Nestled in the hills of Laguna Beach, CA overlooking the Orange County coastline, a slight hint of salt in the breeze as Gen Y TV spoke with documentary filmmaker and political commentator, Stephen K. Bannon. With his latest film, “The Undefeated,” about to debut in 80 million homes through major cable and satellite companies, Bannon’s eagerness to talk to youthful viewers pushed his personal victory aside. For the next hour, I spoke with this truly humble gentleman about the existing opportunities and challenges that face my generation.

A graduate of Harvard Business School, a Surface Warfare Officer for the US Navy, and a former investment banker for Goldman Sachs, Bannon is a remarkable example of how filmmaking can come at any age and point in one’s life. Technology has enabled anyone with a digital camera to creatively express opinions as entertainment, and as a result, Bannon has written and directed four documentary films in less than two years. With our country’s finances spiraling out of control, Bannon has particularly shed light on issues that are currently affecting America’s wellbeing. He emphasized the importance of storytelling and the necessity for being passionate about the topic you are conveying. He further explained the amount of time and effort that must be committed to a project, and said, “be prepared to spend a year of your life” hashing out the story.

Moving into the specifics of his work, I asked why he chose to dedicate a film to Sarah Palin, to which he replied, because “her story has never been told.” He immediately followed with, “she is an incredibly accomplished executive who took on a corrupt and compromised political class virtually single-handed.”

The many misconceptions of Palin personified by the mainstream media opened Bannon’s film. He used this approach to gain an emotional reaction from the audience and demonstrate the influence pop culture has on the younger generation. But what started out as a conversation about independent filmmaking quickly turned to the state of the economy and the daunting problems that are soon to be inherited by those 18-35 years-old.

(more…)

The Portuguese language has a word, saudade, which  which describes “a deep emotional state of nostalgic longing for something or someone …  A stronger form of saudade may be felt towards people and things whose whereabouts are unknown, such as a lost lover, or a family member who has gone missing.”

Right now, Harvard’s Nieman Foundation for Journalism has a deep feeling of sausade for mainstream media coverage of the anti-war movement.  Their John Hanrahan reports that, although the anti-war movement is alive and well in the United States, indeed even reinvigorated by America’s involvement in Libya, they just can’t get any respect from the MSM.  Mr. Hanranhan lists in painstaking detail numerous recent protests, ranging from the pathetic  – an 84-year-old nun, an 82-year-old Jesuit priest and three other activists over the age of 60 breaking into a U.S. Naval Base near Seattle to “symbolically disarm” Trident II missiles by “putting up banners and scattering blood and sunflower seeds, and hammering symbolically on a road and fences” – to the fairly dramatic – a December 2010 protest against the war in Afghanistan which saw 131 demonstrators arrested outside the White House.  But none of these protests merited any serious media coverage much beyond local newspapers, far-left blogs and mischief-making foreign cable news outfits such as Al-Jazeera and Russia Today.

Flailing around for an explanation for why the media are no longer highlighting anti-war protests, Hanrahan’s analysis is almost self-parodying in its failure to even consider, let alone conclude, that political bias might be involved (I’ve previously blogged at Big Journalism on how the MSM’s coverage of the Obama administration’s wars is strikingly different in tone from how previous conflicts were covered).  The report acknowledges that these days the protests are smaller and less violent than during the Bush presidency (left unstated is the obvious conclusion that most of those demonstrating were primarily motivated less by opposition to war than by hatred of the Republican administration).  But if size and intensity were the main criteria for judging the newsworthiness of protests, how to explain the MSM’s wall-to wall coverage of Cindy Sheehan’s lone crusade against President Bush’s Iraq policy?

(more…)

While many Americans will park in front of their televisions to watch football on Super Bowl Sunday, others will tune in just to see the commercials. Unknown to most Americans, one commercial will be seen only by members of the U.S. military deployed overseas. Sadly, it’s a spot that probably needs to be shown to federal, state and local election officials, too.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has arranged for a public service announcement (below) to air on the Armed Forces Network’s commercial-free broadcast of Super Bowl XLV in Dallas. The objective of the PSA produced in conjunction with the Federal Voting Assistance Program is to remind overseas military of their right to vote.

Why should the FVAP spot be shown to election officials? Because election fraud, electioneering, vote fraud — call itwhat you will — seemed to run rampant during the 2010 election cycle.

