by baldilocks

Right now, I’m re-reading Bryan Burrough’s Days of Rage. More accurately, I’m reading it to its end this time—not yet reached. It’s a history of Left Wing activist/terror era of the late 1960s and the 1970s, featuring these well-known players: Students for a Democratic Society, Weather Underground, the Black Panthers (old-school version) and the Black Liberation Army. There may be other major organizational players, but I haven’t reached the point in the book where they are named.

Individual actors are also very well-known: William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Eldridge Cleaver, Huey Newton, and so forth.

Without going into Leftist activism’s crimes during that era, suffice it to say that they failed to reach their short-term goals due to two things: arrogance and ineptitude—a recipe for failure which, often, has death as a side dish.

Looking back on what has happened since those days—especially with Dorhn and Ayers being the political “god”parents of former President Barack Obama—one “wonders” if the Organized Left found a more strategically effective way to destroy the American system that they repeatedly declared to be their enemy. Bombing bathrooms and playing Underground games didn’t achieve much in that direction.

But how much damage to that system has the Obama Administration done to it? After all, infiltration of an enemy target achieves far more extensive destruction than bombardment from the outside.

I suspect that this is the lesson that Weather, etc. learned from their failures 45 years ago.

So, now we are seeing the results of the lesson. The Dohrn-Ayers strategy has yielded success; they blew up National Intelligence.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done on April 2017! Follow her on Twitter and on Gab.ai.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

For me the most amazing thing about the Susan Rice story isn’t CNN using an Obama staffer as their go to guy on the story,  nor the media’s attempt to spin the story as nothing,  or President Obama playing with the “unmasking” rules to make it all possible, nor the her actions were laudable defense, the Washington Post’s tardy desire for an explanation, the possible involvement of the FBI in this farce, DeGenova’s revelations on “spreadsheets” , the fact that the White house doesn’t do investigations, CNN’s all out effort to first deny and then minimize the while thing,   or even Rice’s denials that the unmasking was improper , that is wasn’t political,

No the real revelation is best highlighted by this from Glenn Reynolds:

I TWEETED MAGGIE HABERMAN LAST NIGHT TO ASK IF IT WAS TRUE THAT SHE WAS SITTING ON THIS STORY, BUT SHE DIDN’T RESPOND

and this video via the American Thinker by Mike Cernovich

partially quoted by zero hedge:

“Maggie Haberman had it. She will not run any articles that are critical of the Obama administration.”

“Eli Lake had it. He didn’t want to run it and Bloomberg didn’t want to run it because it vindicates Trump’s claim that he had been spied upon. And Eli Lake is a ‘never Trumper.’ Bloomberg was a ‘never Trump’ publication.”

“I’m showing you the politics of ‘real journalism’. ‘Real journalism’ is that Bloomberg had it and the New York Times had it but they wouldn’t run it because they don’t want to run any stories that would make Obama look bad or that will vindicate Trump. They only want to run stories that make Trump look bad so that’s why they sat on it.”

What the revelation?  It’s apparently that the mainstream media, the media that once owned information and its decimation apparently learned nothing from the rise of Matt Drudge.

Twenty years ago Newsweek had the story of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. They choose to sit on it and it instead went to Matt Drudge. It made Matt Drudge rich lead to a situation where twenty years later while Newsweek which has been sold several times for the price of a Whopper Jr, despite decades of history and being one of the most recognized names in news in the top 5000 web sites in the world (4910) and top 1700 (1679) according to Alexa in the US vs the drudgereport.com’s at 723 in the world and 156 in the US.

Even worse it’s spawned 100’s of other sites (like this one) that promote stories the MSM would like to bury or fact check the stories the media promoted that were once accepted as gospel. So unless you are talking something like the Khalidi tape of which there is only a single copy held by the LA Times (unless they’ve destroyed it by now) it is very difficult to keep a story away from anyone who has a link to the internet.

One might think that the last twenty years might have taught the media this but apparently it has not. The media hasn’t figured out that just because the liberal narrative isn’t publicly challenged in the newsroom conservatives don’t exist there. And while said conservatives at the NYT, Bloomberg or elsewhere might be silent to remain gainfully employed it doesn’t prevent them from dropping an email to a person when they see something they don’t like. As Don Surber put it:

The media has lost its power, but doesn’t realize it.

