The US Constitution Makes A Comeback

On Thursday, when the new Congress is seated and begins work, there will be an historic moment, something that hasn’t happened since the founding of United States: the US Constitution will be read out in the House of Representatives. It’s a statement by the newly-elected and Tea Party-influenced Republican majority that they heard the voters and they’re realigning their priorities.

Naturally, the Left is shocked and outraged. Ezra Klein, founder of the notorious but thankfully defunct JournoList (source of the majority of viewpoints on US issues the BBC fed you for the better part of two years), has gone so far as to say that we shouldn’t pay so much attention to the Constitution as it was written over 100 years ago and thus is too “confusing” and so nobody can understand or relate to it anymore. The BBC correspondents assigned to the US will be aware of this, and some of them at least will be aware of its significance. Yet, they haven’t reported it so far. Possibly, they’re waiting until it happens so they can report on the reaction and portray the Republicans as hyper-partisans intent on forcing their ideology on Congress.

The primary reason the Republicans want to have a public reading of the Constitution can be found in this BBC report about ObamaCare:

US healthcare law: Republicans bid to overturn reform

I think we can guess the angle from which the BBC is going to approach this, no?

What remains to be seen is whether this is simply a symbolic flexing of muscles by the Republicans, or whether it sets the tone for two years of party-political acrimony, our correspondent says.

Excuse me? All of a sudden we’re going to have party-political acrimony now that Republicans want to do something? What do you call what’s been going on for the last two years? This is written from the Democrats’ point of view.

With power in Congress divided, Democrats and Republicans must work together if new laws are to be passed.

Naturally. Just like I’ve been saying for some time now, the BBC wants you to think that bi-partisanship is good: when it involves advancing The Obamessiah’s agenda. When it’s something someone else wants, suddenly the Beeboids hold their noses and cast aspersions.

And what do you know, the President Himself wants us all to work together.

On Tuesday Mr Obama appealed to Republican congressional leaders on to put partisan politics aside to rebuild the US economy.

You see, He wants to fix the economy, while the nasty Republicans are willing to destroy it for ideological purposes. Funny how so many in the business world think He’s the one destroying the economy due to ideology. Not that you’d ever hear that viewpoint allowed through over the BBC airwaves or online.

I feel a statement from the White House coming on….

Speaking on board Air Force One as he travelled back to Washington from a holiday in Hawaii, Mr Obama said: “You know, I think that there’s going to be politics. That’s what happens in Washington – that they [Republicans] are going to play to their base for a certain period of time.

“But I’m pretty confident that they’re going to recognise that our job is to govern and make sure that we are delivering jobs for the American people and that we’re creating a competitive economy for the 21st Century, not just for this generation but for the next one.”

This from the man who responded to the first Republican who objected to one of His ideas by saying, “I won.”

But the BBC doesn’t want you to know that. They’re intent on maintaining this phony impression in your minds that one side has bad intentions while the President is a force for good.

Any evidence of actual reasons the Republicans have given for wanting to repeal ObamaCare? No, all we get is the equivalent of “critics are critical”. All you need to know is that whoever objects is simply on the other side, and of course it’s only natural that they’d object. It’s a slick way of dismissing the opposing viewpoint altogether.

One amusing thing about this BBC article is that they are at last telling the truth about what ObamaCare actually is: a law (or series of laws) forcing citizens to purchase a particular product from government-approved vendors according to government-enforced rules. Okay, they weren’t quite that honest about it:

The US healthcare reform law was approved in March last year, making it compulsory for Americans to buy medical insurance and illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to customers with pre-existing conditions.

You know, it’s funny, but I remember when the BBC was trying to create the impression that ObamaCare was going to provide health care for all those millions of uninsured for whom we were supposed to have sympathy, and not that it was merely a law to make it compulsory to buy it. But anytime the government tries to make any behavior compulsory, people are going to be understandably concerned (What, you mean it was actually about a policy and not just racism? -ed.). The BBC did quietly report about one challenge from the State of Virginia. Which brings me to the point of this post.

The United States is a Republic made of individual States. When the Founding Fathers created this country and wrote the Constitution, each of them viewed their State as their country. There’s an inherent idea of autonomy, and the rights of States and limits of the Federal Government are entrenched in the Constitution. ObamaCare and other Obamessiah and Pelosi/Reid/far-Left policies (such as allowing the EPA to cross over into another branch of government and control things normally left to the Legislative branch) can be considered un-Constitutional.

