Items on this page are archived in
the order of discovery. Previous year in left column . . .
The Fourth Estate
A Fairy Tale Caricature Of Obama
asks, "How on earth do you not
challenge a statement
"I think it speaks volumes
about the man’s temperament," said Robert Dallek, the presidential
historian. "He doesn’t crave the spotlight the way some of these other
presidents have. They needed to be constantly in the eye of the public;
it propelled them into politics in the first place. Obama is less that
way; he is more of a self-contained person, someone who can genuinely
spend time by himself with his family."
That the author of the article
didn’t circle back with a question as to why a leader who’s appeared on
everything from the late night talk shows to Mythbusters, earned him a
write-up in Politico with the
headline, "The Everywhere President,"
doesn’t crave the spotlight.
Did he miss Obama the other day discoursing on college basketball on ESPN? Then
perhaps he missed him chatting with Jay Leno on
"The Tonight Show," or yucking it up with David Letterman.
Has he wondered how the first family stays in such
fine shape in the White House? Michelle Obama described their morning
workouts earlier this month in People magazine. Last winter, before
taking office, Obama and his bride also shared their
thoughts on the family’s eating habits for Parents magazine.
CNN to Men’s Journal, Obama has decided to make himself the "Everywhere
In an era where people can be famous for no reason
other than being known, a tautologous way of climbing the ladder when
fame amounts to experience and weight on a resume; Barack Obama isn’t
the first to exploit this ascent up the ladder, but he is the
first to be made entirely from it. The "Barack Obama Show" began with his 2004 DNC keynote,
after which he was, and continues to be, everywhere. The main difference
between Obama and Reagan is that Reagan was a better actor. (And a more
skilled leader with better policies, but definitely, better actor.)
The only other ways Obama and Reagan are alike are, they’re both
humans, and they are both men.
The author of this article
a) A one-month old infant wunderkind who is unaware that
Obama has had more airtime selling himself and his policies than
Suzanne Somers selling skin care products on QVC.
b) Someone who
has no access to a television or access to high-speed Internet with
which to see mention of Obama’s moonlighting.
reporter who thinks that doing good journalism is whatever amounts to
making Obama look good, replete with a plethora of Reagan
references because, 1) conservatives love him, and 2) he’s dead, which is
the only sort of conservative liberals feel safe enough to allow
themselves to like.
Lastly, can we please stop comparing
socialists-turned-more-moderate-leftists-due-to-November-2nd to Reagan? They’re Democrats, compare them to Democrats. It’s a bass-ackwards way
of reaching out to the middle sans any real action by saying someone is
like a conservative when they aren’t.
The media creates
unnecessary drama for itself by presenting complete falsehoods to the
public with the expectation that we’re the media and by that qualifier
alone you’ll believe us. We’re not so far gone down that Orwellian road
that people will accept such things without rejecting them outright.
Progressive Propagandists Rage
Immediately after the horrific shooting of Rep.
Giffords and others, the Left began to stage-manage this tragedy to
their political advantage.
The first to begin, was Arizona
senator and despicable human being, Linda Lopez, who
blamed the incident on the TEA Party, and described the shooter as
an Afghanistan War veteran (never
even in military).
Of course, professional whack-job,
Keith Olbermann, jumped on the bandwagon,
Allen West, the Tea Party, Beck and O'Reilly for the shootings. (Video)
The New York Times chief propagandist Paul Krugman
attacked the GOP for the assassination.
Arizon Sheriff Dupnik
(D) held a press conference (he's a lefty, refused to enforce Arizona's
immigration law). He
blamed the shooting on "vitriol coming out of certain people."
We all know who this scumbag is talking about -- the political Right.
The president of the top pro-abortion lobby group National
Organization for Women went so far as to openly
blame "extreme right-wing opponents" hours after the shooting,
chastising Republican leaders and calling for a Justice Department
investigation, "to the fullest extent of federal anti-terrorist
legislation," to determine whether the shooting was "part of a
conspiracy." NOW president Terry O'Neill declared in a statement
emailed to supporters:
"Conservatives cannot have it both ways,
screaming sexist, racist and homophobic slurs at legislators as they
vote for health care reform, putting legislators on a
violence-inciting ‘Targets' list, and then simply saying how sorry
they are when someone explodes into murder."
Film Critic Roger Ebert joins the Left-wing Palin
Tweeting, "Sarah Palin rummages online franticall erasing her
rabble-rousing Tweets like a Stalinist trimming nonj-person out of
Sorry, Roger, it was the DailyKos, and FaceBook that
were scrubbing the evidence of Loughton's left-wing associations.
