Harsh Reality

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Just Make Up an Accomplishment, Already!

Hillary Clinton did something today that she rarely does. She sat for questions from the media. It was only CNN's Wolf Blitzer, the fawning Democrat propagandist. But maybe she's working up to questions from journalists.

Even more surprising, however, is that he asked her a softball question that every single person in America has seen asked over and over again, and she still wasn't able to give an answer.


"[W]hat would you say was your number one accomplishment as Secretary of State?"

It can't possibly be any easier than that. Put another way: "Tell us something good you've done". Sheesh! Not only is it the biggest softball question of all time to ask a presidential candidate (and gives her a chance to brag on herself), but this simple question has been asked over and over again for the past several months. Hillary supporters, Hillary campaign workers...nobody can name even a single thing that she accomplished in the biggest job that she's ever held. For four years.

And this wasn't the first time she's been asked this question.



I'm not writing this to knock her. I actually am just thoroughly surprised that she doesn't have even one staff member assigned to come up with a good answer to this damn question that keeps making her and her voters look dumb. I would be writing this no matter who it was or what the question was about. How many times can one possibly be blindsided by the same question? And a stunningly easy question, at that. Easy because pretty much any answer will do. It's a question about your opinion. It could be any answer you want to utter and it would be correct. But nobody - after months of the same question in numerous settings from friendly questioners - can think of anything. It's remarkable.

State Department spokeswoman can't think of anything Hillary accomplished:
(The "QDDR" is an every 4 year comprehensive review of the State Department goals and accomplishments. So it's a large report on Hillary's entire time as Secretary of State and the performance of the agency under her leadership.)



A room full of Hillary supporters can't come up with even one thing their candidate accomplished:


Hillary critics take this as proof or an admission that she accomplished absolutely nothing in her four years as Secretary of State of the United States of America. And it's hard to take this any other way. Which begs the question of why, then, should anybody vote for her to have an even bigger job?

You might recall that Hillary previously held herself out as having traveled more miles than any other Secretary of State. But Carly Fiorina correctly pointed out that "traveling is an activity, not an accomplishment". But that doesn't seem like a missive that a presidential-level campaign staff couldn't respond to. But yet, here we are.

At this point I'm kinda rooting for her to come up with something to say. If only because it's embarrassing to watch someone who wants the most important job in the world be humiliated over and over by the same easy question from her own friendly media.

An Invasion by Any Other Name.

Like a lot of people, I've found myself fascinated watching the oceans of "refugees" surging toward Europe and demanding admission, housing, benefits and other amenities enjoyed by citizens there and in America. Because they find their own countries unlivable. So, instead of fixing their own nations, they're picking up and moving to nations built by people who've collectively made different choices. Mainly, the choice to create better lives, better communities and a better nation for themselves and their children, even after mistakes, disasters, wars and other national tragedies.

I have a friend, Slats Grobnik, who has a knack for nicely summarizing and representing the liberal position on pretty much any issue one might imagine. Great guy. But ol' Slats and I usually seem to end up with opposite points of view on things. And the reason is because he views everything through the lens of emotion. As my radio listeners know, I'm not a member of any political party. And I don't ascribe to any political philosophy. I just try to be honest and consistent in my assessment of whatever the topic of discussion happens to be. I don't root for any political team or point of view. I just want people to be honest. I've said for years that the difference between most conservative and liberal points of view is the difference between a rational and an emotional analysis of a topic.

Let's take this ocean of people flowing into Europe, for example. The quick emotional analysis from my liberal pal Mr. Grobnik is summarized as "Those poor people! Of course, Europe and the U.S. should take them in! Look how wealthy we are. And they just want to escape their war-torn nations." But, of course, the rational response is to point out that the European Union and the U.S. are already broke. And that the great migration of Syrians, Africans, Iraqis, etc. isn't simply escaping their respective nations. They're pushing right through every nation on their way to the countries with the juiciest benefits. And Europe and America should be pretty far down the list of countries to take these people in, as it strikes me as being weird that massively wealthy muslim nations that are much less of a challenge to reach and can better afford to shelter these people have no apparent interest in doing so. I'm looking at you, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