For quite some time there has been a growing argument about whether or not the Constitution is a “living document”, to be watered down or ignored on a whim whenever the wind of modern culture changes. Of course, those who advocate such a position suddenly get all protective when it’s nasty Republicans wanting to add an Amendment. In fact, that’s exactly what’s happening over the growing noise about a proposed “Federalist” Amendment to give States the power to declare a Federal law un-Constitutional by each of their legislatures voting on it. Giving power back to the States (or, more accurately, allowing the States to exercise the power they had from Day One but which has been leeched away) is a challenge to the supreme executive power, a challenge to the strong man leader so many on the Left wish we had. Perhaps if this comes to pass Matt Frei will once again pine for a bit of Chinese-style autocracy, and folks like Woody Allen will wish the President could be a supreme dictator, if only for a few years.

This is why the Republicans want to have the Constitution read out to start the new session of Congress. It’s much more than a challenge to ObamaCare. It’s a statement of priorities, of respect for the rule of law, and a stand against the Democrats (and a few old-guard Republican leadership) and their attempts to force their most extreme desires on the country against the wishes of the public. In other words, it’s a statement about what they think the Unites States is all about.

I await the BBC’s reporting on the matter, fully aware that this doesn’t help that particular rapport with the US they want to create for you.

Mark Mardell And The Golden Age

Mark Mardell is basking in The President’s glory in his latest blog post, and getting things completely wrong, as usual. Although Mardell is aware that He isn’t really as magical and all-powerful as He once was, he still wants his audience to know just how incredible His Rule has been for us all.

A Golden Age in the White House come to an end?

The only chink in His armor, to hear Mardell tell it, is the “horse trading” deal with the Republicans on extending the Bush tax cuts. That was the one where the President had to call in Bill Clinton to convince enough Dems to vote for it and not screw everyone over for purely ideological purposes. But what Mardell doesn’t want you to know is that this was such a problem for Him that He has now banned the use of of the word “triangulating” by His staff. How pathetic is that?

What’s really ridiculous here is that, while Mardell is preaching so enthusiastically about His accomplishments, it was only a week ago that he was clucking his tongue at how these same accomplishments he’s praising now were rammed through during the lame-duck session of Congress in a way that looked “unseemly” to outsiders like him.

But that’s all forgotten now, I suppose, while we bask in His glory. This has been a magical year for the US, one in which He brought us one step further out of the darkness.

Will you remember the 111th Congress as a Golden Age? I suspect Mr Obama wants the American people to learn to feel nostalgia for the past two years.

So do you, Mark, which is why you and your colleagues always promote the White House talking points.

Of course, Republicans regard it as a period of unmitigated disaster.

Only Republicans? Once again Mardell displays either his ignorance or his deliberate dishonesty. What about all those independents who regretted voting for Him the first time and went Republican in November? What about all those Democrat candidates who ran against ObamaCare and higher taxes? The Tea Party movement wasn’t an exclusively far-right Republican club the BBC kept trying to tell you it was. Yet Mardell is still stuck in hyper-partisan mode.

Many Americans will regard it as a period of much muddle and unnecessary politicking.

No, that’s only those on the far Left who supported even the most extreme parts of the President’s and Democrat leadership’s agenda. Much of the rest of the country hit the streets to protest it, and/or voted in November to kick many of them out. Only far-Left ideologues like Mark Mardell think that the Tea Party movement and politicians starting to listen to the people was “unnecessary”. As usual, the mindset is “Let’s all work together: when it’s my idea. When you want your way, that’s nasty politicking and bad for the country.” Mardell is speaking from one side of the argument.

Even die-hard Democrats don’t feel a huge amount of pride in its achievements.

Ah, so Mardell does remember his blog post from last week. But why wouldn’t they feel much pride? Because so much of it was ultimately bad for the country? Is it because the really far-Left voices are angry that the President hasn’t done enough to move the country further to the Left? Mardell isn’t going to tell you. He’s only projecting his own disappointment that it wasn’t all glorious and everyone is ecstatic about His Administration. Why isn’t Mardell asking if the President and Pelosi and Reid maybe went too far to the Left for the nation’s comfort? It’s because he agrees with the ideology behind all of it, and thinks that anyone against it is a Republican stooge.

Yet Mr Obama said that it was “the most productive two years that we’ve had in generations”. He wants the day to be remembered as a time when things got done, when people could agree, when progress could be made. It is going to be an interesting new year.

