We Can No Longer Trust a Beclowned American Media…

Most everyone knows that the bulk of those in the mainstream media lean left but they now have become so blatantly partisan that it is embarrassing for them, but should also be frightening to every American and lover of freedom!  The media must be neutral or at least balanced in its coverage because it is their job to be the watchdog… a fair impartial watchdog.  We no longer have that in America.  M~

American Media

Ronald Reagan:  “Peace through strength!”

Barack Obama: “Turmoil through weakness and apologies”

And last night on the main news outlets 9-minutes were spent demonizing Mitt Romney over his Reaganesque type comments, after reporters colluded to ambush him at a press conference, for standing up and speaking out against our embassies being attacked in Egypt and Libya and 4-Americans being murdered including our Ambassador to Libya.  Only 25-seconds were spent on what was actually going on in the Middle East…  Are we being had? You be the judge.

Red State:

Yesterday, as the American consulate in Libya was smoking and the rioters were returning in Egypt, the President of the United States flew off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser while his spokesman was telling the American press corps that yesterday wasn’t really a normal political day. Had it been George W. Bush, the media would, right now, be marching on the White House with pitch forks and torches. Remember, on 9/11, as events were unfolding in Washington, the American media was crying for President Bush to return to Washington. They wanted Daddy at home in the White House where he could tuck them in bed, damn the security issues of getting him there.

I get that Chuck Todd is a former Democrat hill staffer. I get that the Politico is riddled with Democrats, some former activists and a former staffer for Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I get that Michael Scherer from Time magazine is a left wing reporter for Mother Jones and Salon.com turned respectable, “objective” journalist. I get that Ben Smith, leading up Buzz Feed, is a leftwing journalist paraded about as if he is some sort of objective reporter at a trendy site full of cat photos. [Editor's Note: Totally forgot to include Journolist and have updated to include it] I get that precious Ezra Klein started Journolist so reporters and political operatives could collaborate on the news and narrative and now he sits at the Washington Post and gets trotted out as a fact checker. What I really get is that the American media runs with a herd mentality, leans left, and yesterday collectively fell over their group think as they leaned so far left to focus on Mitt Romney and not President Obama. Yesterday, the American media beclowned itself in ways I didn’t really even think was possible, even knowing how in the tank for Barack Obama they are.

Yesterday, we learned that there were no Marines protecting our Ambassador to Libya despite State Department warnings about violence and kidnappings in the Benghazi. We already knew Al Qaeda was coming on strong there. But we relied on locals for support and now we know the locals betrayed us as they have in the past in Afghanistan and Iraq too.

But the media wanted to focus on Mitt Romney.

Night before last, the President condemned Mitt Romney in harsher tones than he condemned the rioters. It took him until sun up yesterday to condemn them.

But the media wanted to focus on Mitt Romney.

Yesterday, the media spent much time condemning the Coptic Christians for their movie, but we now know the movie had been out for months and we also know the riots were orchestrated in advance. We also know the attack on the American consulate in Libya used the riots as cover for the attack.

But the media wanted to focus on Mitt Romney.

Yesterday, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a man who swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, called an American civilian to ask him to stop exercising his first amendment rights.

But the media wanted to focus on Mitt Romney.

We also now know that the President, close to 60% of the time, has opted for printed intelligence briefings, which this White House thinks are as useful as an intelligence officer in the room who the President can probe, prod, challenge, and question.

But the media wanted to focus on Mitt Romney.

And in focusing on Mitt Romney, finally, of all the places, Slate and Dave Weigel finally point out that Mitt Romney’s gaffe was no gaffe, it was a consistent view of foreign policy foreign to the ears of the political press. He, I, and many others really do think Barack Obama is an apologist. We really do think his speech to Cairo after his entrance to the White House was part of a world apology tour. And we sure as hell think his actions in the past year to foster the Arab Spring were the actions of a naive fool.

But then the media has been playing the naive fool for him.

——————————

UPDATE: A friend points out that what the news media is doing here is roughly what they did after Trayvon Martin’s killing. They rushed to judgment, got basic facts wrong, and then sensationalized it with audio experts and what not only to have to beat a path to retreat later.

Comments:

Christine: 

Romney did what we hoped he would do - showed some spine and spoke up rather than just sit there or spout pleasantries to the President. We should strongly support that and encourage EVERY Republican to do the same. Speak up. Talk about this, don't just hide in a corner or let the LSM walk on them.

One "journolist" said on Twitter yesterday that Romney's election chances are in trouble because he's somehow offended "the press". These things also should be put out in the daylight for as many as possible to see.

sayoung80913:

lol, they are pulling out the Palin playbook with Romney- it worked then, but apparently unbeknownst to those in the media- their time came and went with The Daily Caller publishing little Ezra Klein's emails regarding Journolist.  Not familiar?  See: Journolists: The Truth of Media Fraud Confirmed and Politico Palin Alert: Vast Left Wing Conspiracy’s Mission: Sarah Palin Must Be Destroyed Uncovered!

FNC's Democrat Kirsten Powers Slams 'Utterly Insane' Media 'Obsession' With Attacking Romney

Video: Open mic shows press pool coordinating question if Romney regretted criticizing Obama on Egypt

NewsBusters:

Appearing on Fox News's America Live on Thursday, Daily Beast columnist and Democratic pundit Kirsten Powers ripped the liberal media for expressing more outrage over Mitt Romney's reaction to Tuesday's embassy attacks, than toward the attackers themselves: "I mean, it is just absolutely utterly insane the way that they have elevated this." [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

Powers worried that the blatant bias had "overshadowed any kind of outrage that you would see over the fact that you have Islamic flags being hoisted over American embassies, the fact that an American ambassador is dead."

