Tag Archives: Jonathan Karl

President Obama Press Conference – April 30th

Barack-Obama-portrait-PD

Barack-Obama-portrait-PD
As stated by the President, this press conference was in honor of outgoing White House Correspondents’ President Ed Henry, of Fox News. Accordingly, the first recognized was Henry, and he offered questions on Syria and Benghazi. On Syria, Henry asked what the next move is for this administration. It is not surprising that since chemical weapons are the bone of contention in Syria, that Obama went directly for what can only be considered a thinly-veiled statement referring to actions of the Bush Administration on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq:

And what we now have is evidence that chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria, but we don’t know how they were used, when they were used, who used them; we don’t have chain of custody that establishes what exactly happened. And when I am making decisions about America’s national security and the potential for taking additional action in response to chemical weapon use, I’ve got to make sure I’ve got the facts.

That’s what the American people would expect. And if we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, then we can find ourselves in the position where we can’t mobilize the international community to support what we do. There may be objections even among some people in the region who are sympathetic with the opposition if we take action. So, you know, it’s important for us to do this in a prudent way.

When pressed by Henry on the question of whether or not the U.S. would act militarily against the Assad regime in Syria, Obama came short of stating that would happen, opting to merely state that he has options outlined by the Pentagon. What those options are were not mentioned, for security reasons.

On Benghazi, the question was on members of the administration that have apparently been blocked from testifying about what they know about the attack that lead to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, and three members of the consulate staff.

Ed, I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody’s been blocked from testifying. So what I’ll do is I will find out what exactly you’re referring to. What I’ve been very clear about from the start is that our job with respect to Benghazi has been to find out exactly what happened, to make sure that U.S. embassies not just in the Middle East but around the world are safe and secure and to bring those who carried it out to justice.

It’s not surprising that Obama denied that anyone was being blocked from testifying, but it’s also unlikely that there will be any follow-up on the question as promised. Obama moved on to the next reporter after this.

Jessica Yellin of CNN offered the next question on whether or not we, as a nation, are moving backwards in national security and intelligence, citing Senator Lindsey Graham’s concerns on the matter. Note that the question focused on the failure in preventing the Boston bombing, not the subsequent reaction and investigation.

No. Mr. Graham is not right on this issue, although I’m sure it generated some headlines. I think that what we saw in Boston was state, local, federal officials, every agency, rallying around a city that had been attacked, identifying the perpetrators just hours after the scene had been examined. We now have one individual deceased, one in custody. Charges have been brought.

I think that all our law enforcement officials performed in an exemplary fashion after the bombing had taken place. And we should be very proud of their work, as obviously we’re proud of the people of Boston, all the first responders and the medical personnel that helped save lives.

What we also know is that the Russian intelligence services had alerted U.S. intelligence about the older brother as well as the mother, indicating that they might be sympathizers to extremists. The FBI investigated that older brother. It’s not as if the FBI did nothing. They not only investigated the older brother; they interviewed the older brother. They concluded that there were no signs that he was engaging in extremist activity. So that much we know.

Obama did go on to note that we need to be vigilant to prevent a future attack, stated that the Department of Homeland Security and FBI had done their jobs, and stated that we need to go on living our lives.

The next question was from Jonathan Karl at ABC, and bluntly asked if the President felt that he had the ability to pass his agenda, given the push back he has been getting from both sides of the aisle in Congress. Sequestration was also brought up in this segment, particularly the FAA.

Look, we — you know, we understand that we’re in divided government right now. Republicans control the House of Representatives. In the Senate, this habit of requiring 60 votes for even the most modest piece of legislation has gummed up the works there. And I think it’s — comes to no surprise, not even to the American people, but even to members of Congress themselves, that right now things are pretty dysfunctional up on Capitol Hill.

Despite that, I’m actually confident that there are a range of things that we’re going to be able to get done. I feel confident that the bipartisan work that’s been done on immigration reform will result in a bill that passes the Senate and passes the House and gets on my desk. And that’s going to be a historic achievement. And I’m — I’ve been very complimentary of the efforts of both Republicans and Democrats in those efforts.

