For those of you alarmed by Senator Obama’s surprising support for this FISA debacle and his abandonment of the principles of privacy and constitutional law enshrined in the 4th Amendment this may not come as much of a surprise. It seems that Senator Obama has very little regard to the First Amendment too.

Obama’s Unprecedented Attack on Free Speech - Mechanisms and Results [Supplemented]

For many months now, Obama has run a campaign that has as its centerpiece the control and manipulation of the media, and the elimination of free speech. This began as a methodology designed to control the Internet. And moved to the main stream media very quickly.

I can hear my detractors.

“Come on Pagan. Get over it. You are just one of those bitter, clingy white people that has nothing better to do than criticize Obama. Barack is the reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson. Liberty means everything to him. Obama represents the new politics of hope and change.”

And you would be wrong. Because Obama has systematically stifled free speech, crafted a very calculated false message and has stamped out any efforts to bring about an open and fair discussion of the issues.

Taking their cue from totalitarian regimes, Obama developed his own propaganda arm which spewed facts and figures to the media and made false claims designed to keep controversial issues dealing with the candidate off of the main stream media. At the same time, Obama attacked in merciless ways those who voiced opposition on various Internet systems and sources, including the media who dared to question him, and has now stopped debates in favor of tuning his message against McCain again with the help of completely compliant media.

As merely one example of spewing false facts and figures take a look at the latest Obama ad making it’s way across the country.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylVTBiGh00c&hl=en]

The most immediate lie is that his grandparents didn’t have much money. His grandfather managed a large furniture store and his grandmother was the Vice President of a bank. From where I come from we don’t refer to such people as exactly poor. Not as Obama would have you believe. Maybe after sending Barky to all those elite prep schools they weren’t exactly wealthy. But they could sure afford to send him.

The next and most glaring lie is that Barky passed a law that “extended healthcare for wounded troops.” The fact is that he missed the vote that passed this law. He wasn’t even in the Senate at the time the vote was taken. And yet he has the audacity to claim that he passed a law.

This is typical of the Obama campaign. They create these myths that sound good and attribute to their candidate whose myth sounds good too. But not a word of it is true. In fact they are blatant lies. But where are the journalists that should be examining and exposing these falsehoods? They are in the pocket of the Obama campaign.

Obama communication and voting control systems designed to eliminate free speech rank at the pinnacle of Obama’s attack on free speech. These include the following important free speech elements without which media, voters, and all in the world fail to understand the truth and could ultimately have no more opportunity to voice their differences and views than those in totalitarian regimes.

So how did he manage to do this? Simple. He claimed bias and racism any time someone said something less than generous about himself. And in certain cases his campaign enlisted the help of complicit bloggers to complain so loudly that the media had to take action.

In January 2008, CNN succumbed to pressure from the Obama campaign and told James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman that they would not be used again until the Democratic nomination had taken place.

With Carville and Begala out of the way, two Obama friendly commentators were brought in. Both in fact very closely aligned with the Obama campaign: Roland Martin and Paula Brazile. So no more criticism of Obama was allowed on CNN. Only the Obama positive message was permitted. Does this remind anyone else of regimes that carefully tailor the message of the Great Leader?

The next step was removing anyone that was not a supporter from Obama rallies. This is the same method employed by George Bush. In fact I experienced this type of censorship myself when I was denied entrance to a Bush campaign rally when the organizers discovered I was not a Republican.

With a system identical to that employed by George Bush, Obama denied other supporters from being able to attend a rally on a state university and has sustained that approach time after time. The method was recorded on video and remains one of the only documents showing how Obama manipulated crowds.

Other events similarly controlled the message. For example, in New Hampshire an agreement to prevent marchers in front of an arena was forged by Obama in exchange for a no-picketing agreement, effectively controlling speech both ways.

And to seal the deal the Obama campaign, in conjunction with the Democratic elite establishment, declared that any attacks upon Obama that could be used against the presumptive nominee in a general election were forbidden. Thus they could justify character assassination upon Hillary Clinton who dared to speak the truth and point out Obama’s deficiencies.

This explains why the media largely remained silent to the continual misogynist attacks against Hillary and her supporters. A silence that remains unto this day. It was a carefully crafted strategy that required the acquiescence of the DNC, the media and the Obama campaign. And unfortunately for our country, they all went along with it.

In cases where they were unable to fully quash free speech they relied upon an equally effective and devastating strategy: Political Correctness. This was taken to such extreme measures that the lie outpaced the obvious truth. Remember Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” comments. It didn’t matter that a video existed that showed clearly what Bill was referring to. The distorted message became the reported message and the rest is history.

In addition to mechanics which ensured victory and the concomittant diminution in free speech occasioned by such mechanisms, Obama and his supporters used political correctness as a by word for any attack on Obama and his views. They ranged deep and wide, but the most pernicious attacks were those claiming personal racism based on statements that had nothing to do with racism, and on the wild claims that ended the current campaign, suggesting that Hillary Clinton was calling for someone to kill Obama because of her reference to Bobby Kennedy.

