Amy Rice and Alicia Sams’ documentary, “By the People,” provides a lens into Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.  A guided tour of sorts, the film delves into the Obama’s biggest milestones, while ignoring glaring contradictions and blemishes.  Perhaps two words can best describe it: snooze fest.  Teamed with the films vapidity and its lack of new, unexplored material, there are some intriguing conflicts of interest surrounding its production.

By the People” is a praise initiative that doesn’t offer much beyond what politicos and Obama enthusiasts already know: Obama was a regular Joe who, through a series of (unfortunate for the American people) events, captured the presidency.

While Hollywood’s insane obsession with anything and anyone left of center is never a surprise, one should ardently question why HBO, after purchasing the film for seven figures, has chosen to ignore other intriguing political stories.  Why not balance the film with another special or documentary that explores the McCain-Palin campaign?  One could argue, as I’m sure HBO would, that the focus of the film is on to the winning candidate.  Fine.  Argue away, but anyone with a pulse knows we’d be hard pressed to see a similar accolade to a Republican victor.  Furthermore, Sarah Palin’s initial book sales prove that she’s a brand worth exploring.  So, why not go for it?

And then there’s the timing of the film’s release.  The network chose to air the documentary at a time when majorities oppose various elements of the president’s agenda and smack dab in the middle of some highly-contested state and local races.  Add the film’s timing to some of the more bizarre, behind-the-scenes connections and you can begin to triangulate relationships and allegiances.

First, let’s consider the film’s producer – famed actor Edward Norton.  While one should never be surprised by a Hollywood celebrity’s urge to support leftist inclinations, in this case there’s a twist.  To bring the film to fruition, Norton worked with Ari Emanuel, the brother of Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.  Last November, Gawker reported the following:

“… at one point it looked like some of film’s distribution proceeds might be headed back in the general direction of the Obama camp. As of eight months ago, Endeavor Agency’s Ari Emanuel was the agent for the film. Emanuel, of course, is the brother of Rahm Emanuel, just named Obama’s chief of staffHe was also an Obama fundraiser…”

So, Edward Norton shopped the documentary with Ari Emanuel, a man with a vested interest in Barack Obama’s campaign – and, a guy with key access to top government officials.  Unbelievable.  Perhaps most hilarious is Variety’s coverage from early 2008: “Norton said the motivation behind the film was not to glorify its subject.” Anyone out there actually believe that?  According to Rice, “When we shot the final scenes in the Oval Office, [Obama] he asked us, ‘What do you guys need?’  It was incredibly special. I got choked up.”

Is Rice sense-retardant?  She was creating a documentary that was more than favorable to the Obama camp.  Of course he was more than willing to assist!

As a professor, one of the main listening skills I work to instill in my students is the ability to determine what a speaker isn’t telling an audience.  Often times, some of the most intriguing information is embedded in omitted material.

At the beginning of the film, in footage circa 2006, Barack Obama is asked if he plans to run for the presidency.  In response, Obama says he is unsure and explains that he plans to look into how he would best serve the country.  Considering the foreknowledge that he might run, it was odd that the filmmakers chose to lead with this.  In fact, it was two years earlier, in 2004, when Obama said that he would not run in 2008, citing his inexperience.  Call it poor research on the filmmakers’ part or purposeful exclusion, but the words “Obama” and “American presidency” were uttered well before the 2006 midterm elections.

Here is Obama’s 2004 response to the question, “So, why have you ruled that out – running nationally?”:

“I am a believer in…knowing what you’re doing…when you apply for a job…”

“If I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket…I would essentially have to start now…before having served a day in the Senate. Now there might be some people who would have no problem doing that, but ah…I’m not one of them.”

We all know how good Obama is at keeping promises.

Now, let’s talk about the film’s contents.  Of particular interest and concern is the control Obama has over America’s young generation.  In the film, David Axlerod explained that one of Obama’s main motivations for running stemmed from his urge to show children that “anything is possible.”  In political terms that means, “We’ve found our voting bloc!”

When speaking about the Iowa caucus, Axlerod said, “These kids are going to win it for us…they thinkthey’re changing the world…we need more of that.”  Robert Gibbs awkwardly intervened, saying, “The good news is, I think they are.”  The latter statement was an attempt to bridge the divide between Axlerod’s campaign analytics and the need for more audience-friendly interaction.  In the end, it’s evident that Obama and Co. were intent on exploiting young Americans, a tactic that worked wonderfully in their favor.