And on the FAA, and Congress:

Well, hold on a second. The — so the alternative, of course, is either to go ahead and impose a whole bunch of delays on passengers now, which also does not fix the problem, or the third alternative is to actually fix the problem by coming up with a broader, larger deal.

But, you know, Jonathan, you seem to suggest that somehow, these folks over there have no responsibilities and that my job is to somehow get them to behave. That’s their job. They are elected, members of Congress are elected in order to do what’s right for their constituencies and for the American people. So if, in fact, they are seriously concerned about passenger convenience and safety, then they shouldn’t just be thinking about tomorrow or next week or the week after that; they should be thinking about what’s going to happen five years from now, 10 years from now or 15 years from now.

The only way to do that is for them to engage with me on coming up with a broader deal.

And that’s exactly what I’m trying to do is to continue to talk to them about are there ways for us to fix this. Frankly, I don’t think that if I were to veto, for example, this FAA bill, that that somehow would lead to the broader fix. It just means that there’d be pain now, which they would try to blame on me, as opposed to pain five years from now. But either way, the problem’s not getting fixed. The only way the problem does get fixed is if both parties sit down and they say, how are we going to make sure that we’re reducing our deficit sensibly; how are we making sure that we’ve investing in things like rebuilding our airports and our roads and our bridges and investing in early childhood education and all — basic research, all the things that are going to help us grow, and that’s what the American people want.

The last questions were offered by Bill Plante of CBS, Chuck Todd of NBC, and Antonieta Cadiz of the Chilean press, offering questions on Guantanamo Bay, ObamaCare, and Immigration respectively. Obama did make a parting statement on NBA player Jason Collins “coming out of the closet”. A full transcript of the press conference is available at the Washington Post website.

Spinners and Whiners

On behalf of ABC News and Yahoo News, the ever-vigilant guardians of the institutionalized “progressive” left’s agenda are at it again.

In a “news report” found under the headline-”Spinners and Winners”, Jonathan Karl, Avery Miller, Richard Coolidge and Sherisse Pham are up to their now familiar –bias disguised as news– tricks.

The story, which includes ”contributions” from  ABC News’ Gregory Simmons Lemos, features such breaking news information as:

“An infusion of millions of dollars, unlike anything we have ever seen before may now be the single biggest force in American politics. Some of the players are well-known, such as conservative activist and former George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a business interest group long active in politics.

This year, there are new players on the scene, so-called SuperPACs, that, unlike candidates or political parties, can accept an unlimited amount of money. For many of these groups who gives and why is a tightly-guarded secret.

“We can see the money going in, but it is very hard to follow what the political favors out are,” says Bill Allison of the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation. ‘I think that is the most concerning thing about all of this money going into the political process.’”

NOTE-The typos and incorrect grammar in the above quote are part of the original article.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/flooding-campaigns-secret-millions-101432066.html

In what is now a very familiar, oft repeated pattern of biased political slant and deception, this “news” report specifically names former President George W. Bush and his former adviser Karl Rove, commonly vilified as the worst type of criminals known to man within “progressive” circles in the first paragraph, but completely fails to ever mention the name of the biggest, long time financier of the institutionalized “progressive” left:

