These LEFTY IDIOTS ARE NOT "hosts" of the presidential debates they are not “moderators”? They’re left-erators or Obama CROTCH SNIFFERS!

 It’s time for the old media godfathers to end the pretense that they’re fair and neutral observers of the American political scene. Journo-Tools For Obama

 

 

By Michelle Malkin  •  August 22, 2012 08:23 AM

Journo-tools For Obama
by Michelle Malkin
Creators SyndicateCopyright 2012
Can we stop calling the hosts of the presidential debates “moderators”? They’re left-erators. It’s time for the old media godfathers to end the pretense that they’re fair and neutral observers of the American political scene. And it’s time for the GOP to stop perpetuating these rigged exercises in futility.
Last week, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced the names of 2012′s chosen referees: CNN’s Candy Crowley, PBS’s Jim Lehrer and CBS’s Bob Schieffer will preside over the three presidential debates; ABC’s Martha Raddatz will host the sole vice presidential debate. While the debate panel trumpeted the gender diversity of its picks, the chromosomal diversity is far outweighed by the political uniformity, class conformity and geographical homogeneity of the group.
Crowley has lived and worked in D.C. for liberal CNN for a quarter-century. Raddatz worked for liberal National Public Radio for five years before joining ABC News; she has been based in the D.C. bureau for the better part of a decade. Schieffer has been a fixture in the nation’s capital at CBS News, home of the faked Rathergate documents, for three decades. Lehrer, the liberal patriarch of PBS News, is nearly as aged a Beltway monument as the Washington Monument itself.
The presidential debates are the last bastion of “mainstream” media self-delusion in the 21st century. They are a ritual laughingstock for tens of millions of American viewers who have put up with leading, softball questions for Democratic candidates and combative, fili-blustery lectures for Republican candidates campaign cycle after cycle. Now, Democrats are lobbying the supposedly nonpartisan debate commission to disallow questions about President Obama’s phony dog-and-pony deficit panel.
Why does the Republican Party agree to play along with this ideologically stacked deck masquerading as an objective pantheon of disinterested journalism? The Romney campaign’s capitulation to the liberal debate racket and its narrative-warpers comes at a time when more and more members of the Fourth Estate itself are admitting that they have served or been treated as tools for the Obama administration:
–Just this week, ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper told conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham that he “thought the media helped tip the scales” for Obama. “I didn’t think the coverage in 2008 was especially fair to either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Sometimes I saw with story selection, magazine covers, photos picked, (the) campaign narrative, that it wasn’t always the fairest coverage.” Duh.
–MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin acknowledged this weekend on the “Today” show that the Beltway press corps is helping Obama drive campaign issues that most voters don’t care about: “I think the press still likes this story a lot. The media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on (Mitt Romney’s tax returns). … Do voters care about it? I don’t think so. … I think it’s mostly something that the press and insiders care about.”
–Another MSNBC political reporter, Chuck Todd, disclosed that gaffetastic Vice President Joe Biden’s staff was trying to edit the press pool reports to cover for the second-in-command’s lack of rhetorical command. “This is an outrage that they do this,” Todd said.
–Independent political blogger Keith Koffler of whitehousedossier.com reported this week that Team Obama was dictating interview topics to local TV reporters in battleground states, just after holding a kabuki press conference on Monday to capitalize on the Missouri GOP Rep. Todd Akin “legitimate rape”/magical uterus debacle. “In interviews with three local TV stations Monday, two from states critical to Obama’s reelection effort, Obama held forth on the possibility of ‘sequestration’ if he and Congress fail to reach a budget deal, allowing him to make his favorite political point that Republicans are willing to cause grievous harm to the economy and jobs in order to protect the rich from tax increases,” Koffler reported.
“The reporters mostly made no effort to hide the arrangement. ‘The president invited me to talk about sequestration,’ NBC 7 San Diego’s reporter told her audience. In the interview, she set Obama up with a perfectly pitched softball the president couldn’t have been more eager to take a swing at: ‘What do you want individual San Diegans to know about sequestration?’ she asked.”
These willing lapdogs and stenographers follow in the footsteps of the hallowed Fishwrap of Record, which ‘fessed up last month to allowing Obama campaign officials to have “veto power” over statements. “We don’t like the practice,” said Dean Baquet, managing editor for news at The New York Times. “We encourage our reporters to push back. Unfortunately this practice is becoming increasingly common, and maybe we have to push back harder.”
If not the 2012 GOP presidential ticket, then who? If not now, then when?

