Fox News: All ACORN All The Time

Posted by on October 10, 2008 at 4:38 am. 2 Comments :

In these last few weeks of the 2008 election, it is apparent that John McCain’s campaign has rolled completely off the tracks. His poll numbers are mirroring the collapsing trends of the Dow Jones (a Rupert Murdoch enterprise). Desperation has set in that is represented by his pathetic attempts to tie Barack Obama to a 1960’s radical with whom he’s had little connection. McCain has apparently concluded that the race is over if he does nothing, so if he does something nasty with the potential to backfire on him, he has nothing to lose.

Fox News has seemingly come to the same conclusion and they are aggressively pursuing a strategy they hope will either reinvigorate McCain’s campaign or cast suspicion on Obama’s presumed victory. Their plan is to hype problems reported concerning the voter registration activities of ACORN, a non-profit group that seeks to increase voter participation. But worse, their plan is to foment hostile dissent.

ACORN’s problems are real and they have much for which to answer. However, the allegations of voter fraud trumpeted non-stop by Fox News are a total misrepresentation of the nature of the problems. In fact, it is ACORN that is the victim of fraud, not the election process.

What is happening is that some of the people hired by ACORN to collect voter registrations are returning paperwork that is duplicated or falsified. In some cases they register the same name multiple times or they create registrations for imaginary figures like Mickey Mouse or Colonel Sanders. Since these people are paid per registration form that they turn in (see update below), when they hand over forms that are invalid they are, in effect, ripping off ACORN. That is indeed fraud against ACORN, who claim they are insufficiently funded to catch every instance of this scam.

What it is not is voter fraud. Not a single vote has been cast unlawfully as a result of these activities. Nor is one likely to be. While the dishonest canvassers can make a few extra dollars with this scheme, no one can actually vote who is not entitled to. Certainly nobody will show up at the polls identifying themselves as Mickey Mouse and asking for a ballot. Likewise, anyone for whom multiple registrations were submitted will still only be able to vote once because after the first time, their name is checked off by precinct workers and would not be permitted to cast another vote. So the only parties harmed here are ACORN and the political parties who receive data on registrations that is inaccurate. Since ACORN focuses on low income voters, it is mostly the Democrats who will be hurt by over estimates of new Democratic voters.

In short, there is a difference between voter fraud and voter registration fraud, and this is an example of the latter. Despite the fact that ACORN is the real victim, along with the Democratic Party, Fox News has turned their network into a 24/7 broadcaster of allegations of voter fraud that is not actually occurring. This is a deliberate attempt to try to bail out McCain’s floundering election prospects. The Fox anchors never disclose the facts enumerated above. To the contrary, they repeatedly imply that the purpose of the misbehavior is to boost Obama’s vote tally, although they never explain how that could occur.

In the past couple of days it has been impossible to tune in to Fox News without hearing another of these deceitful reports every quarter hour or more. Everyone at Fox – Brit Hume, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Steve Doocy, Megyn Kelly, etc. – is participating in the charade. It is despicable that this pseudo-news organization can so deliberately misinform their viewers, though that may be what Fox News has always done best. But what’s truly repulsive is that their covert agenda is to lay the groundwork for a disintegration of confidence in the election process.

There is actually good reason to be suspicious of election systems in this country. But not for the reasons for which Fox is obsessed. Electronic voting machines with no paper trail should cause citizens some discomfort. And voter suppression efforts by way of purging eligible voters from voting rolls, or challenging them at the polls is being uncovered everyday. But none of these threats to fair elections are covered by Fox News.

If Fox is successful, and Obama prevails on November 4th, they might well have set in motion a frightening scenario wherein Americans taken in by Fox’s lies are convinced that the election was fixed and invalid. The degree to which they may protest that imaginary outcome could conceivably escalate to violence. We have already seen the seeds of hostility sprouting at Republican rallies for McCain and Palin, with supporters expressing their disapproval with Obama by shouting “terrorist” and “kill him” and other epithets and threats.