George Soros, who’s spent untold millions of his ill-gotten fortune funding such anti-American foundations as:  The Open Society Institute,  Human Rights Watch, the Shadow Democratic Party, Air America Radio (Now defunct, this was a self-identified “liberal” radio  network), Alliance for Justice (Best known for its activism vis a vis the appointment of federal judges, this group consistently depicts Republican judicial nominees as ”extremists”),  America Coming Together (Soros played a major role in creating this group, whose purpose was to coordinate and organize pro-Democrat voter-mobilization programs),  America Votes (Soros also played a major role in creating this group, whose get-out-the-vote campaigns targeted likely Democratic voters), America’s Voice (This open-borders group seeks to promote “comprehensive” immigration reform that includes a robust agenda in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens), American Bar Association Commission on Immigration Policy (This organization “opposes laws that require employers and persons providing education, health care, or other social services to verify citizenship or immigration status”), American Civil Liberties Union (This group opposes virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by the U.S. government. It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board), American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (This Washington, DC-based think tank seeks to move American jurisprudence to the left by recruiting, indoctrinating, and mobilizing young law students, helping them acquire positions of power. It also provides leftist Democrats with a bully pulpit from which to denounce their political adversaries), American Family Voices (This group creates and coordinates media campaigns charging Republicans with wrongdoing), American Federation of Teachers (After longtime AFT President Albert Shanker died in in 1997, he was succeeded by Sandra Feldman, who slowly “re-branded” the union, allying it with some of the most powerful left-wing elements of the New Labor Movement. When Feldman died in 2004, Edward McElroy took her place, followed by Randi Weingarten in 2008. All of them kept the union on the leftward course it had adopted in its post-Shanker period), American Friends Service Committee (This group views the United States as the principal cause of human suffering around the world. As such, it favors America’s unilateral disarmament, the dissolution of American borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, the abolition of the death penalty, and the repeal of the Patriot Act), American Immigration Council (This non-profit organization is a prominent member of the open-borders lobby. It advocates expanded rights and amnesty for illegal aliens residing in the U.S.), American Immigration Law Foundation (This group supports amnesty for illegal aliens, on whose behalf it litigates against the U.S. government), American Institute for Social Justice (AISJ’s goal is to produce skilled community organizers who can “transform poor communities” by agitating for increased government spending on city services, drug interdiction, crime prevention, housing, public-sector jobs, access to healthcare, and public schools).

This is only a tiny few of the Soros funded foundations.  A much more comprehensive list can be found here: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237

In yet another display of open bias and unadulterated misrepresentation, the “new report” refers to the Sunlight Foundation as nonpartisan.  The truth is, in 2011 the Sunlight Foundation received funding over $300,000.00 from Open Society Foundations as well as Open Society Institute, both of which are funded by George Soros.  They have also received funding from the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Family Fund, Pew Charitable Trusts, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Marc Cuban, as well as a plethora of other leftists and leftist organizations.

If Bill Allison is so concerned about “all of this money going into the political process”, he should first look at all the money that for decades has been going into the political process from promoters of the institutionalized “progressive” left.  He should man up and realize that politics is a two way street.

ABC News, Yahoo News, Jonathan Karl, Avery Miller, Richard Coolidge, Sherisse Pham, and Gregory Simmons Lemos, should either stop spinning and whining or put in an application to work for MSNBC and/or Media Matters.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/spinners-and-whiners/

Did ABC Fabricate Rubio Story?

Sen. Marco Rubio

Sen. Marco Rubio

Erin Haust posted this story earlier today concerning ABC’s Jonathan Karl’s column about Sen. Marco Rubio not being considered for the VP spot.  He hasn’t been asked to turn over documents used in the vetting process.  Karl stated:

But knowledgeable Republican sources tell me that Rubio is not being vetted by Mitt Romney’s vice presidential search team. He has not been asked to complete any questionnaires or been asked to turn over any financial documents typically required of potential vice presidential candidates.

Although it is possible that Rubio may yet be asked to go through the vetting process, it has been nearly two months since Romney named his long-time aide Beth Myers to run his vice presidential search. The fact that Rubio has not been asked to turn over any documents by now is a strong indication that he is not on Romney’s short list of potential running mates.

Officially the Romney campaign has no comment

As Haust noted earlier today, “so because he hasn’t submitted reports and the campaign refuses to say anything publicly, Rubio is automatically off the short list?  It’s only June… Karl has successfully created a news story out of thin air. Asking leading questions and making insinuating remarks is not “news.” ABC has committed journalistic fraud by asserting there is a story where there is none.” As a result, ABC’s political blog, seems to be lusting for a quote about the matter and sort of backtracked on the story  about Rubio’s non-vetting and focusing solely on whether he is on the short list or not.  A far cry from saying that there is a “strong indication that he is not on Romney’s short list of potential running mates.”

