Charles Krauthammer on Obama's "Fox Wars"

Charles Krauthammer is one of the best in the business. Few columnists have the ability to eviscerate the arrogantly powerful as well as Mr. Krauthammer, as shown in his succinct dissection of President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama's jihad against the Fox News network.

Obama's Fourth Reich hoped to squelch growing criticisms of the White House by attacking a news operation and warning other networks not to pick up stories that originated on Fox. The dutiful Big Media was done the O-Train's bidding and discarded all pretense of legitimate journalism. However, even some members of the state media felt compelled to cover the ACORN scandals and Obama's communist, conspiracy nut homeboy Van Jones after those stories became huge due to Fox News, talk radio and the alternative media. When Obama tried to kick Fox out of the White House press pool, the other bureau chiefs finally said "no." That was a stinging rebuke for The One.

What is truly remarkable about the goofy Left's visceral hatred of Fox News is the fact that the network comprises a small voice in the vast media chorus (though its ratings are incredibly high--guess they aren't out of touch with Real America). Krauthammer notes:

Fox News is no monopoly. It is a singular minority in a sea of liberal media. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC vs. Fox. The lineup is so unbalanced as to be
comical -- and that doesn't even include the other commanding heights of the culture that are firmly, flagrantly liberal: Hollywood, the foundations, the universities, the elite newspapers.

Fox and its viewers (numbering more than CNN's and MSNBC's combined) need no
defense. Defend Fox compared to whom? To CNN -- which recently unleashed its
fact-checkers on a "Saturday Night Live" skit mildly critical of President Obama, but did no checking of a grotesquely racist remark CNN falsely attributed to Rush Limbaugh?

This is a bit like the administration's claim that the free market needs competition from the government. Such logic only makes sense to an economic illiterate. Fifteen hundred health insurance companies compete for business (though their ability to compete is constrained to a large degree by, you guess it, the government), but the only REAL competition would come from a government "option." In media, one network presents all sides rather than the Statist talking points and it has undue influence on American journalism. Only in Obama World are Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman legitimate journalists and Bret Baier a Republican stooge.

Krauthammer's best zinger was aimed at Anita Dunn, White House Mistress of Disinformation. Dunn is the empty skirt who rated the 20th century's most prolific mass murderer, Mao Tse-tung, as one of her two favorite political philosophers.

Defend Fox from the likes of Anita Dunn? She's been attacked for extolling Mao's political philosophy in a speech at a high school graduation. But the critics miss the surpassing stupidity of her larger point: She was invoking Mao as support and authority for her impassioned plea for individuality and trusting one's own choices. Mao as champion of individuality? Mao, the greatest imposer of mass uniformity in modern history, creator of a slave society of a near-billion worker bees wearing Mao suits and waving the Little Red Book?

The White House communications director cannot be trusted to address high schoolers without uttering inanities. She and her cohorts are now to instruct the country on truth and objectivity?

The truth is that Anita Dunn's comments, Obama's associations, Van Jones' moonbat rantings, Rahm Emmanuel's exhortation to "not let a crisis go to waste," Michelle Obama's "first time proud comment and all of the other lunacy that has emanated from Team O is all part of a disturbing reality. That is who they are. That is who HE is. And it is that crushing realization more so than even the health care takeover or cap-and-tax scheme that has more Americans telling the Big O that he can keep his "change." Let's hope Fox News keeps reporting the truth about this gang of extremists. Who knows, maybe some of the other networks will put their profession and their country ahead of their Leftist ideology. Stranger things have happened.

Can John Stossel Save American Journalism?

Recently, ABC investigative reporter John Stossel announced that he is heading to Fox News in October. Stossel is a rarity in mainstream journalism today: he is a true investigator. Whereas most reporters are Leftists who use the airwaves or newsprint, Stossel is a reporter who is grounded in American principles and willing to expose corruption and dishonesty wherever he finds it. He is an unabashed Libertarian whose world view is shaped by a belief in maximized liberty for all people.

In fact, Stossel will probably anger some who are more Republican than Conservative when he brings his brand of investigative reporting to Fox. He is not concerned with stepping on toes. Stossel is a journalist, but his principle-based reporting can play a positive role for Conservatives by reminding them of their core beliefs when their political leaders veer off course.