But my most striking conversation with Slats was over a demand by a single Muslim in Munich, Germany this week. The story goes that this Muslim named Morad Al-Marudi started a petition on the liberal hack website Change.org to abolish Oktoberfest in Munich because it offends Islam. All the drinking and dirndls and so forth. You can see the petition here:


I have no way of knowing if Mr. Al-Marudi is a real person. Or if he is actually making this demand. Or if he is the one who started this petition on Change.org or it was someone on his behalf or someone who just thought his letter was a good idea and ran with it. You'll note that nearly 500 people signed the petition before it was closed. But none of this matters. Because there's a bigger observation to be made in the very existence of the petition.

After I shared a news item on social media regarding this, my buddy Slats took me to task. In the typical liberal manner he replied to my post with a link to a website ostensibly debunking my shared news item. He also excoriated me for not fact-checking things before I post them. I did. I always do. But Slats was missing the point.

Muslims from Africa and the Middle-east have been pouring into Europe and the U.S. for years, but the floodgates have opened recently wider than ever. The most notable attribute of this particular population is their staunch refusal to assimilate to the culture of the countries into which they are pouring. Unlike Asians or Hispanics, Muslim immigrants are successfully demanding that the nations they are moving to change to accommodate them. We've all heard the news items of "No-Go Zones" in Paris, London and various U.S. cities where non-muslims are no longer permitted and sharia law is practiced in lieu of ordinary civil law. Liberal news outlets have spent considerable time trying to deny that such a thing even exists, but I have enough friends who have shared personal stories of neighborhoods in their cities where non-muslims are simply not welcome. And you can find any number of videos on YouTube of people being run out of Muslim-controlled areas.

And Illinois recently made headlines with their announcement that "religious head coverings" do not need to be removed for driver's license photos. I know, I know. Sikhs are part of the story and didn't want to remove their turbans. Well, they've been in Illinois for a long time and it's only now that a certain muslim group has joined the fight to keep Islamic women covered that the government caved and clarified that an ordinary American like me or Slats can't wear a ball cap or even smile in their driver's license picture (it was explained to me that a smile reduces the effectiveness of facial recognition software), but muslims can wear a burqa with no problem.




The list of major changes in Western countries brought by Muslim demands goes on and on.

So back to our refugee in Munich who wants to get rid of Oktoberfest because it offends Islam. Is it really crazy talk to believe this could be true? But as I said previously, even if it's not true, there's a bigger picture by which we can presume that it is, in fact, true.

The man claims Islam as the basis for demanding Oktoberfest be changed. Meaning he is speaking for Muslims.

I'm not aware of any Muslim who has denounced the petition or said that Mr. Al-Marudi does not speak for them or for Muslims, in general.

I've never seen a Muslim at an Oktoberfest celebration and I don't know any who claimed to have ever celebrated it.

There are Oktoberfest celebrations in many nations around the world. But I've never heard of Oktoberfest being celebrated in a Muslim nation.

The larger point is that, whether or not this petition is real or fake or the work of a lone Muslim not actually speaking for anyone else, it will be demanded at some point if recent history and experience is any indication. There's no question that beer and dirndls offend Islam. And so did wacky cartoons about Islam. Salmon Rushdie has lived in hiding in the West for decades for writing a book that Muslim leaders said insulted Islam and require Mr. Rushdie be killed. The staff of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris were all murdered by Muslim gunmen as they sat around a conference table for irreverent cartoons that were deemed to have insulted Islam. Oktoberfest is on that agenda.

So, as you watch news stories about the Muslim "refugee" tsunami crashing over Europe and being imported into the U.S., think about what the next cultural norm, tradition or ordinary practice that will be changed at the demand of the new people in our nation, states and communities. What do you take for granted now that will be deemed offensive and banned? And what do you call someone who comes from a foreign land and dominates the people in the new nation? "Refugee" doesn't really apply.