Of course there is the possibility that there is a different revelation here, one revealed by this post at Mike Cernovich’s site

Breaking his usual rule of never appearing on edited television, author and filmmaker Mike Cernovich went on 60 Minutes to show a record 15 million people the power of real news. The result was 60 Minutes’ highest rated episode in almost a decade.

60 Minutes’ tops ratings for first time since 2008

 

NEW YORK (AP) — CBS’ “60 Minutes” returned this week to a familiar place it hadn’t been accustomed to visiting that much lately: first place in the prime-time television rankings.

 

The venerable newsmagazine hadn’t finished as the most-watched program of the week since November 2008, when newly elected Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, sat down for the first TV interview since their election.

Cernovich’s appearance on 60 Minutes was a matter of great interest, with his many haters around the world expecting him to look bad in front of a record 15 million viewers.

Perhaps a lot of his enemies were watching to boost the numbers but in my mind it’s much more likely that instead of the normal niche market liberals that 60 minutes normally draws from, they instead were able to draw from the entire news consuming public, a public that might have been shocked to see a Network news anchor admit that they believed the word of the Clinton campaign without question.

If that’s the case why would a for profit organization, mired in a situation where their audience is diluted by a plethora of alternative choices , when showed the potential profit of drawing a whole new customer base choose to leave this source of revenue behind?  After all if goal as a news organization is to attract the maximum amount of viewers to generate the greatest possible profit by presenting credible news to the largest audience possible then such a choice is foolhardy and a sign that they have not learned a thing.

BUT if you goal is to advance a narrative favorable to a liberal niche of high power high power donors while be invited to the right parties etc, then it makes perfect sense as Stacy McCain and I explained six years ago…

Furthermore, consider how rich liberals are willing to act as “angels” toward their media pets. I made this point yesterday in regard to Tina Brown, who lost $80 million during two years as editor of Talk, after losing $40 million during a three-year period as editor of The New Yorker, and who has most recently pushed back the goalposts of projected profitability at the Daily Beast to somewhere between (a) three years and (b) when hell freezes over.

Does it not occur to you, my clever readers, that these are not merely business losses, but are in fact a sort of charitable endeavor to support the propagation of fashionable liberalism?

As our friend Da Tech Guy points out, “profit is not the goal of those who invest with Tina Brown”:

She is part of a club, an elite . . . 
[W]hen people invest in Tina Brown, their return is to be part of that “In” crowd. To be invited to the party, to be able to say to people: “Oh yes I was at that event with Tina, we met Bernard Henri-Levy and we had a marvelous time.”
It’s all about being a member, Invest in Tina Brown and you can hobnob with the great.

Yes, but what Pete overlooks is this: Being a magazine editor gave Brown enormous influence in deciding who belongs to the “in” crowd. And one hand washes the other: Does Mika Brzezinski crave favorable coverage from the Daily Beast? “Oh, let’s invite Tina Brown onto Morning Joe!”

if that the goal than do don’t care if you eschew the profits from a larger potential  audience in fact any smaller profit from liberal viewers or readers who choose to stick with you because you are unwilling to challenge their worldview is a bonus extra.


If you think it’s worthwhile to report stories that the MSM won’t and would like to help us pay our writers and make our annual goal Consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.

The big story on the rightside of the blogosphere has been the Susan Rice revelations reported both at Fox:

Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance.

and at Bloomberg:

White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
The pattern of Rice’s requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government’s policy on “unmasking” the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like “U.S. Person One.”

And MSNBC’s objections not withstanding even more is coming up 

Computer logs that former President Obama’s team left behind in the White House indicate his national security adviser Susan Rice accessed numerous intelligence reports during Obama’s last seven months in office that contained National Security Agency intercepts involving Donald Trump and his associates, Circa has learned.

Intelligence sources said the logs discovered by National Security Council staff suggested Rice’s interest in the NSA materials, some of which included unmasked Americans’ identities, appeared to begin last July around the time Trump secured the GOP nomination and accelerated after Trump’s election in November launched a transition that continued through January.

Powerline writes about it:

If true, this is a bombshell, if not exactly a surprise. We know from her tour of the Sunday morning talk shows to misrepresent Benghazi that Rice was a political hack, more than willing to do dirty work on behalf of President Obama. Her alleged role here would fit with that history.

