On August 28, CNN Newsroom anchor Rick Sanchez shared disturbing information with his viewers:

A CNN source with very close to the U.S. Secret Service confirmed to me today that threats on the life of the president of the United States have now risen by as much as 400 percent since his inauguration, 400 percent death threats against Barack Obama -- quote -- "in this environment" go far beyond anything the Secret Service has seen with any other president.

This "confirmed" information, of course, was eagerly picked up by sites like Daily Kos and Racism Review.

On September 16, Sanchez started backing off from his earlier statement in this exchange with the always objective CNN political analyst Roland Martin:

ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think he (former President Jimmy Carter) is obviously painting a broad brush, but what he's realizing is that you do have elements of race when you talk about the level of criticism, when you talk about the viciousness, if you will, in some of the things that are being said, when you look at comments being made at rallies, when you look at posters, things along those lines, the stuff you're seeing online, all kind of different responses, when you see the kind of hateful language being targeted to the first lady.

You got Tammy Bruce calling her trash. You got people who say he hates white people and white culture. And, so, not only that -- reports show a 400 percent increase in terms of threats against this president. Now, explain to me what's the difference between him...

SANCHEZ: By the way, by the way, by the way, just let me -- just as a caveat, I checked on that, and the Secret Service has told me that that figure has been exaggerated. We did a reporting. But, nonetheless...

MARTIN: So, what's the number?

SANCHEZ: But it does appear to be up.

MARTIN: Absolutely.

OK, so according to Sanchez, threats against Obama are up.  Maybe not 400 percent, but up.  Until now.

On today's CNN Newsroom, Sanchez was forced to change his story once more, and tried to wash his hands of any role he played in disseminating bogus information.  He began with a video clip of Washington, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton today questioning the head of the Secret Service, Mark Sullivan.

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON (D), WASHINGTON, D.C. DELEGATE: It is well known and in the press over and over again that this president has received far more death threats than any president in the history of the United States, an alarming number of death threats.

I'm not going to ask you for the details on that. But here we had the first state dinner, not of just any old president, but of the first African-American president. Was there any attempt to increase security given all you know, which is much more than we know, about threats to this president of the United States?

SULLIVAN: Ma'am, no matter who the president is...

NORTON: I'm asking about this president. And my question is very specific. Given death threats to this president, was there any attempt to increase the security at this event, yes or no?

SULLIVAN: Ma'am, I can't talk about that.

I would be more -- number one, I will address the threats. I have heard a number out there that the threat is up by 400 percent. I'm not sure where that number...

NORTON: Is it up at all? We're not asking for the threat number.

SULLIVAN: Well, I would -- I think it can answer you, ma'am. It isn't at 400 percent. And I'm not sure where that number came from, but I can...

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We can't hear, gentlemen.

NORTON: Please don't assign to me a number in my question. I just asked you if the threats were up. Are the threats up or not, Mr. Sullivan?

SULLIVAN: They are not. The threats right now in the inappropriate interest that we're seeing is the same level as it has been for the previous two presidents at this point.

NORTON: This is very comforting news.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Comforting, indeed. Did you hear that? That was the head of the U.S. Secret Service answering a question that we have been asking for months on this newscast. Are assassination threats against the president of the United States up 400 percent?

We have heard that number tossed around again and again. We have seen it written, we have asked the Secret Service. And they would not give us a direct answer as well. Today, they did.

The answer is no. Threats against this president are about the same, you heard, as they were for two immediate predecessors of this president. And, as you heard Delegate Norton say, that is comforting news.

Sanchez has indeed "heard that number tossed around again and again."  And he's one who tossed it, although he doesn't even now admit it.  He's just patiently been waiting for a direct answer, don't you know?

The theme that Barack Obama is in greater danger than other presidents because of American racism is a popular one throughout the mainstream media. Don't people like Rick Sanchez just hate it when facts get in the way?