Fox News is deliberately fueling this divisiveness, and when they aren’t spewing lies about ACORN, they are clamoring about fabricated, forty year old associations with radicals. We can only hope that the truth about these matters manages to seep through to the glassy-eyed viewers of Fox. They are a sheltered bunch who rarely venture out of the safety of the network devoted to reinforcing what they already believe. But the facts are available and it is crucial that they be disseminated, particularly to the Foxpods who are the most likely to snap.

Update: ACORN has responded to the allegations of voter fraud and have supplied facts that are enlightening and differ somewhat from what I wrote above. In particular, they state that their canvassers are paid by the hour, not by the card, so there is NO incentive for them to falsify cards. (The incentive may lie exclusively with malicious Republicans). They also reveal that they are required to turn in all cards, even those they suspect of irregularities. And when they have done so, they have flagged the problematic cards, but their alerts have often been ignored and they are then accused of further wrongdoing. The full response is worth reading.

Fox News has set up an email box for viewers to report voter fraud: voterfraud@foxnews.com. Since they are so concerned about exposing and resolving this problem, it would be great if they received a torrent of email alerting them to the problems of voter caging, purged voting rolls, voter challenges, voting machine irregularities, poll and ballot access, etc.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Did Sean Hannity Host A Terrorist Leader?

Posted by on October 9, 2008 at 3:36 pm. NO Comments :

During a heated discussion with Barack Obama’s communication director, Robert Gibbs, Sean Hannity blurted out the names of controversial figures that he said have been guests on his show. He was defending himself from Gibbs’ assertion that basing an entire episode of his Hannity’s America on the commentary of noted anti-Semite Andy Martin could tag Hannity as an anti-Semite himself. Gibbs was actually just attempting to demonstrate that such guilt by association is not a valid strategy for debate.

One of the names Hannity listed in his defense was Khalid Mohammad. Was this the same Mohammad that was Osama Bin Laden’s propaganda chief? He is presently a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay and is considered one of the highest profile Al Qaeda leaders yet captured. The 9/11 Commission described him as “the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks,” and he has reportedly confessed that he had personally decapitated the American journalist, Daniel Pearl.

Hannity may have been referring to another Khalid Mohammad who was the national spokesman for Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam (NOI). He is hardly a less controversial character. This Mohammad referred to Jews as bloodsuckers and was dismissed from the NOI for being too radical (for the NOI?). In February 1994, Congress issued a denunciation of Muhammad, condemning his speech as “outrageous hatemongering of the most vicious and vile kind.” He died in 2001 of a brain aneurysm, so if Hannity had him on his show it was at least seven years ago.

It would be interesting to find out to whom Hannity was referring. But either way Hannity admits that he pals around with some unsavory folks. He surely has no business criticizing Barack Obama.


The FCC Probes Pentagon Propaganda Program – Finally

Posted by on October 9, 2008 at 10:54 am. NO Comments :

“World War Three will be a guerrilla information war with no division between military and civilian participation.” ~ Marshall McLuhan, 1968

The FCC is finally beginning to take some action on perhaps the most egregious propaganda assault ever directed at the American people by their own government. From the International Herald Tribune/AP:

“The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday said it is investigating whether five television networks and 19 former military officers violated government disclosure rules in providing on-air analysis of the war in Iraq and other issues.”

It’s about time! The FCC is only now getting around to reacting to reports, originally published in the New York Times last April, that the Pentagon was actively engaging in possibly unlawful activity wherein they supplied supposedly retired military spokespersons to the media who were in fact trained and deployed to promote views favoring the Bush administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq.

Even worse, these unethical officers were simultaneously employed by defense contractors and received financial gain as a result of their brazen propagandizing. It was further disclosed in the Times that many of these spokespersons provided commentary they knew was false in order to protect either their access to the media or their profits. Was that their idea of supporting the troops?

When revealed, the Pentagon acknowledged the potential conflicts and announced that they would temporarily suspend the program “pending further review.” Barack Obama released a public statement saying that he:

“…is deeply disturbed by this latest evidence that the Bush Administration has sought to manipulate the public’s trust. From its misleading case to go to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, to its argument for keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely, the Administration has depended on spin because its assertions have not been supported by facts.”

More than 150 retired officers participated in this program, and most of them worked for – you guessed it – Fox News. However, letters sent by the FCC have only been received by CBS and ABC so far. None of the networks have commented on the investigation.

