“Our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor” was written by Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr. and was published in the July 1996 edition of The Limbaugh Letter.  It is reproduced here in the hopes that he’s too busy to sue me.

It was a glorious morning. The sun was shining and the wind was from the southeast. Up especially early, a tall bony, redheaded young Virginian found time to buy a new thermometer, for which he paid three pounds, fifteen shillings. He also bought gloves for Martha, his wife, who has ill at home. Thomas Jefferson arrived early at the statehouse. The temperature was 72.5 degrees and the horseflies weren’t nearly so bad at that hour. It was a lovely room, very large, with gleaming white walls. The chairs were comfortable. Facing the single door were two brass fireplaces, but they would not be used today. The moment the door was shut, and it was always kept locked, the room became an oven. The tall windows were shut, so that loud quarreling voices could not be heard by passersby. Small openings atop the windows allowed a slight stir of air, and also a large number of horseflies. Jefferson records that “the horseflies were dexterous in finding necks, and the silk of stocking was nothing to them.” All discussion was punctuated by the slap of hands on necks. On the wall at the back, facing the President’s desk, was a panoply-consisting of a drum, swords, and banners seized from Fort Ticonderoga the previous year. Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold had captured the place, shouting that they were taking it “in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!”

Now Congress got to work, promptly taking up an emergency measure about which there was discussion but no dissention. “Resolved: That an application be made to the Committee of Safety of Pennsylvania for a supply of flints for the troops at New York.” Then Congress transformed itself into a committee of the whole. The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once more, and debate resumed. Though Jefferson was the best writer of all of them, he had been somewhat verbose. Congress hacked the excess away. They did a good job, as a side-by-side comparison of the rough draft and the final text shows. They cut the phrase “by a self-assumed power.” “Climb” was replaced by “must read,” then “must” was eliminated, then the whole sentence, and soon the whole paragraph was cut. Jefferson groaned as they continued what he later called “their depredations.” “Inherent and inalienable rights” came out “certain unalienable rights,” and to this day no one knows who suggested the elegant change. A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of wrangling, the document was put to a vote.

Here in this hall Patrick Henry had once thundered: “I am no longer a Virginian, Sir, but an American.” But today the loud, sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted. There were no trumpets blown. No one stood on his chair and cheered. The afternoon was waning and Congress had no thought of delaying the full calendar of routine business on its hands. For several hours they worked on many other problems before adjourning for the day.

Much To Lose
What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing, committed an act of treason against the crown? To each of you the names Franklin, Adams, Hancock, and Jefferson are almost as familiar as household words. Most of us, however, know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What happened to them?

I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere. Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half -24- were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, 9 were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians. With only a few exceptions, such as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of substantial property. All but two had families. The vast majority were men of education and standing in their communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 18th century. Each had more to lose from revolution than he had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head.

He signed in enormous letters so “that his Majesty could now read his name without glasses and could now double the reward.” Ben Franklin wryly noted: “Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately.” Fat Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “With me it will all be over in a minute, but you , you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone.” These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember: a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor. They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from hot-eyed fanatics, yammering for an explosion. They simply asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was equality with the mother country they desired. It was taxation with representation they sought. They were all conservatives, yet they rebelled.

It was principle, not property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them became state governors. One died in office as vice president of the United States. Several would go on to be U.S. Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and philosopher of the signers (it was he, Francis Hopkinson - not Betsy Ross who designed the United States flag). Richard Henry Lee, A delegate from Virginia, had introduced the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776. He was prophetic in his concluding remarks: “Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate? Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish the reign of peace and law. The eyes of Europe are fixed upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the ever increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores. She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repost. If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of the American Legislatures of 1776 will be placed by posterity at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens.”

Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2, that the signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to the Declaration. William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to see the signers’ faces as they committed this supreme act of personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, “but in no face was he able to discern real fear.” Stephan Hopkins, Ellery’s colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: “My hand trembles, but my heart does not.”

“Most glorious service”
Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.

*  Francis Lewis, New York delegate saw his home plundered and his estates in what is now Harlem, completely destroyed by British soldiers. Mrs. Lewis was captured and treated with great brutality. Though she was later exchanged for two British prisoners though the efforts of Congress she died from the effects of her abuse.

*  William Floyd, another New York delegate, was able to escape with his wife and children across Long Island Sound to Connecticut, where they lived as refugees without income for seven years. When they came home they found a devastated ruin.