The murderer wasn't a conservative at all. He was a Lefty,
just like these knee-jerk lunatics, who jumped to all the wrong
conclusions, and blamed all the wrong people, without a single fact,
because they don't care about facts, because it doesn't fit their
A Democrat's Advice For Obama
says the references to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 echoed in other ways. That
horror, which killed 168 people including many children, helped
then-President Bill Clinton stigmatize extreme anti-government rhetoric
and re-energize his presidency at a time when Newt Gingrich and
conservative Republicans were riding high in Congress.
"They need to deftly pin this on the
TEA Partiers, just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the
Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people."
Getting A Grip On Obama’s Real Place In
says during the 2008 campaign, the historian Garry Wills compared
Barack Obama’s Philadelphia speech on race with Abraham Lincoln’s Cooper
Union address. Now he’s back at it, though he’s raising the bar a
As both Alana and Rick have pointed out, according to
Wills, Obama’s Tucson speech, "bears comparison with two Lincoln
speeches even greater than the Copper Union address" -- Gettysburg and
Lincoln’s Second Inaugural address.
Actually, it doesn’t.
I thought Obama’s speech was a very good one. But the gushing
Professor Wills really does need to get a grip on himself.
also learn in his blog that (surprise) the New York Review wanted to
publish a booklet printing the Lincoln and Obama speeches together, but
the Obama campaign (wisely) discouraged that idea, perhaps to avoid any
suspicion that they were calling Obama a second Lincoln. "Well,"
Wills informs us, in the aftermath of the Tucson speech, "I am willing
to risk such opposition now."
It should be clear by now, even to
Obama’s most passionate supporters, that he’s no Lincoln (he’s closer to
being another Carter). Any effort to pretend that Obama belongs
anywhere in same conversation with Lincoln is really quite silly.
But such is the state of mind of the New York Review of Books and its
writers these days. It’s not enough to be admiring of Obama; they
have to be worshipful.
Like besotted adolescents, the left is
rekindling its love affair with Barack Obama after only a single speech.
Be warned: queasiness to follow.
AP's Bogus Poll
says a widely reprinted AP story, based on a recent AP/GfK poll, is
entitled, "Opposition to health care law eases." Don't believe it.
What has eased isn't the level of opposition to ObamaCare, but rather
the level of effort that AP/GfK has made to ensure that its polling
sample is representative of American voters.
When the AP/GfK
poll screened for likely voters a couple of weeks before the election,
it estimated that 48 percent of voters leaned Republican and that 42
percent leaned Democratic (which the election showed to be about right).
In its latest survey -- the one that serves as the basis for the AP
story -- AP/GfK didn't screen for likely voters and didn't screen for
registered voters. Instead, it merely surveyed 1,001 adults.
The result? The percentage of Democratic-leaning respondents
stayed the same (42 percent), but the percentage of Republican-leaning
respondents dropped by 12 points, to 36 percent.
As one would
expect -- with the same percentage of Democratic-leaning respondents
having been surveyed both times -- the level of support for ObamaCare
remained essentially unchanged: 41 percent supported it previously; 40
percent support it now. Just as unsurprisingly, when the
percentage of Republican-leaning respondents dropped by 12 points, the
level of opposition to ObamaCare dropped by 11 points (from 52 to 41
And the pollsters
are on board.
O Met Secretly With Rich, Maddow, Huff
writing in the Post, says, you don’t know this, because few know
this because it’s secret because nobody wants anybody to know this
because who knows why? A pack of wide open tonsils like Frank
Rich, Arianna Huffington, Rachel Maddow were imported to the White House
for a hear all, tell all, blab all, on the "QT" meeting.
been by deliberation unreported.
And the raison d’etre?
America’s Talker-in-Chief can brainpick, monitor their views, borrow
ideas, pin the tail on the conservatives and get re-elected…
There was a time when journalists
viewed their role as keeping politicians honest.
Now, we have a
bunch of alleged journalists from The New York Times (print), MSNBC/NBC
(TV), and the blogsphere (World-Wide Web) scheming with the
The election campaign is truly on, and the
ObamaMedia are on board.
More Media Manipulation
says Obama met with several top news personalities and pundits on
Tuesday before his State of the Union Address.