Another prominent figure who has not commented is John McCain, despite the fact that this issue directly impacts the welfare of American soldiers in harm’s way. McCain, of course, has been as vigorous a defender of the administration’s specious war policy as the lying Pentagon mouthpieces that hyped it. And he’s been just as honest as well.

McCain’s silence on this issue is further evidence of the hypocrisy and disingenuousness of his alleged support for soldiers and veterans. It should surprise no one that the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a “D” for his voting record on veterans issues (Obama got a “B”).

Whether the FCC will conduct a fair and comprehensive inquiry under Republican hack Chairman Kevin Martin is uncertain at this time. But commissioners Copps and Adelstein will do their best to make this a productive investigation. And there is a likelihood that the process will extend into the next (Obama) administration and an FCC with a new Democratic majority.


John McCain Thanks Osama Bin Laden

Posted by on October 8, 2008 at 11:00 am. 1 Comments :

As I predicted, the debate last night in Nashville was almost utterly devoid of constructive engagement. The rules agreed upon months ago by the candidates precluded any interaction or follow-ups, so both candidates were able to deliver de facto stump speeches.

In Barack Obama’s favor, his stump speech actually contains substance and detail on his positions and policies. John McCain, however, is a walking platitude machine telling us Americans how great we all are, in between telling us how frightening Obama is.

There was, however, one answer that McCain gave that I think deserves some wider recognition. In a response to a question about whether the U.S. should pursue terrorists into Pakistani territory, McCain offered this history lesson:

“Now, let me just go back with you very briefly. We drove the Russians out with – the Afghan freedom fighters drove the Russians out of Afghanistan, and then we made a most serious mistake. We washed our hands of Afghanistan. The Taliban came back in, Al Qaeda, we then had the situation that required us to conduct the Afghan war.”

The folks McCain glorifies as “Afghan freedom fighters” are better known as the Mujahideen, an insurgent force that included Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. And if it wasn’t bad enough that McCain publicly planted this big wet kiss on Bin Laden, he went on to dismissively refer to Bin Laden’s attack on America as “the situation” that precipitated war with Afghanistan.

So 9/11 was merely a situation, and Bin Laden deserves our thanks for driving the Russians from Afghanistan. These remarks underscore the cynical politicization of horrific events by the McCain campaign. They appear to be ready to use whatever assault, no matter how scandalous or repulsive, in order to benefit their naked ambitions. And when McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, are traveling the country alleging that Obama is “pallin’ around with terrorists,” I thought it should be noted that McCain took the time to send his regards to Bin Laden & Co. during a presidential debate on national TV.


The Hermetically Sealed Presidential Debate

Posted by on October 7, 2008 at 2:01 pm. NO Comments :

Heading into the final month of campaigning, John McCain is showing signs of desperation. His aides have announced that they cannot talk about the economy or they will lose. So they are resorting to personal smears and distractions. Sarah Palin is doing her part by associating Barack Obama with controversial figures from the past that he had little to do with.

All of this makes the stakes for tonight’s debate much higher for McCain who is falling farther behind in both national and state polls. But the debate format pretty much excludes any possibility for either candidate to make any significant movement.

The questions will from a group of allegedly uncommitted voters in the audience and on the Internet. Then moderator Tom Brokaw will select the actual questions the candidates are asked. There will be no follow-up questions from either the questioner or Brokaw. There will be no reaction shots following the answers. The candidates must stay within their “designated areas” and may not directly question each other.

Given these rules, I don’t why they even need to be in the same room. The format prevents any real interaction. This debate promises to be no more enlightening than a series of alternating clips of each candidate’s stump speech. The candidates can ignore the questions without repercussions, and their answers will never be challenged in a way that makes them accountable.

Designing the debate in this manner is a disservice to voters who will not get to see how the participants perform when challenged. It was negotiated months ago by representatives of the campaigns who obviously feared putting their candidate into a situation that could harm them politically. As it turns out, it will be a big advantage for Obama because it is McCain who needs to make a mark if he hopes to stop Obama’s momentum. This format will make that much more difficult for McCain.