Don Surber:

There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by President Trump. But plenty of evidence points to Barack Obama’s abuse of power. Let us follow that trail.

Glenn Reynolds:

It is a felony to conspire to “injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States.”

Related: Susan Rice unmasked? Previously said “I know nothing about” Nunes allegations.

PJ Media:

So, let’s review:

  • authorized under the Obama Administration √
  • pretty high up √
  • confidante of friends in high places √√√√

Susan Rice certainly seems to fit. Of course, the remaining question is who did the actual leaking.

And despite CNN and the left considering it a “distraction” and then claiming it is false,  it is a significant development but the real sign that there is some there there comes not so much from these stories, but from this piece by Byron York:

So with Schiff’s visit to the White House, a chance for balance. But after viewing the documents, Schiff has gone nearly completely silent about what he saw. He has kept up his criticism of how Nunes came to view the material, but on what’s actually in the documents, Schiff has said virtually nothing.

That seems rather odd, for quite a while we couldn’t turn on cable news without seeing Congressman Schiff not only making claims about Donald Trump and Russia but hitting the chairman of his committee for talk, but now with Jake Tapper he suddenly came back with this:

Schiff made no public comments on Saturday, and then on Sunday morning appeared on CNN, where Jake Tapper asked Schiff if, having seen the documents, “can you understand why Chairman Nunes might have some issues with the surveillance that was going on?”

“I can’t go into the contents of the documents, Jake,” Schiff said, before a quick pivot to Nunes’ methods. “I can say I don’t agree with the chairman’s characterization, which is exactly why it’s so important you don’t share documents with just one person or even two people. They need to be shared with both full committees.”

Continuing, Schiff said “the most important thing” about the documents is not what is in them but how they were handled

The unwillingness of congressman Schiff to talk about what he saw speaks even louder than the rest of the headlines, it suggests that Kurt Schlichter prediction is coming true

This is all going to blow up in the Democrats’ faces, and when it does I’m going to laugh and raise my vodka glass in a joyous toast to their latest and greatest failure.

The question is this:  When it happens will the media report it?


If you think it’s worthwhile to report stories that the MSM won’t and would like to help us pay our writers and make our annual goal Consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.

Has anyone noticed how obsessed Morning Joe has been with Senator Kelly Ayotte lately? It seems day doesn’t go by when she isn’t mentioned in connection to her vote on Manchin/Toomey.

It’s kind of funny because I seem to remember a short time ago when Morning Joe didn’t know Kelly Ayotte existed.

Morning Joe ignored her at the Susan Rice/Benghazi Press Conference in November

You would think it’s kind of hard to ignore Kelly Ayotte at that event, She is tall (she towered over both Senators McCain & Graham) but she is a younger, photogenic woman who had a strong interest in this matter. I’d think that would be something to play up instead of just “two old white guys”.

At the time Willie Geist refereed to Senator Ayotte as “others“. It took liberal Kristin Powers to actually mention the senator by name:

Obama also left out the inconvenient detail that there is another senator who has Rice in the crosshairs: Sen. Kelly Ayotte. But perhaps a female Senator holding Rice accountable didn’t sound menacing enough in the era of the “War on Women.”

And as Benghazi continued to advance and Senator Ayotte as she did before the election continued to push it others noticed the omission:

And they ignored her questioning of Leon Panetta and on her statements at the Hagel hearing on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards

I don’t think that the people who rose up in 2009 in the green movement who were persecuted and shot at by the Iranian government would call that government a legitimately elected government. Nor would, at the time that he voted against designating the Islamic revolutionary guard corps as a terrorist organization at the time they were assisting those in Iraq who were murdering our troops.

That is simply devastating. Yet it got absolutely no airtime in the MSM. Why, because it can’t be refuted, there is no way to describe that vote in a positive way and there was nothing in either Senator Ayotte’s demeanor nor her delivery that can be used to attack her on style or substance.

And when she spoke at CPAC talking about jobs, Obamacare the Tax code and Benghazi it was as if it never happened

As far as Morning Joe was concerned until her vote on Manchin Toomey Senator Kelly Ayotte didn’t exist.

Why? I gave the answer back in February:

On Kelly Ayotte, the plan is to keep her out of the news as much as possible so when she runs for re-election they can paint whatever picture of her they wish.

