Democratic party.  All the while NPR has proclaimed themselves as “neutral” and “middle of the road”.   Recently, from The Hill:

NPR Chief Executive Vivian Schiller defended taxpayer funding for public broadcasting Monday and challenged critics to find any evidence of liberal bias in NPR’s coverage

Schiller said the accusation that public broadcasting has a liberal bias is just a “perception problem” that doesn’t accurately reflect NPR’s journalism. 

Well, just about anyone paying attention or anyone not blinded by politically-correct charades have known for years that NPR has fully promoted the liberal agendas for years. So, Vivian, just because a liberal believes what they say doesn’t mean everyone else does.  Goodness, these people live in an alternate reality.

But….the truth always seems to come out and it has clearly shown its face today.  It is tough now to deny what most of us have known all along…….

From the Daily Caller:

A man who appears to be a National Public Radio senior executive, Ron Schiller, has been captured on camera savaging conservatives and the Tea Party movement.

The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people’s personal lives and very fundamental Christian – I wouldn’t even call it Christian. It’s this weird evangelical kind of move,” declared Schiller, the head of NPR’s nonprofit foundation, who last week announced his departure for the Aspen Institute.

Balanced? Off-balance, I’d say….Oh, but there is more to clarify just whose side he is on…and tangentially, whose side NPR is on:

On the tapes, Schiller wastes little time before attacking conservatives. The Republican Party, Schiller says, has been “hijacked by this group.” The man posing as Malik finishes the sentence by adding, “the radical, racist, Islamaphobic, Tea Party people.” Schiller agrees and intensifies the criticism, saying that the Tea Party people aren’t “just Islamaphobic, but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America gun-toting. I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.”Schiller goes on to describe liberals as more intelligent and informed than conservatives. “In my personal opinion, liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced than conservatives,” he said.

As Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin put it:

They (NPR) don’t seem to have a problem accepting tax money from those gun-totin’ racists though, do they?

Watch the video:

Why on earth are we funding a so-called media organization anyway?  And now with clear proof that neutrality and real news is not an NPR staple, we need to pull the plug on taxpayer funding of NPR.


Krauthammer: Obama’s budget lies and gimmicks

How do you know when Obama is lying? When his mouth is open.

Obama’s rhetoric on his budget is chock full of lies and gimmicks.  Charles Krauthammer calls him on it.

And for you Bush-bashers, who accuse Bush of running up the debt (even though his highest deficits occurred on the watch of Democratically-controlled Congress and were nothing compared to Obama’s deficits so far)….all of you please check out the part where Obama’s budget, at the end of this decade. leaves us in debt in an amount THREE times of the total when Obama took office.

Yet for all its gimmicks, this budget leaves the country at decade’s end saddled with publicly held debt triple what Obama inherited.

A more cynical budget is hard to imagine. This one ignores the looming debt crisis, shifts all responsibility for serious budget-cutting to the Republicans – for which Democrats are ready with a two-year, full-artillery demagogic assault – and sets Obama up perfectly for reelection in 2012.

Obama fancies his happy talk, debt-denial optimism to be Reaganesque. It’s more Louis XV. Reagan begat a quarter-century of prosperity; Louis, the deluge.

Moreover, unlike Obama, Louis had the decency to admit he was forfeiting the future. He never pretended to be winning it.

Reagan he is not…and the comparison is absolutely absurd.   Obama is leaving the hard, but absolutely necessary, cuts to entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, etc) to the Republicans.  What a coward.  Obama wishes to make Republicans do the dirty work so he can hammer them for it….never mind that Obama has stated serious cuts are necessary.  His words never match his actions….ALWAYS remember that.

 Read all of Krauthammer’s piece to get a summary of Obama’s lies and gimmicks on his budget.

Quote of the day

I found this quote by commenter at RedState.  I had never heard this one before.  Like it!

They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters, then they have to make more of who they are for.

Think about it…

“Deeming” of bills, the unprecedented “Slaughter Rule”, and a potential Constitutional Crisis

The “Slaughter Solution” being seriously considered by Nancy Pelosi for “deeming” the Obamacare Senate bill passed by the House is unprecedented and unconstitutional.

From RedState.com:

The fact of the matter is that there is no precedent for the House to pass a bill without a direct vote by using a budget reconciliation measure as a trigger and a means to pass ObamaCare.  Nancy Pelosi’s potentially unconstitutional strategy to pass unconstitutional ObamaCare is without precedent nor justification.

In a nutshell, Mike Pence gives us the reality of Obamacare government takeover of our healthcare and the just-as-hideous “slaughter” process:

Pence talks of the constitutionality, or lack thereof, of this move by Pelosi.  Similarly, at  Secondhand Smoke blog, Wesley J. Smith talks about the actual Constitutional Crisis:

…..But you can’t pass an internal procedural rule that effectively revokes the Constitutional requirement of what must actually happen for a bill to pass into law!  In order to become law, the Constitution requires a bill to pass both houses in identical form, and then either be signed into law by the president, or made law over a presidential veto. 