*  Philips Livingstone had all his great holdings in New York confiscated and his family driven out of their home. Livingstone died in 1778 still working in Congress for the cause.

*  Louis Morris, the fourth New York delegate, saw all his timber, crops, and livestock taken. For seven years he was barred from his home and family.

*  John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return home to see his dying wife. Hessian soldiers rode after him, and he escaped in the woods. While his wife lay on her deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his homestead. Hart, 65, slept in caves and woods as he was hunted across the countryside. When at long last, emaciated by hardship, he was able to sneak home, he found his wife had already been buried, and his 13 children taken away. He never saw them again. He died a broken man in 1779, without ever finding his family.

*  Dr. John Witherspoon, signer, was president of the College of New Jersey, later called Princeton. The British occupied the town of Princeton, and billeted troops in the college. They trampled and burned the finest college library in the country.

*  Judge Richard Stockton, another New Jersey delegate signer, had rushed back to his estate in an effort to evacuate his wife and children. The family found refuge with friends, but a Tory sympathizer betrayed them. Judge Stockton was pulled from bed in the night and brutally beaten by the arresting soldiers. Thrown into a common jail, he was deliberately starved. Congress finally arranged for Stockton’s parole, but his health was ruined. The judge was released as an invalid, when he could no longer harm the British cause. He returned home to find his estate looted and did not live to see the triumph of the revolution. His family was forced to live off charity.

*  Robert Morris, merchant prince of Philadelphia, delegate and signer, met Washington’s appeals and pleas for money year after year. He made and raised arms and provisions which made it possible for Washington to cross the Delaware at Trenton. In the process he lost 150 ships at sea, bleeding his own fortune and credit almost dry.

*  George Clymer, Pennsylvania signer, escaped with his family from their home, but their property was completely destroyed by the British in the Germantown and Brandywine campaigns.

*  Dr. Benjamin Rush, also from Pennsylvania, was forced to flee to Maryland. As a heroic surgeon with the army, Rush had several narrow escapes.

*  John Martin, a Tory in his views previous to the debate, lived in a strongly loyalist area of Pennsylvania. When he came out for independence, most of his neighbors and even some of his relatives ostracized him. He was a sensitive and troubled man, and many believed this action killed him. When he died in 1777, his last words to his tormentors were: “Tell them that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it [the signing] to have been the most glorious service that I have ever rendered to my country.”

*  William Ellery, Rhode Island delegate, saw his property and home burned to the ground.

*  Thomas Lynch, Jr., South Carolina delegate, had his health broken from privation and exposures while serving as a company commander in the military. His doctors ordered him to seek a cure in the West Indies and on the voyage he and his young bride were drowned at sea.

*  Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., the other three South Carolina signers, were taken by the British in the siege of Charleston. They were carried as prisoners of war to St. Augustine, Florida, where they were singled out for indignities. They were exchanged at the end of the war, the British in the meantime having completely devastated their large landholdings and estates.

*  Thomas Nelson, signer of Virginia, was at the front in command of the Virginia military forces. With British General Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown, fire from 70 heavy American guns began to destroy Yorktown piece by piece. Lord Cornwallis and his staff moved their headquarters into Nelson’s palatial home. While American cannonballs were making a shambles of the town, the house of Governor Nelson remained untouched. Nelson turned in rage to the American gunners and asked, “Why do you spare my home?” They replied, “Sir, out of respect to you.” Nelson cried, “Give me the cannon!” and fired on his magnificent home himself, smashing it to bits. But Nelson’s sacrifice was not quite over. He had raised $2 million for the Revolutionary cause by pledging his own estates. When the loans came due, a newer peacetime Congress refused to honor them, and Nelson’s property was forfeited. He was never reimbursed. He died, impoverished, a few years later at the age of 50.

Lives, fortunes, honor
Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.

And, finally, there is the New Jersey Signer, Abraham Clark. He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship “Jersey,” where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons’ lives if he would recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter despair in this man’s heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each and one of us down through 200 years with the answer: “No.”

The 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. “And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

Ok, work with me here.  I am running without links, so while I might be off one minor details, it won’t change the overall scope of my epiphany.

President Obama has held slightly opposing views on the situations in Iran and Honduras.  Regarding Iran, he mostly holds that it is an internal matter, and while he’s poopoo’d the violence against the protestors, he’s mostly said it is all internal and we should butt out and not say much.  Even the condemnation of the violence took a while.