Prior to the 2010 general election, several reports surfaced about problems with absentee ballots for military members stationed outside of their states of legal residence:

• BigGovernment.com reported about Illinois soldiers waiting for ballots;

• The Buffalo News reported on ballots being mailed after the federal deadline had passed;

• Pamela Geller reported on multiple cases of military ballots not being counted; and

• Investors Business Daily published an editorial, Denying Our Soldiers the Vote.

The four articles above stand as but a few examples of the voting problems faced by servicemembers deployed to other states and overseas in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

Not surprisingly, the subject — “Allegations of fraud, including illegal voting by felons and a formalized refusal by some states to follow election law regarding ballots for the military, raise the dark possibility of the manipulation of elections.” — finished in sixth place on World Net Daily’s list of most covered-up stories of 2010.

Let your elected officials know you want to ensure members of the military have their votes counted. Send each of them a link to this post!

“I believe that we exposed a wider truth ...”

Back in 2004, Piers Morgan was axed as editor-in-chief of the Daily Mirror, a British tabloid, for publishing photos of British soldiers who appeared to be abusing an Iraqi prisoner. They turned out to be fake.

[...]

Morgan also says he feels “vindicated” and that he has no regrets: “I feel like it was a moral duty … Sometimes you have to make a stand as an editor.”

(more…)

Move over Laura!

I’m really proud of Joan Walsh. She once proclaimed me to be a “total moron” despite never having met me. Her description of George W. Bush’s “moral compass” is a step up; it’s very difficult to detect a trace of bitterness, brought on by an uncomfortable awareness of irrelevancy, that usually peppers her speech. Kudos!

She and Chris Matthews were schooled on all manner of compasses and Iraq by former Bush aide and non-existent black Republican Ron Christie:

The transcript:

(more…)

Paul Krugman has a typically bombastic new column titled The Focus Hocus-Pocus. His thesis:

the notion that the Obama administration erred by not focusing on the economy is hardening into conventional wisdom. But I have no idea what, if anything, people mean when they say that. The whole focus on “focus” is, as I see it, an act of intellectual cowardice — a way to criticize President Obama’s record without explaining what you would have done differently. [Emphasis added]

Using “focus” as a vague way to attack the President…Why does that ring a bell?

Back in 2006 a similar claim was widely repeated in the media, i.e. the Iraq war had caused us to lose focus on the important war in Afghanistan. For instance, this NY Times editorial from August 2006 concludes:

Americans are coming to see the war in Iraq as something apart from the war against 9/11-style terrorism — and a distraction from it. The war in Afghanistan has always been an essential part of that larger struggle. That makes it a war that America simply cannot afford to lose.

(more…)

With the release last week of another cache of classified documents via Wikileaks, we’ve learned a few things about the war in Iraq. One of the highlights, if it can be called that, is just how heavily involved Iran was in a proxy war against the US forces in Iraq. The NY Times covered it in a front page story Saturday:

During the administration of President George W. Bush, critics charged that the White House had exaggerated Iran’s role to deflect criticism of its handling of the war and build support for a tough policy toward Iran, including the possibility of military action.

But the field reports disclosed by WikiLeaks, which were never intended to be made public, underscore the seriousness with which Iran’s role has been seen by the American military…

Citing the testimony of detainees, a captured militant’s diary and numerous uncovered weapons caches, among other intelligence, the field reports recount Iran’s role in providing Iraqi militia fighters with rockets, magnetic bombs that can be attached to the underside of cars, “explosively formed penetrators,” or E.F.P.’s, which are the most lethal type of roadside bomb in Iraq, and other weapons. Those include powerful .50-caliber rifles and the Misagh-1, an Iranian replica of a portable Chinese surface-to-air missile, which, according to the reports, was fired at American helicopters and downed one in east Baghdad in July 2007.

In short, the new leak is replete with evidence of Iran’s role – but notice the first sentence above. It says that “critics charged that the White House had exaggerated Iran’s role.” Who were these critics, the ones who got it so wrong? They were legion, but some of the most high profile critics could be found in the media’s ranks, including at the editorial board of the NY Times. (more…)

Chicago (AP) – Appearing on The Oprah Winfrey Show yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former president Bill Clinton spoke publicly for the first time about the 2008 primary campaign, her political ambitions, and their personal relationship.