The final nail in the coffin came when the Obama campaign decided that they were going to claim victory before the last two primaries had even taken place. And the media bought the bullshit hook, line and sinker. The message before the results even came in on June 4th was that Obama had already received enough delegates to claim the nomination. The fact that this claim was unsubstantiated meant nothing. It became the message and it all we heard about. Nothing like drowning out a free discussion of the facts to hoodwink the masses.

I had thought that maybe, just maybe after George Bush left office, that we would see a return to a respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. But instead we are becoming more aware day by day how Obama is chipping away at the basic freedoms we have taken for granted for the past 217 years. Freedoms that too many Americans sacrificed their lives for.

In Obama We Trust.

When a man becomes the Nation, we have Stalin.

1) One of the headscarf-wearing women denied a seat behind Obama is demanding a personal apology from the candidate.

Aref said she received a phone call and apology from an Obama campaign offiicial, but said that’s not enough.

“I do appreciate they’re taking the time to look into what happened,” Aref said. “I think it’s a huge deal. I was hoping for an apology from Sen. Obama himself. He needs to send a strong message this kind of discrimination won’t be tolerated.”
—————————–
“It is offensive and counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run,” Burton [a campaign official] was quoted as saying. “We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers.”

Of course, it’s the VOLUNTEER’S fault!! Probably a kid donating his/her time to help out and, WHAM! under the bus. Nothin’ but fumes.

Read the rest ->

2) Meanwhile, back at HuffyPot, Claudia Cividino, a Hillary supporter in the beginning, changed her mind when Clinton declined an invitation to appear in Vogue Magazine. Also, while some of her oh-so-progressive fellow typists at the ‘Pot felt Clinton’s misty eyes in PA were contrived to the point of conspiracy, Cividino felt she didn’t show enough emotion or know how to use her emotions.

After years of a bobble head in the top office, this country seems to be asking for competent leadership and a new approach to solving our problems, which will require intelligence in the classic sense, as well as emotional intelligence. As far as I’m concerned, Hillary disqualified herself on this last point.

Do the google. I don’t link to the ‘Pot.

3) And at NewsBusters, Matthew Balan calls out Roland Martin of CNN.

CNN contributor Roland Martin, when asked on Tuesday’s “Anderson Cooper 360″ if Michelle Obama was being held to a different standard than other presidential candidates’ wives, unequivocally placed the blame on conservative men. “No, I think what you have is you’ve got some weak men on the conservative side who, frankly, don’t like strong women. I mean, we saw the exact same thing take place for Hillary Clinton back in 1992…. All of a sudden… Michelle Obama is this angry black woman, when in fact, she’s an accomplished woman, a mother, a wife. And so, they are trying to define her in that way, because they don’t want to deal with the reality.”

I’d like to snark, but I truly don’t know where to begin and I’m trying to keep this entry short. Supply your own punchlines below, please.

4) While the Obama campaign is blasting McCain for his position on off-shore drilling, Fortune notes Obama has quietly toned down his opposition to NAFTA. Obama certainly used NAFTA as a club to pummel Hillary during the primary to the extent that she had to remind him as the first lady she didn’t actually write the legislation.

But now NAFTA doesn’t suck so bad, I guess. Nina Easton reminded Obama of his former words:

In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.

“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Of course, after that, Obama’s handlers backed off Obama’s latest words:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that Obama-as the candidate noted in Fortune’s interview-has not changed his core position on NAFTA, and that he has always said he would talk to the leaders of Canada and Mexico in an effort to include enforceable labor and environmental standards in the pact.

But Nina noted:

Nevertheless, Obama’s tone stands in marked contrast to his primary campaign’s anti-NAFTA fusillades. The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton’s signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns.

Hmmmmmm. Take a position to beat up on democratic rivals, then switch to a smarter position as soon as the path is clear. Then have your handlers opine that you never actually switched! Brilliant.

Watch for all of Hillary’s policy positions to get “Obamized.” He’ll take credit for them the way he took credit in Il for legislation he did not work on and for glomming on in DC to yet more legislation he did not work on.

5) Signs of the Apocalypse
The WSJ today had a short but remarkable item by Susan Davis.

In a guest appearance on ABC’s “The View” today Michelle Obama sided with Sen. Hillary Clinton’s view that sexism played a role in the presidential primary campaign.

“Yes, there’s always a level [of sexism],” she said. “People are not used to strong women.” Obama credited Clinton for her race and for breaking down barriers for women.

“And I think that Hillary Clinton, as she said, has made 18 million cracks on the ceiling and we need to keep pushing it and pushing it.” She further credited Clinton for paving the way to make it easier for her young daughters, Sasha and Malia.
“She’s taken [the hits] so that when my girls come along they won’t have to fight it as badly,” she said.

You know, I’m going to really have to think about what she said.

Hmmmmmmm. Uh-huh.

Done.