Acknowledging the Democratic perspective, Powers explained: "...let's just stipulate that, for the sake of argument, that Romney shouldn't have done it [criticized Obama] – I don't agree with that – it still would not explain the obsession with Romney's statement over these horrific events that are unfolding in front of us."
Later in the discussion, host Megyn Kelly asked Powers: "You always have to look back at, you know, when detecting media – you know, potential media bias, you look back at what would the media have done if this had happened on George Bush's watch?"
Powers denounced the double standard:

Yeah. It would have been completely radically different. Look, like I said, even if you agree that Mitt Romney did something wrong, okay, look at that, but let's also look at the Obama administration. It was just radio silence....why didn't they know that these attacks were coming? Was Obama getting his intelligence briefings? I mean these are the issues that should be being asked and would be being asked if this had happened on George Bush's watch.

Here are portions of the September 13 discussion:

2:36PM ET
(...)
MEGYN KELLY: And just so our viewers know, what happened was the U.S. embassy, just to refresh you, in Cairo, came out with a statement condemning "the misguided individuals who tried to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims." Then they got attacked and they doubled down on that statement. Mitt Romney came out and criticized the statement, saying, "that's disgraceful that the administration's first response was not to condemn the attacks on the diplomatic mission, but to sympathize with those waging them." Later, Washington pulled back the embassy statement and said we didn't authorize it either. So Kirsten, you wound up having the Obama administration and Mitt Romney agreeing that the embassy statement was not appropriate. And yet, the whole media narrative yesterday was how awful Governor Romney was for pointing it out.

Video:  How the Media is Handling the MidEast Crisis, Gov. Romney and the President

KIRSTEN POWERS: Oh yeah, it's still the media narrative. And the thing is, the outrage that has been expressed over the fact that Mitt Romney put out this statement has even overshadowed any kind of outrage that you would see over the fact that you have Islamic flags being hoisted over American embassies, the fact that an American ambassador is dead. I mean you just are not seeing the same level of outrage over just the process of what time he put the statement out. I mean, it is just absolutely utterly insane the way that they have elevated this. And even if we stipulated, Megyn, let's just stipulate that, for the sake of argument, that Romney shouldn't have done it – I don't agree with that – it still would not explain the obsession with Romney's statement over these horrific events that are unfolding in front of us.
(...)
KELLY: And Kirsten, you always have to look back at, you know, when detecting media – you know, potential media bias, you look back at what would the media have done if this had happened on George Bush's watch?
POWERS: Oh, yeah.
KELLY: If we had had these attacks on the embassies and the consulates.
POWERS: Yeah. It would have been completely radically different. Look, like I said, even if you agree that Mitt Romney did something wrong, okay, look at that, but let's also look at the Obama administration. It was just radio silence. You know, they allowed that statement to stay up on an embassy web site, which is taken as the official position of the U.S. government. This person was, someone was tweeting from the official account and they didn't – they didn't come out and say a word. So what's that about? And did they know – why didn't they know that these attacks were coming? Was Obama getting his intelligence briefings? I mean these are the issues that should be being asked and would be being asked if this had happened on George Bush's watch.
(...)
POWERS: One of the things that a lot of liberals are complaining about is they're saying that Mitt Romney attacked Obama, basically saying this was his statement, which of course, we all thought it was the Obama administration's statement because it was on the embassy web site. But even if it wasn't, what has he said that's any different than that? You know, I mean he hasn't used that exact phrasing, but we could not have had a weaker response to this if we just sat around and tried to think of like, what's the weakest thing we could do? And that initial statement was weak, and now we have a continued – the administration coming out and condemning this movie as if the movie caused this attack. The fanatics attacked the embassy. They're going to attack us whether there's a movie or there's not a movie. And they are continuing to do – the sentiment in that original statement continues to be the sentiment of the Obama administration.

Barack Obama has morphed into Jimmy Carter before our eyes, said Brent Bozzel the founder and president of the Media Research Center
but the liberal media have refused to report on the Obama Administration’s failed foreign policy of apologies and appeasement. Terrified to hurt Obama’s chances of re-election, they are shamelessly seizing on this horrific attack on Americans abroad to push their go-to narrative that Mitt Romney is tone deaf.

Romney rightly criticized the Obama Administration for its spineless apology to thugs whose idea of ‘diplomacy’ is intimidation, violence and murder. As the façade of the ‘Arab Spring’ continues to fracture and crumble away, the media have shifted to a strategy of distraction and omission.

These are the same media that hailed Obama’s Libya policy as ‘deft’ and proclaimed that his ‘victories’ in the Middle East would ‘burnish his credentials as a world leader.’ NBC’s David Gregory said Obama would ‘use [that] experience as a club against Republicans.’ Instead of letting Obama club the Republicans, the media administered a beating on Romney.

There were two political stories to report yesterday, and the liberal media deliberately chose to amplify the insignificant one because it damaged Romney and helped Obama’s chances to win re-election.  The hope is that the American people are a lot smarter than the leftist media gives them credit for.

Another common sense journalist, Diana West, the author of "The Death of the Grown-Up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization”, blasts Obama and Clinton for their concern over hurting Muslims 'feelings': Islamic law does not nullify 1st Amendment!