Race was another theme that appeared periodically throughout the film.  Interviews with citizens positioned Obama as the most unlikely of all candidates to win, with respondents stating that the nation wasn’t ready for an African-American president.  Ironically, liberals are the main culprits who railed on and on about how ill-prepared the nation was for this advancement.  As a conservative, I was more than ready, pending the individual capturing the top spot had the qualifications to perform the job.  Barack Obama did not have those needed elements.  Needless to say, the filmmakers didn’t speak with many people who thought it was, indeed, possible for a black man to win the presidency.

The entire film centered around the “emotional” impact Obama has had on America’s young generation.  As a 26-year-old young guy, I’m not feeling it.  Throughout the film, campaign workers cried fervently, chanted Obama praises and gave their all for “change they could believe in.”  While this is their right, the film itself was less than objective.  And I’m fine with that as well, but it would be an extraordinarily overdue kudos to democracy to see HBO (Honoring Barack Obama) air a similarly fair-minded film that centers on Palin’s historic run or McCain’s heroic life story.

Watching Hollywood and the Democratic elite pat each other on the back is getting old.  HBO and other media companies should consider being more fair minded and delving into the other side on a more frequent basis.  In the case of “By the People,” though, the media and entertainment cronyism will take your breath away.  No wonder Obama picks fights with the media who disagree with him.  He’s become accustomed to lapdog media and liberal Hollywood.  Let’s hope these institutions challenge him a bit more here on in.

Tagged with:
 

Janeane Garofalo ‘One Ups’ Her Own Insanity

On October 5, 2009, in Political Pieces, by Billy Hallowell

Janeane Garofalo is insane. The sad part? Some Americans actually believe her insidiously heinous, garbage-laden verbal diarrhea.  Americans who oppose ObamaCare aren’t racist; they’re simply worried about the nation’s fiscal stability.  Click, above, to watch Garofalo unleash her inner nut.

Tagged with:
 

Get a Job New Yorkers — Just Like Obama!

On April 15, 2009, in Political Pieces, by Billy Hallowell

It’s practically impossible to tell the difference between The New York Times and The Huffington Post.  Aside from occasional whit (sorry “Grey Lady,” but you lose the battle on that one), the outlets mirror one another.

Sure, The Huffington Post doesn’t come in print (and who knows how much longer theTimes will), but the ideologically-driven content one finds in both outlets is leftist – and that’s being kind.  Today, as I was perusing the Times’ site, I came across an extremely curious headline: “Job Seekers at the Library, in Obama’s Footsteps.”

My initial thought was, “Ugh, another piece praising stimulus spending,” as I figured the library was offering something flagrantly expensive that Obama and his minions had crafted (like free massages for those seeking employment, or some other irrelevant and audacious expense – think “bailout”).  Sadly, I was wrong.  After reading the article, being mad at Obama was impossible.  See, the Times had aimlessly inserted his name in an article that had absolutely nothing to do with him – whatsoever.  Misleading?  I think so. 

Here’s my theory – American media haven’t yet gotten over their blatant Obama fawning, which is why an article intended to educate New Yorkers about an amazing, new job-search tool invokes the president’s name.  The article commences with the following lede: “Jobless New Yorkers are being invited to follow in the footsteps of Barack Obama, starting at a Midtown branch of the public library.”

To provide some context, the New York Public Library created “Job Search Central,” an excellent resource that will surely help New Yorkers find employment.  That said, how this translates into the exuberance the paper attempts to invoke in its insinuation that using said system will allow us to “…follow in the footsteps of Barack Obama…” is perplexing.

According to the Times,

“In an interview four years ago with American Libraries magazine, Mr. Obama recounted how a librarian at the mid-Manhattan branch of the library helped him locate the organization in Chicago that hired him as a community organizer in the mid-1980s.” 

The next lines read, “That was before looking for work became a predominantly electronic exercise.”

Almost in-step, the Times sort of admits that it has drawn a weak comparison between the new, technologically-advanced system and the old, no-frills job search tool (i.e. an elderly librarian, most likely) Obama used to find his community organizer position.  Then why invoke his name at all?  I’m sure librarians have helped everyone at one point or another.  Obama gets mentioned for talking to a librarian and Bush got coverage for choking on a pretzel.  Go figure.

The piece is reflective of a love-obsessed high school girl who constantly talks about her crush.  We get it, media.  You love him.  He’s your golden boy.  Enough already! 