Gag.

I call bs on that. Un-freakin-believable.

6) If you go to JohnMcCain.com, the picture leading to the section “Citizens for McCain” is of a woman holding up a Hillary Clinton poster now also sporting McCain bumper stickers.

Sweet.

The filmmaker “hinted at a political conspiracy behind Wright’s recent, contentious attempts to justify his remarks.” Lee said, “It looks like he’s being paid to keep talking.”

“Jeremiah Wight needs to be quiet,” Lee said yesterday. “If he loves Obama he needs to shut up right now. It makes me question his motives for talking. I’m starting to wonder whether somebody has been contributing to the building funds of his church. Seriously.”

Of Wright’s sermon before a Dallas church on Sunday morning, before the evening Detroit NAACP dinner — in which Wright described his “public crucifixion” — the church’s minister told reporters that his congregants were thrilled to hear Wright again and enthusiastically supported his stands. So much for Spike’s conspiracy theory, although such “imaginative,” rationalizing explanations are common among Obamabots, and we do find them amusing.

Spike Lee is correct, however, that Wright should keep quiet (although we all know that Wright is so angry with Obama, he’s ready to do him in). Last night, Fox News anchor Brit Hume correctly noted that some truly shocking elements of the NAACP speech — including that black children’s brains work differently from white children’s brains, and that white college marching bands use “excellent European precision” — were overshadowed by the reporting of Wright’s Monday National Press Club Q&A. Therefore, Hume’s pundit panel discussed some of Wright’s Sunday NAACP speech — which, astonishingly, CNN “pundit” Roland Martin gave a “B” grade:

_______________________

Of note: We posted a four-part video of Wright’s NAACP speech in “Rev. Jeremiah Wright on PR Tour to Fight ‘Public Crucifixion’,” and CNN has a full transcript.

_______________________

A number of shocked experts have weighed in on the destructive, racist nonsense about left brain/right brain, including in this op-ed in the WSJ by Heather Mac Donald, a contributing editor of City Journal and the John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute:

At the NAACP meeting, Mr. Wright proudly propounded the racist contention that blacks have inherently different “learning styles,” … [...]

How one learns from a teacher as “subject” by climbing on her, as opposed to learning from her as “object” — by listening to her words — is a mystery.

[O]ne thing is clear: Embracing the notion that blacks shouldn’t be expected to listen attentively to instruction is guaranteed to perpetuate into eternity the huge learning gap between blacks on the one hand, and whites and Asians on the other.

I can’t begin to describe how shocked I am by Wright’s racist differentiation between black and white children.

ALSO: It is clear, from the transcript of the NAACP speech, that these are theories that Wright has studied extensively, for years and years, and has SURELY spoken about before, probably countless times in his own sermons at Trinity — including sermons that both Barack and Michelle Obama had to have heard — and endorsed by their continuing presence, not to mention their many large donations to Wright’s church, the last in the amount of $26,000+ in 2007.

This portion of the Wall Street Journal article, “The Wright Side of the Brain” gets into Rev. Wright’s rationalizations for self-destructive behavior, crime, and the incarceration of blacks:

Approving of self-destructive behavior in school is just one part of the vast academic project to justify black underclass dysfunction. The academy has also singled out crime as authentically black, another poisonous idea that Mr. Wright appears to have embraced. In his NAACP speech, he mocked the tendency of “those of us who never got caught” to treat “those of us who are incarcerated” with disrespect. In other words, we all commit crime, but only some of us get nabbed for it.

This leveling argument recalls the bizarre doctrines of University of Pennsylvania law professor Regina Austin. In a widely reprinted California Law Review article from 1992, Ms. Austin asserted that the black community should embrace the criminals in its midst as a form of resistance to white oppression. People of color should view “hustling” as a “good middle ground between straightness and more extreme forms of lawbreaking.” Examples of hustling include “clerks in stores [who] cut their friends a break on merchandise, and pilfering employees [who] spread their contraband around the neighborhood.” It never occurs to Ms. Austin that these black thieves may have black employers who suffer the effects of crime — as do the larger neighborhoods of which they form the essential fabric. Officially incorporating crime into the black identity, as Ms. Austin and Mr. Wright do, is a pathetic admission of defeat and marginalization.

it was a shock, to me, to learn from Ms. Mac Donald that these nonsensical, racist, and divisive theories actually penetrate the mainstream, even the pages of the New York Times:

To understand how such ideas become mainstream, one need only read the front page of yesterday’s New York Times. There, television critic Alessandra Stanley thrills to the authentic voice of black America: Mr. Wright “went deep into context—a rich, stem-winding brew of black history, Scripture, hallelujahs and hermeneutics,” Ms. Stanley effuses. “Mr. Wright, Senator Barack Obama’s former pastor, was cocky, defiant, declamatory, inflammatory and mischievous.”