For anyone who is not up on the events that led to Romney’s comments and the open mic incident highlighting the media’s favoritism, media collusion and the left’s disdain for the true purpose of their careers and responsibility as watchdogs as well as for the American people see:  U.S. Embassy Attacked: CNN Breaking News @ 14:06 EDST on 9/11, From Egypt… Then Libya, No Comments From Obama – Updated and  Day Late… Dollar Short… Spinner in Chief

This is the same slight of hand that goes on with the polls and the reporting of polls:  IN BED WITH OBAMA: CNN Uses Heavily Weighted Polling Sample to Pretend Obama is Leading

Related:

U.S. identifies anti-Muslim filmmaker -  Really… Our government is now identifying film makers, like they did our seal team, to terrorists?  And instead of focusing on the problems with our government’s actions, the MSM is deriding Romney’s quick and presidential response and show of strength against the actions, including the murder of our Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, by Muslim terrorists against American Embassies in Egypt and Libya. 

Obama was at a fundraiser in Nevada, missing his Intel briefing, instead of dealing with the emergency and virtually simultaneously announced he would be appearing on Letterman in New York on the same day that he said he could not work a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu if Israel into his schedule.  But now the White House is bad-mouthing Governor Romney and the media is covering Obama’s inept back. Hello? What am I missing? Americans get attacked, Barack Hussein Obama apologizes, Romney calls Obama on it and the media says Romney made a gaffe?  And want him to apologize… What?

Again… Ronald Reagan said “Peace through strength!”  Mitt Romney is following suit!  Obama and Hillary are still apologizing… the last time we had very similar circumstances was when the last appeasement president, Jimmy Carter, was in the White House and Iranian terrorists took over the American Embassy in Iran.  The American people elected Ronald Reagan soon thereafter and all the prisoners were quickly released… something that weak Carter could not negotiate.  Hmmm… sounding familiar?

If you are interested in the truth or at least both sides of an argument make sure that you add Fox News, The Blaze now on Dish 212 and a variety of perspectives from online blogs to your news intake… If you are watching and getting all your news from  CNN, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC or MSNBC you are only seeing the news from a left-wing perspective and from what you can see from above… a lot is missing or skewed.

REPORT: Obama administration was warned about attacks, did nothing

Technorati Tags: media clowns,bias media,bias liberal media,Election 2012,2012 Election,Romney strength,Obama weakness,Mitt Romney in 2012,Kirsten Powers,journolists,media collusion,MSM,Ronald Reagan,Jimmy Carter,weakness,strength

Why Everyone Is Saying No to Obama?

Everybody is saying no to the American president these days. And it's not just that they're saying no, it's also the way they're saying no.

US President Barack Obama (AP)

The Saudis twice said no to his request for normalization gestures towards Israel (at Barack Obama's meeting with King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, and in Washington at meetings with Hillary Clinton). Who says no to the American president twice? What must they think of Obama in the desert kingdom?

The North Koreans said no to repeated attempts at talks, by test-launching long-range missiles in April; Russia and China keep on saying no to tougher sanctions on Iran; the Iranians keep saying no to offers of talks by saying they're willing to talk about everything except a halt to uranium enrichment; Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is saying no by refusing to meet with Binyamin Netanyahu until Israel freezes all settlement construction; the Israelis said no by refusing to agree to a settlement freeze, or even a settlement moratorium until and unless the Arabs ante up their normalization gestures. Which brings us back to the original Saudi no.

The only thing Obama did manage to get Bibi and Abbas to say yes to is a photo-op at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in NY. Mazel tov.

RELATED POST: Editorial: Wobbling Washington

So why is everyone saying no to Obama?

It's the economy, stupid.

Everyone has worked it out by now: The great secret is out. America's economy has made Obama a weak president, and he will likely remain weak throughout his first term (and there may not be a second one). He has about two years to pull the American economy out of its free-fall before he begins his reelection campaign. If he can do it, and that's a big if, chances are good that he'll get reelected, and in his second term he can try to pull some geopolitical strings. But for the next three years, expect to see a world that says no to Obama. No meaningful and dramatic diplomatic initiative can come out of the White House in the next three years, as long as Obama remains weak.

And that's a real pity, because there are some serious and imminent issues that need to be addressed.

Pyongyang is getting more bellicose and not being punished. The North Koreans have violated every single international agreement and norm, and nothing tangible has happened to them.

In Iran, this registers. "Look at how bad they're being," the mullahs say, "and they're getting away with it." Even so, the Iranian government is weak internally and internationally following its election fiasco.

The US and EU could tighten sanctions against Iran without the support of Russia and China, but they would need political will for that. Sanctions, such as a ban on refined oil imports, barring Iranian flights to America and Europe etc., could have a serious impact on Iran and weaken the regime further. The US and EU can act now against Iran like the US and UK did against Libya several years ago when they persuaded Gaddafi to abandon his nuclear ambitions. Back then, though, the US was much stronger. Now, the American economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea have all weakened the US.

In retaliation for increased, unilateral sanctions, Iran could turn up the heat on US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will stymie Obama's plan to win and withdraw. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has the US president by the kishkes, in a manner of speaking. And so do the Taliban.

