Rush Limbaugh: How to define a legacy?

My father was diagnosed this year and had half a lung removed, radiation and the like. Talking politics and Limbaugh with him was a great distraction. Thanks for making that harder (sarcasm font). I am seriously saddened (or as Rush the Band said… I felt a shadow cross my heart). Nut not fully surprised based on all the unscheduled days away.

On to my point. I often wondered what will Rush’s Legacy be? Obviously, talk radio and the rise of Conservative and Libertarian pundits. Even Fox News and proving that it could be viable. Is that enough? My mother is working on a similar issue with her favorite horse trainer (… Based on her love of him and his style. But it is a reasonable and serious question, even as you simply get older.

I would love to volunteer to interview you (in no way professional on that) and help organize thoughts and ideas. I do not expect that I can execute on them all, but you have amazing people that can for those that you already have through about. I want new ideas, classroom, certification (no diplomas I know), stack of stuff, search databases, etc.etc We need a project plan.

I truly am not selling anything. Just love and experience from a stranger that feels like an long awaited friend [another Rush the band lyric]. I am technical and a father of three, these are the things I am thinking of since my dad was diagnosed. Thanks to my mom for starting this thought process. You do not have kids (that we know of) but we are all your students and to make sure the education never stops, we need a plan.

Much love and appreciation


IG Report helps define bias in prior memos

IG Report “Cliff Notes”Prior Memos “Cliff Notes”

  • Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order.
  • Carter Page’s alleged coordination with the Russian government on 2016 U.S. presidential election activities-the application relied entirely on the following information from Steele Reports 80, 94, 95, and 102
  • The FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter
    Page in Steele’s reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications.
  • The problems we identified were primarily caused by the Crossfire Hurricane team failing to share all relevant information
  • We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page.
  • Determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team was unable to corroborate any of the specific substantive allegations regarding Carter Page
    contained in Steele’s election reporting which the FBI relied on in the FISA applications.

  • Based upon the information known to the FBI in October 2016, the first application contained the following seven significant inaccuracies and omissions Omitted Page had been approved as an “operational contact” for the other agency from 2008 to 2013
  • Overstated representations about Steele’s prior reporting and had not been approved by Steele’s handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures
  • Omitted Steele himself told members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that Person 1 was a “boaster” and an “egoist” and ” may engage in some embellishment. Including omission that the FBI had opened a counterintelligence investigation on Person 1 a few days before the FISA application was filed;
  • Omitted Papadopoulos’s statements to an FBI CHS in September 2016 denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks
  • Omitted Page’s statements to an FBI CHS in August 2016 that Page had “literally never met” or “said one word to” Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Page’s emails
  • Omitted Page’s statements that were inconsistent with its theory, including denying having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who Divyekin was

  • We identified 10 additional significant errors in the three renewal applications, based upon information known to the FBI after the first
    application and before one or more of the renewals.
  • Omitted the fact that Steele’s Primary Subsource, who the FBI found credible, had made statements in January 2017 raising significant
    questions about the reliability of allegations included in the FISA applications
  • Omitted Page’s prior relationship with another U.S. government agency, despite being reminded by the other agency. Instead of including this
    information in the final renewal application, the OGC Attorney altered an email from the other agency so that the email stated that Page was ” not a source” for the other agency
  • Omitted information from persons who previously had professional contacts with Steele or had direct knowledge of his work-related performance, including statements that Steele “[d]emonstrates lack of self-awareness, poor judgment,” “pursued people with political risk but no intelligence value,” “didn’t always exercise great judgment,” and it was ” not clear what he would have done to validate” his
  • Omitted information obtained from Ohr about Steele and his election reporting, including that (1) Steele’s reporting was going to Clinton’s presidential campaign and others, (2) Simpson was paying Steele to discuss his reporting with
    the media, and (3) Steele was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being the U.S. President”
  • Failed to disclose that Simpson was hired by someone associated with the Democratic Party and/or the DNC
  • Failed to correct the assertion in the first FISA application that the FBI did not believe that Steele directly provided information to the reporter who wrote the September 23 Yahoo News article
  • Failed to correct the assertion in the first FISA application that the FBI did not believe that Steele directly provided information to the reporter who wrote the September 23 Yahoo News article
  • Omitted the finding from a FBI source validation on Steele’s past contributions as ” minimally corroborated,” versus “corroborated and used in criminal proceedings”
  • Omitted Papadopoulos’s statements to an FBI CHS in late October 2016 denying that the Trump campaign was involved in the circumstances of the DNC email hack
  • Omitted Joseph Mifsud’s denials to the FBI that he supplied Papadopoulos with the information Papadopoulos shared with the FFG
  • Omitted information indicating that Page played no role in the Republican platform change on Russia’s annexation of Ukraine