In today's Chicago Sun-Times, columnist Mary Mitchell elevates talk show host Oprah Winfrey to a new level:

You might not think you're going to miss Oprah, but you are. There are stories that only Oprah can do, and there are things that only Oprah and God can make happen.

 

Mitchell's adulation for Oprah is shared by many in the mainstream media.  From early shows devoted to male-bashing through attacks on free enterprise and limited government to her campaigning for Barack Obama's election, Winfrey has burnished her liberal credentials.

In bracketing Oprah with God, however, I wonder why Mitchell didn't include Obama, as in "There are things that only Oprah and God and the Federal government under the unparalleled leadership of Barack Hussein Obama can make happen."

In January, Mitchell wrote:

Hopes for the Obama administration are high, not only when it comes to fixing the economy and stemming the job losses that have dampened the spirits of so many Americans.

 

Who knew it would take almost a year to fix the unemployment problem with the magic wand of a "jobs summit"?  Months of serial failures may finally have some of even The One's most ardent worshipers questioning his magnificence. 

Still, there are bright, shining rays of hope.  Oprah and God.  It's lonely at the top.  

Kansas City Star editorial page columnist Barb Shelly is miffed.  In today's "The (mis)labeling of Kathleen Sebelius," she explains why:

In other words, this image that's being projected of Sebelius as some radical defender of the abortion industry is very much overstated. She's a pragmatic executive and it's ludicrous that her confirmation process has become so politicized.

Sebelius is, of course, Barack Obama's health secretary nominee.  In that capacity, she'll wield considerable influence over governmental policies concerning abortion.  Shelly argues:

I'll say this again: Sebelius is a moderate governor in a state that happens to be home to one of the few doctors willing to perform late-term abortions. Just like many other Kansans, that doctor, George Tiller, has exercised his constitutional right to contribute to political campaigns. Some of his money went to Sebelius.

Shelly doesn't detail how much of Tiller's money went to Sebelius.  Earlier this month, the Associated Press reported that the nominee "got nearly three times as much political money" from the abortionist than she had reported to the Senate Finance Committee.

And how "moderate" is Sebelius on abortion?  Her own archbishop requested she not receive Holy Communion.  He explained why:

For more than 25 years, Gov. Sebelius has advocated and supported legalized abortion. She has opposed such modest protections as parental notification for minors, waiting periods, informed consent and improved regulation of abortion clinics.

Author George Weigel has written in the respected journal First Things that ". . .Kathleen Sebelius is an abortion radical by any reasonable definition of the term. . ."

Regardless of where one stands on abortion, there's no denying that Sebelius is among its most ardent defenders.  Abortionist Tiller understands this.  So does Barack Obama.  Yet columnist Shelly of the Kansas City Star doesn't.  Or perhaps she's just not willing to admit it.

Today on CNN Newsroom, anchor Rick Sanchez attacked Senator James Inhofe's (R-OK) assertion that Barack Obama is disarming America.  Joining Sanchez was Jim Arkedis of the Progressive Policy Institute.  Sanchez wanted viewers to believe the PPI is a nonpartisan think tank.  He ran a video of Inhofe denouncing Obama's proposals followed with:

SANCHEZ: Cutting and gutting the military budget.

Joining us now is Jim Arkedis.

He's the director of the National Security Project of the Progressive Policy Institute.

You guys check on these things...

JIM ARKEDIS, PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE: We do.

SANCHEZ: ...to make sure the figures are right. So because you're down now in the middle, I'm going to ask you the question -- is Senator James Inhofe correct to say that President Obama is "gutting the U.S. military budget?"

In fact, he goes on to say disarming America.

ARKEDIS: Obviously, the senator's words are pretty ridiculous. President Obama has proposed an increase, as the numbers you just rattled off suggested. And there's absolutely no hint any time in the future that America's military budget is going to be gutted or we're going to be incapable of fighting the wars that -- that we are in now and we will look to in the future -- or have to in the future.

SANCHEZ: And just to be clear, you're -- you're not a lefty, right?