However, regarding Honduras, he was quick to come out condeming the “military coup”, claiming that the will of the people should be heard.

Why the disparity?

It’s simple, but to understand it, you have to know WHY the Honduran military booted Zelaya.

See, the Honduran constitution says that a President serves one term.  One.  Uno.  Ein.  You shall serve one term, and the number of terms you shall serve is one. You will not serve two.  Three is right out.

Zelaya didn’t like this, but instead of getting the Constitution amended, he decided to hold a refferendum, and thus could claim to have been “elected” when in fact no such thing had happened - you can not be elected to an office you are Constitutionally barred from holding.

So, after he had ignored orders from the country’s highest court to get the eff out, they issued what amounts to a warrant, and the military (which is charged by the constitution to enforce the rulings of the country’s highest court) promptly arrested his sorry tail and sent him packing.

“So?” I hear you say.  “So what.  That doesn’t explain why Obama would have a problem with it…”

Sure it does.  Considering the absolute cult-following that President Obama has (I’ve been told by people that they support his policies - even the ones that have never worked anywhere in the world in the history of ever - because they “Believe in him”, as if by will alone he can alter reality), what do you think the odds are that enough people would want to see a third term for him to try it?

I mean, the man is one of the most power-hungry politicians this country has known in decades, so why wouldn’t he want a third term, Constitutional Amendment regarding Presidential term limits be damned?

Obama doesn’t like the events in Honduras because it reminds him that some countries actually hold their Constitutions in high regard, and actually enforce the darn things.

It sets, essentially, the very dangerous precident of “ousting a man who’s time in office is offically over despite his very real desire to stay in power”.

If you were Obama, wouldn’t that prospect terrify you?

It doesn’t hurt Zelaya’s case (or his apparent support from the Administration or the UN - which has passed a resolution saying Zelaya should be returned to office) that Zelaya was essentially a Chavez puppet.  God knows those people have small side-alters to Hugo set up right next to the High Holy Alter set up for The One.

Iran arrests UK Embassy employees.

I’m sure it will all turn out fine.

Now, while I don’t normally advocate random acts of violence (you, in the back!  Stop giggling!) I have to say that in the case of Perez Hilton, I support savage beatings on general principle.  The man is, frankly, scum.  He alone makes me think, for just a moment “Maybe that Rev Phelps guy has a point”…  His continued existence sets back the gay-rights movement years - if not decades.

He put out an apology - of sorts - and the only bit that wasn’t self-serving (well, wasn’t entirely self-serving) was the following:

“I will be donating any money collected from my lawsuit against Polo Molina, road manager for the Black Eyed Peas, to the Matthew Shepard Foundation.”

Matt Shepard, in case you forgot, was a gay teen who was savagely beaten to death in Wyoming back in 1998 (his killers tried to beat the murder rap by claiming “gay rage” - they were so homophobic/closeted they went nuts an killed the gay guy, which the court rightly called a pile of bullshit).  Matt’s mom runs the foundation, and unfortunately for Perez, she is possessed with a sense of decency.  Here are some choice bits of the statement the Foundation put out:

“The Matthew Shepard Foundation was surprised to learn this morning via media reports that blogger Perez Hilton has announced plans to donate, to our organization, the proceeds of a lawsuit…

We had no advance notice or contact from Mr. Hilton or his representatives regarding this proposal, nor any communication since he posted this plan to his website.  We do not know the details of the lawsuit, whether it has been filed, the nature of his claims or the likely outcome. But because the lawsuit presumably involves the physical attack prompted by Mr. Hilton’s admitted use of an anti-gay slur, the Foundation will be unable to accept any funds obtained in such a manner.

…we also feel compelled to point out that use of epithets can often lead to physical violence, as it appears it may have in this case, and that the Matthew Shepard Foundation has worked for more than 10 years to bring to people’s attention the consequences of hateful or intolerant language.”

Tyler Durden of wwtdd.com has the most accurate quote regarding the entire affair:

If you’re a gay guy in the news because someone punched you, and the most prominent gay rights organization has asked you to apologize, and a charity who works to end violence against gay people won’t take money from you, I think it’s safe to say you’re a piece of shit.