  • FBI and officials did not ‘abuse’ the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign.
  • DOJ and the FBI would have been remiss had they not sought a ISA warrant and repeated renewals to conduct temporary surveillance of Carter Page, someone the FBI assessed to be an agent of the Russian government.
  • Christopher Steele’s raw intelligence reporting did not inform the decision to initiate its counter-intelligence investigation in late July 2016
  • The FBI viewed Steele’s reporting and sources as reliable and credible and disclosed the fact of and reason for his termination as a source; and the assessed political motivation of those who hired him.
  • Nunez memo was a profoundly misleading memorandum alleging serious abuses by the FBI and DOJ
  • Made only narrow use of information from Steele’s sources about Page’s specific activities in 2016
  • Papadopoulos revealed that individuals linked to Russia, who took interest in Papadopoulos as at Trump campaign foreign policy adviser
  • The FBI would have continued its investigation, including against – individuals, even if it had never received information from Steele
  • The initial warrant application and subsequent renewals received independent scrutiny and approval by four different federal judges
  • In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele?s reporting.

  • The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an
    essential part of the Carter Page FISA application
  • Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or_ any party/campaign in funding
  • The Yahoo article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.
  • Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate beputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr. Clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.
  • After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally collaborated.
  • In early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary ofthe Steele dossier, even though it was – according to his June 2017 testimony-“salacious and unverified.”
  • The Page FISA application a1so mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign
    advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy
    between Page and Papadopoulos.

  • It appears that Mr. Steele gathered much of his information from Russian government sources
    inside Russia. According to the law firm Perkins Coie, Mr. Steele’s dossier-related efforts were
    funded through Fusion GPS by that law firm on behalf of the Democratic National Committee
    and the Clinton Campaign.
  • It appears that either Mr. Steele lied to the FBI or the British court, or that the classified  documents reviewed by the Committee
    contain materially false statements.
  • Both relied heavily on Mr. Steele’s dossier claims, and both applications were granted by the FISC
  • Similarly, in June 2017, former FBI Director Corney testified publicly before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that he had briefed President-Elect Trump on the dossier allegations in January 2017, which Mr. Corney described as “salacious” and “unverified.”
  • Around the same time Yahoo News published its article containing dossier information about Carter Page, Mr. Steele and Fusion GPS had briefed Yahoo News and other news outlets about information contained in the dossier.
  • “is in touch with , a contact of , a friend of the Clintons, who passed it to .” It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele’s work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility.
  • In the British litigation, which involves a post-election dossier memorandum, Mr. Steele admitted that he received and included in it unsolicited-and unverified-allegations.

Now that the IG report is out, I wanted to take time and reread the source documents regarding the FISA “abuse” of Carter Page and the Trump campaign. I wanted to refocus on what was said in each and assess it for truth and for bias. In compiling the above and reading the “same” information from each source, I ran across from interesting findings that go beyond the simple true/false tagging.

The base allegations from the GOP was that the FISA process was abused by the FBI to gain approval to spy on the Trump campaign leading into his election, his inauguration and the months after. On this high level and very basic point, it seems that they were nearly 100% correct. It specifically was four people within the campaign, including Page which continued after he left the campaign. Details, details, but the overall story is not affected. The democratic response, though almost a full reversals is not 100% false. I was surprised at how elegantly their truth wandered around the edges. The statements being mostly true, but the overall message being almost completely wrong. It seems that their responses rely on the FBI itself as proof that the FBI conducted itself properly. Son once that basis begins to crumble the argument has no basis.