But in all seriousness, the library does, indeed, have an excellent resource for those of you out there who are seeking employment.  As reported by the Times, the library’s director claims that about one-third of its 1,900 daily visitors are looking for positions in some fashion.  Clearly, the resource is extremely valuable, especially considering the current fiscal climate.

Thank you, New York Times, for the heads up, but next time leave out Obama.  Thanks!

“The Scorekeeper” on Red County!

On March 24, 2009, in Political Pieces, by Billy Hallowell

I have officially joined forces for a new podcast with RedCounty.com!  Yesterday, we released the second episode of “The Scorekeeper.” As host, I focus on the GOP’s winner and loser of the week.  There can only be one on each side, so the competition is tough.  But, if we’re going to talk about renewing the party, we have to delve deep to find the heroes who will help us progress and the zeros who are dragging us down!

Aside from my new weekly show (available every Monday), be sure to check out Red County’s new, slick design, great content and the other four shows that come from some great conservative minds!  Click here to check out “The Scorekeeper” or surf over the Red County’s main page.

Talk about failing to learn life lessons.  After battling for governmental control, Obama is making lofty decisions that stand firmly against the will of the American people.  While he has experienced extremely high approval ratings for his performance these past three weeks, digging somewhat deeper into the polls showcases a substantive shift in public opinion.  From climate change to corruption — to funding for overseas abortions — Obama and the Democrats are paving the way for future electoral defeat.

In an era when millions of Americans are suffering job losses and struggling to meet their most basic needs due to corruption and greed, Obama has pursued individuals who have defaulted on their taxes and evaded general responsibilities to serve in his cabinet.  In no particular order there was Tom Daschle (“was” because he has now officially bowed out of consideration as a nominee for the position of Health and Human Services Secretary), who failed to pay over $130,000 in taxes.  Obama had this to say in response to the outcry surrounding the potential cabinetee (as per FOX News):

“Tom made a mistake, which he has openly acknowledged. He has not excused it, nor do I,” Obama said. He added that the “mistake” should not diminish the “many contributions” Daschle has made to the country. 

Then comes Nancy Killefer, who also withdrew her name for consideration for the position of “chief performance officer.”  Killefer would have been the first to take this position, but tax problems also hampered her ability to accept it.  And then there is Bill Richardson, who — according to FOX News — withdrew his name over an alleged kickback investigation:

“Obama’s first choice for commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, took his name out of consideration when his confirmation appeared headed toward complications because of a grand jury investigation over how state contracts were issued to political donors.”

The confusing part of the nomination conundrum centers upon Obama’s promise to root out corruption.  So far the only rooting that’s been done is for earmarks and fiscal irresponsibility (i.e. a stimulus plan that calls for $600 million for government vehicles and funding for overseas abortions).  

Aside from these shining examples of hypocrisy stands America’s new Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, who belatedly paid $34,000 in income taxes.  The irony behind this clearly centers upon the fact that Geithner, a man who did not pay his own taxes in a timely manner, is going to advise President Obama on all things economy: government fiscal policy, and domestic tax policy, amongst other responsibilities.  And I thought Gregory B. Craig’s (Obama’s White House counsel) defense of a presidential assassin was an embarrassment to the Obama Administration.  Talk about one-upping one’s self.

Clearly, the American people should have some concerns.  One could argue that the aforementioned examples simply result from human error.  But, upon examination there is a pattern building here that is disturbing at best.  Even when one looks beyond the drama surrounding nominees and confirmations, the Democrats are making decisions that rail against the will of the people.  

Unfortunately, Democrats have a habit of complaining about Republicans so fervently that they eventually convince the people, through the liberal media, that Republicans are ill-equipped to lead (and some are, but it’s nowhere near the proportion of Democrats).  Then, when they finally convince their way into office, they spend the majority of their time undoing every conservative regulation they can get their hands on, while failing to take the time to formulate their own policies. It’s the ultimate na-na-na-na-boo-boo, only the Democrats are willing to throw money at any problem that their undoing of well-meaning conservative policies doesn’t immediately solve.  

Just look at Obama’s major decisions thus far.  According to polls released this week, the majority of Americans stand against Obama’s first two executive orders.  As for the first of these orders — the president’s decision to provide funding to family planning organizations overseas that provide abortions — 58% of Americans disagree with Obama; only 35% support the decision.  

And when it comes to the closure of Guantanamo Bay, 50% of the American public opposes, with 44% supporting his decision to close Guantanamo’s doors within a year.  While his approval rating is currently high, the American people are already making it known that they disagree with his far-left agenda (these two orders are precipitating facets of his worldview).