One might think that Mr. Wright’s promotion of the idea that black kids can’t sit still in class would raise some worries, even in a television critic. Surely Ms. Stanley would expect her own children to listen to their teachers. But the white elite’s desire to avoid charges of racism cancels out all reasonable reactions to dangerous nonsense when such nonsense comes out of black mouths. The coverage of Mr. Wright’s speeches beyond the Times has been just as silent about their crackpot Afrocentric pedagogy, meekly following the agenda that Mr. Wright set by asking instead whether the black church, and not Mr. Wright, was under attack.

Mr. Wright’s speeches have shown how quickly academic insanity becomes incorporated into practice. And now we may be on the verge of seeing such madness spread into the White House. The mainstream media have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into questioning Mr. Obama’s affiliation with Mr. Wright. By now, Mr. Wright’s 9/11 and AIDS diatribes are well-worn — and Mr. Obama’s repudiation of them a no-brainer. It is imperative that someone ask Mr. Obama whether he, too, believes that the way to “fix the schools” is through Afrocentric curricula and double standards in student discipline, and whether he, too, believes that blacks only think with the “right side” of their brains. …

::::::::::::

Op-ed contributor Roland Nethaway wrote in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Wright’s point that the races are different, not deficient, brings up discredited theories of genetic differences among different races.

The American Anthropological Association declared years ago that all human beings are members of the same species, Homo sapiens, and that differentiating species into biologically defined “races” is a meaningless and unscientific way to explain differences and traits.

Nicholas Stojakovich wrote for Op-Ed News that “Rev. Wright’s remarks to NAACP on closer examination further polarize discussions of racism.”

Countless other experts have objected strenuously to Wright’s wild theories in his NAACP speech.

The core problem for us — as voters — is that Barack Obama, as well as his wife Michelle Obama, sat in that church for 20 years and listened to that gibberish and never saw fit to walk out.

I am left to conclude that — by their presence, their marriage by Wright, their children’s baptisms by Wright, the blessing of their $1.6M mansion by Wright, and their large financial gifts to Wright and his church — that the Obamas agreed with their pastor’s divisive, racist theories.

I am also left with the realization that Mr. Obama’s supporters have ready excuses for Obama’s active participation in such a racist, divisive culture.

Charles Krauthammer takes to task the “liberals” who’ve bought the various versions of Obama’s statements on Rev. Wright, and who make excuses for him:

On Tuesday, Obama declared that he himself was surprised at Wright’s outrages. But hadn’t Obama told us that surprise about Wright is a result of white ignorance of black churches brought on by America’s history of segregated services? How then to explain Obama’s own presumed ignorance? Surely he too was not sitting in those segregated white churches on those fateful Sundays when he conveniently missed all of Wright’s racist rants.

Obama’s turning surprise about Wright into something to be counted against whites– one of the more clever devices in that shameful, brilliantly executed, 5,000-word intellectual fraud in Philadelphia — now stands discredited by Obama’s own admission of surprise. But Obama’s liberal acolytes are not daunted. They were taken in by the first great statement on race: the Annunciation, the Chosen One comes to heal us in Philly. They now are taken in by the second: the Renunciation.

Obama’s newest attempt to save himself after Wright’s latest poisonous performance is now declared the new final word on the subject. Therefore, any future ads linking Obama and Wright are preemptively declared out of bounds, illegitimate, indeed “race-baiting” (a New York Times editorial, April 30).

“On what grounds?,” asks Krauthammer, echoing the common-sense reaction of most Americans.

This 20-year association with Wright calls into question everything about Obama: his truthfulness in his serially adjusted stories of what he knew and when he knew it; his judgment in choosing as his mentor, pastor and great friend a man he just now realizes is a purveyor of racial hatred; and the central premise of his campaign, that he is the bringer of a “new politics,” rising above the old Washington ways of expediency. It’s hard to think of an act more blatantly expedient than renouncing Wright when his show, once done from the press club instead of the pulpit, could no longer be “contextualized” as something whites could not understand and only Obama could explain in all its complexity.

There’s that word “expediency” again. And the American people get that too.

Class, our assignment is to write a description of each of the dancers.

::::::::

Meanwhile, the Obama surrogates continue to WHINE (like their fearlessful leader:

Kerry Rips MSNBC On Wright: ‘You People Need To Let Go Of This’

— Today, John Kerry officially became the 87,436th person to receive one of the three or four versions of the same Reverend Wright question MSNBC has been asking everyone it comes in contact with, including their plants and pets.

AND, it happens so often, I must say we’ve become, um, familiar with it. OBAMA WHINES:

Video: The Obamas on Today

Meredith Viera gets the big scoop on the Today show, doing the first post-repudiation interview with Barack and Michelle Obama, as they have to regroup after a series of stumbles over the last two months. Obama to some degree took responsibility for his own woes, although Michelle wanted to “move forward” instead. However, Obama let loose a glimpse of his aggrieved status when talking about how hard it is for a man with his name to run for President: [VIDEO]

His aggrieved status.

Everyone now: Ahhhhhh.

Moi, The One, is suffering.