If this law is “deemed” passed via the Slaughter Solution instead of being actually voted and passed, and then signed by Obama, what might happen?

If President Obama signs an Obamacare bill that was not actually voted on in the House of Representatives, it will unleash a bitter constitutional crisis of the kind I haven’t seen in my 60 year-+ lifetime. There will be years of intense litigation.  Tremendous uncertainty as to whether it is actually law will roil the economy and divide the country.  People will refuse to pay the taxes required in the “statute” on the basis that there is no law.  Regulators will be sued.  Vitriol of the kind not seen since the session crisis of 1861 will take over our politics, sowing even deeper societal divisions than already exist.  At the end of the day, I believe, Obamacare will be declared null and void because it never actually have passed both houses of Congress.

But if that’s the best case, what’s the worst case?:

The worst case scenario is that the maneuver is somehow approved by the Supreme Court. Then, we will have lost our constitutional republic, because Congress will no longer have to pass bills.  Just pass internal rules.  And liberals who support Obamacare fervently enough to believe this expedient is justified, should understand clearly that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

EXACTLY — what is to stop Obama/Pelosi/Reid from “deeming” the next election null and void, or “deeming” cap and tax as law of the land?  I could cite almost any example. 

 Our Founders intended that our Republic have a representative government.  When ONE political party can “deem” takeover of 1/6 of our economy in something so personal as healthcare, we are no longer the America of our founders, but the America sought out by statists, Marxists, and tyrannical dictators.

That is exactly what a Constitutional crisis looks like.

Of course, the Democratic talking points that came out yesterday tried to convince us that “deeming” or the “Slaughter Solution” has been used before?   Well, it has, BUT never has it been used to CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF A BILL’S PASSAGE and has been used traditionally used for amendments to a bill and resolutions (not a binding bill).  From DougRossat Journal:

Hoyer attempted to deflect criticism by citing cases where Republicans used a “self-executing” rule.

Oh, the Republicans used it, right? Well, Stenky, could we please have the list of bills and laws passed using this method? There aren’t any. It’s been used to add and remove amendments, not pass entire bills without a vote. And certainly not for a giant, new and unaffordable entitlement program. And certainly not one that has zero bipartisan support.

Of course, other than just ignoring her oath to preserve the Constitution, Nancy Pelosi’s (and Louise Slaughter’s) hypocrisy is on full display in this endeavor.  Nancy Pelosi and others declared and sued long ago that the “deeming” rule (AKA Slaughter Rule) is unconstitutional

….Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase. But there was a minor difference between the two chambers’ versions resulting from a clerical error.

Of course, there is one major difference between 2005 and 2010. Debt limit increases are routine in Congress and have been for decades. But to place the American private health care system under government control — effectively socializing one-sixth of the U.S. economy — that has never been done before. 

“Deeming” a bill passed is unconstitutional and should not be considered. If this Obamacare bill is passed in that manner, Obama should tear up the bill when it reaches his desk.

I’m not holding my breath.
Other reading:

Thoughts on Obama’s healthcare summit today

As I mentioned in a previous post, I watched the Obamacare summit today almost in its entirety.  I have a few general thoughts, but also want to round up opinions around the blogs and news outlets.

My thoughts:

The Republicans made the right choice in attending.  Not only were they effective in outlining flaws in the plans, discrepancies between the bill and Obama’s words, and getting their own ideas heard….they also put Obama on the defensive several times.

The Democrat talking points for the session seemed to be “I think we are close to agreement on this” (meaning Repubs and Dems), tell a sob story that one-ups the previous one, and be sure not to get into details of their own bill.

I think the Dems wanted it to appear that the recommendations being made by Republicans were already included in the present bills — even when they aren’t. Thus, I think that is why they kept saying “we are close“.  Of course it wasn’t true for hardly any of the discussion.

The other main tactic for Dems was to spend much time talking about one-off sob stories of constituents, friends, and relatives and their healthcare woes.   This allowed for emotion to be brought to the discussion, but likely more important, it kept Dems from having to talk much at all about what really exists in their bill.

I found it very interesting that Republicans clearly outlined SPECIFICS for healthcare reform, but Dems barely mentioned the specifics of their monstrous 5000 page bills combined.

Back to Obama, he was supposed to moderate the session.  I thought that was not smart.  Moderators typically may move discussions along and sort of bring up topics for discussion.  Obama basically rebutted almost every time a Republican spoke and mostly gave no time for the Repub to follow up.  And he was clumsy in his words many times when doing so.