See? “When people could agree”. It was a Democrat-controlled Congress. They got their way a lot. Nobody in the country thinks the last two years were about bi-partisan loveliness. That’s an absolute joke. The President and His staff know perfectly well that they had to force everything through, and that they won’t be able to do it in a real bi-partisan atmosphere. It’s moronic to suggest otherwise. The President spent two years denigrating His “enemies”. And Mardell believes He wants everyone to think it was all friendly reaching across the aisle? The President wants everyone to realize how great He is, not how bi-partisan Washington has become. Mardell’s rewriting history at an alarming rate.

Even in the lame-duck session, the only thing besides the tax bill which was bi-partisan was the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and enough Republicans were happy to do it that He didn’t have to actually do anything. He passed the buck to Congress on this one, and they did it themselves. Yet we’re all supposed to think it’s one of His triumphs. He had very little to do with this, but don’t expect Mardell to tell you the truth.

No mention, of course, of the failed gargantuan spending bill, or the DREAM Act, which died because the Tea Party movement put Republicans and a few Dems on notice. No, we only hear about His successes. No mention of the defeat in November because that’s all been wiped away by the passage of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, right? Take that, hecklers! If the country voted overwhelmingly against so much of what the President and the Congress achieved these past two years, why would they remember it as a Golden Age? It’s silly to even think such a thing, unless one is a Democrat ideologue.

It’s echoes of St. Jon Stewart’s “Rally to Restore Smugness”: Let’s all work together – for the Democrat agenda. Working together is good – for the Democrat agenda. Mardell whines about it when he’s worried it doesn’t make his beloved Obamessiah look good, but then leaps at the chance to celebrate it when it suits his message.

Hallelujah, For The Lord God Omnipotent Reigneth

It’s that time of year when Handel’s Messiah is performed all over the place, so I thought it would be an appropriate time to look at how the BBC has been reporting on their beloved Obamessiah. After the kicking He and the Democrats got in the mid-term election, there was much worrying in certain quarters about whether or not He would be able to rise again after the stinging defeat of the Democrats in the recent mid-term election. Matt Frei was concerned about whether He would be able to rekindle the connection with the masses, and continue to promote His agenda against a Republican-led House of Representatives and a tiny Democrat majority in the Senate.

There’s been quite a bit of activity in Congress during this lame-duck session, so naturally the British Public must be informed of every detail of the domestic agenda of a foreign country. So, how is He doing?

Unhappy about extending Bush’s tax cuts for the evil rich? Not to worry, this is His Plan For Us now. The President worked out a compromise with the Republican leadership and extended the tax cuts, as well as giving businesses a break in payroll taxes, while getting in return some extension of unemployment benefits and more subsidies of green energy boondoggles. Most people view this as an overall victory for the voters who let their elected representatives know that they needed to drop the ideology and get fiscally responsible. Even departing Treasury guru (and Keynesian former boss of BBC economics editor, Stephanie Flanders) Larry Summers told the President this needed to happen. The President who spent months attacking the evil rich and declaring how He would never accept what He called tax cuts for “millionaires and billionaires” caved, yet somehow the BBC sees this as a triumph for Him. The report is full of the Democrat talking points, but nothing from a voice discussing how this would actually help the economy recover. In fact, the one time the BBC does mention that businesses think this will help, it comes from a Democrat who shrugs his shoulders and acts as if this is a gamble.

According to the BBC, it’s all about tax cuts for the wealthiest. Class warfare is the Narrative, as usual. At no time in their coverage of this issue has the BBC given time to the point of view that the Democrats wanted to hold the middle classes and small businesses hostage over the ideological point of attacking the wealthy. If the Dems had gotten their way, taxes would have gone up for everybody, not only the evil rich, simply to score an ideological point which has nothing to do with economic necessity – unless one is a pure tax-and-spend ideologue. Which is the viewpoint through which BBC reporting on this issue is filtered.

Mark Mardell, of course, sees this as a success for Him, a shrewd political move of which he approves. He also shows his personal, blind bias about his Obamessiah when he says this:

True, Obama has greatly angered the left of his own party. In the House, 112 Democrats voted against the package. Some say he’s a bad negotiator and has betrayed his principles. Well, annoying the left may be a cheap trick for leaders of left-of-centre parties (cf Tony Blair) but it often goes down well with voters in the middle ground. Or even on the right. Time and time again, even at Tea Party meetings, I’ve heard that President Obama has not governed as he was elected, that he’s been captured by the “Pelosi-Reid agenda”. This is his answer.