So, when a president with so many problems comes asking for a favor, everyone finds it easier to just say no

International JPost.com

Related Comments:

101. Koolaid
James - Iraq (09/22/2009 20:26)

100. It's not the economy--it's because the US people no longer support him
Cheryl B - USA (09/22/2009 20:24)

99. Bomber William Ayers
Colonel Rebel - (09/22/2009 20:22)

98. Um, did these same foreigners say yes to Bush?
mmt - USA (09/22/2009 20:19)

97. Weak
Scott - US (09/22/2009 20:18)

96. No to Obama - it's not the economy
Bob - USA (09/22/2009 20:16)

95. Come on now...
Britton - USA (09/22/2009 20:16)

94. Easy when the economy is good
AlEx - USA (09/22/2009 20:15)

93. Well, it's obvious the type of readers this page attracts...
DCResident - (09/22/2009 20:15)

92. Article: Analysis: Why everyone is saying no to Obama
John Jacobs - U.S.A (09/22/2009 20:14)

91. The world finally has the American doormat they've always wanted...
Kevin - USA (09/22/2009 20:01)

90. Why everyone is saying no to Obama?
TGambogi - USA (09/22/2009 20:01)

89. NObama!!!
Honesty - USA (09/22/2009 20:01)

88. Obama
BB - usa (09/22/2009 19:58)

87. Article: Analysis: Why everyone is saying no to Obama
John Jacobs - U.S.A. (09/22/2009 19:58)

86. Many Americans are saying "no" to Obama because...
John - (09/22/2009 19:54)

85. Obama No's the reason....
dan albert - USA (09/22/2009 19:53)

84. Because he is weak and is easily challenged
Gary Grace - USA (09/22/2009 19:52)

83. Obama Cannot Be Trusted
Maddox - United States (09/22/2009 19:48)

82. Very Wrong - Obama is an idiot with horrible policies
Nathan - USA (09/22/2009 19:45)

81. It's not the Economy, who's stupid now?
Not the Economy - USA (09/22/2009 19:41)

80. Israel is on its own now
Mike A - USA (09/22/2009 19:27)

79. Obama should not have been elected
Charles Schilli - USA (09/22/2009 19:23)

78. Welcome back Carter
Red Ruffansore - USA (09/22/2009 19:23)

77. Being respected vs. being liked
Chet Kolson - USA (09/22/2009 19:19)

76. Obama
Darrel - USA (09/22/2009 19:18)

75. Because Obama is a SPY
Vladimir Kropotkin - Russia (09/22/2009 19:09)

74. As an American I apologize
Concerned - USA (09/22/2009 19:14)

73. What was obvious about the man before the election is now becoming clear
Mark - USA (09/22/2009 19:13)

72. Why everyone is saying no to Obama.
Carl G - USA (09/22/2009 19:11)

Last week after Obama’s missile debacle Poland refused to take Secretar Clinton’s calls and it appears that Hillary and Obama are backing the wrong horse in Honduras; appears that deposed President Zelaya is best buddies with Venezuela’s Dictator: Hugo Chavez. The question there is… “A coincidence? Or just more of Obama’s radical friends and part of the overall plan??

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power & the Daily Thought Pad – Visit Both Daily for up to date and past information!!

Related Posts:

The Week in International Affairs Updated - (9/13 & 9/19 2009)

Cheney’s Speech – The Top 10 Lines

Former Vice President Dick Cheney spoke Thursday on national security at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C. think tank. Here are the top ten lines in the speech, as compiled by the editors of FOX Nation:

No. 10:  The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security.

No. 9:   In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.

No. 8:  If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

No. 7: Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.

No. 6:  To completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

No. 5: This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on ourselves.” It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.

No. 4: Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance.

No. 3: To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.

No. 2: In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy.

No. 1: Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

Cheney Says: Obama Endangers the Nation

Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday continued his verbal attack against President Obama, saying that the country is more vulnerable to a potential terrorist attack since the Obama administration took power.

Mr. Cheney said that administration's dismantling of many of the policies and protections instituted by President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks — including the planned closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba and halting controversial prisoner interrogation techniques — have made the country more vulnerable to future attacks.

"That's my belief," Mr. Cheney said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "I think to the extent that those [Bush-era] policies were responsible for saving lives, that the administration is now trying to cancel those policies … means in the future we're not going to have the same safeguards we've had for the last eight years."

The former vice president defended controversial interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, saying that it had been an effective tool in extracting useful information from suspected terrorists such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is accused of helping carry out the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks Washington and New York.

"He did not cooperate fully in terms of interrogations until after waterboarding," Mr. Cheney said. "Once we went through that process, he produced vast quantities of invaluable information about al Qaida."

Mr. Obama in January banned the practice on prisoners by U.S. interrogators.

Mr. Cheney said he believes it's his duty to speak out against the Obama administration "because I think the issues that are at stake here are so important."

Mr. Cheney also took a shot at former Bush administration Secretary of State Colin Powell, saying that the conservative broadcaster Rush Limbaugh is a more loyal Republican than the former Army commander.

"If I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I'd go with Rush Limbaugh," Mr. Cheney said.

Mr. Powell recently said that Republicans need to more move to the center politically and that Mr. Limbaugh's polarizing far-right rhetoric hurts the party's image.

Mr. Limbaugh retaliated by accusing Mr. Powell of being "just another liberal" and that he should become a Democrat.

"I think my take on it was Colin had already left the party," Mr. Cheney said. "I didn't know he was still a Republican."

Source:  Washington Times/Photo Courtesy of CNBC

Related Articles:

Nancy Pelosi Lied About Enhanced Interrogations - Is Anyone Surprised?

Fred Thompson: Obama Loosed 'Dogs of War' on CIA

On Torture And War Criminals

Muslims: 'We Do That On First Dates'

The West Coast Plot: An "Inconvenient Truth"

Hoekstra: Congress Knew About Memos

Video:  Top Intelligence Republican:  Ready Fire, Aim

U.S. Presidential Libraries

Government Borrowing Fifty Cents for Every Dollar It Spends

• Government Borrowing Fifty Cent for Every Dollar It Spends
• Obama Administration Has Amassed More Debt Already Than The Bush Administration in Its First Seven Years Combined

Immigration and Self-Preservation

I will be the first to admit to being annoyed by automated phone instructions that direct me to press “one” for English and “two” for Spanish. It is more than a minor inconvenience. It is a matter of principle. If immigrants are to make a meaningful contribution to society they must do a little work before they are given all of society’s benefits. That includes taking the time to learn English. It’s the same logic that was used to put me through a semester of pledging before being admitted to the ranks of the Sigma Chi fraternity in 1986.