And, my friends, this is truly disgusting:

Hillary vs Obama: The Slavery Perspective

Field Slave/Obama Supporter:

“I seen a way to freedom and power. C’mon go with me. I figured out a way to the promise land - that place Martin and Malcolm spoke of. There’s hope and possibilities out there for us. There some white folks I know say they gon help us get there. The time is now – right now. Come On…”

House Slave/Clinton Supporter:

“Massa Clinton been good to us. Git on ‘way from here Obama. You gon cause problem fo us all!! Didn’t Massa Clinton give you food and shelter all these years. Where you gon take us? You never been nowhere but right here on dis plantation wit us. This here fine living. We don’t know where you trying to go. They gon kill you. Then how us gon survive? Aint no white folks gon hep you. Get on way from here Obama. Gon now…git”

Looking at from this historical perspective . . . who was right????

Barack Obama talks a good game. And he is an exquisite liar, nearly pathological with his ease of doing so. His campaign likes to point out that this is an open public forum and they have no control over what is posted there. But those of us that know a little something about websites know that that is a bold faced lie that may play well in Peoria but doesn’t square well with the facts. It is relatively easy to stop someone from posting in an open forum.

There are filters and IP address blocks and all kinds of other methods that allow you to screen out particular words or links. The Obama campaign DESIRES this information to be on their website. It is a part of their BIG TENT approach. Republicans, Terrorists, Racists, Mysogynists, Homophobes and Bigots For Obama is their battle cry. And the Obama campaign only takes this stuff down when someone points out that they are offended by it.

As I mentioned in “Will Obama Deny Knowing the New Black Panthers,” this pattern of Obama support is troubling. Because this group is merely the next logical step forward from the rantings of Barack Obama’s spiritual advisor, Jeremiah Wright. It is no accident that this group continues to be featured on the official Obama campaign Web site. It is a message being sent for those with eyes open enough to see.

This should be a wake-up call for anyone with a shred of decency. But apparently that wouldn’t be a supporter of Barack Obama.

We pointed out, in Fleaflicker’s story, that he “is also a friend and close associate of Obama’s national Co-Chairman, Jesse Jackson Jr. and he attends the Salem Baptist Church of Reverend James Meeks, another of Barack Obama’s spiritual advisors.” (We hoped that CNN and Roland Martin would take note of our concerns. That was the point of the story.)

We are pleased to find this YouTube of CNN’s Roland Martin interviewing Hillary Clinton yesterday in Memphis, following her speech:

In this wide-ranging interview, CNN’s Roland Martin asks Hillary Clinton about the legacy of Martin Luther King, the inequalities that impoverished youths face to this day, the national discussion about race, and more.

Thank you, Mr. Martin, for a fair and balanced interview.

We also look forward to fair and balanced commentary on CNN.

Let’s begin with a little history.

On March 24, 2007, SEIU and the Center for American Progress Action Fund sponsored a Presidential Health Care Forum in Las Vegas. All of the Democratic candidates showed up but one candidate stood out from the rest of them. But not in a manner he would have preferred. Yes, Barack Obama bombed big time at this forum. He was unprepared. He stammered a lot and generally received terrible reviews. And on March 28th in CNN’s The Situation Room, Democratic strategist James Carville gave his opinion of the race merely repeating what everyone already knew.

The Situation Room

CARVILLE: But what’s happening [...] to Senator Obama is, he has had a couple of less-than-impressive performances at a health care forum out in Las Vegas and things like that.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: [H]e’s a very talented guy. And he’s very effective. [H]e started out pretty good. I mean, it’s pretty remarkable he is where he is, in terms of somebody…

STEELE: Right.

CARVILLE: … new, and — and burst on the scene like that. But I think that what might be a little troubling, if I was running Obama’s campaign, is, is that he seems to get up — need to get up to speed on a couple of these issues.

Shortly thereafter CNN began receiving phone calls from the Obama campaign complaining that Carville was a Hillary partisan and couldn’t be considered as unbiased political analyst. Then the blogosphere caught wind of the Obama camp’s concerns …

“Respected” bloggers like Stoller and Kos chimed in. First was Stoller, arguing that Carville is just like a Politico hack. Stoller implied that Bay Buchanan, despite her work for Tom Tancredo, was more ethical than Carville.

Stoller: “James Carville’s Blogger Ethics Problem”

James Carville is identified as a CNN Political Analyst, and here he is spreading conventional wisdom about Obama that is worthy of the Politico. That’s fine, since that seems to be what political analysts on the TeeVee do. Carville blathers about how Obama is thin on the issues, isn’t performing well as of late, etc.

What CNN doesn’t mention is that Carville is also sending out fundraising solicitations for Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President and is an advisor for her campaign.

This is crazy. It’s just crazy. When CNN commentator Bay Buchanan took over the Tancredo campaign, she resigned from the network. This isn’t exactly the same situation, but the lines are thin. Carville isn’t getting money from Clinton, but there are other ways of compensation in politics and everyone knows that.

