At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey writes: On June 9, Crown Publishers will release a new book, End of Discussion: How the Left’s Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun), written by our own Guy Benson and Mary Katharine Ham. “They want to shut you up,” Guy and MK write, “but don’t let this be the End of Discussion.” The book encourages all Americans who value the open exchange of ideas to fight back against this strategic effort to make America less free, less feisty, and less fun.
In an exclusive to Hot Air and Townhall readers, we are publishing the first chapter of End of Discussion, “Head Explosions.” At the same time, readers can sign up for the chance to win a free copy of the book!
— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) May 26, 2015
BONUS: You know who else has a book about the Left’s War on free speech? Kirsten Powers.
What’s up with Obama administration’s lack of intel? Continual surprise by global events, discovering things by watching the news?Posted: June 17, 2014
Editor’s note: I watched Mary Katherine Ham‘s appearance on “The O’Reilly Factor” and was disheartened to see Ham interrupted mid-sentence, “listen, listen”, O’Reilly repeated. Once he had the floor, it was only to return to flogging the same rhetorical question, to guests M.K. Ham and Juan Williams, punching the theme of that segment of the show (hammering Ham in the process) Essentially: “What’s up with Obama administration’s lack of intel? Continual surprise by global events, discovering things by watching the news?” A good question with no reliable answer.
I’d like to have heard M.K. Ham’s commentary, she’d just hit her stride when she was cut off. Perhaps some of Ham’s unsaid remarks ends up in this article, “9 Quotes from Obama’s 2011 ‘Remarks on the End of the War in Iraq’ That Show His Total Lack of Foresight” written after the broadcast. Read the whole thing here.
I had occasion to rewatch this speech today before I went on “The O’Reilly Factor.” Given Dec. 14, 2011 at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, its contents are gut-wrenching.
1. This one, in which Obama concedes that you’d take post-surge 2011 Iraq over pretty much any other major country in the Middle East post Arab Spring and Obama presidency
“It’s harder to end a war than begin one. Indeed, everything that American troops have done in Iraq -– all the fighting and all the dying, the bleeding and the building, and the training and the partnering -– all of it has led to this moment of success. Now, Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We’re building a new partnership between our nations.”
2. This one where Obama describes just how much we’ve lost.
“This is an extraordinary achievement, nearly nine years in the making.”
3. Then, he enumerated our victories, which our withdrawal swiftly turned into losses, one by one, starting with the insurgency.
“We remember the grind of the insurgency -– the roadside bombs, the sniper fire, the suicide attacks. From the ‘triangle of death’ to the fight for Ramadi; from Mosul in the north to Basra in the south -– your will proved stronger than the terror of those who tried to break it.” Read the rest of this entry »
Hot Air’s Mary Katharine Ham provides this inspired examination of the administration’s step-by-step playbook for avoiding questions and blame on scandals. See the whole thing here, it includes a YouTube video of ABC’s Jon Karl on the receiving end of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s indignation…
Step 1: “We’re just finding out about this ourselves and are as appalled as anyone over these allegations. We vow to get to the bottom of this and, if true, right this wrong swiftly and thoroughly. Nothing less than the honor of our nation and our people is at stake, and that will not come to harm on my watch.”
Step 2: “We are investigating ourselves right now to make sure we get to the bottom of this. It’s important that we get all the facts from ourselves, and in the meantime it would be inappropriate for ourselves to answer questions about the investigation we’re conducting on ourselves.”
Step 3: “Didn’t I just tell you we started an investigation of ourselves? Also, we noted our outrage. I cannot possibly make any statements about the very obvious wrongdoing that occurred on our watch until the investigation we’re conducting of ourselves is completed, printed on paper and in my hands. Anything else would jeopardize the integrity of our investigation of ourselves. Is that what you want?”
Step 4: “Only crazy wingers even ask questions about stuff like this. Are you a crazy winger? Do you think it’s a grand conspiracy in which the President of the United States conspired to personally hurt veterans? Do you think that’s an appropriate question to ask?”
Step 5: Wait six months, refer to formerly outrageous scandal as phony.
Step 6: Slow walk investigation and especially the release of requested and possibly incriminating documents for a year or more.
Step 7: “Oh, that ‘scandal’? Dude, that was a year ago. Who’s still talking about that?”
A suspected arms dealer, an allegedly crooked mayor dealing in White House access, and a cowardly attorney general walk into a bar. Even if it’s the bar right next door to The Washington Post, would they get any coverage? If they’re Democrats, the answer is probably no.
You know the old story. A national media once obsessed with the “local crime story” of the Trayvon Martin case is suddenly reticent about abortion doctor and convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell, because it was a “local crime story,” as The Washington Post health reporter Sarah Kliff called it. A national media once obsessed with state Sen. Wendy Davis of Texas is suddenly reticent about a state senator in California allegedly selling rocket launchers to foreign terrorists because they don’t do state senator stories, according to a CNN Twitter account. Read the rest of this entry »
[VIDEO] Mary Katharine Ham Accepts 2014 Pundit Planet Media Blogger of the Year Award (also Wins CPAC Award)Posted: March 7, 2014
(contgrats MKH!) Hot Air
Josh Feldman writes: Despite the protestations of Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham, O’Reilly was beyond outraged that such a prominent paper would promote public intoxication, though he was rather insistent that no one could make a fair comparison between a pot editor and someone reviewing alcohol.
O’Reilly said that no paper would ever, ever hire a “booze editor.” Williams pointed out the obvious: that wine critics exists. And there are plenty of newspapers that have wine critics. But O’Reilly shot back that unlike the pot editor, wine critics aren’t dealing with “an intoxication deal.”