But the statist says he does not want American institutions to teach immigrants our language, our history, and our culture. He says he does not want to do so because of his commitment to the religion of moral relativism. He says that to do so would send the wrong message that American culture is somehow better than other cultures.

Of course, the statist is being less than truthful. The very fact that we are flooded with immigrants shows that we are superior to other countries like Mexico. The fact that past nations like East Germany have had to build walls to keep people in, not out, shows they are aware of their inferiority. We don’t need to worry about hurting their collective feelings.

So the statist may as well admit that it is not out of principle – as if moral relativism can, indeed, be principled – that he makes immigration so easy. The reason is one of raw power. He wants more votes in order to advance the statist agenda.

The statist may, from time to time, claim that his stance on immigration is pragmatic rather than principled. This is at best an unprincipled distortion of the truth. He cannot claim that amnesty is a “solution” to the “problem” of filling low wage jobs that poor people will not fill. It is his stance on immigration that drives down wages in the first place. Surely one cannot claim credit for solving the problems he created himself.

It is hardly surprising that the statist mentality leads not just to a desire to erode borders but, also, to a desire to erode our national defense. Those who are unwilling to see our nation as superior are hardly in a position to argue for military superiority. The same mentality that leads to faith in moral relativism leads to faith in the United Nations. But George Washington saw things differently. In 1793, he said the following:

There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.

At a time when America is flirting with statist policies, other nations are moving beyond their own borders in search of resources, which, if obtained, could drastically change our standing in the world. Russia is claiming the North Pole as its own in order to obtain more oil. China is making contracts with Latin America in pursuit of the same goal.

Meanwhile, the statist is unconcerned. America is only five percent of the world’s population. But it consumes twenty-five percent of the world’s energy supply. The statist “solution” to the “problem” of such global inequality is to make America poorer.

This statist mentality is so pervasive that it threatens our economy, our national security, and every aspect of our individual liberty. Its advance has been made possible, not just by Democrats, but also by unprincipled Republicans. Herbert Hoover made FDR’s New Deal possible with protectionist policies following the stock market crash of 1929.

George W. Bush has similarly enabled President Obama with his TARP policies of 2008. His statement that he “abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system” will live in infamy. It has secured his place in history as the Republican Jimmy Carter – a president so inept that he took down an entire party for a whole generation.

But thank God groups like the Young America’s Foundation and the Leadership Institute are working to produce a new generation of conservatives who will help rebuild this nation based on conservative principles. And thank God Mark Levin has written Liberty and Tyranny to show them just how to do it.

I believe Mark Levin is correct in asserting that we must limit the Supreme Court’s judicial review power. We must do so by establishing legislative veto power over Court decisions with a supermajority vote of both houses of Congress. That would be more in line with the Framers intent than the status quo.

I believe Mark Levin is also right in asserting that we must end the monopoly of government education by applying anti-trust laws to the National Education Association. We must do the same for the American Federation of Teachers.

Whatever we do, we must act soon. For, it was Ronald Reagan who warned us: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our grandchildren what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

by Mike Adams

Source: Mark Levin (2009) Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. New York: Simon and Schuster.

The 100-Day Assault on America

Has it really been 100 days?

Aided by an eagerly compliant Democratic-controlled Congress, a sycophantic media, and a bunch of squishy Republicans, President Obama has taken the country on a radical, mind-boggling leap into collectivism.

Obama -- to use one of his favorite expressions -- doubled down, no, tripled and quadrupled down on Bush's "stimulus" and "rescue" packages, spending trillions of dollars to "bail out" financial institutions, too-big-to-fail businesses, and even deficit-running states. Obama promises to use taxpayer money to rescue "responsible homeowners" -- whatever that means -- from foreclosure, thus artificially propping up prices that shut out renters who would love to buy now-much-cheaper houses.

Obama proposes spending billions (or trillions?) more on "creating or saving" -- whatever that means -- 4 million, 3.5 million or 2.5 million jobs. Pick a number. Given the government's vast business expertise, Obama proposes spending gobs of money to "invest" in green jobs. And he's just warming up. He wants taxpayers to guarantee, presumably to all who request it, a "world-class education" -- whatever that means.

Firmly in charge of much of the domestic car industry, Obama effectively fired the CEO of General Motors. He threatens to fire still more executives in the parts of the financial services industry currently under the management, direction or control of Uncle Sam -- that eminent, well-regarded banker.

Obama blames the financial crisis on "greed" and the "lack of regulatory oversight." Funny thing about greed. Celebrated investor-turned-Obama-supporter/adviser Warren Buffett says, "Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." Apparently, some practice good greed, while others engage in greedy greed.

As for regulation, the SEC already heavily regulates most of the troubled financial institutions. The world's largest insurer, AIG, operated under heavy regulation. The government-sponsored entities Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- blamed for irresponsibly buying, packaging and selling bad mortgages -- are regulated by a government agency, called the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Its sole responsibility is to oversee those two agencies. OFHEO, shortly before the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie, gave them two thumbs up.

