L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Media Research Center – the parent organization of CNSNews.com

(CNSNews.com) – Conservative media watchdog L. Brent Bozell III has issued an open letter to Washington Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli calling on the Post to fully divulge the involvement of its employees with the controversial Journolist e-mail list.
 
Bozell, president of the Media Research Center – the parent organization of CNSNews.com – pointed out that several Post employees were members of the liberal email list. This association, he said, put the paper’s credibility and impartiality in doubt.
 
“The almost constant revelations of political activism and journalistic conspiracy raise an enormous number of questions about Post policies and ethics,” Bozell wrote on July 28.
 
“The Journolist scandal is getting worse every day and The Washington Post is at the center of it,” he said. “Blogger Ezra Klein ran the operation and at least three other staffers were members.”
 
Journolist is the email listserv founded by liberal policy blogger Ezra Klein, currently employed by the Post. Klein founded the email list while working for the liberal American Prospect and continued running it after being hired by the Post.
 
According to Klein, the list was intended to be an electronic meeting place for left-wing journalists, academics, and pundits to share ideas, analysis, and information. However, in a series of stories from the conservative news Web site The Daily Caller, members of Journolist were revealed to be doing more than merely sharing sources and making contacts.
 
The first in that series of stories led to the firing of Post reporter David Weigel, whom the paper had originally hired to cover the conservative movement. After the Daily Caller published email exchanges showing Weigel attacking conservatives like Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh, Weigel was dismissed.
 
Other stories from the Daily Caller showed liberal journalists and academics pondering whether to organize a coordinated, left-wing message in an effort to use their platforms to help elect Democrats. Also revealed was an effort by liberal journalists to provide cover for then-candidate Barack Obama by diverting attention away from the controversial comments of his long-time pastor in Chicago, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
 
One journalist suggested that his liberal colleagues pick out prominent conservative figures and accuse them of being racists, so as to discredit them should they criticize Obama over the allegedly racist comments uttered by Wright.
 
Bozell said the only way the Post could wash its hands of the Journolist affair was to fully disclose not only the involvement of Klein and others, but to divulge the actions of its editorial staff who hired the liberal reporters.
 
“There is only one way for the Post to move forward from this fiasco – through transparency,” he said. “You need to be forthright about the Post’s failings and give readers enough information so that we know just how serious this really was and what can be done to restore your paper’s credibility.”
 
Bozell included a list of 20 questions that he and the Media Research Center believe the Post should address if it wants to remove doubts about its credibility:
 
1)    How many Washington Post staffers were part of JournoList and, if there are any currently unnamed, who are they?

2)    Will the Post be transparent and either release or order its staffers to release their contributions to the list?

3)    Will the Post release the names and affiliations of all those on the list or have its staffers do so?

4)    Did the Post know about JournoList when Klein was hired and that it was a “center to left” group? If yes, what does that say about the Post’s claims of neutrality?

5)    Did actions on JournoList violate the Post’s ethical guidelines?

6)    Has the Post revised or added any ethical guidelines as a result of this scandal?

7)    Will the Post permit staffers to belong to or operate such lists in the future?

8)    Does the Post often embrace “off the record” email conversations with hundreds of people at a time?

9)    Was Klein’s supervisor(s) on the list and were they monitoring what went on?

10)    Has the Post examined the possibility that JournoList impacted Post news coverage?

11)    How much did the Post look into JournoList before hiring Klein?

12)    Were Klein and the other Post members of the list using it and posting to it on company time? If not, when were they doing so?

13)    Did Klein and the other Post members write to the list using company equipment and offices?

14)    Was Klein aware that some were using the list to boost the Obama campaign, such as adviser Jared Bernstein?

15)    Did Klein attempt to enforce a rule against campaigning and, if so, how?

16)    Did Klein post written guidelines for all members of the list? If so, what were those guidelines?

17)    Klein had said on The American Prospect on March 17, 2009: “There are no government or campaign employees on the list.” That has been proven false. How did he try to monitor this issue? Were there other members of the Obama campaign and administration on the list?

18)    Did Klein ban anyone from the list?

19)    Has Klein or any other Post staffer (other than Dave Weigel) offered to resign because of their contributions to the list?

20)    When Klein shut down the list, did he delete the list? If not, will the Post order him to release it so that readers may decide for themselves?

