Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ah good now your here. Now I can just call you a fucking moron without worrying about being.reported.
I see you went for the hilter reference to.speed up how stupid you are.
SO you have no problem with whom ever is in the White House giving money to Non Profits that openly attack their adversaries? Or real news organizations?
Well just guessing..but you probably didn't have any problem when the Bush administration illegally used tax payer money to produce fake news stories that supported Bush policy. Or when Bush moved ol' Jeff Gannon to the head of the class to ask soft ball questions at press meetings. Or when the Bush administration paid "journalists" to write favorable OpEd pieces and stories.
Operation Fast and Furious How the Obama Administration Conned the Washington Post
June 24, 2011 - 12:10 am - by Hans A. von Spakovsky
But Operation Fast and Furious also shows how willing this administration is to deliberately mislead the press and how easily the Washington Post was conned by the administration in a story it published last year.
On December 13, 2010, the Post ran a story about U.S. gun dealers with the most traces for firearms recovered by police. The Post included the names of the dealers, all from border states, with the most traces from guns recovered in Mexico over the past two years. The Post did not reveal where it got this information, but pointed out that Congress passed a law in 2003 exempting the trace information maintained by the ATF from public disclosure. So the Post had to have gotten this information through a leak directly from the ATF (or by illegally hacking the ATFs records, a far-fetched and highly unlikely scenario).
Two of the gun dealers the Posts story assailed were Lone Wolf Trading Co. in Glendale and J&G Sales in Prescott, Ariz. Lone Wolf Trading is number one on the list for Mexican traces; J&G is number three.
However, at the time the ATF was apparently leaking this information to the Post, both of these dealers were cooperating with the ATF in the Fast and Furious Operation. When Fox News talked recently to the owner of J&G, Brad DeSaye, about the ATFs disastrous operation, he said that when he questioned the ATF about whether the agency wanted the gun shop to sell to the cartel front men, the ATF said, Keep selling.
...
Indeed, these dealers were showing up in the Mexican trace information because the ATF was telling them to ignore the law and the usual verification procedures and sell guns to the cartels, sometime dozens in a single day to one person.
In an irony that could almost be considered comeuppance to the ATF, the Post story was published the day before Agent Terry was killed. Terrys death panicked the ATF supervisors who were running Fast and Furious, a panic that was deserved after two of the weapons found at the murder scene were traced to the operation. Yet in a letter to Sen. Charles Grassley on Feb. 4, 2011, DOJs Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich, the same individual who testified before Issas committee, claimed the ATF had not knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser who then transported them into Mexico. As the whistleblower ATF agents testified, this was patently false.
This apparent leak by the administration to mislead the Washington Post was not a one-time incident. On May 26, just two weeks before the Issa hearing, La Opinión, the largest Spanish-language newspaper in the United States (based in Los Angeles), published a story about the smuggling of guns from America into Mexico. The spokesman for the Office of the U.S. Attorney in Phoenix again specifically named Lone Wolf Trading, which had sold guns at the express direction of the ATF, as being responsible along with other gun dealers for a great majority of confiscated weapons in crimes on the other side of the border. This is the same U.S. Attorneys Office that encouraged and supported every single facet of Fast and Furious, according to the Joint Staff Report prepared by Rep. Issa and Sen. Charles Grassley.
There are two final points that should be made about this fiasco. The fact that Holder sent Weich up to testify on June 15 is very revealing to anyone familiar with internal Justice procedure. Weich is the head of the Office of Legislative Affairs, the office tasked with dealing with Congress. It is not a line department directly involved in prosecutions and investigations. The Fast and Furious Operation would have been handled out of the Criminal Division, headed by Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, former special counsel to Bill Clinton. Breuer (or Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke) would obviously be the witnesses with the most direct knowledge particularly the question of who at Justice in the top leadership offices was briefed or asked for approval of the operation.
The only reason for Justice to send Weich was to send someone with no actual knowledge of who approved this operation so he could truthfully testify under oath as he did despite tough questioning by Issa that he did not know the answer to that question. The fact that the Inspector General is supposedly investigating one of the other excuses Weich gave for not answering questions is also not a legitimate reason to withhold information from Congress when it is exercising its constitutional oversight function.
Finally, the most obvious question that Issa, Grassley, and others have been asking is: Why would the administration implement such an obviously perilous, risky, and foolish operation that sent hundreds of dangerous weapons into Mexico?
For a possible answer, recall that in 2009 the Obama administration was making a huge public issue about the flow of guns from American gun dealers into Mexico. President Obama himself erroneously claimed at a joint press conference with President Filipe Calderon in Mexico City on April 16, 2009, that 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border. Everyone from William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the ATF, to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed this same claim.
The problem, however, was that the 90 percent figure was demonstrably false. Only a small portion of the guns seized by Mexican authorities have traceable serial numbers. In 2008, GAO reported that the Mexican government seized 30,000 guns, and only 6,700 were confirmed to have originated in the U.S. That represents only 22 percent, not 90 percent.