Did the President, after campaigning against pork and earmarks, really sign bills that include both? Yes. Will the President's new budget really triple and quadruple the annual deficit? Yes. Will the President's budget really double the national debt within a few years and then increase still more beyond that? Yes. Do the President and members of Congress, many of whom never operated so much as a T-shirt concession booth, really believe that they can "modernize" health care, thus "saving" taxpayers buckets of money? Yes.

America traditionally represents the greatest possibility of someone's going from nothing to something. Why? In theory, if not practice, the government stays out of the way and lets individuals take risks and reap rewards or accept the consequences of failure. We call this capitalism -- or, at least, we used to.

Today's global downturn reflects too much borrowing and too much lending. But would borrowers and lenders -- at least in America -- have engaged in the same kind of behavior but for artificially low interest rates under the Federal Reserve System? Would borrowers and lenders have acted as precipitously but for the existence of Fannie and Freddie, which bought up their mortgages? Would banks have so readily lent money to those who clearly could not repay it but for the Community Reinvestment Act? That law pressured banks into relaxing their normal lending standards to help low-income borrowers.

Now let's turn to Job No. 1 -- national security. We no longer call the War on Terror the "War on Terror." We no longer call Islamofascist enemy detainees "enemy detainees." The President embarked on an I'm-not-Bush and we're-sorry-for-being-arrogant international tour. To the receptive, admiring G-20 nations, the President flogged America, calling us domineering and overbearing. What did the swooning leaders give in return? Virtually nothing. He wanted more assistance in fighting the war in Afghanistan. The NATO members offered more advisers and trainers, all, mind you, out of harm's way and only on a temporary basis.

The President offered a new relationship with Iran, provided Iranians "unclenched their fist." The President even sent a shout-out video to the Iranians on one of their holidays. What did he get in return? Iran promised to continue its march toward the development of a nuclear weapon and called Israel the "most cruel and racist regime."

Obama offered North Korea a kinder, gentler foreign policy. What did he get in return? The North Koreans, in violation of a United Nations resolution, attempted to launch a long-range missile. The President condemned the act. The United Nations Security Council convened an emergency session. What happened? Nothing. Well, not exactly nothing. North Korea kicked out the U.N.'s nuclear inspectors and announced the resumption of its nuclear weapons program. And North Korea, along with Iran, arrested and imprisoned American journalists.

On the other hand, Washingtonian magazine graced us with a spiffy, Photoshopped cover of a fit and toned swimsuit-wearing President Obama. So all is not lost.

At least he looks good.

By Larry Elder - a syndicated radio talk show host, contributor to TownHall.com and best-selling author. His latest book, "What's Race Got to Do with It?" is available now.

100 Days of Devastatingly Swift Success

April 29, 2009  |  Vol. 4, No. 17

by Newt Gingrich

To mark President Obama's 100th day in office, I'm going to say something you might find unexpected, even shocking:  

President Obama's first 100 days have been spectacularly successful.  

President Obama is the strongest domestic Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson. His ability to get Democrats in Congress to give him things that undermine their own power is impressive.  

In just 100 days, President Obama has been devastatingly effective in moving forward swiftly the most radical, government-expanding agenda in American history.

Successfully Moving to a European Model of Government Control

At home, in everything from his economic policy to his energy policy to his just-announced science policy, President Obama has successfully moved the country from a traditional American model of entrepreneurship and private initiative to a European model of regulation and government control.  

Abroad, he has succeeded in his apparent goal to be the un-George W. Bush; replacing aggressive, if sometimes flawed, American leadership with a humbled, weakened America on the world stage.  

Judged by these standards, President Obama's first 100 days have been a remarkable success.

Getting Congress to Give Him Things That Undermine Their Own Power

The Obama record in the first 100 days includes three instances of spectacular political impunity:

• Under the guise of "economic stimulus" he was able to pass a $787 billion gift for his liberal special interest base. And he did it so quickly that no member of Congress was able to read it before they voted.
• After campaigning on a pledge to end earmarks, he signed an appropriations bill loaded with 8,000 earmarks - and paid no political penalty.
• President Obama has kept congressional Democrats marching with him in lockstep. House Democrats tow the party line an amazing 94 percent of the time and Senate Democrats vote Democratic 91 percent of the time.

Two Historic Bureaucratic Power Grabs

In these first 100 days, the Obama Administration has achieved two historic bureaucratic power grabs:

• President Obama has transformed the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) into giant engines of unsupervised spending. Together, they've spent the equivalent of the entire federal budget for 2007, without having to disclose where the money went.
• Just two weeks ago, the President presided over an unprecedented bureaucratic power grab when his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ruled that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health. This seemingly innocuous decision opens the door to wholesale regulation of American life by government. The threat is so great that politicians and activists are using the specter of an out-of-control EPA to force Congress to pass a $1 trillion to $2 trillion energy tax in the form of cap-and-trade legislation.

In Foreign Policy, Weakness and Self-Delusion

The Obama 100 days record also includes remarkable weakness and self-delusion overseas:

• In an attempt to overcome anti-Americanism abroad by agreeing with it, President Obama has gone on a global apology tour, labeling America as "arrogant, dismissive and derisive" in front of foreign audiences.
• President Obama has unleashed a domestic war over the meaning of guilt by caving in to the anti-American left and leaving the door open to prosecuting Bush Administration officials over the interrogation of terrorists who plotted to kill Americans.

All Other Obama "Accomplishments" Are Only a
Prelude to His $3.5 Trillion Budget

But all these successful expansions of government at home and retractions of American leadership abroad are merely a prelude to President Obama's looming crowning achievement: His 2010 budget which remakes our health care system, remakes our energy system, raises taxes and forecasts an amazing $9 trillion increase in the national debt.  