Understanding ultraliberals is a daunting task.  They will protest in the streets when Americans go overseas to defend inherent freedoms, but when it comes to international infanticide, they sit on the sidelines and stand idle.  At the least, you’d think they’d at least spout off about the need to support the domestic abortions they support so fervantly before shipping funding off to other countries.  Apparently funding clinics that provide abortions in Zimbabwe is more important than funding our crumbling educational system.

Obama needs to get with the program.  Instead of holding press conferences to tell us how he’d never have a lobbyist serve in his administration right before backtracking and hiring a lobbyist, he should spend his time making meaningful and well-planned policy.  We need him to succeed, but with uncollected decision-making at the helm, success isn’t on the horizon.

Tagged with:
 

Letting History Judge President Bush Accordingly

On November 17, 2008, in Political Pieces, by Billy Hallowell

As President George W. Bush’s presidency approaches its final days, historians are already discussing how future generations will view America’s 43rd president. According to a recent piece by CNN’s Ed Hornick, contemporary historians view the administration as “incompetent,” “battered,” and “unlucky.” While these labels may, indeed, fit the Bush Administration to varying degrees, there is little talk of the administration’s successes.

While I am sure that the mere mention of the word “success” in connection with Bush’s name will result in fits of dismissed rationality for some, ignoring these accomplishments creates a historically inaccurate depiction – one that American media outlets have worked, perhaps inadvertently, to reinforce.  Regardless of where one stands politically, it is virtually impossible to ignore the fact that George W. Bush’s accomplishments are rarely recognized.

Since 2003, Bush’s approval ratings have suffered and declined steadily, landing him with the highest disapproval rating for any president in American history. When commenting on this less than stellar accomplishment, CNN’s polling director Keating Holland recently said, “That means that Bush is now more unpopular than Richard Nixon was when he resigned from office during Watergate with a 66 percent disapproval rating.“ But, even with negativity surrounding Bush at every corner, his supporters are still out there.

The day before the 2008 election, Andrew Breitbart wrote about his general liking for Bush and said, “President Bush…will be judged by history – not by vengeful Democrats, hate-filled Hollywood, corrupt foreign governments, an imploding mainstream media or fleeting approval ratings.

There is no doubt that the United States is confronted with a plethora of issues that some claim were created, fostered and exacerbated by President Bush. From the financial markets to the war in Iraq the view, both domestically and internationally speaking, is grim at best. Even with these issues in mind, the failure of many major media outlets to discuss some of the shining successes that have been brought about by this president is disconcerting.

Social Security Reform

This is, perhaps, an anomalous area of exploration, mostly because Bush’s efforts to transform the Social Security inevitably failed. Still, it is important to note that he did propose a plan to amend the system. Again, regardless of where you stand politically, his acknowledgement of the dire realities that are to come if the system is not fixed should be noted.

After all, this is a serious issue. According to Facing Up to the Nation’s Finances, “…the board of trustees that oversees the Social Security system projects that the program’s expenditures will exceed income in just 10 years (2017). The Social Security Trust Fund provides a cushion against these needs, but by 2042, the trust fund will be exhausted as well and the system will only be able to cover about three-quarters of the benefits promised.”

In the end – as is the case with most subjects in Washington these days – ideological dissension (both inter and intra party) got in the way and Bush’s plans to privatize Social Security failed. Regardless of the end result, he does deserve some credit for raising the issue and attempting to amend it.

HIV/AIDS

HIV/AIDS is one of the most important areas of Bush’s success that has gone vastly uncovered. Back in March 2008, Bob Geldof penned an intriguing piece for TIME Magazine about George W. Bush and America’s commitment to the African continent.  While Geldof disagrees with Bush on a multitude of issues, his piece opened up necessary dialog surrounding HIV/AIDS and the legacy of America’s forty-third president.

According to Geldof, “Bush…initiated the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) with cross-party support led by Senators John Kerry and Bill Frist.” The Bush Administration has also fought tuberculosis, malaria and HIV/AIDS (the U.S. provides a substantial amount of funding for the Global Fund). Unfortunately, the American people remain vastly unaware of these advancements.

George W. Bush’s commitment to Africa should not be eclipsed by negative commentary or partisan political angst. While one may not agree with the aggregate of George W. Bush’s domestic or international policies, there is no contesting the positive impact he has had on the African region.