Per a White House
pool report, Obama met with the group for lunch at the White House this
Among the figures reported to be meeting with the
president were CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Diane Sawyer and George
Stephanopoulos from ABC, Brian Williams from NBC and Chris Matthews from
MSNBC. It wasn't clear whether there were more attendees at the
Obama has been known to meet with journalists
occasionally for informal chats. The discussions are typically off
the record, meaning that the content of Tuesday's discussion will likely
nothing more than supposedly "independent journalists" getting their
propaganda talking points directly from The Man.
The concept of
an independent press in the age of Obama is a joke. These
"journalists" are committing journalistic malpractice and are working
directly for Obama -- and evidently, they don't care who knows.
says, don’t fool yourself…
is alive and well. It was apparent this week after Obama’s SOTU
Address that the ObamaMedia is still coordinating their message to the
All three major networks described Obama’s
confusing speech as being "Reaganesque." Just a
They want so desperately for the failed socialist they helped
elect to appear like the beloved Ronald Reagan.
And, here's another
This video is MSNBC's contribution to the "Obama is Reagan" meme.
What are the odds?
ObamaMedia wants us to believe that the socialist who bows to Hu Jintao and
King Abdullah and the Japanese Emperor is the next Reagan.
know what was on the agenda at the meeting between Obama and the
representatives of CNN, and the three major networks -- the results are
in the video -- "Obama is Ronald
So much for a "free and independent press."
They now work for Obama.
says this past week it was Ronald Reagan. This could be seen
coming from a mile away. It really doesn't take a Nostradamus to
predict these things in Obama's behaviors. It was obvious after
watching his preview
video of his State of the Union address, posted on his web site.
And even the hardest of hearing heard about Obama reading Reagan on his
Christmas vacation flight to Hawai'i. No one should be surprised,
despite the juxtaposition.
Everyone from the HuffPo to Breitbart
found this topic irresistible. But of all the many Reagan/Obama
media mentions, Mark Rudd's warning words, "feint right, turn left," are
the most ominous, and to this writer's mind, accurate.
last week, we witnessed a feeding frenzy from the media and the
blogosphere, discussing the change in Obama's attitude and rhetoric.
Some made for juicy, thought provoking, reading. Others were just
spin. The Big Three Alphabet Media agreed, Obama was "Reaganesque."
The problem for Obama is that we are now on to his character, if not yet
his legal identity.
Chameleonesque is a better description for
Barack Obama. Therefore, this Reagan thing, won't work for him.
Do you wonder which historical, great leader, Obama and his
handlers might choose next for him to impersonate?
Let us reflect
upon some of the absurd, failed, comparisons from the lost and wandering
left-bent hopefuls in search of their Champion, their voice, and their
identity, over the first two years of this unprecedented presidency:
• During his campaign, (the
pre-election one) Obama was to become the next John F. Kennedy.
In the early afterglow days of the Democrats' victory, People, Time,
and Newsweek Magazines, did their best to project that Jack & Jackie
Camelot fantasy on to the Barry and Michelle blank screen to entice
(propagandize) the population (sheep) to fall in love with this most
exceptionally beautiful, and brilliant, ruling couple. (Must
have been Jackie's and Michelle's remarkably similar tastes in
• He has been the
incarnation of Abe Lincoln (They are both tall and lanky.)
• He has been called
"Jeffersonian". (Aside from sharing the same brand of
Teleprompter, we're at a loss.)
• Michelle Obama compared to
Marie Antoinette. Like Marie, Michelle mysteriously gave up
her license to practice law, or was disbarred. (same with hubby)
• Obama, the next Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. (Probably because of the Beer Summit, combined with
the work Obama's DOJ has done, absolving the New Black Panther Party
of that bogus voter intimidation case.)
• Gandhi: Obama wins Nobel
Peace Prize for his excellence in reading other people's utopian
words from a teleprompter. (One year later, we are in awe over
the Global Peace this man has singlehandedly created, particularly
in the Middle East.)
• Here, Obama is FDR
• And of course, everyone's
favorite, Obama as Christ.
Why does the characterization of Obama's persona,
and therefore his purpose and direction, as described by his adoring
media advocates, change so frequently? This is truly
unprecedented. Has any former national leader been likened to so
many former great figures in world history? Will the list continue
to increase? Why would anyone imagine the trend to end here?
Why isn't the media asking why Barack Obama cannot seem stand upon his
Obama has no identity. He's spent a lifetime crafting a bogus
identity for political reasons. His true identity is under lock
and key. Why? What is so horrible about this guy's true
identity that he has to hide it from the American People?