According to Mardell, it’s not the Tea Party movement successfully influencing the President: He’s making a shrewd move to fool them for a little while. Seriously, how can anyone think that the candidate who notoriously told Joe the Plumber that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody “ is a centrist who was “captured” by the far-Left Democrat leadership? You know he’s not really saying that The Obamessiah is a shyster like Blair. No, Mardell sees this as a shrewd political move so He can attack tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Which will be difficult seeing as He’ll just come across as a weak leader who was forced to make a bad deal. I suppose the fact that He had to bring in Bill Clinton to convince enough Dems to vote for it is also a display of His ability to lead? But Mardell sees only strength and cleverness.

So does Paul Adams, in the inset “Analysis” of the report I’ve linked to above.

But the fact remains that six weeks after disastrous mid-term elections, Barack Obama seems to be reasserting his authority.

Reasserting Clinton’s authority, maybe. Oh, that’s right the BBC censored the part where the President took a powder during that press conference and let Clinton take over, so maybe Adams – the BBC’s man in the White House press corps – has wiped that from his own memory as well.

And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. (Isaiah 40:5)

His real triumph, though is something Congress did, not Him: repealing Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. The President, who campaigned against this in 2008, could have used an executive order to get rid of this any time He wanted. But He passed the buck to Congress on this one, and they used the giddiness of the lame-duck session to take care of it. To hear it from a certain Beeboid in the US, though, it’s still His achievement.

The BBC’s Iain Mackenzie in Washington says the vote is a major victory for Mr Obama, who had made overturning “don’t ask, don’t tell” a key policy objective.

The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; and they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. (Isaiah 9:2)

There’s one other big issue which came up for a vote: the DREAM Act, which is about creating a path to citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. This is seen by some as a first step towards amnesty for all illegals, as this would inevitably be used to permit illegals to remain in the country if they have what naughty people refer to as “anchor babies”. Does this sound familiar? It’s a very relevant issue to what’s going on in Britain right now.

Yet the BBC has censored news of this. Why? Because it was defeated.

The Leftoids are just as outraged over this as they are about the tax cuts for the evil rich. Subcommander Markos is not pleased:

Anybody who votes to punish innocent kids is an asshole. Plain and simple. And while I expect it from Democrats like Ben Nelson and C-Street denizen Mark Pryor, I honestly thought Jon Tester was different. I was wrong. I am now embarrassed that I worked so hard to help get him elected in 2006. I feel personally betrayed.

I’ll refrain from making a sarcastic retort about how I guess now we should be releasing all criminals from prison if they have kids, as imprisonment of these criminals is clearly also punishing innocent kids.

Other people on the Left are angry as well. Worse, the President apparently lobbied pretty strongly for this, yet it still failed. Where’s that authority and leadership now, BBC? Why so shy about reporting this?

The BBC spent a huge amount of effort bashing Arizona over its immigration law, and told you that opposing illegal immigration is tantamount to racism. Just like they do about the problem in Britain, they used the smokescreen tactic of saying “immigration is good, it’s silly to be against immigration”, always leaving out the “illegal” part and misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint. In the US, they hired a German immigrant, Franz Strasser, to travel around the country making a dishonest series of reports about immigrants in the US. I complained about it here at the time (actually several times). Strasser also censored the word “illegal” from his series of reports. His trip even took him to two Sanctuary Cities, which had official policies of deliberately flouting immigration laws, yet he refused to mention the fact that they were designated as such. The whole series was a smokescreen.

So now the DREAM Act failed, and the BBC is silent.

The Democrats’ massive, pork-laden spending bill also failed. As I said on Thursday’s Open Thread, the BBC reported it from the Democrats’ point of view, that it was a vital spending plan needed to keep the country running. They did not allow through a viewpoint that possibly the Tea Party movement had any influence on politicians’ behavior. In fact, pretty much every BBC report about what’s going on in Congress right now is free of any mention of the movement. They did, though, worry about how “time was running out”, but from the Democrat perspective, as if it was the only one.

Where’s His authority and leadership on this one, BBC? *Looks at floor and shuffles feet*

Come see the bias inherent in the system. The BBC spins the news to promote the accomplishments of a leader of a foreign country, and censors news which detracts from that Narrative.

The Lord gave the word: Great was the company of preachers. (Psalm 68:11)

PS: All Biblical quotes appear in the Messiah. Post written while listening to the recording by the late, great Richard Hickox, featuring Joan Rodgers, Philip Langridge, Bryn Terfel, and others.