Statements like
– “they would have been remiss if had they not sought a ISA warrent… someone the FBI assessed to be an agent of the Russian government.”
– “the FBI viewed Steele’s reporting and sources as reliable”
– “Steele did not inform the decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016”

These are half truths of the FISA application itself, restated from the FISA and meant to persuade and/or confuse. Of course they would be remiss if they did not investigate a legitimate concern. But their job is to vet legitimate from “unsolicited-and unverified-allegations.” Based on their own inter-agency emails and verification processes, they had little evidence to suspect Page was an “agent of Russia” and reams of documentation to not trust the information Steele was feeding them. Yet they constructed the straw man, downplayed Steele’s bias as a means to seek a warrant to confirm what they were hearing. And the Democrats recycled that narrative. The Democrat memo refers to July 2016 attempts to look into Page as legitimate “other information” or proof that the dossier just tipped the scales. It seems reasonable on it’s face.

That FISA was rejected by a judge. Why? We may never know for sure. Some woudl argue it was proof of the system. That it was not complete, but the dossier
confirmed or elevated similar concerns and tipped the scales. However, based on what else we now know, can we construct an alternative? Could it be that it was rejected because his relationships and travel in Russia were in connection to his relationship with another government agency (assumed to be the CIA)? I say this because the “modified e-mail” refers to documentation provided to the FBI in August 2016. So the timing is close enough to an overlap to conclude the request was flimsy and contradicted by the relationship within the other agency.
It is that first FISA that may educate us more.

However, this hits a main point of my concern. Maybe, just maybe the first application was legitimate to confirm the rumors peddled by Steele. But surely the information being gathered was contradicting that theme. Every 90 days, every renewal request was chance to step back and evaluate. A chance to learn from new information. It seems that this was the largest and biggest failing of the process. Though the IG report does lay out seven points that contradict even that glowing assessment of this mess.

The Democrats wanted to believe that the stories they tell themselves and their friends over drinks were true. They were not interested in the process used or the contradictions, they simply restated the FBIs FISA application bullet points as is those were new facts to confirm the process itself. likely, not realizing that those same stories they were hearing where the same allegations told over drinks between Russians and to Steele. None of it corroborated and confirmed, but fun to repeat and embellish.

The GOP on the other hand was concerned about the process, the abuse of the system to spy on an American. In this case they were right. The facts contradict the narrative. And in America, we still hope that the facts will win out; over half-truths and bias. But I do wonder (ok I know) how little the GOP would defend the process if the target was someone that they wanted. There are a precious few that I believe would, I only wish there were more on both sides.

We all are angry when a “guilty” person goes free because of the process but that is our justice system. But we accept the risks that the burden is on the accuser. The fact that some guilty may go free is a small price to pay for the majority to
be free from government oppression and false allegations. The power entrusted to a very few to manage the process is what is being tested. Political bias should not matter to the outcome. Facts and the proper execution of the process, is what keeps our system functioning. This is why the IG report was so important. It presented facts, laid out abuses, misdeeds and/or mistakes conducted by people within the current process.

Many will focus on correcting the process. The will add more belts and suspenders, slow the FISA court down, even argue to remove it all together. Maybe process change is an answer or part of one. However, I think the current process was abused by those that are entrusted to know. Not honest mistakes and exclusion or omission, but pre-meditated actions to give a false impression to a judge and get a desired outcome. I think of this as getting a warrant on a false pretense. Ok, the warrant is invalid and anything gathered from it is inadmissible. But do people go to jail over false or misleading information to gather a warrant? Are those abuses criminal? I am not a lawyer, but until evidence proves pre-meditation, I doubt it. So in the end, the only protection we have is the honesty and integrity of biased human beings executing a flawed process.

Page WAS misused by the FBI

After the IG disclosure of the edited email stating that Carter Page was “not a source”, I have found myself very interested in this alteration. I have read very little that details this besides “it looks very bad” or “obvious bias”. But like much of the reporting, high on opinion and low on facts. So I decided to actually read the report and see what it said. Here are some interesting tidbits I learned.

  • The alteration was done as part of the Renewal Application No. 3 in June of 2017. SSA 2 who was to be an affiant and sign-off on it was nervous that news that he was reading was not yet disclosed in the application (summary xii, Chapter 8 pg )

This likely means that Rosenstein or his compatriots were at least looking into or questioning Comey’s prior lack of disclosure. Trying to confirm what Page himself was saying to news outlets.