ABC Frets About Obama's "State Run" Media
says when he started referring to the mainstream media as The Obama
Media Group, it was the perfect descriptor; the mainstream media has
been anything but mainstream for decades. While its minions have
parroted liberal talking points for years, they reached a new low with
the arrival of Barrack Obama on the national political stage. So
much so, that even Saturday Night Live spoofed their pro-Obama slant
during his debates with Hillary Clinton.
How times change.
Now, ABC News is whining wondering out loud if the Obama Administration
might just want to replace the traditional press with its own "state
run" media. Yes folks, one of the charter members of the OMG is
worried that "the White House Press Office now not only produces a
website, blog, YouTube channel, Flickr photo stream, and Facebook and
Twitter profiles, but also a mix of daily video programming, including
live coverage of Obama’s appearances and news-like shows that highlight
Our pals in the liberal media are miffed
because White House cameras have been granted unprecedented access to
Obama, while administration officials have blocked news outlets from
events traditionally open to coverage, as well as limited opportunities
to publicly question Obama himself. Welcome to the club.
Remember when Obama refused to even call on correspondents from Fox News
during his early press conferences?
"The Administration has
narrowed access by the mainstream media to an unprecedented extent,"
moaned ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton. "Access
here has shriveled."
Relax Ann, things could be worse.
Another example of Team Obama
controlling the message.
Begin with the reality that Obama is a
socialist. Those doubting this assertion of fact need only
refer to Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. There, Stanley Kurtz meticulously and
undeniably lays bare Obama's socialist education, associations,
mentoring, roots, beliefs, and actions. Let us also keep in
mind that socialism, like Marxism, is fundamentally incompatible
with freedom, democracy, and capitalism as embodied in America's
founding documents and as practiced in America. If Obama is
indeed a socialist -- and he is -- then his belief system, his way
of thinking, is innately hostile to America. Socialism and
American democracy cannot coexist, so if Obama is pursuing socialist
policies, American democracy must, of necessity, be weakened or
But if this is true, how did Obama get elected?
It boils down to this: He lied. He lied
about who he is, about his background, his
fundamental beliefs, his intentions, and his
methods. He employed standard
Marxist/socialist tactics and concealed his
true nature so as to seize power and impose his
will, and for two years, he pretty much got
away with it.
And he got away with it by
having a media that was willing to not only
propagate the lie but affirm and willfully sell
it as truth.
It's something Americans
need to be reminded of again and again as 2012
approaches for the lies will once again be put
front and center and once again be disseminated
by an accomplice media.
mantra of the American people ought to become, "Fool me once, shame on
you; fool me twice, shame on me."
"Everything Obama's Done Has Been Good for
Scott Whitlock says that
professional Obama fan Chris Matthews appeared on Friday's edition of
the Martin Bashir show to slam the Obama's critics and to swoon,
"Everything he's done has been good for this country."
went on an extended rant against those who oppose Obama, theorizing,
"...They go back to the old nativist root, this old dark night of the
soul thing that people worry about, a black man in a White House.
And they start working on that. 'Oh, he's a Mau Mau. He goes
back to a Muslim background.'"
Indirectly referring to columnists
such as Dinesh D'Souza, who has highlighted political beliefs of Obama's
father and grandfather, Matthews attacked, "It's using race. It's
using the paranoid fear of whites of black males against this president
whose life has been spotless, has been the American dream."
an extended bout of praising Obama, Bashir regained control of the show
and ended the segment by enthusing, "Chris, I gotta draw you to a close,
but that's the best pep talk I've heard for a long time. So, thank
you so much."
A partial transcript of the March 4 segment is
here . . .
off his meds again!
Obama To Party With Washington Reporters
is reporting that Barack Obama will speak at the 126th annual
Gridiron Club dinner in Washington on Saturday evening.
white-tie event is an opportunity for journalists to poke fun at public
figures and political themes of the day.
This will be the first
time Obama has appeared at the event. Last year, former President
Bill Clinton stood in for Obama, who was preparing for a probable House
vote on health care reform. Obama, however, did speak to the
dinner via videotape. Vice President Joe Biden represented Obama
The White House
refused to comment on rumors that Obama was appearing this year because
the "journalists" all agreed to sign "loyalty oaths."
Obama's Flaming Hypocrisy
says the White House canceled Obama's Openness Award after being
called out on their flaming hypocrisy.
And by flaming hypocrisy,
I mean he had four closed-to-the-press meetings scheduled prior to
receiving his transparency award.
The White House announced Wednesday it has
postponed a ceremony for Obama to accept transparency award from a
government watchdog group.