The administrations claim was widely criticized as being wrong which may have provided a political motivation for an ill-advised operation that poured U.S. weapons into Mexico. This could provide the administration with a public-relations coup that supported its claims when it unveiled its prosecutions. Perhaps thats why one ATF supervisor was described as jovial, if not, not giddy, but just delighted [sic] when Fast and Furious guns were found at Mexican crime scenes, and why Acting Director of the ATF Kenneth Melson took such a personal interest that he watched live feeds from secret ATF cameras in guns stores while sitting at his desk.
The bottom line is that considerations other than objective, professional law enforcement judgment seem to have driven the decision-making of the Holder Justice Department. The result has been tragedy and violence and the bloodshed will persist as these weapons continue to be used.
Howdy Plasma, good to see you as well.
How've you been ?
Not so much a Nazi reference as paying homage to the man's place as a premier
propagandist of his time. But you knew that.
At any rate, good to see you again.
Well Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes or Karl Rove would probably have been more appropriate......All of whom (most likely) studied the tomes of The Master....the Granddaddy o' Republican dirty-tricks....BIG DICK'S boy.....
No media outlet should get taxpayer dollars.
That includes any and all.
Which is sort of the point to this thread isn't it ?
No one needs the government buying media outlets.
Government is bad enough without it's buying help.
Um, Media Matters doesn't get any taxpayer "funding". There's a 501(c)3, which means they're tax-exempt. But they don't get any funding from the Federal Government.
I love how everyone in this thread accepted the OP as fact, even though it's certainly not true.
No media outlet should get taxpayer dollars.
That includes any and all.
Which is sort of the point to this thread isn't it ?
No one needs the government buying media outlets.
Government is bad enough without it's buying help.
Say it with me now...
Media Matters get ZERO federal tax dollars.
Ah good now your here. Now I can just call you a fucking moron without worrying about being.reported.
I see you went for the hilter reference to.speed up how stupid you are.
SO you have no problem with whom ever is in the White House giving money to Non Profits that openly attack their adversaries? Or real news organizations?
Well just guessing..but you probably didn't have any problem when the Bush administration illegally used tax payer money to produce fake news stories that supported Bush policy. Or when Bush moved ol' Jeff Gannon to the head of the class to ask soft ball questions at press meetings. Or when the Bush administration paid "journalists" to write favorable OpEd pieces and stories.
Don't be silly. He doesn't mind when Democrats do it.So tell me how this is legal.
There's too much of the whole using taxpayer money to fund political agenda crap going on.
It needs to be stopped.
I don't want "the Party" to decide what I hear or who I hear it from.
Pravda anyone ?
Herr Goebbels would be proud.
Ah good now your here. Now I can just call you a fucking moron without worrying about being.reported.
I see you went for the hilter reference to.speed up how stupid you are.
SO you have no problem with whom ever is in the White House giving money to Non Profits that openly attack their adversaries? Or real news organizations?
Which is sort of the point to this thread isn't it ?
No one needs the government buying media outlets.
Government is bad enough without it's buying help.
Say it with me now...
Media Matters get ZERO federal tax dollars.
Allowing tax free contributions to an alleged political news organization is depriving the government of tax dollars. Most liberals agree that a tax cut for millionaires is doing the same thing.
Which is sort of the point to this thread isn't it ?
No one needs the government buying media outlets.
Government is bad enough without it's buying help.
Say it with me now...
Media Matters get ZERO federal tax dollars.
he wont be answering, he went back to his other forum after they lifted his ban
Which is sort of the point to this thread isn't it ?
No one needs the government buying media outlets.
Government is bad enough without it's buying help.
Say it with me now...
Media Matters get ZERO federal tax dollars.
he wont be answering, he went back to his other forum after they lifted his ban
The Transition into Totalitarian National Socialism is happening fast than I predicted.
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Seems Media Matters is getting Fed dollars to do their
attacks on Fox News.
Do you know what a 501(c)3 is, PP?MM is a propaganda outlet. Read it's mission sometime. If it tried to be fair and balanced it would be one thing but it makes no secret about the fact that is politically biased. It's mission is to analyze (only) conservative speech. How can it keep a tax exempt status?
it cant. Just like those churches were threatned for having political speech from the pulpit, same rule applies to any organization receiving federal money or special tax status.
so is mediamatters still getting preferential govt treatment over other media outlets?
so is mediamatters still getting preferential govt treatment over other media outlets?
Well, Media Matters isn't a media outlet per se - rather a "watchdog" group.
And they've never had any "preferential treatment" over other "watchdog" groups, on both ideological sides.
You didn't answer my question Plymco.so is mediamatters still getting preferential govt treatment over other media outlets?
Well, Media Matters isn't a media outlet per se - rather a "watchdog" group.
And they've never had any "preferential treatment" over other "watchdog" groups, on both ideological sides.
Under that definition foxnation.com is a watchdog group too!