Amen.  Maybe if other people that Perez treats like crap slapped the taste out of his mouth, he’s act like less of a pile of crap.  Prejean alone should get a couple of free swings…

What ties many of us to the Iranian power struggle is a sense of common purpose. A purpose that is in the heart of the young men and women of Iran, as it has been at the heart of many national movements over the last 233 years. Jefferson, Franklin and Adams said it about as succinctly as one could want. Doesn’t matter if you are black, white, Asian, Christian, Jew, Muslim or none of the above. All you have to be is human.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

In Congress,
July 4, 1776

This was actually sent to me by a long-time friend who has the annoying quirk of being a Disciple of Ear Leader.  She not only has an Obama coffee cup, but owns an Obama belt buckle.  She doesn’t know it yet, but she’s getting an Obama Kool-Aid pitcher for her birthday.

Anyway, here’s Barack the superhero. I don’t think it’s as flattering as my friend thinks it is.

In one of those man-bites-dog stories, the LA Times ruins SF District Attorney Kamala Harris, at least as far as her viability for the state Attorney General post is concerned.  At least if you think rescuing illegal immigrant violent felons from jail and putting them back on the street is a problem.

It seems that Ms Harris’ office runs a drug-diversion program, Back on Track, that focuses on giving young first-offenders job skills they can use to avoid “a life of crime.”  They plead guilty to felony drug-possession in exchange for probation and a year-long program operated by Goodwill Industries.  If they drop out, their probation is revoked and (presumably) off to prison they go.  Sounds good on the face, but not all the results have been good.  Not only do about 40% drop out, but there seems to be quite a few illegal immigrants involved.  Job training isn’t much good for folks who cannot legally work.

One noted pupil was Alexander Izaguirre:

The assault on Amanda Kiefer at dusk in San Francisco’s posh Pacific Heights was extraordinary enough for its cruelty.

A stranger, later identified as Alexander Izaguirre, snatched her purse and hopped into an SUV, police say. The driver sped forward to run Kiefer down. Terrified, she leaped onto the hood and saw Izaguirre and the driver laughing. The driver slammed on the brakes, propelling Kiefer to the pavement. Her skull fractured. Blood oozed from her ear.

Only after the July 2008 attack did Kiefer learn of the crime’s political ramifications. Izaguirre, police told her, was an illegal immigrant who had pleaded guilty four months earlier to a drug felony for selling cocaine in the seedy Tenderloin area. …

… Kiefer, who packages medical devices for a living, said she has left California for good, in part because of the trauma of nearly having been killed on her way to dinner last summer in Pacific Heights. Nearly a year later, she remains baffled that San Francisco authorities ever let Izaguirre and other illegal immigrant felons back onto the streets.

“If they’re committing crimes,” she said, “I think there’s something wrong that they’re not being deported.”

San Francisco has a history of shielding illegals, of course.  Rather than allow deportation, SF will release criminals from custody.  For example, Edwin Ramos, an illegal repeatedly released by the city.  Ramos is now charged in a triple homicide where he killed a man and his sons in an act of road rage.  This is causing Harris a problem, since she has vowed never to ask for the death penalty, yet many SF residents think this should be an exception.

All in all, the Times makes a fairly good case why Harris would be the AG From Hell.  She still stands some chance in the Democrat primary, but slim to none in the general.

Maybe that’s why the Times is trying to stop her.  I guess this means that she won’t be listed by the NY Times as a likely female President anymore

I assert that President Obama will apologize to Japan for Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki before his term is up.  A Democrat friend of mine tells me I’m wrong, but doesn’t want to take the bet.  Does anyone?

The fixed election in Iran, with its blatant manufacture of millions of votes and/or assignment of votes without regard to ballots, gives rise to the question: “Could it happen here?” The short answer is “No”, the longer answer is “No, except when it is very close.”

Unlike Iran, we don’t have a direct election for President; we have our idiosyncratic Electoral College system.  The EC is often criticized precisely on this point, and the fact that it occasionally results in an odd outcome.  It is, instead, the solid basis for our 220 years as a republic.

The EC provides several levels of protection to the legitimacy of our election.  It is first and foremost a firewall.  The system distributes vote counting to the states.  Since states only award electoral votes, padding state totals doesn’t do anything.  Since such shenanigans are possible only when one has complete control over the counting, it usually doesn’t affect the state’s outcome, either.