We know now that the email response was altered to include “not a source” and change the entire response from the affirmative to the negative. That is big news, but sitting right beside it was this little tid-bit

  • it was the liaison’s recollection that Page had or continued to have a relationship with the other agency, and directed the OGC Attorney to review the information that the other agency had provided to t he FBI in August 2016.

Two interesting items in there that I have not heard. First that Page’s relationship with the other agency (assumed to be the CIA) may have been on-going in 2017 (post election). But the bigger item was that this agency had already provided this confirmation in August of 2016. For those confused.. August 2016 would have been prior to the election in November of 2016 AND prior to October 2016 when the first FISA application was signed.

I have tried to give the FBI the benefit of the doubt on the first application. I wanted to believe that they were hearing news about the Trump campaign and that they legitimately wanted to look into it (including spying on them). I had believed that the first application was likely legitimate and without bias, and that they then got caught up in their own discovery and bias to misread signals and misinterpret facts as they renewed the applications.

The altered email was a big signal that “misinterpret” was to be replaced by “misrepresent” in the mind of most Americans. But these surrounding facts point out that before they ever began, they knew that Carter Page’s relationships in Russia were likely connected to another government agency and they decided to ignore those facts from inception and investigate the campaign. I am not sure how you define bias, but a willful desire to misrepresent the known facts for your own means seems pretty close.

Redistribution of Wealth the free market way

This country seems to be split fifty/fifty with little way to resolve the fundamental disagreement between free market conservatives and the liberal (more socialistic) redistribution philosophies. As I stated in a previous blog, there is huge tension created by the simple fact that the socialist agenda must take from the free market agenda to succeed. How can we have both function without the pending civil unrest? How about working this out the same way we work out other tough decisions; 401k plans, health care, child birth and just about any other product. Choice… Democrats are all about “choice.” How about tax system choice?

I am not advocating a civil separation of peoples or states along physical boundaries. Simply a redistribution of wealth based on fiscal policy. If you are a Liberal Democrat you can send in all income over a calculated level for redistribution. Lets say $50,000 which is close to the median. If you make more then this number you send it in. Better yet, register and it will be taken from your paycheck so that you are not irresponsible with it.  If you make less, you will receive a check to level you up to $50,000. The influx of money from Hollywood elites and news paper executives alone would amount to 100s of billions in new tax revenue.

For those on the conservative side, simply send in 15% of each dollar over that median level.  [For the basis of this social experiment, the flat tax versus fair tax argument will have to wait ].  No exceptions no loopholes just 15%. You will get none of it back directly.  Don’t expect it.  Don’t lobby for it.  This is the fee for living and earning money in this great country.   This will go into the general fund to be used for education, military, roads, etc.

Those of you in the middle (the undecideds), you can keep the current tax system or elect to jump into either of the other options. This is the ultimate in choice and allows for the liberal philosophy to coexist with the conservative.

Do you believe that this is unfair? Because the liberals will have to pay more? But don’t they want to pay more? Why target this one group of Americans? Why do we pick on the rich as we do today? This system seems to be far more fair and is definitely more free.   In fact, far more liberal voters will be exempt from taxation because all those under the median level will be paying no taxes.  IN this system, we are selecting whom we gather our funds from, not by their income status but by their freely stated desire for a philosophy they would vote impart onto others.

Corporations that want to create jobs and pay employees to grow their businesses can. Companies that want to be based on philanthropy and non-profit can exist on both sides of this model. Those funded by government mandate would have public funds available to be redistributed from the same money’s as individuals. Those on a private sector mandate would have to seek a profitable business model or the philanthropy of others.

Some would say “everyone would select the conservative model” because they pay less.  I say those people do not understand the full commitment of the liberals to their philosophy.  Are you telling me you believe they only want to take from others and not give of themselves?  I suppose, that I have more faith in our American socialist than you.  With a 50/50 split we are in the perfect environment to set up a balance to test this.  We can then see which model produces more revenue and opportunity for the most people. As I stated, the conservative funds would still be available for government projects, military and the like. So from the contributions of that model, all would benefit at the Federal level.  To be fair, both models will have to contribute. Liberal funds would not be allowed to go only to social programs and nothing towards infrastructure (like Russia, France, Greece, CA and …)  Ok, in our version of the model that might need to be worked out.