To add insult to injury, Catalina Camia of USA TODAY posted on June 19th that “Mitt Romney told reporters in Michigan that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is being looked at as his possible running mate, adding that a news story out today about the Tea Party favorite not being vetted was “entirely false.”

“Marco Rubio is being thoroughly vetted as part of our process,” Romney said during a campaign stop in Holland, Mich.

ABC News reported this morning that the freshman senator was not being vetted to be Mitt Romney’s running mate. The report cited “knowledgeable sources.”

The ABC report said Rubio “has not been asked to complete any questionnaires or been asked to turn over any financial documents typically required of potential vice presidential candidates.” It went on to say that it was “possible that Rubio may yet be asked to go through the vetting process.”

“There was a story that originated today apparently at ABC based upon reports of supposedly outside unnamed advisers of mine. I can’t imagine who such people are,” Romney said. “But I can tell you this: They know nothing about the vice presidential selection or evaluation process. There are only two people in this country who know who are being vetted and who are not, and that’s Beth Myers and myself.

It looks like ABC was just making stuff up with more than shaky sources.  Nice job dead tree media.  Two gold stars for you!

(H/T Erin Haust)

NEWS FLASH: Lindsey Graham is a “top conservative”!

Jonathan Karl, Richard Coolidge, Gregory Lemos and Sherisse Pham, part of the collective, useful spokes-tools employed by ABC News and the “progressive” Party Pravda’s online misinformation outlet known as Yahoo News are at it again.

To begin with, this “progressive” misinformation’s “headline” is pure, pre-fabricated nonsense that reads:

“Top conservative says read my lips: Don’t sign ‘no new tax’ pledge”.

This “headline” is garbage.

First of all, save for his consistently patriotic support for the United States military and for American troops, Senator Lindsey Graham is about as moderate as Republicans come. Some Conservatives might characterize him as a “progressive” Republican. Even more may openly label him a RINO. The thought of his being a “top conservative” comes from the minds of institutionalized “progressive” leftists, not reality. Secondly, not once in the interview does Graham ever utter the words “read my lips”. Again, readers are witnessing fabricated “progressive” wishful fiction, not fact. Furthermore, never did he say “don’t sign the ‘no new tax’ pledge. Not even once. Not ever.

The entire headline is a total lie. It’s a complete falsehood. The “news” presented in this “headline” is “progressive” fabrication that goes light years beyond the outer limits of “spin”.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/top-conservative-says-read-lips-don-t-sign-101721355.html

Thanks to a “headline” that’s contains not one ounce of truth, the article is automatically discredited in the minds of informed voters, those who are obviously not the target audience of Karl, Coolidge, Lemos and Pham.

What Graham did say is that he is willing to be flexible on applying one fourth of revenue collected by the IRS through elimination of tax loopholes and subsidies towards reducing the nations nearly $16 trillion in debt. The other three fourths would continue to follow the No New Tax Pledge’s formula for applying such revenues solely towards tax cuts. For Graham to accept this compromise, Democrats would be required to respond in kind to work in a bipartisan fashion towards reducing the national debt via “entitlement” program reforms.

That such inaccurate “reporting” could be considered, even for a fleeting moment, as real journalism, that these liars are actually getting paid to propagandize pure fiction as fact shows how low are today’s standards for journalistic integrity. This “headline” is going to give a large number of low-information, “sound bite news voters” a completely incorrect image of reality. It’s not even close to being true. All visible evidence points to clear intent to mislead misinform and indoctrinate masses of online readers.

How about giving this story a more objective headline, a headline that reflects the truth while accurately respects the content of the story? One more like: Graham Willing to Discuss Tax, Entitlement Compromise.

How difficult was that?

Perhaps for self imagined, self-appointed members of the “progressive” intellectual elite, it’s just too simple for their brilliant minds.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/news-flash-lindsey-graham-is-a-top-conservative/