Tuesday, September 15, 2015

The Astonishing Balls of Hillary Clinton

I've said for a long time on my radio program that Hillary Clinton is in the most difficult position of all of the 2016 presidential hopefuls. It's certainly a position of her own making, but difficult nonetheless. She's a Democrat. And the favored position of Democrats at the national level is that they are outsiders. The voice of "The People". "The Little Guy". The voice of every aggrieved, angry little group who feels that they've been kicked around by "The System". By "The Man". Treated unfairly. And Democrats show up on the campaign trail in their shining armor and tell all these pissed off people that they have good reason to be angry and that these angry people should send these Democrat politicians to Washington to fix their personal problems. To get them their piece of the pie, for once. To stick it to The System and The Man and make them feel what The Little Guy has been feeling all this time.

Of course, the unstated claim is that Republicans have been holding onto power and hogging all the good stuff and excluding these aggrieved people.

Hillary finds herself in the weird position of taking up her suit of armor and starting to declare war on Washington, except...she IS Washington. She's not an outsider. She's not been aced out of power. In fact, she's spent the past 25 years wallowing there. Leading America. For her first 8 years as "co-President" to her husband. In charge of healthcare reform. Remember HillaryCare? The Democrats' first major attempt at socialized medicine. And she was sneaky, secretive and dishonest at that time, too. Remember how she was shot down in federal court trying to use taxpayer money for her blue ribbon panel, but refusing to disclose exactly who was cooking up her plan to nationalize America's healthcare industry? Sound familiar?

But I digress.

She went on to pout for the rest of that eight years, and then moved to New York state to establish residency and go straight back to Washington as their U.S. Senator. After her stint in the Senate, she ran for President. When she lost the nomination to Barack Hussein Obama, she spent the next 4 years as his Secretary of State. Now she's back again for another run at the White House.

So how does Hillary run? That everything in Washington is all screwed up and she's the one to fix it? Hillary IS Washington. For 25 years. Which puts her in the uncomfortable position of having to run against herself. And she seems to be having a terrible time trying to come up with how to do such a thing, reinventing herself several times since she announced her candidacy. It's a never-ending grasp at something that will get her some traction and that voters might find believable.

With that we come to her latest attempt. Reaching again into her feminist bag, she declares her outrage and pledge to stand with victims of sexual assault. Let me say that again: Hillary Clinton. Is now claiming to stand WITH victims? Of sexual assault?!?!? For anyone who knows the history of Bill & Hillary Clinton, this demonstrates the most shocking display of balls ever brazenly displayed by any politician in American history. If anyone can think of a bigger set of political cajones being flapped about by any candidate...on purpose...please feel free to share.

For you millennials too young to remember the 1990s, allow me to paint a picture. Bill Clinton has left a trail of women claiming to have been raped, sexually assaulted, propositioned or otherwise victimized. The problem was so profound and the women so numerous that Hillary and the Clinton campaign in 1992 formed what they called the "Bimbo Eruption" team to bully, pay off or otherwise get women victims to shut up and go away. The most telling detail of Clinton's victims is the wide-ranging backgrounds of the victims and witnesses. Paula Jones (famously smeared by Clinton
campaign hit man James Carville on national television as "trailer trash" who was just behaving like any slut chasing after a dollar bill being dragged through a trailer park) was a young woman of modest means. But Kathleen Willey was a very wealthy middle-aged Democrat woman who had raised over a million dollars for the Clinton campaign before being forced against a wall and made to hold Bill Clinton's penis in her hand in a private hallway off the Oval Office shortly after her husband passed away. Juanita Broaddrick was an award-winning nursing home administrator, but Monica Lewinsky was a dingy, star-struck intern. And not all of the accusations were from women. The
"Trooper-Gate" scandal erupted when Bill Clinton's security detail wrote about driving then-Governor Clinton around at night and using his police car to pull over the cars of women at the direction of the Governor and have the Trooper proposition the women for sex with Mr. Clinton. The list goes on and on. Over decades. From all types of people. Some had been Bill Clinton supporters, some not. But they all shared the same ultimate fate. They were targeted for personal destruction by Hillary and Team Clinton. The details of the personal attacks are worse than anything I can cover in the space available here, but they are as disgusting as anything that might be dreamt up by the sleaziest villains in a Hollywood movie. The common denominator is that Hillary steered the ship of attack dogs that destroyed woman after woman (and Troopers, too) who shared their personal stories of sexual assaults by Bill Clinton. They also turned it into a political tool by using the sexual assaults as a club to attack Republicans who had any comment on the matter and blame them for coordinating these terrible peccadilloes into which poor Bill repeatedly found himself stepping. Hillary mercilessly blamed the women. She blamed the victims. Their sexual assault was either a lie, or they brought it on themselves.