You know… maybe I am making this to too difficult. We can test this today without a complicated law and debate. We know the median income level.  Liberals just send in the rest above that number when you vote and let’s get out of this deficit. You could solve many these problems in the first year based on your own stated desires.  No need to have to force the rest of us into that model.  Imagine the glow of victory, the show of strength of character and convictions in your desired system of government. I would be so proud to call you all our Americans friends on the left. Then the rest of us would continue to work , so that we can give you jobs, watch your movies, read your papers.   All the while, knowing that your profits are the profits for us all.

It is a free country and you are free to pursue your dreams of fairness. Just remember to leave me free to pursue mine.

CORE Principals exposed via solutions

So much about politics is noise. To filter our the noise, I use one simple technique. I listen for CORE Principals. In most arguments, the problems are known and often agreed. However, the solutions move in often opposite directions.

My core principals lean on the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. I look for these principals underlying policy arguments. In far too many cases, the solutions being offered not only lack these principals they move the in the opposite direction or even worse directly violate those principals.

At this point will not be going into every political argument, because there are far too many and always changing. However, there is one that often comes up and continues to move in the wrong direction.

Healthcare is a right. No it is not. Rights are granted to human beings by their creator as part of the their existence. Healthcare is a service provided by others. “Others” that happen to be human beings with an innate right to pursue their own happiness. Putting government between this transaction of two parties is inherently wrong; even if desired.

Perspective changes everything: ah-ha moment with Glenn Beck

I watched Tuesday and Wednesday’s show and the work at the chalkboard. I have to admit that I had a light bulb/AH HA moment. I do not believe that my “discovery” was your intent and may already be obvious to you and your audience. To me it was that dot that connected a few others and made the final picture a bit clearer. Let me attempt to explain.


I agree with the basic premises of the left and right being replaced by full government on the left and anarchy on the right (though I tend to read left to right). It is also true (and important to recognize) that Fascism and Communism are both full government control.  Looking at the Republicans and Democrats as an independent variable (Up and Down) in comparison to this scale is incredibly valuable.

Libertarians see themselves as much smaller government a notch above anarchy. Conservatives a bit further down the line.  Progressives in both parties have increased the size and scope of government for their purposes. Democrats generally grow government for social programs, a welfare state tax law; Republicans for national security, corporate law and tax incentives. Neither have been fighting to pull it back.

My light bulb moment:

The bar that moves left to right is not constant in size or color.  As the bar moves towards government control it grows.  It is not truly Blue (up) and Red (down) but it changes shades of both as the power shifts in Washington. For most Americans, that sit somewhere a few notches to the right of center; and desiring a smaller government; they watch this bar toggle from something approaching Communist, to Fascist, and back again. How “bad” you think this power is depends on how much power you are willing to allow in either direction. In realty, it depends on your perspective from your own location on the chart. Polarity is based on your perspective. A Constitutional Liberal is closer to a Conservative then the current Bush administration.

The distance from me is dependent on both philosophy and the overall power of government…the new Triangulation. In fact, a flaming Liberal that wanted 16% government involvement would be closer to me then the George Bush administration.

Let me explain the perspective shift with a recent example. 9/11 occurred and many wanted legislation to help corral information and better monitor terrorists: The Patriot Act was born. The left screamed Fascism seeing a military apparatus with the increased power to monitor phone calls to suspected terrorists. Many conservatives saw the controlled use of this power under Congressional oversight as an acceptable expansion of power. Well, now the color of that power has changed from Red to Blue and congressional oversight is being “performed” by the Liberal wing of the other party. How do you feel now? The power grown under either the GOP or the DNC will eventually change hands and no matter which side you are on the perspective will continually change.

Taking a newer and possible pending example of Government managed health care. The bill allows for the government to select treatment alternatives and suggest treatment at the point of service. Could that power be allowed to limit coverage to the elderly, unproductive members of society or military veterans? Could it limit coverage for Hollywood celebrities active against a new administration or college professors? The good or bad of these examples will depend on your perspective.

