We at Peace and Freedom have already collected dozens of freedom of speech violations and attempts to intimidate eminating like a smelly ooze from the Obama team and their supporters.
Janet Napolitano’s release of a document tarring veterans and other conservative groups as dangerous extremists, just before the Tax Day Tea Parties, is the ugliest of these effort to silence public dabate that may not be to the liking of Obama lovers.
Several Republican senators have now ask Napolitano for an explanation.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
eight years, we’ve been treated to hysterical rhetoric from Democrats, including Barack Obama, about the scourge of “domestic spying.” Now that the Obama administration is openly calling for domestic spying — the real thing, not the smear used against President Bush — they’re suddenly silent.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in coordination with the FBI, has issued an intelligence assessment on what it calls “Rightwing Extremism.” It is appalling. The nakedly political document announces itself as a “federal effort to influence domestic public opinion.” It proceeds, in what it acknowledges is the absence of any “specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,” to speculate that “rightwing” political views might “drive” such violence — violence, it further surmises, that might be abetted by military veterans returning home after putting their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan. And for good measure, in violation of both FBI guidelines and congressional statutes, the Obama administration promises scrutiny of ordinary Americans’ political views, speech, and assembly.
The word “rightwing” appears repeatedly in the assessment, which was issued by the same DHS component (the “Extremism and Radicalization Branch”) that, a year ago, suggested purging the terms “jihadist” and “Islamofascist” from our lexicon for fear of insulting moderate Muslims. And what exactly is “rightwing”? According to Obama’s DHS….
Here is the latest and most public story of a gross over reaction from the Obama side of the aisle….
By Mike Allen
The liberal blogosphere is on the attack about three paragraphs in a story POLITICO posted Thursday on the release of the CIA interrogation memos.
Here’s the story behind the story.
My bosses and I were interviewing White House senior adviser David Axelrod on Thursday for another article, and he gave us a preview of the decision on the memos, explaining President Barack Obama’s painstaking decision-making process as he weighed conflicting advice from close aides.
So when the memos and a presidential statement were released Thursday, POLITICO posted an account of the deliberations. “Obama consulted widely on memos,” said the headline. The lead quoted Axelrod as saying that the president considered it “a weighty decision”: “He thought very long and hard about it, consulted widely. … He’s been thinking about this for four weeks, really.”
Not exactly a hit piece — a point driven home by one of the responses that came in through the Web: “Nice article title, Obama fluffer.”
While I was writing the piece, a very well-known former Bush administration official e-mailed some caustic criticism of Obama’s decision to release the memos. I asked the former official to be quoted by name, but this person refused, e-mailing: “Please use only on background.” I wasn’t surprised: While Karl Rove and former Vice President Dick Cheney have certainly let loose in public comments, most top Bush officials have been reluctant to go on the record criticizing Obama. They have new careers, and they know it’s a fight they’ll never win. He’s popular; they’re not — they get it.
I figured that readers could decide whether the former Bush official’s comments sounded defensive or vindictive. And POLITICO readers aren’t so delicate that we have to deceptively pretend there’s no other side to a major issue. So at the bottom of the Axelrod story, I tacked on an ellipsized excerpt of the former Bush official’s quotes, removing several ad hominem attacks on Obama. I quoted less than half of the comment and took out the most incendiary parts — a way to hint at the opposing view without giving an anonymous source free rein. I also added a final sentence with additional White House perspective, so the former Bush official wouldn’t have the last word.
Over at Atlantic.com, Andrew Sullivan somehow turned that into, “Mike Allen: Bush Mouthpiece.”
Sullivan’s post: “Under what reasoning does Politico’s Mike Allen give the following piece of spin anonymity? … Allen is allowing a member of the administration that broke the Geneva Conventions and committed war crimes to attack the current president and claim, without any substantiation, that the torture worked. He then allows that ‘top official’ to proclaim things that are at the very least highly questionable. What journalistic standard is Allen following in allowing such a person to speak anonymously? And how much lower can he sink in craving buzz and traffic?”
Read the rest:
Giving away money could also help the re-election effort….
The Great Give Away of Taxpayer Money By Bigger and Bigger Government