And that's why Hillary's new pivot to champion of victims of sexual assault is so stunning. There is nobody in Washington who has enabled more sexual assaults than Hillary Rodham Clinton or destroyed more women's lives who dared come forward as victims.

So why would it ever cross Hillary's mind that she - of all people - could portray herself as standing up for victims of sexual assault? Could it be because the media has turned a blind eye to everyone else who participated in the destruction of these women? Clinton confidant James Carville remains an otherwise respected political personality at cocktail parties inside the beltway despite his vile behavior toward victims of sexual assault. And nobody behaved more shockingly slimy than Clinton campaign operative George Stephanopolous, but he's enjoyed a wonderful new career as a big star with ABC News. And, of course, this is all to say nothing of Bill Clinton himself. He remains one of the biggest rock stars in world of American politics. So, why should Hillary be reminded now of her part in the messes surrounding Bill's problem with sexual assault allegations?

Because none of the other perpetrators are bringing up the subject. Neither Carville, Stephanopolous nor anyone else from the Bimbo Eruptions hit squad is pretending to be a voice for the victims of sexual assault. None of them are pompously holding themselves out as a protector of women who've been victimized in the Clinton tradition. And Bill himself certainly isn't actively reminding anyone of it. All of these men are giving people the opportunity to look away. To pretend they never did that.

But Hillary is challenging everyone to not simply pretend it never happened. She's asking everyone to pretend that something is true that is completely the opposite of what we all saw her do. And that takes cajones bigger than any man has ever had in Washington.

Saturday, September 5, 2015

The Hillary Clinton Fan Club at NBC News is in full-court defense mode for their girl. In an appearance on MSNBC she talked about the never-ending email scandal, and it was dutifully reported by the network that she "apologized", was "contrite" and "took responsibility". Except...she didn't do any of that.

In classic Obama/Clinton fashion she did that trick where things are worded in such a way that it sounds like something is being said that isn't being said at all. High profile people who are caught doing something occasionally do this. It usually sounds something like "I'm sorry that you were offended". You see how that works? They get credit for apologizing, but are really taking a slap at the person or people who deserve the apology.


Hillary wants credit for addressing her growing email scandal head-on. But she still won't actually address it. She said she was "sorry this has been so confusing" [to people who aren't smart enough to understand].

That's not an apology.

Most surprising of all, however, is her continued use of the I'm-not-guilty-of-wrongdoing-I'm-just-incompetent defense. You may recall that she originally claimed that she exclusively used her private email server for government business because she was too incompetent to have two cell phones. Without getting into the absurdity of her (claimed) lack of even the most basic understanding of a simple part of our modern world, it didn't take long for people to people to realize that she frequently was, in fact, seen with multiple phones and other devices. She lied. But the lie was told and anyone pointing out her lie is accused of picking on her or rehashing something that's already settled. Her fans are fanatical like that.

And then she had her famous shoulder shrug and asked if wiping an email server could be done with a cloth. Again, pretending to be monumentally stupid.

In last night's appearance she said that she ended up with a secret email server in her house just because "I was not thinking a lot".

What kind of confidence is that supposed to inspire? She didn't just bumble absentmindedly into having a secret email server in her home that ALL of her U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT business was conducted on. She purposely set up an unprecedented secret communications system and directed her highest-ranking subordinates to use it, also. It wasn't an accident. It wasn't just not paying attention. It wasn't the acts of somebody else that she just didn't catch. It wasn't an "oopsie!" It was an intentional, criminal act that Hillary set up. That Hillary oversaw. That Hillary has fought to keep hidden and that Hillary has ordered evidence of destroyed.