As I write this, Democrats in Congress are fashioning a deal to pass the budget's provisions on health care by preventing Republicans and moderate Democrats from having a voice in the debate.  

Think about that. The Obama-Reid-Pelosi political machine is going to pass legislation that fundamentally affects every single American - as well as 17 percent of our economy - by cutting the elected representatives of half of all Americans out of the process.  

If they succeed, the budget will be President Obama's most enduring - and devastating - accomplishment.

Will the Future Bring Change We Can Believe In?
Or a Change in What we Believe?

One thing is clear at this point in President Obama's presidency: His control of Washington Democrats has been so masterful, and his policies so successful, that he has officially claimed ownership of the American economy.  

Going forward, it won't be possible to continue to place blame on former President Bush and the Republicans. If President Obama fails, it will be his failure and his alone.  

As for us, the "success" of the first 100 days of the Obama presidency raises a threatening possibility.  

As my daughter and columnist Jackie Cushman put it, if we're not careful, instead of change we can believe in, we're going to have change in what we believe. 

It's something to ponder for the next 1,361 days.

  Your friend,

   Newt Gingrich

Related Articles: 

• OBAMA SOWS SEEDS OF DEMISE
• 20 Great Moments from Obama's First 100 Days!
• The One Thing...
• 100 days in office, coronated Messiah... Wow Color This Scary! - Updated

Special from Newsmax.com

Check out Newsmax's Special Slide Shows, You Won't Find These Anywhere Else:

Obama's Gaffes and Gimmicks Exposed: The First 100 Days

The First 100 Days: The Story the Media Won't Tell You

 

Check back throughout the day for more on President Obama’s First 100 Days

Glenn Beck: Obama used as propaganda tool

GLENN: So Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama, they're pals, and President Obama's given a book in Spanish which Barack Obama doesn't speak, which is kind of like the, you know, the gift the President Obama gave to Gordon Brown, DVDs that he couldn't use. Some would say that this was just propaganda because here's a book about how bad America has been as a partner for Latin America, how horrible we have been, the destruction that we and the Europeans have brought onto Latin America. Got it? Some would say this was just a propaganda piece, seeing that Chavez walked right over to him in these meetings with no preconditions and just walked over it with all the press and just handed him a book, holding it so you could see the cover of the book and then Obama just takes it and holds the book cover up like, "This is what he gave me." Some would say that our president has been used for anti American propaganda purposes, but I'm not saying that. Who is? Listen to this. 

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think that it is not that you promise a meeting with that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse, but I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration, and I will pursue very vigorous diplomacy and I will use a lot of high level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be. 

GLENN: Yeah. Well, hang on just a second, will you? It's 4:20. So I was just going to help me understand the world a little bit better, you know? So anyway, we were talking about oh, yeah. Hillary Clinton said that she certainly doesn't think that we should be, you know, used for propaganda. What was I saying? Do we have anything from Joe Biden on this one because I'm sure Joe Biden has a statement here. 

SENATOR McCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approved this message. 

GLENN: No, not John McCain. Are you smoking something here, Dan? 

VOICE: What does Barack Obama's running mate say about Barack Obama? 

BIDEN: You asked is he ready? You said, I think he can be ready but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job training. I think that I stand by the statement. 

VOICE: And what does he say about John McCain? 

BIDEN: I would be honored to run with or against John McCain. I think the country would be better off.

Quote: I am so glad you weren't trying to blame me for things that happened when I was a child... said Obama when the U.S. was attacked at the latest conference where our President worried about being liked instead of defending his Country... our Country... 

Debate: Would You Meet with Iran/Syria/North Korea?

GLENN: Stop just a second. I'm just looking at a picture of Los Amigos, our president Barack Obama holding that book with Hugo Chavez and Hugo Chavez knows exactly what he's doing. So, so sweet. How did we get in this situation again? I'm trying to remember. What did 

VOICE: In 1982 Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately without precondition during the first year of your administration in Washington or anywhere else with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries? 

VOICE: I should also point out that Steven is in the crowd tonight, Senator Obama. 

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I want and the reason is this: That the notion of somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration is ridiculous. 

GLENN: Hang on. Just a second. Wow. Wow. I mean, why punish these people, you know? Sure, they are going to use you for propaganda purposes, which literally just happened. Okay, so what? I mean, who's reading it. You know what I mean? Okay, it's number 2 on Amazon.com right now but who cares? I mean, it's not like we're punishing him, you know? Why punish him, you know? Okay, sure, you might have your standards or whatever but I mean, why hang on just a second. Sorry, man, I just I mean, what difference does it make, you know? I mean, okay, so we meet with him. We're having some cocktails or talking about stuff, you know? Getting stuff done. That's what it's all about. 

By the way, did you read, did you read the Times today? You know, I was reading you know, because I'm thinking we should totally toke up with Hugo, maybe play some Wii, and I'm reading the Times about that and stuff and I'm like, it's 4:20. I got to smoke some dope.