Representatives for the First Couple insisted the joint appearance had absolutely nothing to do with President Obama’s sagging political fortunes and was just a “total coincidence.”

The show began with Bill and Hillary air-kissing and catching up since they were last together at daughter Chelsea’s wedding in July.

Winfrey began the interview by asking Mrs. Clinton to assess her run for the 2008 presidential nomination.  “I’m not one to second-guess, “Mrs. Clinton said,” but I wish we had played the race card early in the game.”

Winfrey: “But . . . .”

No, not me,” said Mrs. Clinton.  “Bill.  The moment Obama emerged, I should have insisted that our party have a national discussion on who was the more authentic black leader—an inexperienced senator with roots in Indonesia or my husband and mentor, the First Black President.”

Winfrey:  “So, you didn’t go for it because you assumed you had the African-American vote locked up?”

Mrs. Clinton:  “Of course.  Jesse Jackson had agreed to endorse me and become Secretary of Reparations in my Cabinet.  You, Oprah, promised your support if I pushed Congress to make Kenya our 51 state.”

Winfrey:  “Oh.  I forgot about that.” (more…)

President Bush on Irish television a few years back:

(more…)

WikiLeaks is poised to release another 15,000 secret military reports, this time about the war in Iraq. A rarely spoken context for the WikiLeaks controversy is the shared hostility of WikiLeaks and leftist Democrats toward U.S. military involvement in the world.  The Make-Believe Media, most notably the New York Times and Associated Press, intentionally or inadvertently, run a smokescreen for this shared interest.

After I wrote an article illustrating the White House’s conflicting responses to WikiLeaks’ release of 76,000+ secret military Afghanistan war reports, I received an unsolicited email from someone who called herself “Sarah,” and who claimed to work for The Sunshine Press, publisher for WikiLeaks.  Her return email address checked out, but I have since received no response from her to my further emails. (There is a Sarah Tisdall listed on the WikiLeaks web page.)

“Sarah” sent me a statement, with corroborating media sources, that belies the White House line that it had no realistic opportunity to vet the documents, and brands New York Times’ reporter and White House WikiLeaks liaison Eric Schmitt as a sneaky double dealing rat fink.

WikiLeaks have consistently asserted that they offered White House officials the opportunity to review the Afghan War Diary documents to help ensure that no innocent informers were named, despite White House claims that they had no contact from the publishers…. WikiLeaks received no response.

(more…)

You know the tide is turning against the Emperor Hussein when his state-controlled media subjects have the impertinence to pull this little stunt:

OBAMA: “Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended.”

THE FACTS: Peril remains for the tens of thousands of U.S. troops still in Iraq, who are likely if not certain to engage violent foes. Counterterrorism is chief among their continuing missions, pitting them against a lethal enemy. Several thousand special operations forces, including Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs, will continue to hunt and attempt to kill al-Qaida and other terrorist fighters—working closely with Iraqi forces. Obama said, “Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission,” while stopping short of a full accounting of the hazards ahead for U.S. troops.

But wait!  There’s more: (more…)

The venom bubbling below the visible anger of MSNBC’s three nightly hosts —  Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow — was unmistakable after President Obama’s speech, in which he praised former President Bush and the brave troops who gave their all to get us to this point.

For those like Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow, President Obama’s admission is a defeat for their network, which spent the last seven years of Operation Iraqi Freedom seeking to undermine the mission there through hearsay, spin, lies and general misinformation. Olbermann and Maddow, who have basically built their careers by fanning the flames of the public discontent, were visibly shaken; they had once proudly professed that Iraq was a lost effort from the start, yet through it all the fine men and women of the military, some giving life and limbs, were able to secure victory and thus spell the leftists’ defeat.

The venom rest in the fact that President Obama, a President many of them feel they help get elected, would praise the former President Bush – whom Olbermann and Maddow detest to his core — would receive public praise from one of their own for standing behind those troops that lead the surge efforts in Iraq. (more…)

According to his August 30 “Obama Needs to Relearn Politicking” column, E.J. Dionne thinks all Obama needs to acquire the legendary cult status of an FDR or a Ronald Reagan is to get in touch with his inner salesman.  In a refreshing (and rare) moment of liberal candor, Dionne concedes the President’s failure to sell his vision to the American people:

Obama and his party are also in a hole because the president has chosen not to engage the nation in an extended dialogue about what holds all his achievements together, or why his attitude toward government makes more sense than the scattershot conservative attacks on everything Washington might do to improve the nation’s lot.