Not to be outdone, Kos jumped in. First, of course, he reminded people of his importance by pointing out that he worked on Dean’s failed Presidential bid. Then he claimed that ordinary Americans have no idea who James Carville is.

Pull out the waders, folks. It starts to get deep.

Kos: “The Carville/CNN ethics dilemma”

Bullshit. When I was a consultant for the Dean campaign, I had a big-ass disclaimer, where the most expensive ad on Daily Kos is placed, disclosing my role. Sure, in his cocktail party circuit, everyone knows Carville is a Hillary partisan, but that can’t be assumed for the general public.

But the biggest culprit here is CNN, which should put up that disclaimer whether Carville agrees to it or not. It’s their responsibility to ensure they remain a “trusted name in news”, and refusing their audience full disclaimers of their guests conflicts of interest is beyond the pale.

Yeah, like no one recognizes Carville’s massive shiny dome. And he is such a humble person that he is quite easily mixed up with any number of people. Yes, it is unlikely that anyone outside of the cocktail party circuit recognizes James Carville. Sure, Kos, whatever you say. Since you are so important. But I assure you, when you describe yourself and use the words big ass in the same sentence, I find you entirely credible.

But what about the message Carville delivered? Was it accurate? Was it partisan? According to most of the people that watched the forum, James Carville was not only correct in his observations of Obama, he nailed it. The well-respected Ezra Klein stated that Obama appeared overwhelmed.

Ezra Klein: “A Lack of Audacity: How Obama’s health care plan resembles the candidate himself”

The first stumble of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign came last March, at the SEIU health care forum in Las Vegas, Nevada. Until then, the Illinois senator’s explosive charisma, preternatural ease on the stump, and inspirational back story had dominated the coverage, pushing down vague concerns about his inexperience and the precise ratio of sizzle to steak. But standing on the podium, Obama seemed, for the first time, unprepared and overwhelmed. He stammered before the surprisingly tenacious grilling of 23-year-old Morgan Miller, who asked, simply, why his web site had more specificity on lead poisoning than health reform. After lamely questioning whether she had visited his campaign or Senate web site, Obama pleaded, sensibly, for more time. “Keep in mind,” he said, “that our campaign now is, I think, a little over eight weeks old … If we have another forum in a couple of months and it’s still not there, I’ll be in trouble.”

If Carville and Klein are not good enough political observers, perhaps the reviews Here, Here and Here will serve as satisfactory unbiased observers of fact.

Despite all of these observations, it was decided that James Carville and Paul Begala had to go. Even Bill Richardson’s campaign got into the act. Richardson’s spokesperson, Tom Reynolds told CNN:

A Clinton Friend’s Role Sets Off Intense Criticism of CNN and a Re-examination

“What you saw last night lacked full disclosure. The average viewer out in middle America may not know the inside-the-Beltway connection.”

With pressure mounting, CNN president Jonathan Klein made a decision that under the circumstances he apparently felt he must. From the way the decision was reached, the chattering masses concluded that CNN was doing the ethical thing.

“He’s not on the Hillary payroll, but he’s on the Hillary bandwagon, and that should be disclosed as much as we can,” Mr. Klein said. “I wasn’t comfortable with it myself as I watched it.

“He has disclosed all of this previously and repeatedly on our air,” he continued. “He happened not to last night, and it’s an unfortunate omission.”

CNN was redeemed. Or so one would think.

While watching a recent installment of CNN’s Sound Off, I listened to CNN’s recently hired contributor Roland Martin. Mr. Martin comes across as an affable gentleman with a long resume designed to impress people. But once he starts speaking, it is clear that he is hardly an unbiased examiner of facts. He has a specific agenda, and it is evident that CNN has given him a platform from which to preach his point of view.

It is important to begin by disclosing that Roland Martin is a member of Reverend James Meeks’ Salem Baptist Church where he is a fellow congregate with Jesse Jackson Jr. It should also be pointed out that Mr. Martin is a firm supporter of Senator Obama. Of course, CNN doesn’t disclose Mr. Martin’s affiliations. We are left to rely upon “resume” information to judge Mr. Martin instead of the FACTS that clearly demonstrate that he has alliances and an axe to grind.

During this show, Martin made it clear that he believes that we need to move on from the Wright and Farrakhan controversy and get back to discussing the issues. Ok…. but in explaining why we should return to “discussing the issues,” his real agenda is revealed. According to Martin, the Trinity United Church of Christ has been given a bum rap.

Controversy [Roland Martin]

The church did not give Minister Farrakhan an award. The Trumpet magazine which used to be a part of the church. It is no longer a part of the church although according to Reverend Otis Moss III they do provide him with some financial assistance. The magazine gave him the award. The church didn’t vote to give Minister Farrakhan an award, the magazine did.

Is this twisted logic from Martin? Does he expect us to believe that everything is “cool” now that Wright has “retired” from the church and that a new pastor has taken over just in time to turn the page? And that these events occurred at the same time that Obama has been scrutinized for his associations?