Consequently, I predict that nothing of note will happen tonight, and McCain will hit the trail tomorrow with more and louder accusations and slander. He and Pit Bull Palin have much better luck manipulating the press at their rallies. They have even taken to corralling the media into virtual cages, not allowing them access to the candidate or even their supporters.

You can smell their fear. But so can the viewers, voters and the press. This election is all but over.


Bill O’Reilly Thinks He Is Proof Of The Existence Of God

Posted by on October 5, 2008 at 5:17 pm. NO Comments :

I may have to read this book after all. Bill O’Reilly’s new auto-bloviography, “A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity,” contains this enlightening affirmation of the divine:

“Next time you meet an atheist, tell him or her that you know a bold, fresh guy, a barbarian who was raised in a working-class home and retains the lessons he learned there.

“Then mention to that atheist that this guy is now watched and listened to, on a daily basis, by millions of people all over the world and, to boot, sells millions of books.

“Then, while the non-believer is digesting all that, ask him or her if they still don’t believe there’s a God!”

There is so much wrong with that that it’s hard to know where to begin. I’m not even going to address his obvious narcissistic egomania because some targets are just too easy. But I will point out that the story O’Reilly tells is probably better evidence of the existence of Satan. Who else would give such an obnoxious, divisive, racist, self-absorbed, ignoramus such a prominent platform? Well, Rupert Murdoch would, but that’s just redundant.

I have to wonder, though, from his own perspective, if he is saying that the only way he could ever have risen to prominence was by an act of God? That would actually make sense. Or does he think that divinity is validated by how many morons you can attract? Or is he comparing himself to other famous demagogues with humble beginnings like, say Hitler?

Maybe O’Reilly thinks that we should all be amazed at the miracle of someone who was born into modest circumstances and later became successful. Does he think that that has never happened to anyone before him? He certainly doesn’t give any credit for proving God’s existence to anyone else with similar achievements.

Finally, does O’Reilly really believe that an Atheist confronted with the question above would respond…

“Hallelujah. I never knew that a white, American, Harvard graduate could become a TV personality and make millions of dollars screaming at people and spewing hatred for anyone that didn’t think like him. Obviously there’s a God. I’m saved. Just get me a white sheet and a shotgun and point me to the nearest church?”

I’ve heard of being born again, but does that mean you have to start over with the ignorance of an infant, behave like a baby, and believe that the whole world revolves around you?

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

John McCain’s Smear Campaign

Posted by on October 4, 2008 at 9:55 pm. NO Comments :

As John McCain’s prospects for election diminish, the incidence of dirty tricks and nasty campaigning are likely to increase. Almost every event and news story in the past couple of weeks has resulted in voters trending more to Barack Obama. Polls show Obama gaining support after the conventions, after the first presidential debate, after the Wall Street legislative activity in Washington, and after the vice presidential debate. With less than thirty days until the election, McCain’s desperation is showing. As the Republican angst escalates they will more aggressively execute the tactics that McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, articulated a few years ago in a newspaper editorial:

“The premise of any smear campaign rests on a central truth of politics: Most of us will vote for a candidate we like and respect, even if we don’t agree with him on every issue. But if you can cripple a voter’s basic trust in a candidate, you can probably turn his vote. The idea is to find some piece of personal information that is tawdry enough to raise doubts, repelling a candidate’s natural supporters […] It’s not necessary, however, for a smear to be true to be effective.”

The onslaught of political mud has already begun. Top Republicans told the Washington Post that:

“Sen. John McCain and his Republican allies are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama’s character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat’s judgment, honesty and personal associations.”

It appears that Sarah Palin has been tapped to be the campaign attack Pitbull (with lipstick). This afternoon she made the outrageous and offensive assertion that Obama associates with terrorists:

“Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

This is the sort of garbage that can be expected between now and November fourth. McCain has nothing else upon which to campaign, so he is resorting to slander, lies and defamation. The candid confessions of Republican operatives, including McCain’s campaign manager, that they intend to pursue this strategy, should remove all doubt as to what depths they will sink. And from now on, any attack that emanates from the McCain camp must be viewed through the prism of these admissions.