It can’t be news that the Gray Lady—the unofficial title of the New York Times—is militantly pro-abortion. It might even be called a house organ of the abortion lobby.

But a recent lengthy story in the Times (“The New Abortion Providers,” July 12, 2010) is a goldmine of information for pro-lifers about this execrable traffic.

Did you know that Warren Buffett has given $3 billion—yes, three billion dollars—to promote abortion here in the U.S. and around the world? Often, government officials in developing countries are under pressure to control population in order to qualify for international aid. So they pressure women in the villages to get abortions. Western Europe is especially strong in pushing for abortion in these developing countries.

The Times article quotes Buffett’s late wife telling interviewer Charlie Rose “Warren feels that women all over the world get shortchanged. That’s why he’s so pro-choice.” The article tells us after Susan Thompson Buffett moved from Omaha, Nebraska, to San Francisco in 1977, she and Warren remained close. She even introduced Warren to the woman he has lived with since 1978. This threesome would send out Christmas cards together, the Times informs us.

Warren Buffett strongly backed Barack Obama. On January 23, 2009, President Obama’s first official act was to open the sluice gates of taxpayer support for abortion worldwide. The U.S. has now joined those exerting pressure on women in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. We may be going broke, but Planned Parenthood is still making a killing.

Abortion promotion is a national security crisis for the U.S. Men and women in the Third World get it. They know that by pressing abortion on their countries—as Joe Biden has done recently in Kenya–the Obama administration wants fewer of them. These peoples will become fertile ground for anti-Americanism.

The Times also reports abortionists in this country are “startled by some poll numbers that for the first time, more Americans call themselves pro-life than pro-choice—a shift that includes young people.” The author of the article, a zealous pro-abortion writer named Emily Bazelon, noted that four of seven medical residents in one training program she witnessed chose not to take part in abortion.

All over the world, it seems, abortion traffickers are losing support. Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood center director from Texas, quit and joined the pro-life side. Her story made headlines on FOX News, on cable shows, and on the talk show circuit.

Of course, not all abortionists are affected by these changing currents of opinion. The respected journal First Things carried this stunning item last January:

In stark and sad contrast to the story of Abby Johnson is the story of a doctor in the Midwest who wrote about her own moment of disillusionment. It came as she performed an abortion on a woman eighteen weeks pregnant while she herself was eighteen weeks pregnant. “I felt a kick—a fluttery ‘thump, thump’ in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a ‘thump, thump’ in my abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes—without me—meaning my conscious brain—even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling—a brutally visceral response—heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics.” Horrifyingly, for this woman, unlike Abby Johnson, that was not the end of it. Her illusion was gone, but she continued to perform abortions. “Doing second trimester abortions did not get easier after my pregnancy,” she said. “In fact, dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder.” First Things has long led in reporting important news about the Culture of Life. From this source, we learn that 78% of abortion facilities are located in or near minority neighborhoods in this country. Is it, therefore, any surprise to learn that Warren Buffett has joined the club of billionaires who pressure black and brown women around the world to kill their unborn children? Planned Parenthood is the favorite charity of many billionaires. The problem Buffett and others of his ilk have is the weeping abortionists. The law that is written on our heart tells us not to kill our own kind. Even if all the people on earth hardened their hearts to those kicks, those fluttery thump-thumps, the very stones would cry out.

Ken Blackwell’s Biography

Ken Blackwell, a contributing editor at Townhall.com, is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and the American Civil Rights Union. He is the co-author of the new bestseller The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency, on sale in bookstores everywhere..

The Senate Democrats’ “DISCLOSE” Act — “DISCLOSE” stands for “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections” — represents perhaps the baldest, if failed, power grab attempted this year. But you wouldn’t guess it reading news stories on the bill.

As The New York Times reported, “The Senate on Tuesday refused to take up a bill that would require more disclosure of the role of corporations, unions and other special interests in bankrolling political advertisements, after Democrats failed to persuade even one Republican to support it.”

The Washington Post began, “Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation requiring fuller disclosure of the money behind political advertising, derailing a major White House initiative and virtually ensuring an onslaught of attack ads during this year’s midterm election season.”

So … it’s the Republicans’ fault if there are attack ads in November?