This isn't partisan.

This is beyond anything Edward Snowden is accused of.

Hillary is an attorney. Hillary is a life-long government employee. If she isn't indicted in this matter then there is truly no justice and no rule of law in this country any longer.
I find it interesting that all of the rules of Western civilization that feminists are tearing down rest on the presumption that men hate women and want to dominate them. Nowhere in their equation is there even the slightest consideration that men love their wives and want to protect them. It never seems to cross their mind that men love their daughters and want to protect them from men. They don't even care to consider that men would give their lives to protect the women and girls closest to them. Men are protective by nature. Some aren't. But that's the default setting for most men. In our culture and in most every other culture. As the husband of a beautiful woman and as a father of three successful daughters, my life is secondary to theirs. My life is less important than their safety. One of my purposes every day is to provide that foundation of security for my wife and daughters to focus on being excellent at whatever they are doing. I think most men are this way, even if they don't explicitly say so.

Whether it's going to work to provide financial security or just being home at night, the main purpose for a man in a family is to provide safety. When I have to travel, my wife is always happy that we have a dog. And she knows how to fire our weapons. And we live in a safe neighborhood. But she always tells me that she feels better when I'm home. I think it's safe to say this is the case in most marriages.

So, as all these "patriarchal" and "oppressive" practices (such as women having their own bathrooms where men aren't allowed to lurk) women and girls are not becoming safer. As women have been "liberated" from traditional family roles, the lives of women in general hasn't gotten easier. All this "liberation" is resulting in less responsibility and easier sex for men and more responsibility, more vulnerability and less security for women. Ultimately, feminists are sacrificing other women's safety for the sake of their chasing a feminist utopia where women are exactly like men. Because their entire presumption rests on the premise that there is no difference whatsoever between men and women. Except that men have assumed a position of power over women because we are evil and want to dominate and oppress them.

Friday, September 4, 2015

I look forward to you joining me on Monday (9/7/15) as I host the Morning Show on 93WIBC in Indianapolis. I'll be sitting in for the incomparable Tony Katz and talking about everything you need to know to be smartest, coolest kid at the water cooler when you go back to work on Tuesday after the Labor Day weekend. Join us! 93.1FM in Indy, or on the web at 93WIBC.com.

Have a great Labor Day weekend, everyone!

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Don't be confused. You are the normal one.

In these crazy days of mixed-up people claiming to be things they are not, it's easy to get a bit turned around. We have leaders in education and government (Elizabeth Warren, a white woman in the U.S. Senate who falsely claimed to be an Indian), community organizations (Rachael Dolezal of the NAACP & Shawn King of Black Lives Matter, a white woman and white man, respectively, who falsely claimed to be black) and sports (Bruce Jenner, a male Olympic champion who falsely claims to be a female) all trying to make everything as confusing as possible.

But things are not confusing. Things just are what they are. But it's not that our friends on the left aren't trying.

Consider the case of Vanderbilt University and their "Healthy Masculinities Week". The story can be found here.

In a nutshell, campus feminists want to feminize men. Take off the rough edges, shall we say. Get them to stop acting like men.

And here's where I believe a lot of people get confused. If, as angry feminist doctrine holds, gender is nothing but a social construct, then what's wrong with masculinity? In fact, there should be no such thing if any difference between men and women were simply the product of our cultural environment (that's paternalistic and oppresses women and blah blah blah...). But their different positions on things depending on who's doing what creates a conundrum that's inescapable. For example, an identical behavior that's denounced as atrocious and unacceptable from a man (aggression, for instance) is celebrated by the feminist crowd when practiced by a woman.  So, which is it? Is aggression a sin or is it a positive character trait? The answer seems to be that it depends on who is being aggressive. (And, truthfully, aren't all feminists aggressive? Who's ever heard of a passive feminist? But I digress.) At Vanderbilt University the feminists want men to be more submissive and more passive. More...feminine? (!) But doesn't that go 180 degrees against what they claim to stand for? How can the exact, same people claim that there is a "masculine" and a "feminine" behavior or personal characteristics while also insisting that any such behavior or characteristic is not inherent in men or women, but simply programmed by a patriarchal social structure? It's absurd. But everyone lets them yammer on because nobody wants them any angrier than they already are, I suppose. So they get their university (taxpayer?) funding through some program or grant or whatever, and everyone just smiles and tolerates their hysteria.