No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

In 2012, our rallying cry should now be:  No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

(From 1763-1775, the rallying cry in the colonies was:  No Taxation without Representation! )




From 1763-1775, the rallying cry in the colonies was:  No Taxation without Representation!
In 2012, our rallying cry should now be:  No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

Not only did PPACA (Obamacare) pass Congress without any mention of the word “tax”, its defenders have emphatically denied that the law’s “mandates” represent taxation.  Had the funding for the bill been presented as a tax increase, it would almost certainly have failed.
Incredibly, Chief Justice Roberts accepted the Government’s argument that the “mandate” is after all just a tax (wink, wink), and consequently the Government has the Constitutional authorization it needs to fund PPACA through taxation.  Thus the SCOTUS majority effectively rewrote the bill, “deeming” it to say something that it does not, and then declaring as Constitutional a bill that does not even exist!  I would have never believed such a thing could happen in the Supreme Court.
As noted by John Eastman, a Constitutional scholar:

• A Constitutional tax bill must originate in the House.  The reason is that the Framers wanted tax increases to be launched only by those who would most immediately be facing re-election.  But PPACA originated in the Senate.  Strike 1.
• A Constitutional tax must be an income, excise, or direct tax, and there are rules that must be followed for each.  Clearly the PPACA tax is neither an income nor an excise tax, so it must be a direct tax.  But Constitutionally, a direct tax must be apportioned by population.  The PPACA tax is not apportioned by population.  Strike 2.
• Even without these explicit violations of the Constitution, by the rule of reason and good faith, Congress can vote for taxation only via legislation that explicitly calls that taxation by its proper name — a tax — in full view of the voters. Congress and PPACA did not do that. Strike 3.

How could any Justice, let alone the Chief Justice, ignore all this?  By voting as Roberts and the majority did, our own Supreme Court has aided and abetted a massive fraud on the American people.   This should be the stuff of novels, not real life.
Normally, one can seek redress for fraud through the courts.  Where does one go when the highest court in the land aids, abets, and virtually commits the fraud?
For the minority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote:

… to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling.

Right on. The entire law should have been rejected and offered back to Congress either for the trash bin or for editing and a re-vote by elected representatives in full view of We-the-People.  Has Roberts no shame at all?

Many Conservatives are so disappointed in Roberts that they are frantically concocting explanations and rationalizations for his astounding malfeasance.
One wretched contrivance argues that Roberts’ real motive was, somehow, to protect the integrity, balance, and honor of SCOTUS itself.  Really?  How does aiding and abetting a gargantuan national fraud do that?
Another rationalization argues that Roberts is cleverly giving Conservatives a “Remember-the-Alamo” loss that will so anger and energize Americans that they will throw Obama and his neo-Marxist, redistributionist entourage right out of Washington.  But if SCOTUS is politically gaming its rulings to that extent, how can we count on SCOTUS in the future?  If there is any government branch that should play it straight, surely it is SCOTUS.
The bottom line is that SCOTUS has ruled PPACA to be Constitutional by deeming the bill to be something that it is not.  The SCOTUS decision is an Orwellian absurdity and a stain on SCOTUS that will remain until long after we’re all gone.
Memo to Chief Justice Roberts: Et tu Brute?  With this betrayal and breach of the Framers’ final bulwark of protection for Constitutionally limited government, all we have have left is the ballot box.  In November, we must win a new President and Congress, and we must exercise eternal diligence thereafter.  The Left will never quit, and neither should we.
Pass the word:  No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/06/29/no-taxation-by-misrepresentation/