We are to be assured that everything is “cool” now because Wright isn’t there any more and Obama wasn’t there when Wright said those horrible things? Uh huh… yep, that sure is a good reason to move on. NOT!

Let us examine this Trumpet controversy and then gauge the credibility of Martin’s argument. The most amazing thing about Trumpet Newsmagazine is that it appears to have been disappeared from the Web. All links of which I am aware lead to a page that has NOTHING to do with the magazine. That is no small feat, even for the most Web savvy. Web pages don’t just disappear. There has to be a deliberate action to scrub the information, and the people performing the “scrubs” have to know what they are doing. And in this case it appears that they have done their homework well because nothing exists that I can find. Isn’t it convenient that this would happen at the exact same time that Senator Obama is under increased scrutiny because of his association with his church and his pastor?

Fortunately, not all traces of Trumpet Newsmagazine have been disappeared. For example, we have the original mission statement of the magazine heralded on the Trinity Church’s Web site:

Trumpet Mission Statement

In fulfilling our church motto, “Unashamedly Black, unapologetically Christian” and the mission of the pastor to educate, nurture and empower the people of God, the Trinity Trumpet is committed to honoring our African roots and traditions, to giving voice to our deepening faith in God and to serving the ethnic diversity in the global Christian community as well as those outside the church by highlighting journalistic issues that impact, address and speak to our shared human experiences and beliefs in a racially oppressive society.

So what this does tell us is that Roland Martin was misleading us when he said that Trumpet Magazine was not affiliated with the Trinity United Church of Christ. It may not be now but it sure was until very recently. Could it be that Trinity decided that since there was so much controversy and even an IRS investigation into them that they should probably make all the traces of this go away? Or did they decide that the general public, already repulsed by Wright’s racist and anti-American rants, would go over the edge to learn that in the last issue Wright added another title to his resume: BIGOT.

In referring to the Italian people in general Wright, in the same issue that praised Louis Farrakhan, called the whole of the Italian people “garlic noses.”

Garlic noses

“(Jesus’) enemies had their opinion about Him,” Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. “The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.

“From the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. …” Wright wrote.

Not exactly the words of praise one would expect from a pastor. If Wright were Shakespeare, he might have said: “I come to give Caesar a breath mint, not to praise him.” Seriously, this is outright bigotry and such bigotry doesn’t develop overnight. It isn’t a five-minute outburst that occurs incidentally once every 20 years. It is a deep-seated resentment that one has carefully cultured for years. His bigotry isn’t something that someone accidentally just happened to catch on tape some Sunday. And it is clear that the Trinity Church financed the written vehicle for Wright to spread his gospel of bigotry, hatred and racism even if they have disappeared all traces of the evidence for now.

But back to Roland Martin… It is clear that he is an advocate for Wright and Obama. And it is also clear that he is very willing to distort the truth to make it seem like his guys are just fine. But who else is Roland Martin? What makes him tick? Just what other strong beliefs does he have that his viewers should be aware of?

One of the more controversial beliefs that Roland Martin espouses is his solidarity with Reverend James Meeks that homosexuality is an “evil sickness.” In fact Martin takes Reverend Al Sharpton to task for his attempts to make the “black” clergy more accepting of homosexuals.

Faith - not social pressures - must govern church on issue of homosexuality

What leaders of this effort must come to understand is that the fundamental issue is that gays and lesbians want to be accepted and embraced by the church, and not acknowledge that they are engaged, in the eyes of the church, in sinful behavior. This, regardless of what Sharpton or anyone else has to say, is the reason there will never be a happy medium on this issue.

~snip~

As individuals, gays and lesbians - those claiming to be born this way and others who say they have evolved to live a homosexual lifestyle - are naturally going to want to live their life as they see fit. And yes, the last thing they want to do is sit in a church and listen to someone from the pulpit castigate their way of life. I get that.

But someone who is living with a member of the opposite sex while not married also doesn’t want to hear that being preached. And surely the man or woman cheating on their spouse prefers not to hear their behavior cast as being sinful and unGodly.

So Roland Martin believes that homosexuality is both sinful and ungodly. How absolutely fundamental of him. Martin firmly holds this belief. And like the members of Wright’s church, he isn’t apologetic.

That isn’t being homophobic. It’s being a Christian. And no one should have to apologize for that.

Besides being a homophobe, oh sorry… I mean Christian, just who is Mr. Roland Martin? Well one thing about Roland Martin is obviously true. He is intensely focused on “black” issues for “black” Americans. He seems to share the afrocentric belief system of people like Reverend James Meeks and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And we are expected to accept that it is just a happy accident of fate that he shares the same beliefs as Jesse Jackson Jr. and Barack Obama.