The event was scrubbed due to
scheduling changes, according to a White House pool report, and is
supposed to be rescheduled.
Obama was scheduled to accept an
award from the Freedom of Information Day Conference recognizing,
"his deep commitment to an open and transparent government -- of,
by, and for the people," according to press guidance.
right-leaning Drudge Report played up the award ceremony Wednesday
on its site under the headline, "All WH events Wednesday 'closed
press' -- except for ceremony praising Obama's 'commitment to
transparent government'. . ."
A pool spray was scheduled to
cover the top of the event.
Obama Has A New Lawyer
Upstaged by The Donald, it appears that Bill O'Reilly has taken it
upon himself to become Obama's defender -- and he does a terrible job.
O'Reilly says that Obama didn't write a thesis, but Obama's
professor, Michael Baron,
said he did.
Obama's former professor who graded the
now-elusive paper recalled in an interview with NBC News that Obama
easily aced the year-long class. Baron described the paper as a
"thesis" or "senior thesis" in several interviews, and said that Obama
spent a year working on it. Baron recalls that the topic was
nuclear negotiations with the Soviet Union.
"My recollection is
that the paper was an analysis of the evolution of the arms reduction
negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States," Baron said
in an e-mail. "At that time, a hot topic in foreign policy circles
was finding a way in which each country could safely reduce the large
arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at the other … For U.S. policy makers
in both political parties, the aim was not disarmament, but achieving
deep reductions in the Soviet nuclear arsenal and keeping a substantial
and permanent American advantage. As I remember it, the paper was
about those negotiations, their tactics and chances for success. Barack
got an A."
O'Reilly finally admitted after nearly 3 years of
lying that Obama has not released a birth certificate, while saying that the State of Hawaii said
Obama's birth certificate is "on file."
Actually, Dr. Fukino, the
Director of Hawaii Department of Health, said that she had "personally
seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen.
Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state
policies and procedures."
The intentional ambiguity of that
statement raises more questions that it answers. The specific type of certificate
was not identified. It could be the certificate for someone born
outside of the State of Hawaii.
Being "on record" could mean
either that its contents are in the computer database of the department,
or an actual "vault" original. If the latter, those are the words
used to describe what is there. The data base record could have
been entered based on a birth record for someone born outside of Hawaii.
Therefore, the value as prima facie evidence is limited and easily
overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth
outside Hawaii can be obtained and verified with a Court Order.
But, the killer is, we KNOW FOR A FACT, that the current governor of
Hawaii, an Obama booster,
was unable to find Obama's long-form birth
certificate anywhere in Hawaii, and he had a COURT-ordered search
warrant. All he found was something in the
"archives" that was "written down."
Then O'Reilly references that
damned COLB that is on the Internet. The one that Janice Okubo, the
Communications Officer for the Department of Health has been
saying, "I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a
doubt what the image on the site represents." The one that
would not be accepted by Hawaii for eligibility for some state
O'Reill repeats the allegation that
Obama was born in a Honolulu hospital, but NO
hospital ANYWHERE in Hawaii,
will confirm that Obama was born in its facility.
hospital ANYWHERE in Hawaii has a plaque in its lobby saying,
"Birthplace of the 44th President of the United States."
Regarding the questions about Obama receiving foreign aid at
Occidental, O'Reilly says, "someone just made that up."
he know that? And if it was made up, why did Team Obama
fight so hard to keep his Occidental records sealed, going so far as
to threaten sanctions against inquiring attorneys.?
Bill -- I'm afraid he's jumped the shark -- again. Verdict?
Bill O'Reilly is a pinhead.
Related:State-Run Media Springs Into
Action to Protect Obama
Related:Romney to Trump: Obama Doesn’t Need a Birth Certificate
Related:RINO Romney says, "Barack Obama
was born here. Period."
I guess that settles it! But
where is "here?"
ObamaMedia Invents News (Again)
The US News and World Report has taken to
inventing the news, as
demonstrated in this extract from an article entitled, "GOP Boss
Says Birther Claims a Distraction."
Newly-installed Republican National
Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has a message for Donald Trump and
other so-called "birthers": Shut up!
starting to score some fundraising and organizational victories
inside GOP HQ, having taken over for controversial former Chairman
Michael Steele, says the debate over Obama's birthplace and whether
he can be president is a huge distraction away from the party's
effort to fight Democratic spending and tax plans.
The problem with this report is that it isn't true.