You're not coming at this from oh, I'm a defender of Barack Obama or the Democrats' proposals here, right?

ARKEDIS: Well...

SANCHEZ: Your organization is?

ARKEDIS: We are the Progressive Policy Institute. So I'll let the -- the title speak for itself. But we are a centrist progressive organization.

The Progressive Policy Institute is clearly partisan and makes no effort to hide it.  The organization's Web site notes:

Called "Bill Clinton's idea mill," PPI's policy analysis and proposals were the source for many of the "New Democrat" innovations that figured prominently in national politics over the past two decades. The Institute also has been integral to the spread of "Third Way" thinking to center-left parties in Europe and elsewhere.

It also discloses:

PPI's mission is to define and promote a new progressive politics for America in the 21st century.

For those not paying any more attention to political discussion than Rick Sanchez, "progressive" is the term preferred by liberals who for obvious reasons don't wish to be identified as liberals.

PPI states it is "a project of the Third Way Foundation Inc."  The foundation's chairman is Al From, founder and CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council.

To his credit, Arkedis didn't deny defending Democratic proposals.  When asked about that, he began with "Well..." Sanchez cut in, not wishing to cloud his own claim that PPI is "in the middle."

It's down the middle about as much as you usually are, Rick.  In the middle of left field.

CNN’s Roland Martin is hosting Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull for the next eight weeks.  On Monday’s program, Martin clearly demonstrated he’s going to have trouble living up to the program’s title.

The subject was the Notre Dame-Barack Obama controversy.  Martin argued with the Catholic League’s William Donohue that inviting the adamantly pro-abortion Obama to the school and awarding him an honorary degree is no different from Notre Dame’s 2001 treatment of former President George W. Bush, who supports capital punishment:

And one of the critical issues when it came to Bush speaking in 2001, death penalty. I have heard Pope Benedict, as well as Pope John Paul II talk about the death penalty, and they rank it just right up there with abortion.

Minutes later, Martin said:

Well, again, though, I like how you talk about the abortion piece. But, again, Catholics are just as vigilant when it comes to the death penalty.

And so all I'm saying is, if it's good for one, it should be good for the other.

Are abortion and capital punishment morally equivalent in the eyes of the Catholic Church?  Paragraph 2267 of the Church’s Catechism begins:

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

Paragraph 2271 discusses abortion and says in pertinent part:

Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law. . .

Martin claims he’s “heard Pope Benedict, as well as Pope John Paul II talk about the death penalty, and they rank it just right up there with abortion.”

Not according to Pope Benedict XVI.  As Cardinal Ratzinger, he wrote:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment. . ., he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities. . . to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible. . .  to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about. . . applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

In defending Notre Dame’s invitation and awarding of an honorary degree to Obama, Roland Martin distorted the Church’s teachings.
Martin started his program by saying:

But, look, I'm not going to bother with the silly notion of who's a liberal or a conservative on this show. I voted for Obama and also for George H.W. Bush, Republicans and Democrats. On some issues, I might be called a liberal, on others, a conservative.

I judge people based on the issues and refuse to be pigeonholed and wedded to the ridiculous notion of ideology. Our goal on this show is very simple. That is to speak the truth to the power, no matter the party or the person.

Wow, he voted for the first President Bush.  But that was over 20 years ago.  If Roland is, as he claims, conservative on some issues, he’s gone out of his way not to show it.

My experience is that people who eschew what they disdainfully call political labels are almost always liberals.  Conservatives don’t have a problem admitting their perspective.  For them, ideology is hardly “a ridiculous notion.”

Roland Martin’s hosting of the program may well require amending the show’s title.   How does All Bias, All Bull sound?   

The Washington Post's 44 blog today carries the item "Obama Town Hall Questioners Were Campaign Backers."  Authored by Garance Franke-Ruta, the article notes:

But while the online question portion of the White House town hall was open to any member of the public with an Internet connection, the five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama's campaign in 2008.

After that come details of the connections between the questioners and His Messiahship.  