Her leadership on Benghazi and Susan Rice and Chuch Hagel not newsworthy. Her comments today fighting the internet Sales tax non existent but now they have their anti-gun Newtown meme and now Morning Joe and the left has discovered Kelly Ayotte.

The left has wanted to bring down the only national pol to the right of Chris Christie in the NH and now they’ve finally found a picture of Kelly Ayotte they think they can sell to the General public & New Hampshire voters.

The question is, will New Hampshire voters who know Ayotte fall for it?

*****************************************8

Olimometer 2.52

Unlike Morning Joe DaTechGuy Blog knew who Kelly Ayotte was long before the Toomey Manchin vote. If you think we’ve done a better job then they have consider being on of the 15 people this week I need to raise that $300 paycheck by Hitting DaTipJar below.

Via Unedited politics we have video of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) impromptu press availability after talking to Susan Rice today on Benghazi.

Senator Graham makes a good point about John Bolton and I think Senator Ayotte hits it out of the park with this statement:

Just to be clear, when you have a position when you’re Ambassador to the United Nations, you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation and responsibilities for that job. And that’s troubling to me as well why she wouldn’t have asked.: ‘I’m the person that doesn’t know anything about this I’m going on every single show’ but in addition the fact that it’s not just the talking points that were unclassified but clearly as part of her responsibility as an Ambassador to the United Nations she reviewed much more than that.

That’s a point that nobody seems to be making, it’s as if all of this happened in a vacuum but while the words were strong and mean trouble for the administration there are two things about this video I find most interesting.

1. At 3:09 as soon as Senator Graham finishes but before Senator Ayotte begins to speak a reporter tries to question Graham. When Senator Ayotte is done speaking questions are directed to Senator Graham but none to Senator Ayotte.

2. This video was uploaded to a Youtube Chanel called: Buzz Source. The Chanel has over 1.2 Million combined views of its videos. As of 2:10 pm the title of this video is: ” McCain And Graham Still ‘Significantly Troubled’ By Rice’s Statements On Benghazi After Meeting With Her”

Maybe it’s just me but I saw three Senators there and Senator Ayotte seems to be just as troubled as her colleagues yet for some reason she doesn’t rate mention in the title or description or worthy of a question from the assembled press.

Now if these were Democrats complaining about say Condoleezza Rice we would be told how sexist it is to be excluding the one women in this event from questions or even mention, but as these are Republicans complaining about Susan Rice Senator Ayotte will be safely ignored and excluded as her presence doesn’t serve the “old white men” meme. As Dana Loesch noticed in an exchange with MSNBC host Torue:

Obviously? Apparently Torre missed the initial press conference where Senator Ayotte was present and frankly towered over Senator’s McCain & Graham. saying this:

Let’s also not forget that, I think you all appreciate you don’t end up on every single major Sunday show without affirmatively putting yourself out there of wanting to carry forward a message on behalf of the administration.

Here is the full video in case he missed it:

Dana Loesch continues to notice her even if Torre doesn’t

But this is the left, if the truth and the reality is not favorable we shall simply ignore it, deny it or pretend it was never there.

On the bright side they can still play the race card if they include her.

Update: Jennifer Rubin appreciates Ayotte, but she is not the left.

Today’s entry on the common theme of the left and their problem with truth comes from Morning Joe

Item: On Morning Joe yesterday I saw the sudden post-election discovery of Benghazi (but not Senator Kelly Ayotte who Willie Geist refers to as “others”) in the context of the following arguments:

1. It is OK to send out a member of the administration to say something they know is false or as a dupe who doesn’t know they are sending out false information. (Unlike Iraq for example where the administration and every intelligence agency in the world believed what they were saying was true)

2. Questioning a black woman like Susan Rice is bad optics and racism (unlike questioning a black woman like Condi Rice which is simply asking questions to power plus she doesn’t count as black because she is republican).

3. It is foolish to demand accountability because such a demand is based on facts and accountability rather than deferring to a mandate of racial or sexual politics.

Note that the death of three four Americans is not the issue, the administration sending out a person before the election to deceive is not the issue, no it is the idea that two of the three Senators who have critiqued said person are white men (we’ll ignore female Senator in the group) and she is a black woman and because she is a black woman the standards of truth and honesty do not apply here.

In other words the offense here is against Truth, but well discuss more on that tomorrow.

Update: Should have said four dead Americans, corrected, thanks.