Mediaboss Marketing

Pete Souza, the former White House photographer to President Obama, jabbed the Trump administration Friday on Instagram after it barred several news organizations from a question-and-answer session.

"Waiting with press secretary Robert Gibbs, right, for the start of a press conference in 2010. The New York Times, CNN and Politico were of course in attendance (as well as Fox News)," Souza wrote in the caption of a photo showing Obama.

Those three news organizations were among the ones barred from an off-camera "gaggle" that White House press secretary Sean Spicer held in his West Wing office earlier Friday.

A number of other news organizations were also barred from the meeting, including BuzzFeed, The Hill and the Los Angeles Times. The meeting was held in lieu of the regular on-camera briefing in the White House briefing room.

Several conservative outlets were allowed into Spicers office, including Breitbart, The Washington Times and One America News Network. ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, Reuters, Bloomberg and McClatchy were also allowed into the meeting.

The incident came hours after Trump slammed the media during his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Souza himself clashed with the White House press pool over getting exclusive photos during his time in the White House.

A New York Times article from 2013 highlighted tensions between the press and the White House, pointing to a visit Obama made to South Africa during which photographers were allowed to take a single shot of the president in Nelson Mandela's jail cell but were excluded from other photo ops.

Souza captured a moment in the cell when Obama hugged his daughter Sasha, a photo captured and widely distributed by Souza.

The rest is here:
Obama's photographer trolls WH for banning news outlets from briefing - The Hill (blog)

|

Posted: Feb 25, 2017 12:01 AM

We all know about the Obama administration's lies and treachery regarding Benghazi. But how many of you know about the Obama administration's lies and treachery against the American families of the Americans ambushed and murdered on the orders of Raul Castro?.......

Thought so...Well, please read on:

You see, amigos: This week 21 years ago three U.S. citizens and one legal U.S. resident who belonged to a humanitarian volunteer organization known as Brothers to the Rescue were busy at their volunteer humanitarian jobs when Raul Castro (then head of Cubas military) gave orders for his air force to ambush and murder them.Raul Castro himself boasted about these orders.

These American volunteer workers were tangibly saving more innocent lives (countless men, women and children) than most Peace Corp workers or community-organizers could ever show for their work, despite all the media hype.

You see, amigos: Twenty times as many people (men, women, children) have died trying to escape Castros Cuba as died trying to escape East Germany. So during the mid 1990s a volunteer outfitknown as Brothers To the Rescue based in south Florida flew unarmed Cessnas over the Florida Straits alerting the U.S. Coast Guard to the location of these desperate escapees from Stalinism and keeping many from joining the terrible tally of death by drowning, dehydration or getting ripped apart and eaten alive by sharks. By 1996 these American humanitarian volunteers had flown 1,800 missions and helped rescue 4,200 men, women and children.

Considering how prior to Castroism Cuba was swamped with more immigrants per-capita (mostly from Europe) than was the U.S.considering how people once clamored to enter Cubathe exodus from Castroite Cuba and the rescue flights were viewed by Castro (and his innumerable U.S. agents-of influence) as very bad publicity for the Stalinist regime..

So in preparation to murder Brothers to the Rescue (the historic Castroite remedy for this type of thing) Castro infiltrated a KGB-trained spy named Gerardo Hernandez into south Florida and into the humanitarian group.On Feb, 24, 1996, Hernandez passed to Castro the flight plan for one of the Brothers humanitarian flights over the straits.

With this info in hand, Castros MIGS ambushed and blasted apart (in international air space) the lumbering and utterly defenseless Cessnas, murdering the four humanitarian volunteers. Three of these murdered men were U.S. citizens, one was a Marine who volunteered for two tours in Vietnam.

The murdered Armando Alejandre Jr. came to the U.S. at age ten in 1960. His first order of business when he reached the age of 18 was fulfilling his dream of becoming a U.S. citizen. His next was joining the United States Marine corps and volunteering for service in Vietnam. He returned with several decorations. As a member of Brothers to the Rescue he often dropped flowers over the sea, in memory of the thousands they'd been unable to rescue in time.

A man with a weapon or with both hands free to fight has always palsied the Castros with fright. The notion of Raul Castro facing a United States Marine in combat mode is simply laughable, in a pathetic sort of way. So Castro waited for Alejandro and his brothers to be carrying flowers--and made his move, ambushing and murdering them in cold blood. Migs against Cessnas, cannon and rockets against flowers.