The leads to these stories have one thing right. The measure, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., failed to garner a single Republican supporter and hence failed to reach the 60-vote mark needed to bring it to a floor vote. Thus, it died with 57 votes in favor and 41 against.

But don’t let the first paragraphs fool you. The bill isn’t simply a spending disclosure reform; the DISCLOSE Act also would bar “electioneering communications” by corporations that have government contracts worth more than $10 million, received TARP funds or are controlled by foreign entities. So it’s not simply about disclosure; it’s also about suppressing free speech.

You also would not know that while proponents frame the bill as a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 Citizens United ruling, which lifted restrictions on independent political advertising by labor and corporations, the House version of the bill imposed restrictions on the above corporations — with no parallel restrictions on labor.

On the disclosure front, Schumer made a nod toward fairness. Unlike the House bill, Schumer’s measure would require that union heads, like CEOs, disclose contributions to political ads or mailers. Hence his claim that the bill promotes transparency. Quoth Schumer, “All we’re saying is that if you attack us, put your name on the ad.”

Facing the same spotlight that Schumer would shine on corporations, the AFL-CIO now “reluctantly” opposes the bill.

Other special interests fared better. Both the House and Senate bills exempted powerful special-interest groups, including the National Rifle Association and Sierra Club, from their disclosure rules.

Perhaps the most naked provision in the bills was language that would have made the DISCLOSE Act federal law within 30 days of President Obama’s promised signature. Clearly, the Dems were trying to skew the rules before the November elections.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, hit it when she said, “We have not had hearings, no vetting, no attempt, I think, to bring people together to work on an issue that responds to the Supreme Court’s decision.”

The Democrats tried to sneak this so-called reform onto the books like a midnight pay raise.

Debra J. Saunders’s Biography

Washington (CNSNews.com) – More than 30 pro-life organizations are calling on senators to investigate Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s record with regards to partial-birth abortion while serving as a Clinton administration attorney.
 
The Senate Judiciary Committee already sent Kagan’s nomination to the full Senate for a vote, which is expected next week. President Barack Obama nominated Kagan, the U.S. solicitor general, to be an associate justice on the high court in May.
 
“The undersigned organizations are writing today to express our strong opposition to the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court,” the letter sent to all 100 senators on Wednesday said.
 
“We also join Americans United for Life Action in their call for an investigation into the discrepancies between Kagan’s testimony before Congress and written documentation of her undue influence on medical organizations while advising President William J. Clinton on partial-birth abortion,” the letter added.
 
Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life Action, first called for a probe.
 
Pro-life organizations that backed her up included the Family Research Council, Human Life International, Liberty Counsel, March for Life Education and Defense Fund, Priests for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, Students for Life and the Traditional Values Coalition. Numerous state organizations also signed on.
 
Kagan served as associate White House counsel from 1995 to 1996 and as deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy and deputy director of the Domestic Policy Council (DPC) from 1997 to 1999.
 
As CNSNews.com reported last month, in 1996 she lobbied the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to oppose a ban on partial birth abortions. This came after she learned that a select committee of ACOG determined, “in the vast majority of cases, selection of the partial-birth procedure is not necessary to avert serious adverse consequences to a woman’s health.”
 
Memos and other documents pertaining to Kagan’s White House work were released by the Clinton Presidential Library.
 
In a Dec. 14, 1996 memo, Kagan stated it would be a “disaster” if ACOG stated this.
 
The Kagan memo said. “1. Todd Stern just discovered that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is thinking about issuing a statement (attached) that includes the following sentence: ‘[A] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure … would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.’ This, of course, would be disaster – not the less so (in fact the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation. It is unclear whether ACOG will issue the statement; even if it does not, there is obviously a chance that the draft will become public. (The AMA last week decided to continue to take no position on the partial-birth issue.)”

She then drafted an amendment to ACOG’s statement, which stated that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”
 
On Jan. 12, 1997, ACOG publicly released its statement on partial birth abortion, medically termed intact dilatation and extraction abortion. It included a passage that tracked – verbatim – the “suggested option” from the handwritten notes found in the Kagan file released by the Clinton Library.
 
The final ACOG statement included the words: “An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman…” These words were not in the previous draft.
 
Advising President Clinton in an April 10, 1997 memo, Kagan said the ACOG statement was the “most reliable.”
 