They have told us in advance that they will be personal and tawdry, and that they don’t care about the truth. These are their words and their stated objectives. We must remember that and make sure that every voter knows it as well.

Just for the record: It may be John McCain who was really “pallin’ around with terrorists:”


The Myth Of The Liberal Media: Tax Cuts

Posted by on October 4, 2008 at 1:15 pm. NO Comments :

For more evidence that the Rightist claims of a liberal-dominated media is nonsense, take a look at this report (pdf) from the Center For American Progress. Their analysis shows how the top media companies in the United States would benefit from John McCain’s tax cuts for the wealthy:

Does anyone really think that these multinational corporations would work to defeat a candidate that is promising them $1.44 Billion in tax relief? Especially considering that the other candidate, Barack Obama, is promising to raise taxes for the wealthy and for corporations.

Anyone who persists in the notion that the media is biased against a deregulating, corporate tax-cutting, friend of monopolies like McCain, is just being being willfully ignorant.


Sarah Palin: Back In The Protective Arms Of Fox News

Posted by on October 3, 2008 at 5:40 pm. 3 Comments :

As I predicted, Sarah Palin followed up her debate performance with an interview in the safety of a friendly harbor – Fox News. Carl Cameron managed to get the exclusive post-debate sit-down with Palin, and he doesn’t disappoint.

Cameron started off by eliciting an admission from Palin that John McCain gave her an “atta girl” after the debate. He then sought to uncover whether she felt that she had surprised Joe Biden:

“Did you catch him off guard? Was there eye contact between you and he that he didn’t see?”

That sounds like witchcraft to me. How could there be eye contact between them that he didn’t see? Did she hypnotize him? According to Rich Lowry of the National Review, much of the male TV audience was bewitched:

“I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, ‘Hey, I think she just winked at me.’ And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.”

If there were starbursts ricocheting around my living room, I must have been distracted by the burning in my eyes at the thought of Lowry’s perverse infatuation. But getting back to Cameron, his next question addressed Palin’s outright false assertion that troop levels in Iraq are lower now than before the Surge:

CAMERON: There was a lot of criticism that you misstated when you talked about us being at pre-surge levels in Iraq. Walk us through your math and what you were thinking you were talking about.

PALIN: Just — well, as victory’s getting closer and closer, we know that we’re going to be able to draw down those troops. Send them to Afghanistan, not specifically those Striker Brigades or those troops, we’ll have more resources to be able to put into Afghanistan, and start what I believe, and what I believe our commanders have referred to also as, the principles of a surge there also in Afghanistan, in a counter-insurge strategy that should work.

Huh? The only things missing in that response was a bewildered “such as” and a heartfelt “for the children.” Not only did her answer make no sense, it thoroughly ignored the question. Did we hear about how her math brought her to the conclusion that troop levels were below pre-Surge? Nope. Did Cameron bother to follow up? Nope. His next question began by praising her and got sillier after that:

CAMERON: Folks said, wow, that was like Sarah barracuda out there last night. Because it was back and forth and you were taking on Joe Biden. Do you think you surprised him by the way in which you were prepared to sort of go after his record and Obama’s? What was the body language and the psychology between the two of you on that? Because he was sighing a lot. And some folks thought that you kind of exasperated him.

PALIN: Well, again, at least my sort of view was, it was pleasant. And it was a lot of fun.

Cameron appears to be obsessed with whether Palin surprised Biden. But at least he dragged out of her the earthshaking revelation that she had fun. Having failed to get her to psychoanalyze Biden’s sighing, Cameron jumps to her remarks regarding Dick Cheney and the “flexibility” of the office of the Vice President. He asks her what she meant by that:

“That thankfully, our founders were wise enough to say, we have this position and it’s Constitutional. Vice presidents will be able to be not only the position flexible, but it’s going to be sort of this other duty as assigned by the president. It’s a simple thing. I don’t think that was a gaff at all in stating what the truth is. And that is we’ve got flexibility in the position. The president will be directing in a lot of respect with the vice president does. The vice president, of course, is not a member – or a part of the legislative branch, except to oversee the Senate. That alone provides a tremendous amount of flexibility and authority if that vice president so chose to use it.”