Castros spy, Gerardo Hernandez,was shortly uncovered and convicted in U.S. federal court of conspiracy to commit murder and the conviction was upheld all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Communist spy was serving two life sentences for the murder of Americans while the Castros (and their innumerable U.S. agents-of-influence) constantly clamored for his release and return to Cuba. This clamoring was incessant for 20 years and through three U.S. presidential administrations. But to no avail, owing to the overwhelming proof of Hernandez guilt in conspiring to murder Americans.

Enter Barack Obama. On Dec. 17, 2014 exactly 48 hours after Obama announced his new Cuba policy, convicted Communist murderer/spy Gerardo Hernandez was released and flown first-class to Cuba.

Worst of all, amigos: For months prior to the Obama-Castro deal that released the Communist murderer, the families of the Americans he murdered were repeatedly assured by Obamas State Department. that no such shameful deal would ever take place.Often they made this promise face to face with the grieving families, as documented in this video where Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen confronts ObamasState Department. with their bald-faced lies and relentless treachery against U.S. citizens. Hillary Clintons Benghazi testimony has got nothing on this.

The Obama administrations fetish to quickly and fully satisfy every whim of the Communist murderers of U.S. citizens reached Jerry Springer Show levels whenprior to his release-- a specimen of Gerardo Hernandez semen was ferreted from his prison cell to Cuba. Hernandez and his wife, you see, were eager to add another Communist subject to the Castro-Family Kingdom but couldnt quite figure out a workable procedure.

Fear not! Raul Castro rang his little bell and Obamas State Department. (Ben Rhodes in particular) quickly scurried over, smiling, bowing, eager to please. No hotel valet has ever been as solicitous of the whims of a big-tipping guest, no butler to his masters whims-- as Ben Rhodes was to the whims of the terror-sponsors who premeditatedly murdered innocent U.S. citizens.

The convicted Communist spy and terrorist provided his semen from his maximum security jail cell and Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahys aide Tim Rieser dutifully delivered the precious item to communist wife in Havanaall with the obvious (and eager) approval of the Obama State Department.

Dont believe me do you?.... Theres no way even the Obama administration could have sunk to something so smutty, treasonous, foul and grotesque! you say. Well, read about it yourself.

Go here to see the original:
The Forgotten Treachery of Obama's State Department - Townhall

New York Times

Jerome Tuccille, Libertarian Author and Trump Biographer, Dies at 79 New York Times Jerome Tuccille, who wrote one of the first manifestoes of the American libertarian movement and the first biography of Donald J. Trump, died on Feb. 16 at his home in Severna Park, Md. He was 79. The cause was complications of multiple myeloma, his ...

Continue reading here:
Jerome Tuccille, Libertarian Author and Trump Biographer, Dies at 79 - New York Times

The first proper day of events at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was underway on Thursday, February 23rd, 2017 at the Gaylord resort in Maryland. Being Libertarian was there on Media Row, representing an all-too-scarce libertarian presence alongside the mainstream media outlets that normally frequent these events.

But then something very unexpected happened: CPAC was friendly. It was friendly to us libertarians; it was friendly to minority activist groups who still consider themselves conservative; it was friendly to LGBT rights and non-federal intervention. In other words, the first day of events at CPAC proved to be much more libertarian-ish (as Dr. Rand Paul would say) than ever anticipated. Perhaps that was because we simply knew where to look, but either way, the mainstream-pushed image of the typical right-wing zealots unwilling to hear other viewpoints fades quickly upon further investigation of this conference.

At The Hub, which is essentially CPACs equivalent to Comic Con for political nerds, the many many booths of the participating organizations complete with all their wonderful, unique swag were lined up for mass consumption. There were think tanks such as the Capital Research Center offering internships, colleges such as Hillsdale advertising their intensive academic programs and fellowship opportunities, and newspapers like Campus Reform empowering students to bring free speech issues on their respective college campuses to light.

But in addition to these usual elements to a conservative conference, there were other groups being represented here that might have been less wise to bet on showing up: there was a booth dedicated to giving conservative atheists a voice; there was a booth dedicated to members of the LGBT community who understand and embrace the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for their protection; and there was even a small group of Republican transgender activists at CPAC raising awareness of the fact that trans people are not delusional, nor do they have to be exclusively liberal.

One such activist, Jennifer Williams, was upstairs on the main event floor housing the Potomac ballrooms. She was proudly sporting a GOP elephant pin sportingthe trans rights colors, and holding up a sign that read: Proud to be Conservative. Proud to be Transgender. Proud to be American. #SameTeam. And she was doing all of this while also being wrapped in the dont tread on me me flag. When asked her opinion on the relationship between the GOP and trans people in America, Williams pointed out that while there was still work to be done, she was confident that the more the trans community raises awareness about its plight and perspective, the less alien trans people will seem to traditional conservatives in America. Williams believes in a truly free United States in which ones sex, gender, or creed does not dictate ones politics, and where all people are free to express themselves politically however they feel right doing so.