Leaving aside the appropriateness of Dionne’s “scattershot” qualifier (some might argue those conservative attacks display, on the contrary, pinpoint accuracy), Dionne faults Obama not for what he has accomplished but merely for his inability to “to persuade free citizens of the merits of a set of ideas, policies and decisions [to] put what they are doing in a compelling context.” Seems like an odd complaint to make about a man purported by his supporters to be a gifted orator, and who never seems to shut up.

Regardless, Dionne seems to hunger for some sort of Apple Store for Obama’s programs—a friendly place where, now that we own Obamacare (and its stealth take-over of the student loan program), Cash for Clunkers, GM, etc., we could have all these new-fangled Statist gizmos explained to us by an all-knowing, confidence-inspiring political geek squad.

Unfortunately for us, the Obama administration’s programs were not voluntarily purchased the way an iPhone or iPad is. They were thrust upon us by unilateral Congressional fiat. Case in point, Obamacare, which was foisted upon an unwilling electorate, a majority of which would love to see it repealed. Furthermore, unlike those nifty Steve Jobs gadgets, Obamacare is the opposite of sleek—a clumsy, massive, hydra-headed piece of legislation that an army of Apple support staff couldn’t explain in a year of daily classes. (more…)

Obama’s unforced-error endorsement of the mosque at Ground Zero — he did it because he wanted to — may well turn out to be the single action that doomed his presidency, as Americans cast off the intellectual shackles of political correctness and finally began to see the Punahou Kid for who and what he really is.

As a filmmaker I have always entrusted the lens of a camera to illuminate both the stuff of my imagination and that of this world that otherwise would not be visible. This summer, I was tasked by Move America Forward – the largest pro-troop 501(c)3 in the country, which hosted the recent Troopathon that raised $541,711 for care packages for the troops – to travel to Iraq and capture a glimpse of the situation that may have ended up on the cutting room floors of the mainstream media.

My traveling companions were Matt Sanchez, a Move America Forward volunteer and producer of Fox News’ The Strategy Room; Mary Pearson, photographer; and Debbie Lee, the founder of America’s Mighty Warriors, a Gold Star mom whose son, Marc Allen Lee, was the first Navy-SEAL killed in Iraq during a fight in Ramadi on August 2, 2006.

In his last letter home, Marc had written:

What I do over here is only a small percent of what keeps our country great. I think the truth to our greatness is each other. Purity, morals and kindness, passed down to each generation through example. So to all my family and friends, do me a favor and pass on the kindness, the love, the precious gift of human life to each other so that when your children come into contact with a great conflict that we are now faced with here in Iraq, that they are people of humanity, of pure motives, of compassion.

(more…)

One of the nation’s highest-ranking former spy hunters says that the individuals responsible for the theft and publication of tens of thousands of secret military documents should be prosecuted under federal espionage laws. The Obama Administration is pursuing the disclosure of more than 90,000 secret documents to WikiLeaks.org as merely the mishandling of classified information – a far less serious offense than espionage.

Administration supporters say that the leak was not espionage. But one of the country’s most successful counterintelligence officials argues the contrary – and says that legal precedent proves it.

Kenneth E. deGraffenreid

“We have an excellent precedent in the case of Samuel Loring Morison,” the naval intelligence analyst who compromised top secret U.S. imagery intelligence capabilities, says Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, who as Deputy National Counterintelligence Executive from 2004-2006 was the nation’s second-ranking counterintelligence official. Morison served a two-year sentence on conviction of espionage for having compromised U.S. secrets – not to a foreign intelligence service, but to a British publishing company.

“The Morison case was an espionage case. Morison was charged with espionage because he provided classified information to a foreign power,” deGraffenreid tells BigPeace.com. It doesn’t matter that the foreign power was a private media company housed in one of the most solid and reliable American allies: “Morison stole U.S. secrets and provided them to Jane’s, the British military publisher. It was like taking U.S. defense secrets and laying them out in the street in front of the Russians.”

(more…)