Am I arguing for Centrists with no strong political views on either side or for a third party?  No.  The simple fact is that government should never get this much power. Without the size and scope and the ability to influence your liberties on a daily basis, the question becomes mute. A change of party in Washington has much less impact on your perspective when they have limited power. The solution to parity in policy is returning to smaller government, local government and personal liberty.

Huffington Post reused edited image as a different city to dig Tea-Parties

As you would expect the Huffington Post has a bit of an issue covering these tea-parties but this was priceless coverage.

I found this picture with the heading “Barack Hussein Obama The New face Of Hitler”– T. Romao, Chicago.”

And then further down the page in another section I found this with the heading “Obama pictured as Hitler in Philadelphia, PA–photo by Toni Romao”
Man that guy gets around, fast!

Now I could try to give them the benefit of the doubt on a typo. But they changed the image, as well as, the caption. Now they could have done a better job. In an AMAZING coincidence that is the same guy CNN interviewed!!! Trying to portray more of the attendees as nut-jobs? Couldn’t even find enough signs so they had to repeat.

If they really wanted to get their combined act together, this is what they might have said…Sorry for the delayed intro…

Obama Administration: These things that are now “torture”

With the discloser of the memos it has become very obvious that our definition of torture has softened a bit. I read through the events and laughed at times. I know it was not nice… but a caterpillar.. come on. I was thinking that would terrorize my daughter (she too thinks insects are out to get her). Then I thought, don’t psychologists recommend things like this to help you overcome your fears (heights, crowds, elevators)?

I looked through the list and wondered how all of this was so bad. These are people that blew up buildings, cut of the heads of people and have no respect for any American life. And we have to talk nice to them for “shouting” is not in the handbook. Then it clicked… it all makes sense now. If you remove thought and logic and go back to the base emotions of a 5 year old. If the left has softened us so much that all of this is torture, then so are all the rest of these items the left is trying to stop!

9. Getting up for work is torture [welfare].
8. Getting yelled at or fired for bad performance is torture [unions].
7. Having to study for a test is torture [social promotion].
6. Living in a rundown apartment is torture [community reinvestment act].
5. Having to spend within my means is torture [Congress, Obama’s budget]
4. Knowing what people will want to buy is torture [auto bailouts].
3. Listening to conservatives is torture [fairness doctrine].
2. Basic training is torture [cut the military].
The number one liberal torture policy
1. Having to be a responsible adult is torture [et al].

It works great is you have a whiny child read these to you…Dennis Kucinich comes to mind.

CNN gets what they deserve

You have probably seen the CNN “reporter” confronting Tea Party attendees in Chicago. You probably saw the attack on the dad with the two year old but have you seen the whole thing?

You may have missed her intro and lies about the organizers.
You may not have seen the first guy she picked out… wow…obviously she picked him to set her agenda.

Then notice how she moves past a bunch of people to select another mark. Then after asking him a question she cuts him off and berates him with “stimulus facts”. He takes it in stride and then finishes his cogent thought… damn that set her back. She continues to set her agenda and then stops the interview, slams the protesters, Fox News and signs off… or did she.

Look what someone else has posted (below)

Getting paid to cover the protest, $5,000
Professional Camera and Microphone, $100,000
Getting out reported by a Chicago mom, PRICELESS.


"Torture" edited for bias style

Here are the headlines…

Washington Post: Interrogation Details Emerge
CNN: Bush-era interrogation memo: No torture without ‘severe pain’ intent
New York Times: Interrogation Memos Detail Harsh Tactics by the C.I.A.
LA Times: Memos reveal CIA interrogation methods
Wall Street Journal: CIA Memos Released; Immunity for Harsh Tactics
[note headline on home page differs No Prosecution for Waterboarding ]
Fox News: Administration: No Charges Against Waterboarders

Scoring on the bias scale; I would commend the Washington Post and LA Times headliners. New York Times [shock] is the most liberally biased headline. CNN is not bad but adds a bit of detail to the headline. WSJ is interesting… the front page is taking a completely different angle then the headline of the article itself… [different folks with different philosophies?]. Fox loses on the the conservative end of the scale for missing the whole release of the documents and jumping to the end story.