As I watched, this session reminded me of corporate meetings I attended back in my big career days.  We developed new communications services which required meetings, ideas, various groups to interact, etc. in an effort to get them to market.  Obama looked more like the director of a new service introduction to the market rather than a POTUS leading the country.   He looked weak, defensive, and frankly, unpresidential in the meeting.

Many times Obama also looked angry and his body language moved from bored to frustrated to acting interested to irritated ….He also speaks much better with prepared words rather than in a mode of defending that which is a mess.

All in all, I think this was intended entirely to be a kabuki theatre and as a means for Obama to say Republicans just “won’t compromise and fill the gap”.   Obama will use this to promote the reconciliation process of 51 votes to pass with no Republican input.

He will do it despite the fact that only 34% of Americans believe the reconciliation process should be used in this instance, 73% of Americans oppose this bill, and Obama, himself, opposed such a process vehemently back in 2005 when Republicans were in power.

I’d say chances are greater now that this bill won’t pass in the monstrous present form.  But I never say never.

More thoughts on the summit from others:

Media Reactions to the Healthcare Summit from  Wizbang blog

Obama: You know what sounds pretty good right now? Reconciliation from Hot Air

Summit: Substance versus anecdote from Pundit & Pundette

David Gergen on the summit: Republicans had their best day in years from Hot Air

The Chicago Way… Obama Ends Bipartisan Summit at Blair House With a Threat (Video) from Gateway Pundit

Try to stay awake: the President has a healthcare bill to pass from the London Times

Words to describe Obama’s SOTU speech: Intolerant, intimidation, propaganda, childish, not true, distasteful…

(Source: FOXNews.com)

While I was able to manage keeping my dinner down throughout Obama’s State of the Union (SOTU) speech last night, I was not able to watch it all.  I simply didn’t want to purchase another television set after our remote control or a lamp was heaved through the screen.  So I know my limits…and turned it off a few times just to keep my sanity and TV screen intact.

But I saw enough.  Obama behaved as someone lecturing Americans, berating his Republican counterparts, attempting to intimidate the justices of the Supreme Court…and he said nothing new.  Above all his speech showed that he intends to continue his anti-Constitution, anti-Capitalist, anti-freedom assault on this country AND he lied at almost every turn of his speech. I heard Mitch McConnell say on Fox News this morning that he was wrong to expect Obama to “pivot” or to move to the center in his speech.   He went on to say (paraphrased) that Obama has doubled down on his far Left agenda…quite the opposite of a sensible man’s “pivot”. 

Another takeaway for me was now Obama’s speech portrayed his ideas will now have focus as if the last year never occurred.  Where was the focus last year on jobs? on deficits? on spending?  His words came out as if he were just beginning his first year in office….as if the last year never happened.  Astounding how Obama overlooks his unprecedented deficits and spending while saying he will “focus” on those issues.  It’s as if we lost a year…and Obama gets a restart.

And it wasn’t just what Obama did say and do, but the areas of the “state of the union” that he left out—-No mention of victory in Iraq.  No recognition to the brave men and women who have fought and, yes, won that war!  Ace of Spades addressed this best:

What words didn’t he use? Victory. Freedom. Or anything that recognized the fruits of the incredible sacrifices millions of men and women in our military and their families made to make it possible.You see, the war is just “ending”. …….Oh and this ‘ending’? Yeah, he inherited that from Bush too but you don’t hear him mention that do you?

I doubt W. cares much about what this CHILDISH little man says or thinks about him. Bush signed up for the big leagues and if Obama can’t do anything but bitch about him, well, that’s part of the deal. Besides, Bush only looks better by comparison.

But for a serving Commander in Chief to fail to acknowledge the victory of American troops is beyond shameful, it’s unpardonable and even un-American.

In a nutshell, what we saw was the tone of an arrogant, Bush-blaming, tin-eared, far Left ideologue who believes he is all-powerful.

All-powerful you say?  There are three EQUAL branches of government.  Obama managed to “lord it over” the other two last night in a very DISTASTEFUL way.   While Obama lectured Congressional Republicans (EQUALS) about holding “41 votes” makes them responsible (or something condescending like that), Obama purposefully tried to intimidate the Supreme Court justices who sat neutrally by throughout the speech.  With one exception— when Obama decided it was time for demagoguery and idiotic, Constitution-despising Democrats, like Chuck Schumer, applauded over the heads of the sitting justices, Samuel Alito reacted.    Obama’s words and behavior toward the Supreme Court justices was truly revolting (and nearly unprecedented).  Obama said:

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the flood gates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”

Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words “NOT TRUE” (video here) while Schumer and company grandly rubbed it into the faces of the justices (you know, the EQUAL branch).

To that, Ann Althouse (via SISU) had this to say:

Isn’t it fascinating that the lengthy, amplified, magnified speech of the most powerful man in the world with his big captive audience — in the magnificent room and in smaller rooms all over the country — are outweighed by one man’s headshake and silent mouthing of 2 or 3 words?……

It’s not how much or how loud you speak that counts, is it?