Stossel followed up his original announcement on Townhall.com today with a column that focused on the disintegration of legitimate reporting in the mainstream media.

When I announced last week that I was leaving ABC for Fox, some readers complained about my "bias." I replied: "Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine."

Look at today's burning issue: President Obama's pledge to redesign 15 percent of the economy. Virtually every reporter calls his health care plan "reform." But dictionaries define reform as "improvement." So before they present any evidence, reporters pronounce Obama's plan an improvement. Isn't that bias?

The New York Times took its bias to an absurd length. Its page-one story on the big anti-big-government rally in Washington, D.C., referred to "protests that began with an opposition to health care. ..."

Apparently, in the Times reporter's and editors' view, opponents of the Obama health care plan oppose health care itself. (The online article was later changed.

Economic-policy reporters usually present the views of supporters of new regulations as objective and public-spirited. For a contrary view, at best they'll ask a Republican or a representative of the regulated business, who is portrayed as self-serving. (Republicans tend to offer a watered-down version of the Democrats' proposals.)

A recent Bloomberg report on President Obama's plans to rewrite financial regulations is typical: "Obama has proposed new regulations overseeing the systemic risk posed by large financial institutions." The reporter quoted White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers in support of the plan. Although there are plenty of reasons to doubt that regulators are competent at judging systemic risk, no skeptical economist was quoted. Readers are led to believe the program is perfectly feasible.

Most reporting on the "stimulus" package has the same flaw. Just to call it "stimulus" is to editorialize, since the idea that government spending can truly stimulate an economy is at best doubtful. Many good economists say it can't be done. After all, the money is taken from somewhere else. But the economists rarely are quoted.

You can read the rest of Stossel's latest column here.

I'm looking forward to John Stossel's new career on Fox. While I sometimes find the typical Libertarian's view on foreign policy unsatisfactory for a dangerous 21st century world, their domestic agenda is much closer to the Founders' vision than the GOP and light years closer than the Democrats. Fox is a good home for a true Patriot like Stossel.

Chris Wallace Exposes Lies of VA's "Death Book" Denials

The spectre of government death panels was clarified with Jim Towey's piece in the Wall Street Journal about the "Your Life, Your Choice" program mandated by the Veterans Administration. Today, Towey appeared on "Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace where Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs Tammy Duckworth also appeared. Duckworth, by the way, wanted to be interviewed separately. Duckworth is one of our wounded warriors (she lost her legs in Iraq) and deserves to be honored as a hero for that. However, today she was simply a dishonest political hack who could not admit she was lying about the VA's use of the controversial materials. Kimberly Morin has been following the "Your Life, Your Choices" story for the Boston Conservative Independent Examiner and has extensive links to the relevant documents.

You can read the transcript of the Fox News Sunday interview here.

In the following segment, Senator Arlen Specter announced his support for Towey in regard to the VA issue, but again attacked the "death panel" straw man. The Dems' strategy for fighting this is to pretend that Conservatives mean that there will literally be a committee that votes on whether or not people will live or die.

There are two very real issues that give meat to the "death panel" concept. First, is the undeniable reality that health care rationing will be a part of any government managed program. This is true in every country with socialized medicine. It is a concept endorsed by Tom Daschle, Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel and other health care advisors to President Obama, so why are they surprised that Real America is alarmed by the idea?

Secondly, a party with a financial stake in the outcome (the government) would be "advising" people on very serious and personal issues about health care outcomes and their options. Leftists are right when they argue that there is no language in HR3200 that specifically discusses how these choices would be presented to people. That is part of the problem! The American people are being asked to place their faith in the federal government to create an independent bureaucracy that will supply people with information without pressure or suggestion. Yeah, that's how government agencies usually operate, right? The exposure of the VA's use of an "end-of-life" program endorsed by the Hemlock Society rightfully concerns folks that such is the judgment of the government in life-and-death matters.

The lies told today by Mrs. Duckworth will only exascerbate the public trepidation about allowing the federal government to stick its nose in these decisions for all Americans. Our veterans deserve better than to have the usefulness of their life questioned by the government they fought to defend. This practice should not be used to advise our "heroes." And it certainly should not be expanded to included all our citizens at the most vulnerable times in their lives.