We recently made the argument that MSNBC and NBC are already at war with the Hillary Clinton campaign and therefore Hillary should NOT participlate in NBC or MSNBC debates. NBC and MSNBC are particularly bad with regards to pushing anti-Hillary broadcasts but they are not alone.
Consider how Big Media is protecting Obama. This past weekend a remarkable story unfolded in the pages of the Chicago Sun-Times. Usually this type of story is catnip Big Media loves to play with. The story was an interview with an FBI “mole” deep inside the Antoin “Tony” Rezko organization. The story has lots of fun crime elements. There are FBI agents, wire tappings, tape recordings inside the organization and powerful politicians paying homage to the
Don individual under investigation.
The Sun-Times story read like The Godfather when Mafia boss, Don Corleone, is said to ‘carry around politicians like so much pocket change’.
In this case the politicians in question are “not charged with any wrongdoing” but it is understood by many that at least one of those politicians is without doubt a target of the investigation. The Sun-Times article contains these two paragraphs:
But sources said that, for more than two years when he was giving information to agents, Thomas provided a fly-on-the-wall look inside Rezko’s real estate operations and his desperate attempts to keep his projects afloat.
Sources said Thomas also logged frequent visits to Rezko from Gov. Blagojevich and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Blagojevich and Obama were among the many politicians for whom Rezko raised campaign cash. Neither has been charged with any wrongdoing.
Barack Obama has maintained a Bush and “Kenny boy Lay” defense with regards to Rezko. Obama has stated repeatedly that, well, Rezko is someone he hardly knew, someone Obama rarely saw. Yet an FBI “mole” asserts that U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Rezko) made “frequent visits to Rezko” and Big Media does not bother to take notice.
A few days ago a comment was made in Obama Talking Points Memo which was sent to us:
In 2005 a property came on the market listed at about $2.6 million. It consisted of two legal lots maintained as a single unit and described as an ‘estate’ though totally only perhaps 15,000 sf. Two couples on the same day purchased the lots separately. One couple bought the house and one lot for $1.6 million, $300,000 under asking price. The other couple bought the other lot at the full price of $625,000 even though it had no physical access from the street. Subsequently the second couple sold 1/6th of that lot to the first couple reducing its size from 7500sf to 6150sf and since it was a corner lot reducing the potential building footprint to about 2800sf. The first couple paid a little over $100,000 for that 1/6th of the lot, over the appraised value but in line with the recent actual purchase price. After the purchase the second couple made no effort to establish access or to show use, instead they allowed the first couple to maintain the landscaping with access gained from a gate from the first couple’s lot. As a matter of law ‘open’ and ‘notorious’ use of property without objection from the owner of record can end up with ownership of that property transferring to the property user by the doctrine of adverse possession, unless there is an explicit lease agreement the first couple will over a period of time gain title to what was in origin and still in appearance being a fenced in side yard. The second couple financed the purchase with the aid of a $500,000 mortgage and after the sale of the 1/6th of the lot were left without any real cash investment in the property.
Without adding names if you put this theoretical scenario before a real estate broker or a mortgage broker and told them that the two couples had a multi-year personal and professional relationship the only logical conclusion would be mortgage fraud, the second couple colluding to secure the first couple a $2.6 million dollar mini-estate for a total of $1.71 million ($1.6 purchase, $125k for the 1/6th).
I don’t have anything against Obama but I do have a (inactive) real estate license and if as an agent I willingly participated in this transaction I would be liable to lose that license and possibly pay a big fine. This kind of deal may be business as usual in the City of Chicago but anywhere else this would raise some serious eyebrows and potentially the scrutiny of the State Board of Licensing. This deal not only looks bad, on any objective examination of the facts as we know them is bad. We start with a single use property under one party control, we end up with a property still with a single use under one party physical control. Everything about this shouts ‘sham transaction’ by the Rezkos on behalf of the Obamas and equates to an eventual $500,000 gift from the former to the latter once adverse possession kicks in (ten years in the State of Washington, Illinois time periods may vary).
Adverse possession was aborted, if ever that was the intention, when the whole stinking transaction was made public by Chicago newspapers. Maybe Big Media has so many entanglements in their home purchases that they do not see anything wrong with the Obama/Rezko financial marriage. And of course, there is simple out and out media bias.
Paul Krugman has some thoughts today with regards to the anti-Hillary Big Media bias. Krugman is too polite to mention his fellow New York Times columnists by name:
I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.
What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.
Multimillions to investigate Hillary Clinton, not even pocket change to vet Senator Obama. Krugman notes the “Clinton rules” applied to Al Gore as well. Krugman also warns the Josh Marshalls, the Kooks, and assorted PINOs that what goes around comes around:
I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.
For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.
For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.
For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.
Back to our central point. There is a problem with Big Media and Clinton rules. How do we fight that bias without taking on the whole Big Media establishment overtly?
Short of taking on all of Big Media overtly, make an example of NBC/MSNBC. DON’T PARTICIPATE IN NBC OR MSNBC DEBATES.
We also understand that the campaign does not want to get into a feud with Big Media in general, nor NBC/MSNBC in particular. But guys, Hillary campaign, get this: NBC and MSNBC are already at war with you. Fight back. DON’T PARTICIPATE IN NBC OR MSNBC DEBATES.
We recall when Hillary Clinton said:
”When you’re attacked, you have to deck your opponents,” Mrs. Clinton said to some laughter and applause. ”You can count on me to stand my ground and fight back.”
It’s time to “Deck ’em” Hill.