But perhaps, William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection best narrows down the soul of Obama:

The attack on the Supreme Court exposes the INTOLERANCE of this President. The politician who campaigned and allegedly champions the rule of law actually has very little use for the rule of law when it does not advance his political agenda.

Last night was an attempt at INTIMIDATION, a chance to work the referees on the sideline during a home game with the guarantee of crowd approval.

Ironically, Justice Alito was correct in saying “not true”.  Obama’s statement about foreign money was wrong.  From Brad Smith at National Review:

The president’s statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. ……….

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind. 

Aside from the condescension, Obama was masterful with his lies and Bush-blaming last night.  Sister Toldjah says this is what Obama tried to convey:

– I will lie and misrepresent my record on taxes and spending to the American people, while at the same time praising their courage and determination to make it on the lean budgets they have had to deal with since Bush’s recession started.

For anyone who hasn’t drank the “Hopey Changey” Koolaid, it is clear now that Obama’s words do not match his actions.  In other words, he lies, he covers up, and simply changes (and invents) “facts” to suit his purpose.       —(My ADD moment:  I can see an advertisement/tagline for this Koolaid going something like this:   “Oba-Kool-aid: The brand for hope and change–low on freedom.  Caution: may cause blindness)”

For those of you who drink the Koolaid and for those who just like to have  the truth handy in order to educate their liberal friends, many have fact-checked Obama’s speech last night.  Obama’s PROPAGANDA is called out below:

On Obama’s Stimulus claims.  From Gateway Pundit:

OBAMA: “But you don’t have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its work force because of the Recovery Act.”

THE FACTS: The democrats gave $100 million to a company owned by prominent democratic donors who have created only 15 jobs so far with the stimulus money.

Even if you look past the Democrat’s crony capitalism…that comes to $6.67 million of our money to create one job.  Does that sound like a logical way to “avert disaster” and sustain long term job growth?  If you think so, you have larger problems than just the Koolaid you are drinking.

On the tiny little spending freeze.  From Fox News Fact Check:

OBAMA: “Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t.”

THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than one percent of the deficit — and that’s if the president can persuade Congress to go along.

Some pundits also noted last night that Obama proposed this “spending freeze” and it does virtually nothing to cut the deficit as he claims.  And then Obama turned around and proposed and pushed for additional massive spending on healthcare, student loans, “jobs” bill and more.  ALL Of that spending will ADD to the deficit.  So Obama’s drop-in-the-bucket proposal is for appearances only….not a serious call for reducing the deficit.

On transparency.  Again from Fox News:

OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress “to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve.”

THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign — to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN “so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.” Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it’s acted upon.

Perhaps one of the most infuriating claims by Obama is “what he inherited”.   

Obama’s lie about who created our whopping deficit.  From Gateway Pundit:

OBAMA: “By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.”

THE FACTS: For the record the federal deficit was $459 billion in 2008 when Bush left office not $1 trillion.

(source: Gateway Pundit)

The STATISTS in our Union are in a revolution against the citizens of American, attempting to overturn our Constitution and usher in an era of Socialist economics and shove their far Left ideology and programs down our throats.

But, despite our America-loathing President and power-hungry Congressional leaders, the STATE of our Union will remain strong if the American people continue their defense in this revolution

I am convinced that, unlike the historical debates of left versus right in the past, we are no longer in a debate of the best ideas for moving forward under our Constitution.  We are instead in an unprecedented part of our history where the Left is in Revolutionary mode…they don’t want civil debate and good ideas…they want control, they want to overturn the Constitution, and they are working overtime to destroy the cultural, religious, and societal traditions of our country.

Literally I will let that happen over my dead body.

The “Scott heard round the world” was only the beginning.  We must continue to fight those who wish to change America for their own gain.

May GOD BLESS AMERICA, in spite of our President and the Leftist Revolutionaries in this country.

Other reaction to Obama’s SOTU:

Obama’s Sorry State of the Union Speech

About Last Night

AP’s ten whoppers from the SOTU speech

Junior, our eyes are indeed open

A great clip from the ultimate 1960’s/1970’s classic Hee Haw….Junior Samples.

Yes, our eyes are open…and even some Democrats have now progressed to the “eyes open” stage!  The proof is in Massachusetts tonight.

As Glenn Beck puts it in his best seller “Arguing with Idiots”….here is one of my “ADD moments”:

It seems Junior Samples held conservative values and was a true American, too.  From HeeHaw.com:

Despite his success, Junior hasn’t changed.  Until the time of his death, he still wore his bib overalls wherever he went, was still married to the same charming lady and still had the same honest and innocent outlook on life.  Of course, he did own a Lincoln Continental, but he used it to pull his bass boat.

(H/T: Ace of Spades)