The Post being the Post, of course, the item had to begin with a slap at the previous president (Obama "is taking a page from the Bush playbook"), but it's still refreshing to see part of the mainstream media acknowledge some of Obama's shadier tactics.

The question, then, is whether many other news outlets will pick up on the story.  I'm not holding my breath.

On today's American Morning, CNN correspondent Jim Acosta covered the weekend canvass sponsored by the Democratic Party's Organizing for America.  Volunteers collected signatures of support for Barack Obama and his agenda.  Acosta's voice over, interspersed with statements from others, began:

Don't tell them the race is over. Once volunteers for the Obama campaign...a vast grassroots network of supporters is back on the trail.  Reactivated. This time, to sell the president's agenda.  Michael Lafemina was one of hundreds of volunteers who went door-to-door from New York...to California on behalf of something called Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic Party run by remnants of the Obama campaign.

So in a matter of seconds, Acosta's supposed vast grassroots network was reduced to only hundreds of people.  Initial reports in other media suggest the response to Obama's personal call to arms was less than overwhelming.

According to the Christian Science Monitor:

The group (Organizing for America) claims that there were more than 1,200 canvassing groups out nationwide this weekend. But many places saw fewer volunteers than expected.

The Washington Post reported on North Carolina activity:

Randall Stagner staged an event Saturday in his home in Raleigh, N.C. For the former campaign volunteer, it started with a call from Organizing for America. He tapped into the 2008 Obama Web site and sent an e-mail in hopes of rustling up some interest.

He received 300 replies.

"I was overwhelmed. There was a lot of pent-up desire to go and do things," said Stagner, 49, a retired Army special operations colonel. He identified 10 people across the state willing to organize a canvass. In all, he expects 30 events.

All that pent-up desire translated to fewer than a dozen folks willing to organize?

The Salt Lake Tribune noted that canvassers there included a 14- and 15-year old girl:

After 90 minutes, Flanigan and Nelson had collected only 15 signatures. Most people did not answer their doors.

"They could very well have phobias about people with clip boards," Nelson quipped.

Or maybe they didn't have the inclination to explain to high school kids why they're not tripping over themselves supporting The One.

A piece in The Nation described efforts in Ft. Green, Brooklyn.  Author Ari Berman writes:

There are few places in the country where Obama's support is stronger than in Ft. Greene--a vibrant, multi-ethnic, racially and socio-economically mixed neighborhood with tree-lined streets, old brownstones and a spacious park in the middle. On a sunny afternoon, about two dozen OFA volunteers gathered on the edge of the park, across from a farmer's market selling Apple Cider and fresh pies.

Working together, three of the volunteers managed to garner 26 signatures in an hour.  This, in true blue Obama Country.

Rather than collecting signatures, Obamatons should have gone door-to-door apologizing for their complicity in putting Barry in the White House, an assignment so obviously and painfully above his pay grade.

All of this isn't to deny that Obama does have a vast network cheering him on.  He does.  It's called CNN.

This week CNN's Political Ticker reported "Congresswoman takes post in State Department."  The article begins:

California congresswoman Ellen Tauscher is vacating her Bay Area seat to serve under Hillary Clinton at the State Department.

Tauscher, a moderate Democrat and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a message to her constituents that Clinton had asked her to serve as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

Let's briefly examine the congressional voting record of the "moderate Democrat" Ellen Tauscher.  According to interest group evaluations compiled by Project Vote Smart, for 2007 the congresswoman received a zero from the American Conservative Union and the National Right to Life Committee, an F from the National Taxpayers Union, an F- from Gun Owners of America, and a 4 from Citizens Against Government Waste.  

In contrast, she was awarded 100 percent ratings by NARAL Pro-Choice America, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Education Association, and the National Organization for Women.  Americans for Democratic Action assigned her a 95 and the AFL-CIO accorded her a 96.

CNN considers such a voting record to be one of a moderate Democrat.  Apparently, over at the most trusted name in news, liberals are as rare as a Barack Obama misstep.