The BBC’s Censoring of News on the Gulf Oil Spill

I’m sure everyone remembers the BBC’s tireless, seemingly non-stop coverage of the Gulf Oil Spill a few months ago. It was declared the greatest natural disaster in the history of the US, with unfathomably dire environmental consequences. We all saw the footage of the soiled pelicans and turtles, and worried about shrimp and scallops. The occasional tear was also shed for what this disaster would do to the local economy, specifically the Louisiana coast and New Orleans, which had previously been devastated by George Bush’s failure to…er…by Hurricane Katrina.

As time went on, the various failures of the Obamessiah Administration kept cropping up in the news. The Administration’s inept handling of the clean-up effort, including being even less competent than Bush when it came to getting around the Jones Act and allowing foreign countries to send in ships to help out, started gaining attention. Then there was the fact that He ignored a pre-approved, pre-existing plan to burn off some of it, and then waited too long to react in general. Even we noticed here that He took nine days to even make a real public appearance about it, forcing himself to cut short yet another vacation. The BBC never said a word.

In fact, it got so bad that the people of Louisiana thought the President handling things worse than Bush did with Katrina. Meanwhile, the BBC was telling you about some silly anti-British sentiment because the President kept saying “British Petroleum” and one or two locals said something in anger in front of a BBC camera.

Naturally, once the media started carping about the President’s handling of the problem (even JournoListas were unhappy), Mark Mardell was there to support Him. At first, of course, Mardell declared that the real reason that people were upset was because the President wasn’t acting dramatically enough for the stupid proles. Then, when He gave a more ponderous performance, Mardell eagerly lapped it up:

It was a measured, sober speech of quiet power, the speech of a president projecting absolute command, if not empathy. But the last quotation says much: a strong, very American invocation of the country’s might and optimism, its ability to muster its strength and overcome.

It was intended to rally a people who were rather feeling he’d not gripped this crisis.

A less sycophantic view would be that it was an empty series of platitudes, with more fluff than substance. But not to a believer like Mardell. Soon enough, word got out that the Obamessiah Administration was colluding with BP to block media access to certain areas of the clean-up. Nobody was sure why, although the most obvious reason was to make sure nobody found out just how screwed up the whole situation was. The BBC, of course, censored that news, as they did for just about any problems the Administration was having. The only thing the BBC audience was allowed to know was that the President wasn’t making enough great speeches to please the unwashed masses, but He sure was taking responsibility and would make BP pay.

At one point, the President appointed a commission to study the spill, to find out what went wrong and recommend a course of action. Unsurprisingly, it was full of environmentals and policy wonks, with nearly all of them already having set opinions against the oil industry. Some of the commissioners were expressing their opinions on the matter – all anti-oil – even before the proceedings began. It was rigged from the start, but instead the BBC dutifully reported the White House talking points about it.

In between vacations and photo-op luncheons, the President found time to place a six-month moratorium on off-shore drilling. At the time, this was hailed by Greenpeace and the BBC as a much-needed action, necessary until we learned more about the dangers of off-shore drilling, put more safety measures in place, etc. The message was that off-shore drilling is bad, m’kay, and the President did the right thing for the environment and to save us all.

This ban cost thousands of jobs, and killed plenty of business and tax revenue for the region the President was supposed to be saving and protecting. As it was supposedly based on science and real danger, nobody objected too much, and the Gulf Coast, already devastated by Bush…er…Katrina, would suffer further hardship.

However, it turns out that this ban was done for ideological reasons and not based on science or technical expertise. In fact, we’ve since learned that the spill wasn’t all that bad. Even though it was visually very sexy, it seems that the damage was exaggerated. The media played a large role in this, including the BBC, and one has to wonder if this is in part due to the Obamessiah Administration’s collusion in blocking media access to key areas.

And what a shock: an independent investigation has found that the White House altered part of an Interior Department’s report to make it appear that a group of scientists and engineers approved of the drilling ban:

“The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,” the IG report states, without judgment on whether the change was an intentional attempt to mislead the public.

So the ban, which cost thousands of jobs, and harmed the already precarious economy of the Gulf Coast region, was done for purely ideological reasons, and not based on science. Justin Webb told us that this President would bring science back and wouldn’t deny it based on ideology. Turns out this, just like so many of Webb’s other pronouncements on the President back when he was the BBC’s North America editor, simply isn’t true. Utter silence from the BBC, as usual.

The BBC aided and abetted the White House Narrative, in part by censoring key information. This was all done for purely ideological reasons, and not based on science or the facts.