Related Articles:

• A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words - Obama-Chavez
  
• Obama Bow Shocks Nation... And Now White House Back Peddling
  
• The Humbling of a Superpower  
  
• Iran and North Korea - Joel Rosenberg on Glenn Beck
  

American Progressivism – Part One (Also See American Progressivism Parts Two, Three, Four and Five)

• 
  

• Audio Available:

  
  

Obama Bow Shocks Nation... And Now White House Back Peddling

In what's been called a "shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate," President Barack Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia at the Group of 20 summit meeting in London. "The bow was an extraordinary protocol violation," The Washington Times observed in an editorial on Tuesday. "Such an act is a traditional obeisance befitting a king's subjects, not his peer. There is no precedent for U.S. presidents bowing to Saudi or any other royals," the editorial said. Obama offered King Abdullah a deep and prolonged bow from the waist when he met him at the summit, which brought together the leaders of the world’s largest economies on April 2. The story about Obama’s unusual gesture has gotten scant media coverage in the United States, but a Spanish TV broadcast was picked up on blogs and has created an Internet stir. "No Americans of any station are required to bow to royalty," the Times stated. "It is one of the pillars of American exceptionalism that our country rejected traditional caste divisions." The Times editorial also opined that Obama’s bow "to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques does not help his image with those who believe he is secretly a Muslim, and why he chose to bow only to the Saudi king and not to any other royal remains unexplained." For instance, Obama did not bow to Queen Elizabeth when he first met her last week in London. Subjects of the crown may bow to the monarch but are not required to do so but has been a tradition between by our leaders because of our countries' relationship First lady Michelle Obama also broke protocol during the Obamas’ trip abroad when she put her hand on the queen’s back. The move caused a bit of tempest in the British press, but was quelled when the queen put her hand on Michelle in what a Buckingham Palace spokesman described as a "mutual and spontaneous display of affection and appreciation."  However is was a definite protocol violation also! By: Jim Meyers © 2009 Newsmax Question for the Day... Just How Stupid To You Think We Are Mr. President??? Related Articles: [Pic] Obama bows to Saudi King *update* Video added Michelle Obama "Breaks" Tradition  Obama's Words on Arabic Network Gave the Wrong Message to our Enemies!

[Pic] Obama bows to Saudi King *update* Video added

The exact definition of “Dhimmi”, a term which we talk about all the time on this blog, is:  

Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination.

US President Barack Obama, center, back to camera, greets King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, center, before the official G20 leaders group photo with Britain's Queen Elizabeth II at London's Buckingham Palace, Wednesday, April 1, 2009.

Posted at: 8:48 am on April 2, 2009 by Infidelesto -  Infidels Are Cool - Source:  The American Thinker

American Thinkiner adds this:

See Miss Manners on the protocol.   Americans do not bow to foreign monarchs because that act signified the monarch’s power over his subjects.

httip: Ronald

update: Here’s the video it’s at the :53 mark

No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)

Related Posts

Saudi Women petition to stay oppressed

Saudi King Abdullah gets a death Fatwa from Al Qaeda

Saudi’s praised for leading interfaith conference; no word if Bible’s were allowed in

Spanish protest in front of Saudi Embassy over unpaid debt

Obama's Words on Arabic Network Gave the Wrong Message to our Enemies!

Comments:

• 

  music2myear2 hours ago

  Wow, just wow. Are there no handlers to tell him this isn't done?
  Where's Rahm? Enjoying watching his befuddled puppet from afar?

  reply

• 

  Anne-Marie2 hours ago

  How can people continue to ignore what is obvious, this Usurper is an Islamic murderer at heart.

  reply

• 

  G1 hour ago

  Gimme your oil please!!!!!!!! Hey I have pics of Bush and the prince holding hands. so yeah.
  

• Queen Elizabeth’s Gift to Calderón: Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four
  http://iblowminds.com/2009/04/02/queen-elizabet...

• reply

• 

  David Cooper1 hour ago

  I'm pretty sure that by bowing to a king, he's just committed treason. 
  -_-
  If things keep going this way we'll have an impeachment in no time.

  -----

  Whether it is ignorance, treason, part of the great plan of a New World Order, that Obama is a puppet, or that Obama is an Islamic Follower... at heart - take your pick - but his actions are inexcusable, scary and un-America, at least if we want to keep the American and World that we know!!!

  And at the very least, if you are one of those who chooses not to see... he is embarrassing!

• 

NSider 3 hours ago

• You Americans read WAY too much into this stuff. Holding hands and bowing to a king don't mean much, it's just a formality to appear friendly and comfortable. It's all PR and politics.
  And FYI, bowing to anyone is forbidden in Islam because Muslims must only bow to God. So yeah, Obama really shouldn't have done that.

   

• 

• Storm_Rider 3 hours ago

  Actions speak louder than words. I believe Obama was born overseas, as he's never produced a real American birth certificate; and he considers himself a "citizen of the world" like most Marxists. I believe Obama's loyalty is not to the United States of America - not to our Constitution - but to the emerging Marxist-Islamist New World Order led by the United Nations. Traditional America; more specifically our Declaration and Constitution, stands in the way of the UN and the New World Order.

   

• 

• jcw461 hour ago

  All dogs bow to their true master.

   

• 

• JEWHAWK46 minutes ago

  OUTRAGEOUS.
  The leader of the most powerful nation on Earth showing signals of
  DEFEAT to someone whose source of power comes not from his
  people,but from a dirty and black stuff that oozes out from the ground
  called oil.

• 
  To show respect is one thing,but to look SUBDUED in front
  of thousands of reporters and TV crews is quite another.Even
  George W.Bush and his father,that are business partners of the
  Saudi dynasty,didn't show such behavior.

• 
  I guess that Obama was BEGGING for the Saudis to
  purchase more U.S.Treasury Bonds...In 20 or 30 years
  the Saudis and the Chinese will be in charge in Washington.

   

This section is for comments from IAC's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that IAC Moderators agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because we let it stand. Racism, threats, trolling and vulgarity will not be tolerated.

Source:  Knowledge_Is_Power - [Pic] Obama bows to Saudi King *update* Video added

Posted:  Daily Thought Pad - 04.02.09 2:55 PST