It is completely fabricated. Priebus Tweets:
Related: Zip says it turns out The New
York Times was lying (shocker!) when they mocked us for sounding the
alarm on death panels during the debate on ObamaCare.
Paul Krugman writes, "That's what cost-control
looks like! You have people who actually know about health
care and health costs setting priorities for spending, within a
budget; in effect, you have an institutional setup which forces
Medicare to find ways to say no."
"And when people start
screaming about death panels again, remember: you can always buy
whatever health care you want; the question is what taxpayers should
Wait a minute! How can poor people, the elderly and children
(it's always for "the children" with these people) buy whatever health
care you want? More lies. More inventions.
The Dishonorable Media
we now have the media of an one-party state.
I was watching ABC’s
George Stephanopoulos interviewing Donald Trump about the birth
certificate issue, and it struck me how much more Stephanopoulos sounded
like an Obama staff member than an independent and objective journalist.
Continuing his crusade to save Obama from the dustbin of history,
Stephanopoulos, on Good Morning America, waved a copy of Obama’s alleged
Certification of Live Birth at Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). He
demanded that she renounce her recent heresy of questioning Obama’s
eligibility to be president by swearing an oath to the purity of her
thoughts in order for her to be considered an acceptable contender for
the Republican presidential nomination.
Stephanopoulos is the
caricature of a main stream media (MSM) news anchor, who moved
seamlessly from being press secretary for the Clinton administration to
being the spokesman for left-wing Democrats at ABC news. Of
course, the MSM long ago discarded any pretense of independence and
objectivity. They have completely bought into the Obama agenda and
they want to protect their investment. The MSM are now
enthusiastically shielding Obama from doubts about his eligibility by
making the "Birther question" a litmus test for potential Republican
candidates. There may be no length that the MSM will not go to
protect Obama and left-wing Democrats. They appear willing to
defend them against any accusations of atrocious crime or dangerous
policy and any displays of ignorance or arrogance.
news captured Obama making potentially offensive comments to a group of
big money donors, and apparently, CBS only released snippets of his
remarks, purportedly leaving out the part where Obama called ordinary
On another subject, I have often wondered why,
with so many qualified African-American spokespersons, the MSM promotes
outwardly controversial and divisive figures like Al "racism is my
business" Sharpton? He is a man ostensibly dedicated to rooting
out either real or imagined racism, mostly, it seems, the latter.
The MSM recruits such commentators because divisive policies are also
part of the business case for left-wing Democrats, who would become
extinct under E Pluribus Unum.
Nevertheless, the MSM continue to
wrap themselves in a cloak of noble intentions and enlightened opinions
as they eagerly censor the news, presumably to protect us rustics and
rabble from our coarser instincts like requesting the truth and
protecting the Constitution.
In the end, however, it will not be
the MSM who will pay the penalty for participating in this scam, because
they can walk away from their mistakes and update their web pages.
Those potentially liable are Obama and the Congress.
the 20th Amendment, Section 3, it is not the responsibility of the
American people to prove that Obama is not eligible, but for Obama to
prove that he is. In addition, the Congress is required to
validate Obama’s eligibility.
When the truth is finally known and
history is eventually written regarding Obama’s actions and the
acquiescence by members of Congress, the words of Thomas Paine might
come to mind:
"The world will be puzzled to decide whether
you are an apostate or an impostor; whether you have abandoned good
principles, or whether you ever had any."
An ObamaMedia Fantasy
calls itself "independent."
says, okay! I totally get that the mainstream media is the
propaganda arm of the left. Yes -- that much is obvious!
However, what I’m wondering is if there isn’t at least one press person
whose love of life and self-preservation instinct can’t override his/her
I’m wondering, specifically, if not even
one of them listened to Barry’s childish drivel about
cool phones in the White House and had a sinking feeling deep
inside. It’s obvious Barry envisioned being POTUS as a combination
of James Bond and the Commander of the Starship Enterprise. Coming
from a grown man, that is S.C.A.R.Y.
Here’s an example.
Suppose liberals and conservatives are all aboard a huge cruise liner.
Let’s say the name is the Titanic. Prior to casting off, a fierce
debate over the choice of captains pitted the two groups against each
other. The liberals won out, and installed a young, cool [all this
from their POV only], hip, inexperienced captain. After all, he
looks so good in the uniform!
What I’m saying is, the sea has
turned treacherous, icebergs cropping up, and the captain is wondering
aloud why his control room doesn’t look more like something Jules Verne
would cook up.