BBC Mid-Term Election Epilogue

Check out this election wrap-up by Matt Frei and Katty Kay, who co-anchored the BBC’s coverage of the second-most important election in human history. Their bias is there for all to see. Frei’s personal bias and unwavering support for the President gets even more outrageous in his blog post.

Their first point is about all the money spent on the campaign. I completely agree – as do most people in the US – that it’s gotten ridiculous, but Matty and Katty reveal their political bias here. The only names mentioned in association with high spending are Republican multi-millionaires who spent their own cash, both of whom lost their races. Katty calls this “divine retribution”, although Matty quickly corrects her editorializing. But two things are missing from their comments.

Ted Koppel actually pointed out to Katty on Tuesday night when she was whining about this issue that her comparison to British elections are completely unfair because the campaigns are of drastically different lengths. British general elections go for a few weeks, while the US production can start as early as anyone likes and seems to go on for 18 months at least these days. I don’t like it any more than Katty does, but that’s how it is. Then there are the dramatic differences in both geography and media outlets. Several states are larger than the entire area of the UK. Statewide candidates (for Governor and Senator) have a huge amount of ground to cover, and in some states have a large number of local media outlets to hit and local newspapers in which to buy a seemingly endless stream of full-page ads. This would cost far more money that the UK spends even if the election campaigns lasted the same amount of time. So they’re making a completely false analogy.

Secondly, notice that Matty and Katty do not mention the tens of millions George Soros spent on his pet organizations, nor the fact that Comedy Central donated several hours of free air time and got sponsors to spend a huge amount of cash on St. Jon Stewart’s “March to Restore Smugness”. Which seems to have been an epic fail on a much larger scale than any individual race. But the BBC has been totally silent on that, as it confuses the Narrative.

When Matty and Katty fret about gridlock, notice that Katty is concerned only that there will be no progress on her pet issues towards the Left. When she talks about making progress on the issues of energy and climate change, she is of course not concerned about progess in a non-Left direction.

Both Beeboids speak with great sympathy for the President, which really goes beyond analysis betrays their personal emotions. At one point, Frei tells the same lie he puts forth in his blog post, that the President is always admitting His mistakes and taking responsibility. In fact, his blog post opens with this:

President Obama is no stranger to contrition. At the beginning of his term, he didn’t shy away from saying that he had messed up, screwed up, made mistakes and so on. But he was apologising about the small stuff from a position of supreme confidence. The buck stops with me, he was fond of saying serenely, confident that the buck wouldn’t give him too much trouble.

Oh, really? Let’s remind ourselves of certain things the BBC censored from their reporting.

When it became glaringly obvious that the public was not happy with what ObamaCare was going to do to the country, the President took the same line of defense that the BBC and the EU mandarins took when the Irish voted against Lisbon: they just don’t understand it well enough. When the President accepted blame for people being upset, He said that it was His fault for not explaining it well enough. This isn’t the same thing as admitting an actual mistake. We heard the same thing from Him during His audience with St. Jon Stewart two weeks ago.

As recently as Sunday, the President was singing the same song:

“Making an argument that people can understand,” Mr. Obama continued, “I think that we haven’t always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine carefully … as I go forward.”

This is not the talk of a man capable of contrition, nor of one who will feel “chastened” by the election results.

In fact, any time there has been a mistake with His Administration, His first instinct is to blame someone else. Problems with the clean-up effort for the BP oil spill? Distract by blaming Bush for it in the first place. People unhappy with the Stimulus? Blame Republicans for not letting Him spend even more money. Caught up in a controversy over a criminal act by the Governor in His home state? Lie and say He hasn’t been involved. Air Force One causes an outcry by buzzing lower Manhattan near Ground Zero just to please a few wealthy donors? Blame somebody else. Can’t get every single bit of legislation rammed through Congress fast enough? Don’t admit it’s a mistake to be so impetuous at a crucial time: blame Fox News instead.

Where’s the contrition? Where’s the willingness to admit mistakes? It doesn’t exist. Matt Frei still has such huge respect for Him that he just imagines it does.

As for Matty and Katty fretting over gridlock in Washington, Katty does just barely admit that the President “doesn’t find it very easy to reach out to the other side”. Where were you in 2008, Katty? Oh, that’s right – back then the BBC was telling us that He was going to be bi-partisan and end the awful politics of Washington.