The same mental disconnect can be seen in the Bruce Jenner circus. If Bruce Jenner is demonstrating that there truly is no such thing as gender, then why is he dressing specifically like a woman? Makeup, long pretty hair, a sexy bathing suit and a stereotypical feminine pose is how he chose to show that there is no such thing as gender in his celebrated appearance on the cover of Vanity Fair. Here, though, the outrage worked in the reverse of that mentioned in the example above. A man acting like a woman - a manner that would have feminists howling with derision if done by a woman for objectifying herself to men's visual ideals - was celebrated as demonstrating that there is no such thing as gender. If there's no such thing as gender, then why does it matter how he's dressed? And if there's no such thing as gender then how would his appearance be considered sexist and conforming to a patriarchal objectification of women if it were a woman in such a manner?

Because it's all confused nonsense, that's why.

The best example of their sad hypocrisy can be found, though, by simply switching the parties at Vanderbilt University and considering our feminist friends' reaction. Imagine if a group of angry men held a campus event to tell women how their femininity should conform to a standard set by these angry men. Feminists would never tolerate such an event. I imagine that one would need to have ambulances on standby if one wanted to test such a theory because feminist heads on campus would likely explode.

Don't allow people like this to confuse you.

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Dinesh D'Souza's act versus Hillary's campaign staffers: Same crime, different treatment.

News is out that the folks over at Project Veritas have hit another home run.

If you're not familiar with Project Veritas, it's run by a journalist named James O'Keefe who lets his hidden camera do the talking for him. Unlike a reporters or news anchors who use their positions to influence readers or viewers instead of simply informing them of what the news is, O'Keefe shows us what's going on and lets us make up our own mind. His hidden camera video just is what it is. It's the newsmaker talking in their own voice with their own words. But maybe that's not to your taste. Maybe you find him objectionable or don't like the idea of hidden cameras. I know I don't. But it is what it is. And he's doing work that more mainstream journalists refuse to do.


And it's like this with all of the "new media".


Anyone being honest with themselves knows that the major media such as the New York Times, all of the broadcast networks, CNN and others have become nothing more than propaganda pieces for the democrat party. I first noticed this as an apolitical 20yo college student working in radio. It was the summer of 1988 and the presidential election cycle was in full swing. The Democrats had their convention first and the media was in love with the Democrat ticket of Mike Dukakis and Lloyd Benson. In love with them. They were going to finally end the Reagan revolution with love and peace and social programs and every other liberal dream. The media was fanatical in their coverage of the Democrats' convention. I recall sitting in the studio and thinking "I can't wait until the Republican convention just so they'll talk about something else". Silly me. I was a stupid 20 year old who didn't realize that the love our radio network was pouring out for the Democrats wouldn't end with the convention. It would just take on a different form. When it came time for the GOP convention and George H.W. Bush and Dan Quayle were in the spotlight, the media went on the attack. I recall the network's consultation with Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy about what they thought of the Democrat ticket just continued during the GOP convention. "So what do you think of Mr. Quayle? So, what do you think of the Republican party?". Of course, they loved one and despised the other. It was so obviously biased that it caused me to start paying attention to politics and the media covering them.


Sadly, major media would outdo themselves in the coming years. In 1992 they succeeded in partnering with the Clinton campaign to mercilessly beat down President H.W. Bush and tell a relentless tale of how rotten the American economy was and how Mr. Bush was a liar for violating his "no new taxes" pledge from 1988 (even though Democrats and the media beat him senseless to go along with their new taxes to "save your rotten economy, Mr. President").


But some funny things happened as Americans realized the media had morphed into something that was no longer journalism or news. As all pretense of integrity melted away and it became accepted that the formerly trusted news sources were nothing more than propaganda for a certain political point of view, alternative avenues of information began to emerge.