James Spiller, a general attendee who seemed to support Williamss cause,spoke to us about how understanding trans people in many ways is the final step toward bridging the gap between liberal and conservative voters on the social front. He pointed out, rightly, that upon receiving hormone treatment, trans athletes bodies transform into the body type of their borne-in gender (i.e. a trans woman on hormones loses muscle mass and experiences slight realignment of bone structure, meaning she is not unfairly advantaged against her biologically female cohorts). Spiller also cited the fact that by pointing this out, both liberals and conservatives will learn very real truths that will bring the two groups closer to an understanding. For instance, in addition to conservatives realizing the transformative effect of hormone treatments, liberals might also have to acknowledge that there are genuine mental and physical differences between men and women than a transgender persons transition could help to highlight, and therefore unveil the real reason for the gender pay gap: women and men approach life, work, etc. differently from one another, make different choices, and have different frames of mind, so naturally different choices will be made in the workforce leading to different rates of pay.

Williams, while she didnt comment directly on Spillers points, did seem to share the outlook that many liberals claim to understand trans people just to virtue signal, but that they do not own concepts like compassion and social justice conservatives can display it, too. I did not vote for Trump, Williams admitted. I was a Kasich supporter. But I would have voted for Trump had New Jersey been in play at the time. But she clarified that she does hope Trump continues to support the LGBT community, and that any reversal on the issues would feel like a slap in the face to her community.

This point was touched upon later in the day during the Steve Bannon speaking event, in which he and fellow presidential aid Reince Priebus explained that President Trump still supports LGBT rights, as well as the lack of authority for federal overreach on such matters, and is therefore leaving the trans bathroom issue to the states. While much of the mainstream media has been reporting this stance as a reversal on trans rights, its actually quite consistent with the small government conservative and libertarian viewpoint. Leaving the bathroom issue to the states while still explaining ones personal views in support of trans people is, through this lens, not a contradiction, and is still very much a pro-LGBT position for a Republican president to have.

And the best part of all of this was that the entire room erupted with applause at this statement. Let that sink in: an entire ballroom full of conservatives and Republicans cheered on a trans rights issue. And the conference itself let atheists, gays, transgenders, and other minority groups through its doors in the name of liberty, freedom of expression, and fellowship. If you are a conservative, you are welcome at CPAC, regardless of any other aspect of your person that might not historically line up with the perceived norm. That is the message CPAC 2017 has chosen to convey. And I frankly hope that sentiment continues. As our new acquaintance James Spiller noted, true understanding is the only way the lefts claim to social and intellectual superiority is going to be curtailed.

Well, to be fair, there was one minority group that CPAC chose to discriminate against: white supremacists. Alt-right leader and white nationalist Richard Spencer attempted to crash the event (much like he had done with short-lived success at the International Students for Liberty Conference last week), but was made short work of by event organizers and hotel security. Racism, it seems, has finally run its course with the Republican Party and the conservative movement as a whole.

Yeah, I see the fuck face, one CPAC attendee could be overhead saying when Spencer first came on the scene. It was established that it is okay to punch Nazis, right? While back at the spot on the convention floor where Miss Williams was waving her no tread flag, an elderly gentleman walked up to her, shook her hand and said: I dont quite understand, but Im trying to.

No, the modern conservative movement isnt perfect. And no, we should not drop our guard on the frontier of looking at it critically. But we also must be mindful that, just as the older man shaking Williamss hand said, it is trying. It is trying to branch out and finally be the all-inclusive, anti-big government movement it has long claimed to be but never quite delivered on. And that effort should be commended. We should continue to hold the conservatives and the GOP accountable for continuing that, of course (and Bannon himself said at his event that the American people should hold the Trump administration accountable as well), but for now, this is more than expected, and pleasantly surprising. Especially for libertarians.

This post was written by Micah J. Fleck.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Like Loading...

Originally posted here:
A Libertarian View of CPAC: Part One - Being Libertarian

In the summer of 2001, the late Sen. Jim Jeffords from Vermont left the Republican Party, declared himself an independent and caucused with the Democrats, giving the Dems a 51-seat majority in the upper chamber. Jeffords, a lifelong Republican who had served seven terms in the House before winning three Senate races, told supporters that he had struggled with "the changing nature of the national party" and that "in order to best represent my state of Vermont, my own conscience and principles that I have stood for my whole life," he would leave it.

Today, the proximate causes of Jeffords' break with the GOP seem downright quaint. He strongly opposed what he saw as the fiscal recklessness of President Bush's mammoth tax cuts, and was appalled when Senate Republicans refused to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which he had supported as a member of the House back in 1975.