Granted, most liberals would smile indulgently and
remark that he’s too cool even for the role of captain. But isn’t
there at least one, somewhere, who has begun to worry about going down
with the ship?
Maybe not. But it seems like that spiel
about Trekkie phones at the White House should have been a wake-up call.
You can -- I can -- debate whether he’s borderline insane or psychotic,
but isn’t there at least one prominent liberal wondering whether he’s
competent enough even to avoid the next iceberg???
Victor Davis Hanson has
thoughts on presidential leadership and the media.
something quite Roman in the killing of Osama bin Laden, something
reminiscent of the manner in which the Romans eventually dealt with a
rogue’s gallery of charismatic tribal enemies -- Spartacus,
Vercingetorix, Jugurtha, Mithridates, Boudica, and others -- all of whom
claimed victory over the Romans and invulnerability from their global
reach, only to be eventually defeated, forced to kill themselves,
executed, or killed in battle.
The killing reminds us that there
are official rules we cite and unofficial ones that, thankfully, we
actually follow. Pakistan is to be praised publicly as a partner,
even as privately it is recognized as the sort of enemy that allows bin
Laden to build a mansion in a suburb inhabited by its retired military
officers. So we swiftly invade the country, kill him, and then
praise the Pakistanis for their help -- with full knowledge that bin
Laden couldn’t have been there for years without Pakistani government
assistance. I have no idea whether disseminating such
disinformation is sustainable.
The bin Laden hit came at an
opportune time: the U.S. had been talking of decline and "leading from
behind," and yet just pulled off a commando raid beyond the capability
of most other countries -- at the same time that the Arab world has gone
topsy-turvy, and its half-dozen ongoing rebellions and insurgencies have
diverted the attention of the Arab Street. So Osama is dead and in
Davy Jones’ Locker, while crowds chant against Assad and Qaddafi.
The success of the operation should also raise "if you are going to take
Tripoli, take Tripoli" questions, and may remind Obama to finish his
ill-conceived Libyan adventure, which can only succeed by achieving,
either de facto or de jure, the mission objective of regime change.
The mission was a targeted hit, but we describe it as a firefight,
apparently to preclude the sort of legal mess that has ensued with
Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- or the ongoing saga of a captured Saddam
Hussein, which stood in such contrast with the abrupt fate of his sons.
Death ends legal issues, and in our postmodern, out-of-sight,
out-of-mind world it is apparently as acceptable to act as judge, jury,
and executioner of terrorist leaders (and rogue leaders like Qaddafi) as
it is considered illegal and immoral to detain or water-board them.
Killing bin Laden and his son, or Qaddafi’s son, is permissible, it
seems, as long as we cite the circumstances of an ongoing war or a
firefight, and maintain that we are not doing what we are in fact doing.
It’s also easier to conduct assassinations abroad if the
Commander-in-Chief is liberal. This neutralizes criticism from the
media, universities, the legal community, and Hollywood. Obama,
the law professor, can assassinate bin Laden in Pakistan, dump his body
in the ocean, and with first-person emphasis boast of our brilliant
mission in a way Bush the Texan could not get away with -- in the same
manner that killing the son of Qaddafi, and the effort to kill Qaddafi
himself, are not really forbidden targeted assassinations under Obama,
and in the manner that Guantánamo, tribunals, renditions, preventive
detentions, Predators, wiretaps, and intercepts that so bothered Senator
Obama and others are now deemed essential. This paradox is just
the way it is; the media will report Obama’s Predator drone attack or
commando hit as done with reluctance and without other viable choices.
Were a conservative leader to take the same actions, he would be
portrayed as a trigger-happy war-monger reveling in the violence.
Thus, the street celebrations that ensued when news of bin Laden’s death
broke are seen by the media as a new unity inspired by Obama.
Three years ago, they would have been seen as macabre triumphalism.
A vocal minority want Obama to take
all the credit for the kill shot that sent Bin Laden to hell. It
would appear Obama supporters, weary of defending him have latched onto
this to justify their blind support these past two years. These
supporters needed a reason to continue to stand behind the man they
voted for other than he’s not Bush. So in an effort at redemption,
Obama has been elevated with his "gutsy" move to approve the killing.
Does cutting nine holes off your golf game to spend 45 minutes in
the same room as Hillary qualify as a gutsy move? Does basking in
the glow of our Special Forces stretch credibility too far?