At first it was old school. Rush Limbaugh is generally credited with bringing AM radio back from extinction. His nationwide Rush Limbaugh Program debuted in 1988 and quickly exploded in popularity. Talk radio was suddenly a thing and was imitated at every level. Daily topics, callers, lively discussion and debate. The liberal monopoly that had developed on information was being cracked open.


Over the years this grew into cable channels like Fox News and alternative news on the internet.


Matt Drudge and his Drudge Report created the industry of news aggregation. And, suddenly, if a reporter at a small-town newspaper found an interesting story, it could have a bigger exposure than a big-name reporter trying to butt kiss his way into the Clinton's lives with puff pieces at the New York Times.


Blogs, smart phones, mobile video...anyone with an interesting story could be a journalist. One no longer needed to have a journalism degree and connections in high places.


Which brings us back to James O'Keefe. I'm not going to spend time delving into Project Veritas and the things they've exposed and the hits they've taken from other media. It's been brutal. Suffice it to say that they're hidden cameras have exposed the corruption that most everyone knew was taking place. O'Keefe is the guy who brought down Obama's community organizing buddies at ACORN.


But there was a fascinating news story today in the New York Times. O'Keefe exposed a Hillary campaign staffer taking an illegal contribution. Okay, fine. Another good job by Mr. O'Keefe. Here's the Project Veritas video. It's only about 5 minutes.





In a nutshell, high-ranking Clinton national campaign staffers - who are in charge of compliance with campaign finance laws, no less - violate federal law by taking a campaign donation from a foreigner by using a third party to "launder" the money. It's nothing like the $140-some million Hillary laundered through her family foundation as obvious pay-offs for special treatment as Secretary of State. Only a lady from Canada who wanted to buy a hat and some other Hillary souvenirs. But the fascinating part is how different this story is treated, both as news and legally.


The story is linked here.



Two main things: The main focus of the story is what a rotten guy James O'Keefe is. The lawsuits filed against him. The accusations and his misdemeanor conviction for uncovering corruption while posing as a repair man. Notice how the NYT throughout the article (and even the headline) refers to O'Keefe as "stalking"? Elsewhere the writer says O'Keefe "claims to be a journalist". The dying mainstream media is so furious with new media. 

It's both sad and disturbing to see them lash out like spoiled children. Anyone at the New York Times would give anything to have even 10% of the readers Drudge has or a tiny fraction of the name recognition O'Keefe has. But they're so busy being partisan liberal democrat shills that they can't even see their own absurdity. They look ridiculous, attacking journalists that they're jealous of instead of taking note of the stories that are coming through them and the new media. CNN & MSNBC do the same thing with Fox. They beat and scream and wail and insult Fox to the 5 or 10 people left in America who still watch those pathetic propaganda stations instead of just reporting news. 


The second thing is that it's hard not to pay attention to how this will be treated by the Department of Justice. You may recall that filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza was investigated, indicted, convicted and imprisoned for this exact same conduct. In short, he made a political contribution through another person to avoid campaign finance laws. That is exactly what happened in the O'Keefe video. But, instead of being a contributor, the Hillary folks are two national campaign staffers. One of whom is in charge of compliance with campaign laws. D'Souza, you might remember was indicted after someone dug through old campaign finance records of a losing Republican candidate long after the election was over and made a connection back to D'Souza as having reimbursed someone for their contribution. That's illegal. D'Souza - with no criminal history, but famous for his documentaries critical of the president - cooperated, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to incarceration in a federal work release center where he lived for most of a year. He was fined, imprisoned and is now serving federal probation for doing the exactly what Hillary's senior staffers are on video doing.



In order to find a technical violation of federal campaign finance laws, someone had to dig deep and hard through reams of government forms and so serious work to find a technical violation that most Americans didn't even realize was a crime in order to charge and convict one of the president's critics. But Hillary's case is presented on a silver platter. In full-color video. Directly in front of the democrats and their adoring media. So far, the main response form the democrat propaganda standard-bearer New York Times is to denounce the man who revealed the crime. So far, the response from the rest of the old, dying big media is to treat it the way they've treated every Democrat scandal, misstep and crime: Silence.