Instead, immediately after the taking office, the President was in a meeting with Republican leadership about His Stimulus Plans for Us. When Republicans complained about it, He dismissed them by saying, “I won”. This is not the attitude of someone willing to work together with anyone. But the BBC censored that news.

I guess Katty Kay should have encouraged her colleagues to take her own advice and not placed the President on a pedestal, as doing so makes it very difficult to report when He gets things wrong.

She didn’t say it in this clip, but on Tuesday night Katty couldn’t shut up about the one person not holding or running for any office: Sarah Palin. Here’s a little something from Katty herself which reveals her struggle with Palin Derangement Syndrome:

‘Katty, tell me they think Palin’s crazy’

In the blog post itself, Matt Frei still gets it wrong about the President’s efforts in closing Guantanamo Bay.

On day one, President Obama signed the bill to shut down Guantanamo Bay, using his left hand. “Get used to it!” he said. “I am a lefty.”

Wrong. It wasn’t a bill, but an Executive Order. Frei actually was closer to the truth in his Diary post from the time, when he said that the President expressed his “intention to close” Guantanamo within one year “with a flick of a pen”. Of course, we all know how well that’s working out for Him.

Frei also claims that, during the transition period before taking office, the President assembled His team “in a flash”. Also not true. Even the Washington Post was worried about how long it was taking Him, more than a month after He took office. I may make a mistake or misremember something I should have checked, but I’m not paid 100 grand a year to do this, nor do I have any research staff to help me.

This is the bias anchoring BBC World News America every night of the week, from the people whom you are expected to trust for news on US issues.

It’s The Policies, Stupid.

Now that we’re approaching the mid-term elections in the US, the BBC has been ramping up the rhetoric against those who don’t approve of the President’s policies. In fact, to hear it from the BBC, it’s not His policies at all, but rather evidence of bad attitudes, inadequacies, and racism among His opponents.

In the last few days, BBC North America editor Mark Mardell has told us that it’s not the President’s fault at all, because the unwashed simply can’t relate to His intellectual behavior. When critics say He’s aloof and people don’t feel like He hears them, it’s not that His policies and statements clearly go against what most of the public wants and believes, but that He just hasn’t communicated the message in a dumbed-down enough fashion for the masses to understand.

Mardell has made other posts highlighting the “anger” of people dissatisfied with the current Government’s policies, as has Katie Connolly, which is an easy trick to disqualify those voices from the start. When someone is presented as angry, that context automatically reduces their credibility. The thing is, it was okay for people in the US to be angry when Bush was in charge; the BBC never looked for nefarious forces underlying that anger. Yet they do spend an extraordinary amount of effort trying to make it seem to their audience as if racism and extremism are the only things which would compel someone to oppose the President. It’s never because of His and the Democrat leadership’s policies. It’s just “the economy”, which is of course not His fault as it was inherited from George Bush. Does that sound familiar?

This Narrative is spread across the spectrum of BBC broadcasting, from BBC World News America to Newsnight to HardTalk to The Culture Show (h/t Oliver on the Open Thread).

Of course, it’s only natural that the BBC would take this position, because they can’t understand why anyone would oppose anything He and the Democrats have done. Even Matt Frei is concerned that the Coalition Government in Britain is taking a “gamble” with these austerity measures, as opposed to the spending and debt-increasing policies of the US President.

The problem is that the BBC has focused almost entirely on the vox pops angle. Mardell and other Beeboids have been traveling around the country talking to various people about their personal feelings. The only other views presented are from Washington Post or Time elite (JournoList) media figures, who, unsurprisingly, support the BBC’s Narrative.

So I believe it’s important to inform people about something the BBC has almost completely ignored: the policies themselves.

I’m sure everyone will remember just how much time and effort the BBC spent promoting ObamaCare (called “Health Care Reform” by the White House and the BBC). Can anyone recall the BBC spending so much time on the domestic policy of a foreign country? Yet, now that many of the predictions of its opponents (including myself) are coming true, there’s total silence from the BBC. It was the announcement of the ObamaCare plan which lit the fire under the Tea Party movement well over a year ago, which was played down as racism, even though the same people were opposed to it back when it was called HillaryCare. Was it racism when Clinton was President?

At the time, many of us knew that this wouldn’t work as advertised, and that it would harm the economy. We’re seeing that now. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office even says that ObamaCare “discourages work” because it gives people an incentive to stay unemployed. Does that sound familiar?