Only when the state total is very close and one controls a sizable portion of the state can the outcome be swayed without notice.  And, in the end, you have only changed one state’s electoral vote; forty-nine to go.  So, it also takes a close federal election to matter.  Chicago 1960 (successful fraud) and Florida 2000 (take your pick) are possible examples where the system failed.

Secondly, the system partitions any needed recounts to one or a few states.  Election 2000 is a perfect example.  The federal margin (~500K votes for Gore), the Florida margin (537 votes for Bush) and the New Mexico margin (267 votes for Gore), along with close votes in Oregon and Wisconsin would have meant a nationwide recount.  If you think the Florida recount was bad, multiply that by 50.  Given Bush v Gore, you have to count them all again; can’t cherry-pick.

Third, the system provides a tie-breaker.  Tight elections (margin less than, say, 1%) go the the candidate who won the most states.  This is part and parcel of the Senate-membership deal struck in Philadelphia in 1787, and not at all an accident.  This also adds to the difficulty in rigging an election, as it is the large metropolitan areas where machine control is most likely, and they cannot easily get past the dead hand of the two base EC votes per state.

In short, it could only happen here if we reformed the Electoral College to be more “democratic.”

I’ve been following several folks in Iran via Twitter, and today the mood is decidedly somber.  The anger has faded to desperation and the hope of Western assistance has dissolved into a feeling of betrayal.  Despair is really the only word for it.

Here is a series of tweets from Tehranbureau, which can also be found at this Iranian opposition web site.

tell the Europeans, stop posturing

wasn’t human rights supposed to be so important to you?

you’re all full of empty slogans, aren’t you?

it’s hypocritical to keep pretending they care about human rights, when it’s really only economic interests they’re after.

there is no other option: everyone has to get involved to help us.

don’t you see, they’re massacring us here.

The United States cannot grant this man a visa!

This man doesn’t represent us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this man cannot be invited to international summits!

they cannot make official visits to this country either!

you cannot believe it. they have turned this place into a killing field.

people are frightened to death here. they have gone quiet. the stores are closed.

there were plans to go and gather at 7 Tir [earlier today Tehran time] for that poor young woman Neda.

I’m going, but I’m scared. I may go quietly.

Sepah [IRGC] has announced it will crush us. they’re murderers.

But at night from 10 to 11 pm we all come out and say Allah o Akbar [God is Great] and Death to the Dictator.

Please tell the world that we protesters are not terrorists [as reported by state tv]. it’s the other way around: they’re terrorizing us!

end quote

@TehranBureau 0824PDT 22-June-09

Hungary must have felt this way in 1956.

President Obama is hesitant to “meddle” in Iran, having just apologized for a previous occasion when the US did just that.  Now try to guess which meddling attempt he apologized for.

1. 1953 — Dwight Eisenhower (R) allows the CIA to assist Iranians who want to replace the elected Prime Minister Mossadegh with Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.  Mossadegh had nationalized US and British oil companies and seemed unable or unwilling to deal with Soviet-backed Communist subversion.
   
2. 1977-79 — Jimmy Carter (D) alternates between criticism of the Shah and neglect of increasingly unstable Iran, while the Ayatollah Khomeini organizes for revolution.  In the end, the US takes no action in support of the Shah and allows Khomeini to take power.

Number 1, number 2, neither or both?

Extra credit:

1. The US supported the British/Soviet invasion of Iran that drove the Nazi Reza Shah from power in 1941.
2. US diplomacy got the Soviets to end their occupation in 1946.

Which of these meddling attempts did Obama find laudable?

Many on the right have complained about the MSM’s subservience to the Democratic Party in general, and Barack Obama in particular.  “Nonsense”, we are told.  Over and over, they claim to be evenhanded and non-partisan.  But anyone with any sense whatsoever knows it is just a mask.

Next week, the mask slips.

ABC News (according to an [unlinkable] Drudge flash), will basically turn their network’s news division over to the Obama administration for “An Evening’s HealthCare Propaganda with Barack”, although they may call it something else.  THe Republican Party will not be allowed to rebut or participate in the “discussion.”  Even the ABC Evening News will originate from the White House.

A letter from the RNC to ABC News:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party’s opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

ABCNEWS responds:

“ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers — of all political persuasions — even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

“ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.”

Yeah, right.  “Trust us.”  They have never ever done this for any president before.  Journalistic ethics and intergrity are now officially oxymorons.  Life as satire.