In his resume, Mr. Martin claims to have been the former founding news editor for Savoy magazine. This magazine aspired to be a “black Vanity Fair.” New Savoy Magazine Goes on “Hiatus” The first issue featured an article on Barack and Michelle Obama. But it wasn’t financed well from the start and ceased publication. Another of Mr. Martin’s business adventures is much more revealing because this one is still in publication. Martin was the former founding editor of BlackAmericaWeb.com, another black-focused news source. In fact an interesting article appeared in their most recent issue concerning the controversy surrounding Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright. True to form, they decided that rather than take a stance about Obama and Wright’s positions, they would instead attack Hillary.

To counter the statement that Hillary made in Philadelphia Tuesday concerning the Wright controversy, BlackAmericaweb put out a distorted article featuring the pastor of the church the Clintons belonged to when Bill Clinton was President.

Clinton’s Pastor During White House Days: Whites ‘Would Do Well to Listen’ to Rev. Wright

The pastor of the Washington, D.C., church attended by Bill and Hillary Clinton during their days in the White House says whites in America can learn from listening to the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama’s retired pastor, who has been criticized recently for statements about race and American foreign policy.

The Clintons are no longer members of Foundry UMC, but have deep roots in the denomination.

According to an article published in the Christian Science Monitor, Sen. Clinton’s mother Dorothy Rodham taught Sunday school at First United Methodist Church in their hometown of Park Ridge, Illinois. That’s also the church where a young Hillary began to grow spiritually and participate in community service.

In Arkansas, Bill and Hillary Clinton affiliated with the First United Methodist Church, Little Rock. According to published reports, the Clintons maintain their membership at that church.

And yes, if what was stated in this article was true it would seem to damage Hillary in some respect. Because if her spiritual advisor feels this way, then she must have some credibility problems since she claims to be very spiritual. But that is the rub to this. Because this story is only half true. And the part that isn’t true is the most important part. But fortunately there are other sources of information to get at the truth, which our media has apparently developed a severe allergic reaction to.

The view from Clinton’s former church

But the senior minister at Clinton’s former church — who took over the pulpit there after the former first lady left — has come out in defense of Barack Obama’s provocative former pastor, chastising white Americans for succumbing to fear in their reaction to his fiery sermons. Read more….

Clinton has not returned to services at Foundry since 2001, her spokesman said, but both Bill Clinton and his wife have thanked Foundry for providing a refuge during the most difficult hours of his administration — particularly his impeachment trial at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

While the Foundry pastor who closely counseled the Clintons retired soon after they left the church, his successor has stood in solidarity with Obama’s pastor since controversy first erupted over videotapes of incendiary sermons delivered by Wright. One widely played clip shows Wright sermonising against racism and urging parishioners to sing “God damn America”.

Notice the words in bold? They completely contradict the headline from BlackAmericaweb, that publication of which Roland Martin was the founding editor. This helps determine the legitimacy of his credentials despite how impressive they appear at first glance.

But just in case you got the mistaken impression that journalism was alive and well in other parts of the world this article goes on to distort what really took place and who was involved.

The Clintons bid a highly personal farewell to Foundry in 2001, reading from the Bible and delivering a ermon as a family. The former president suggested they would remain active in the church, telling the congregation that “this is not really a goodbye, but the beginning of a new chapter of our lives with Foundry”.

Asked yesterday whether the New York senator would consider returning to Foundry in light of Snyder’s support for Obama’s pastor, a spokesman for Clinton distanced her from the church.

“I think not being a member of or attending a service there for the past seven years speaks for itself and renders the hypothetical moot,” Philippe Reines, a longtime Clinton aide, said in an email response to Guardian America.

Again, the bolded words highlight the inaccuracy. Because you see, it was Bill Clinton alone that delivered an address to the Foundry church at the end of his Presidency. And he very specifically thanked the pastors there who helped him and the Clinton family during their darkest hours.

Remarks at the Foundry United Methodist Church - Bill Clinton - Transcript

Especially, I would like to thank Reverend Wogaman for being my pastor and friend, my counselor and teacher. Most of you know that for more than 2 years now, he and two other minister friends of mine have shared the burden of meeting with me on a weekly basis. It has been an immense blessing to me and to my service as President.

Rev. Wogaman also serves as a spiritual counselor to the President, along with Rev. Gordon MacDonald and Rev. Tony Campolo.

That clears that up quite nicely.

So where does that leave us? Clearly it has been demonstrated that Roland Martin is a known associate with people that are very close to the Obama campaign and that he has a propensity to distort the facts in such a light that is beneficial to his candidate. So where is the outrage? Why aren’t Stoller and Kos writing about this clearly unethical decision by CNN to put an Obama partisan on the payroll with no disclosure at all? None. Zip. Nada. Just where is Bill Richardson’s outrage? Or is he too busy counting his thirty pieces of silver to care about something so trite as ethics and fairness? Yes it seems quite obvious that the people that were so adamant about causing Carville and Begala to lose their jobs don’t really care about ethics at all. But if I am wrong let them prove me wrong, and join with me in demanding that CNN fire Roland Martin immediately. It’s the ethical thing to do.