Sixteen years later, many Republicans privately express deep concerns over Donald Trump's temperament, lack of experience and propensity for sparking diplomatic crises with impromptu rants on Twitter. Some are as concerned as their Democratic counterparts about signals that the administration is bent on undermining the Atlantic security alliance and forming closer ties with Russia. Others are alarmed by his attacks on the judiciary, and the perception that he's a thin-skinned, self-obsessed authoritarian.

Some have come forward to offer public statements condemning Trump's travel ban or some of his more inflammatory tweets, but the usual political incentives keep them from going further than that. While Trump's the least popular newly elected president in the history of polling, nearly nine in ten Republicans either "approve" or "strongly approve" of the job he's done so far, according to the latest Politico/Morning Consult poll. As long as the base remains behind the president, Republican officeholders can grumble, but they're constrained from voting against his less qualified nominees or otherwise standing up to his agenda. This is true for the party as a whole; as long as they have unified control of the federal government, and the base is behind Trump, aggressive oversight of the administration will prove elusive.

But this is a moment in history that provides some unusual incentives. If just three GOP Senators had the courage to cross the aisle and caucus with Democrats, they would find themselves in a position to defend our institutions and the norms that have made them more or less functional for more than 200 years, protect the international alliances that have served American interests well in the post-World War II era and assure that our federal agencies are headed by competent, qualified people. (It must have been somewhat embarrassing to confirm Ben Carson to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development only eight weeks after Carson said through a spokesperson that he was unqualified for the job.)

Just three individuals could restore the checks and balances that are clearly so necessary with an administration headed by a reality-TV star who seems to have little knowledge of, or interest in, public policy. The resignation of Michael Flynn, Trump's erstwhile National Security Advisor, for discussing U.S. sanctions with Russia before the president was sworn in, only highlights the vital need for independent oversight of this White House. Important questions remain, but the chairmen of both the House Oversight and Intelligence Committees indicated that they have little interest in investigating the matter, and Politico reported that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, a Republican, "largely responded to Flynn's resignation by highlighting the retired lieutenant general's record of public service and offering deference to Trump."

A Senate controlled by Democrats wouldn't reflexively defer to Trump. It would investigate Trump's alleged conflicts of interests and assure that he isn't violating the Constitution's Emoluments Clause. It would check those items on Trump's agenda that fall outside the mainstream. At the same time, as "independent Republicans," lawmakers who were to cross the aisle could still join their GOP colleagues in supporting traditional Republican priorities. In the 107th Congress, Democratic leaders released Jim Jeffords to vote as he wished.

John McCain would be an obvious candidate to flip. The traditional foreign policy realist already enjoys the "maverick" brand. His feuds with Trump are well-documented. Last October, he renounced his support for his party's nominee following the release of Trump's recorded comments about grabbing women by their genitals, saying, "It's not pleasant for me. But I have daughters. I have friends. ... They cannot be degraded and demeaned in that fashion." Or Lindsey Graham, who responded to Republicans' embrace of Trump by calling him "the most dishonest person in America," and lamenting that his party had "gone batshit crazy." What about Susan Collins, who refused to vote for Trump because she was so worried that his "lack of self-restraint and his barrage of ill-informed comments would make an already perilous world even more so"? Or Lisa Murkowski, who overcame a primary loss to a Tea Party challenger to win re-election as a write-in. She resigned a leadership position in the state party because she couldn't stomach supporting Trump.

These are only a few of the GOP senators who have expressed deep misgivings about where the country is headed, and the majority of Americans who don't support Donald Trump or the movement he leads need at least three of them to put country before party and stand up to the administration. At a minimum, one would hope that a handful of Republican Senators are thinking hard about what Trump would have to do to force their hand.

Jim Jeffords was the first senator in history to change the balance of power in the upper chamber, but it's not unprecedented in state capitals. Eight New York state senators who were elected as Democrats currently caucus with the Republicans, giving the Grand Old Party a veto on policy that the solidly blue state's electorate never voted for.

It would take guts to do the same in D.C.'s hyper-polarized environment. Many Republicans would see it as treason. When Jeffords retired after three decades on Capitol Hill, only one of his former colleagues took the floor to praise him in keeping with the tradition in the upper chamber.

But today, some Republicans who are skeptical of Trump would understand and even applaud the move. And of course they would become heroes to millions of Americans who fear for their futures under this president. It's also very likely that in the future, history would look back kindly on their courage in defense of the republic.

Sign up for our newsletter to receive breaking news directly in your inbox.

See more here:
Wanted: Three Principled Republicans to Save America From Trump - RollingStone.com