ObamaCare is about to hit small businesses with higher costs over health care, so much so that at least one business owner is opting to give all his employees a raise of $3000 pa ($250 a month) instead of taking a bath, because the Affordable Care Act supporters promised us that private insurance was going to be “affordable” at last. Principle Financial, one of the country’s largest providers, is getting out of the business altogether because of costs. Are they racists? That was one of the primary talking points of ObamaCare, about which the BBC spared no effort in reminding you.

Unfortunately, it has actually increased costs already. The BBC chose to censor that news. Is
one of the top health care organizations in the country now run by racists? There’s also the question of whether or not it violates the Constitution by forcing people to purchase a product from specific, government-approved vendors, health insurance in this case. Several states are challenging the law, including Florida. Are they all racists?

And it’s not just ObamaCare. Other things the President has said and done have caused harm, and the citizens have taken notice. For example, just a couple weeks after He was inaugurated, the President scolded companies for having conventions in Las Vegas, and told them not to go there. Earlier this year, he made a similar scolding comment about how it was wrong to go to Vegas when people ought to be paying their bills instead. It’s no surprise that these careless statements have compounded the pressures of a struggling economy on the city, as well as the state of Nevada. Unemployment is over 15%, and the people are not happy. Senator Harry Reid, one of ObamaCare’s chief architects (the President had little input Himself: it was created by Congress and “experts”) is fighting against a newcomer to keep his seat because of it. Is Nevada racist now? In 2008 they weren’t, 55% – 43%.

The other chief architect of ObamaCare, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, is also getting hit. Even Democrats are making campaign ads positioning themselves against her and her policies. Are all these Democrats racist now? Do they not blame the current Administration’s policies for harming the economy and damaging our future?

People are calling for reform and reining in government spending everywhere. Even in New York where, while writing this, I got a robo-call featuring former New York City mayor Ed Koch – a lifelong Democrat – telling me to vote for someone who has signed on to the New York Uprising Reform pledge. The call was paid for by the Republican Party, but if Ed Koch is in on it, things must be bad. He supported The Obamessiah during the election, and called Sarah Palin “scary”. How much more BBC-approved can you get? Is Ed Koch a racist now? Are we all racists now? Or is it about the actual policies?

The BBC wants you to think it’s the former, and not the latter, because they are ideologically biased in favor of His policies, and cannot accept that His Administration has made poor decisions, so they color their reporting accordingly.

BEAR FACED APPEASEMENT..

So, Obama has caved in to the Russians and run away from the missile defence scheme. I caught the PM coverage of this which was very cleverly constructed to ensure that as much pro-Obama spin was generated as possible. John Bolton got about 45 seconds to tear Obama’s plan apart and then we had about five minutes in favour of the Lightworker. All nicely balanced.

Hail Obama!


Isn’t the tone of the coverage of the G20 excitable and sort of hysterical?
“Obama Hails ‘historic’ G20 Summit” as a headline; subliminal message = “Hail Obama!, You’re Historic”

Then there’s this weird article breathlessly describing the mardi gras. Halfway through, under the heading ‘Achievements’ Dominic Casciani has suddenly written:

“The death of a man near the Bank of England appears to be a human tragedy.”

They did it!

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the result is historic. As for the BBC’s coverage, well thanks for your comments. Iain Dale was also unimpressed, and as evidence of the Beeb’s standing at home and abroad, here’s an American perspective:

The real fun network of the night was BBC America, which picked up the BBC feed being aired back in England. The coverage played like a good-natured “Idiot’s Guide to the American Election,” with references to such states as “North Hampshire.”

After all the hard work, though, it’s only right that the last word goes to the Beeb. And who better than John Simpson (a troll challenge here: can anyone make a convincing case Simpson might have voted Republican?) :

The United States has seen the biggest transformation in its standing in the world since the election of John Fitzgerald Kennedy in November 1960.

This is a country which has habitually, sometimes irritatingly, regarded itself as young and vibrant, the envy of the world. Often this is merely hype. But there are times when it is entirely true.

With Barack Obama’s victory, one of these moments has arrived

UPDATE: Iain Dale fleshes out his criticism of the Beeb’s coverage here: references to John Bolton’s outburst, “car crash TV”, and a note that this should be David Dimbleby’s last election make it well worth reading.

It’s not a big thing…

But it is irritating that the Beeb consistently reports allegations against those it supports only after they’ve responded to them. So while Obama’s illegal aunt was making headlines in the Sun, Mail, Times, Guardian, Express and over on Channel 4 hours ago, the Beeb only reports once it can lead with Obama’s response: Obama Unaware of Illegal Aunt