After all, Geldof points out that in 2003, only 50,000 Africans were taking antiretroviral drugs. Even more unconscionable, these people were paying for their own medication. But today, treatment is much more widespread. In fact, there are 1.3 million individuals receiving medicines free of charge, which can mostly be attributed to George W. Bush and his Republican administration.

Homelessness

While mainstream media outlets have virtually ignored President Bush’s work in the homelessness arena, coverage is surely deserved. The reality is that the Bush administration’s efforts to curb chronic homelessness have been highly successful. A chronic homeless person is defined as, “…someone with a disabling condition who has been continuously homeless for a year or more or for four or more episodes in three years.”

According to Frank Greve of McClatchy Newspapers, President Bush initiated a program entitled “Housing First.” Unlike traditional programs that require individuals to go through months of treatment and counsel prior to being granted housing, “Housing First” does exactly what the name states – it gives shelter to those in need before taking other actions. Through this program, the Bush administration offers rent-free apartments to chronically homeless persons.

According to Greve, “The “housing first” strategy gets much of the credit for a 30 percent decline in U.S. chronic homelessness from 2005 to 2007. The number fell from 176,000 to 124,000 people, according to the best available census of street people.”

National Security

In spite of all of the pain, anger, resentment and frustration that many feel as a result of the War on Terror, the fact remains that the United States has not sustained an attack on our soil since 2001. Unfortunately, too many Americans overlook this reality – particularly those on the Left. After all, it is relatively easy to forget the potential threat of calamity when one is safe enough to no longer worry (knock on wood) about potential internal attacks. Breitbart also pointed out this obvious yet all-to-frequently unexplored notion:

“The fact that the United States has not been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001, far exceeds the most wishful expert predictions of the time. Perhaps facing another al Qaeda-led barrage would have reinforced our need for national unity, caused us to recognize the gravity of the Islamist threat and fortified Mr. Bush’s standing at home and abroad. Yet, thankfully, that never happened. And Mr. Bush has been punished for this obvious success.”

At the end of the day, no matter how much Bush’s critics forge against his tactics, American soil has undoubtedly been well-protected. There has definitely been a lack of credit in this arena, as critics have focused (many times rightfully) on his blunders in Iraq and on what some call his failure to properly cope with domestic issues. Still, this feat is massive enough to warrant at least a partial congratulatory note from the American electorate.

History will, indeed, be George W. Bush’s most benevolent judge. While proponents and opponents will rail for and against the Bush administration’s policies, contemporary views cannot possibly create the well-rounded and realistic interpretation that is needed to properly or efficiently evaluate.  Surely, President Bush was faced with profound difficulties and tough choices. While his administration often fell short, ignoring the positive accomplishments he has made both domestically and internationally is simply unacceptable.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor William Hallowel is a journalist, blogger and the founder of Pathufind Media.

No Record Turnout

On November 10, 2008, in Political Pieces, by Billy Hallowell

After months of speculation that the 2008 presidential election would bring out a record-breaking crowd (millions more voters), current analysis provides a very different picture.  Ed Morrissey (citing a piece from Politico) reported on the subject.  Here’s a chunk of text from Politico:

Between 60.7 percent and 61.7 percent of the 208.3 million eligible voters cast ballots this year, compared with 60.6 percent of those eligible in 2004, according to a voting analysis by American University political scientist Curtis Gans, an authority on voter turnout.

Tagged with:
 

Back in April 2008, Los Angeles Times staff writer Peter Wallsten penned a piece entitled, “Allies of Palestinians See an Ally in Barack Obama.” While it appears as though the vast majority of the American electorate overlooked the article in the days following its release, its contents are creating a stir months later and just days before the 2008 presidential election.

The title of the Times piece alone should raise concern for anyone who believes in the importance of America’s continued devotion to the Israeli people. But it is the contents as they relate to Obama’s associations and the handling of related video footage that raise additional concerns about the future state of America’s national security under an Obama administration.

Let’s start with the basics. According to the Times, Barack Obama attended a going away party for a man named Rashid Khalidi back in 2003. Most Americans are probably unfamiliar with Khalidi. Wallsten described him as, “…an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights…”  Compared to some of the other descriptions I’ve read, the former is complementary. CampusWatch had this to say:

“… Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi…has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.”

Click here to finishing reading this piece

Team Sarah Rocks the Vote

On October 30, 2008, in Political Pieces, by Billy Hallowell
Copyright © 2011 by Billy Hallowell and Pathufind Media. Designed by PageLines