Huh? Once again, the bulk of her response was gibberish. The part that wasn’t gibberish was frightening. She actually believes that the vice president oversees the Senate and has authority over it if she chooses to exercise it. Cheney’s machinations notwithstanding, the vice presidency is defined in Article II of the Constitution which outlines the Executive branch of government. The VP has no role in the Senate other than to cast a vote in the event of a tie. But Palin thinks otherwise:

“You know, we might be bleeding our authority over to the Legislative or Judicial branch to do our job in the Executive branch as administers.”

The notion that the Executive branch can simply “bleed” its authority over the other branches of government is both idiotic and dangerous. But, again, Cameron didn’t bother to draw out any further explanation of that stance.

Sadly, this is the best we can expect from the McCain/Palin camp. She will almost certainly decline any press availabilities that expose her to any real inquiry. She did tell Cameron that she wants to do more press saying…

“I look forward to speaking to the media more and more everyday and providing whatever access the media would want. My life is certainly an open book […] I beg to differ with the notion that I was reigned in any way. But, if there was any of that, it’s over. And we got to be out there.”

So as to allegations that she has been kept from the press, it’s over, even though it never happened. And now she promises to provide “whatever access the media would want,” as long as the media is confined to Fox News. Only there will she be given opportunities to spin, lie, babble, and paper over her previous inanities. For example, a few days ago Palin couldn’t provide Katie Couric with either a newspaper she has read or a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with. Cameron allowed Palin a do-over on those questions and Palin rattled off newspapers and case law as if she were a legal historian. You don’t think she used the intervening days to bone up the subjects with notes from her handlers, do you?

Palin still has not held a single press conference and likely will not before election day (See The Palin Watch). So despite her promise to be more accessible, I would advise against holding your breath. You still have so much to live for.


Sarah Palin: Beauty Queen At The Debate

Posted by on October 3, 2008 at 12:42 pm. NO Comments :

With a brilliant smile and a confident swagger, Sarah Palin faced Joe Biden, and America, in the first and only vice presidential debate. But the face she presented was that of shallow Pollyanna with a woefully insufficient grasp of issues and facts.

Let’s set aside for the moment that she was flatly wrong when she said that there were fewer troops in Iraq than before the Surge. And never mind that she doesn’t know the name of the American commander in Afghanistan. Palin’s big problem was that she outright refused to answer the questions that were asked. Now, that is a venerable debate tactic and, when used skillfully, can be quite effective and undetectable. However, when Palin did it she clumsily announced that she was changing the subject, and then proceeded to deliver her memorized talking points.

What might have been an enlightening exchange between the candidates was severely constrained by a format and a moderator that discouraged direct interaction. The question arises as to whether Gwen Ifill was cowed by allegations that she would be partial due to the upcoming publication of her book on race in American politics. We may never know if that’s the case, but we do know that Ifill was a virtual non-entity on the stage and failed to ask probing follow-ups of either candidate. That could explain why Palin expressed such satisfaction with the event in her closing remarks:

“I like being able to answer these tough questions without the filter, even, of the mainstream media kind of telling viewers what they’ve just heard. I’d rather be able to just speak to the American people like we just did.”

First of all, she wasn’t asked any tough questions and I suspect that that is what she really liked. Secondly, the Mainstream Media to which she refers doesn’t apply filters to her interviews. The Gibson and Couric affairs simply allowed her to speak on her own, and any resultant embarrassment was of her own doing. Thirdly, her impression of speaking to the American people appears to rely heavily on the help she receives from her speech writers and a teleprompter.

Her statement above is a thinly veiled declaration that she intends to have no further association with the media for which she is so dismissive. I predict that she will have maybe one more interview with a reputable national journalist (probably Brian Williams), then will scurry off to the more comforting embrace of comrades like Hannity and Limbaugh and the Washington Times. By November 4th, she will not have had a single open press conference for the entire election cycle.

The fact that she relates so closely to Dick Cheney, whose warped and unconstitutional view of the Vice Presidency she shares, alarmingly foreshadows the sort of secretive cabal she seems even now to be shaping. The last thing this country needs is another administration that aspires to conceal itself and its actions at every turn and reside outside of public view in a secret undisclosed location.