“President Clinton and numerous courts (including the United States Supreme Court) ultimately relied on the ACOG statement to justify opposing the Partial Birth Abortion Act,” the letter from pro-life groups said.
 
In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Stenberg v. Carhart, which declared Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion unconstitutional.
 
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion stating, “The District Court also noted that a select panel of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concluded that D&X ‘may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.’”
 
Blocking confirmation seems unlikely as Democrats, who favor Kagan, have a 59-41 majority in the Senate and some Republicans are expected to vote for her. Asked Tuesday if the White House expects a confirmation vote next week, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, “The confirmation that the vote will happen and that we’ll have a new Supreme Court justice, yes.”
 
During her confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said, “Well, I’ll tell you this bothers me a lot, because I know that there were plenty of doctors at ACOG that did not believe that partial birth abortion was an essential procedure, and who believe that it was really a brutal procedure and it was a custom conflict there, and as you know, many in Congress came to the conclusion that it was a brutal procedure too and that it was really unjustified.
 
“That bothers me that you intervened in that particular area in that way. And that’s all I’ll say about it, but I just want you to be aware that that bothered me,” Hatch added.
 
Kagan responded, “Sen. Hatch there was no way in which I would have or could have intervened with ACOG, which is a respected body of physicians, to get it to change its medical views on the question. The only question that we were talking about was whether this statement that they were going to issue accurately reflected the views that they had expressed to the president, to the president’s staff, to Congress, and to the American public. I do agree with you, this was an enormously hard issue.” (See Earlier Story)
 
The letter stated, “The statement conflicts with her account of her June 1996 meeting with ACOG.”
 
“These discrepancies in Kagan’s statements cast doubt on her respect for scientific evidence as well as her ability to serve as an unbiased justice on our nation’s highest court,” the letter stated. “We urge you to conduct a thorough investigation before casting your vote on her confirmation.”
 
On July 19, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop sent a letter to the Senate calling for Kagan’s nomination to be rejected based on her actions regarding ACOG and partial-birth abortion. AUL released a report detailing the memos days before Koop’s letter.
 
“A nominee to the highest court in the land must meet our nation’s absolute highest standards of integrity and impartiality,” Yoest said in a statement Wednesday. “With serious outstanding questions clouding Ms. Kagan’s nomination, we are leading a united effort to ask that the Senate investigate discrepancies between her Senate testimony and the written record on partial-birth abortion before proceeding to a floor vote.”

(CNSNews.com) – It seems like a nice gesture – an e-mail message from a loving wife, urging thousands of people to join her in wishing her husband a happy 49th birthday by signing an electronic birthday card.
 
But in Washington, D.C., nothing is that simple.

The wife, in this case, is First lLdy Michelle Obama, and the message is being sent by the Democratic Party to people on its list nationwide.  And underlying the birthday wishes, the message is political: The electronic card to Barack Obama also is a Democratic Party fundraiser.
 
“Every year, our family tries to come up with a fun way to wish Barack a happy birthday,” the message from Michelle Obama says. “And this August 4th, when he turns 49, I have something new in mind.”
 
Her message, which went out Tuesday, is being sent out by Democrats.org, the online presence of the Democratic National Committee.
 
The first lady, meanwhile, acknowledged that her husband has been “busy.”
 
“This has been a big — and hectic — year for him,” she wrote. “After signing the Affordable Care Act and Wall Street reform into law — and completing his first year as president — I think it’s safe to say we will remember it for a long time.
 
“And I know full well how much he credits this movement, and the work of supporters like you, for the change that we’ve accomplished,” reads the message.
 
“So I’m putting together a birthday card that I would like you to sign,” it says. “Together with supporters — and me, Malia, Sasha, and Bo — we’ll wish him a happy birthday and let him know that we’re ready to take on the year ahead alongside him.”
 
Clicking on the link — “Will you wish Barack a happy birthday with me?” – sends you to “MyBarackObama.com,” the Organizing for America Web site, which describes itself as “a project of the Democratic National Committee.”
 
But typing in your name, address and E-mail, and hitting “Sign the Card”  takes you directly to another page — a donation page, which states:
 
“Thank you for standing alongside us, with the President. Now can you make a donation to help us take on the year ahead?” — and a disclaimer that funds would not go to political candidates.