Related:Top Dem official says Barack
Obama showed "as much courage as our Navy SEALs"
Related:Osama bin Laden mission agreed in secret 10 years ago
by US and Pakistan (Deal made between Musharraf and Bush in 2001)
Looks like everybody got the
Reprehensible "Journalist" Baits Tom
Tancredo -- Gets Eaten
MSNBC's Martin Bashir asks former
Republican congressman Tom Tancredo (CO) if he... "preferred the death
of the president as opposed to bin Laden?"
Such is the state of American "journalism."
ObamaMedia’s Ploy To Exploit Bin Laden
Thrill Kill Failing
In this extract, William J. Kelly says
apparently, the ObamaMedia believe that Barack Obama did more than
telling your military advisers, "OK, yeah, just go ahead." Much more.
They way the media portrays it -- it was Obama's overarching
philosophy in the War on Terror, his courage since 9/11, and his
experience in military tactical strategy that saved the day. After
all, former President George Bush and the post 9/11 intelligence
infrastructure he created were so yesterday. And, really, who
cares that the waterboarding stuff Obama
has been condemning as torture actually worked?
Maher, that respected journalist-comedian (since liberals can’t tell the
difference), heaped on the accolades calling you a "multi-tasking
ninja." Barbara Walters, host of ABC’s "The View" announced, "I
would hate now to be a Republican candidate thinking of running (against
Obama in 2012)." Then there’s Walters’ gifted associate, Joy Behar, who
cackled, "They (the Republicans) should just skip the next election."
This week, the parade of gushing high-fives and accolades -- "gutsy"
was the word -- for Obama continued from Democrat members of Congress,
cable news pundits, and newspapers around the country. The same
Democrats who called and continue to call George Bush a 'war criminal.'
The same pundits who demonized the Bush-approved 'enhanced interrogation
techniques' that CIA Director Leon Panetta admitted were instrumental in
the Bin Laden raid’s success. But why let a silly thing like
political hypocrisy spoil all the progressive fun?
political hypocrisy may not count but poll numbers do. A new Pew
Research Center poll released today finds that Obama’s post approval
rating has already fallen 10%, or six points, to 50%. (It had
jumped to 56% right after the announcement of the Bin Laden’s death.)
His disapproval is at 39%, a return to late-February levels. Poor
Obama. That Bin Laden bump just couldn’t last. Gallup, Pew,
and New York Times/CBS recorded a 6-point bump, a 9-point bump, and an
11-point bump respectively.
GOP pollster Adam Geller said, "The
fundamentals of 2012 are still going to be unemployment, the economy,
gas prices, jobs and all this other stuff." So much for the
suggestion from the likes of Maher and Behar that we just "skip the next
However, there is a bigger hole in the mainstream
media’s 2012 strategy to save Obama. They underestimate just how
little Americans have come to trust them and Barack Obama.
2008, the mainstream media lost credibility with voters and independent
voters, in particular, due to its zealous one-sided coverage of the
presidential race. In 2011, voters have borne witness to Obama’s
ineptitude, his mismanagement of the economy, failed stimulus, broken
promise on unemployment, and the unethical tactics he used to ram
through unpopular ObamaCare (and
his incessant lying).
In terms of foreign policy,
Barack Obama has maintained an anti-American world view. He does
not believe in 'American exceptionalism.' In his first 100 days,
he apologized for the "sins of America" on three continents. He
has been more concerned with building a mosque at Ground Zero, closing
Gitmo, banning the term 'War on Terror' in favor of 'overseas
contingency operation,' and extending his popularity in the Muslim world
rather than halting the spread of dangerous Islamic extremism in the
world. He has not been helped by images of him bowing to the
Chinese or hugging South American dictators named Hugo. His
unapologetic probe of Bush CIA agents who used "enhanced interrogation
techniques" -- especially now in the wake of the success of his Bin
Laden raid -- screams hypocrisy.
For their part, the biased
ObamaMedia have been in a constant state of spin, attempting to
manipulate popular opinion through by repetition and saturation of
specific pro-Obama storylines and themes. So far, that strategy
In 2012, it will come down to one fundamental
question: "Is Barack Obama one of us?" In 2008, the answer was
"yes." In 2012, the answer is most likely to be a resounding "no."
The polls the
writer mentions above were all oversampled with Democrats.
shows that 25% of the nation's voters "Strongly Approve" of the way
that Barack Obama is performing his role. Thirty-seven percent
(37%) "Strongly Disapprove," giving Obama a "Presidential Approval
Index" rating of -12, and that figure is trending downward.
Esquire Pulls Stunt
announced -- "BREAKING: Jerome Corsi's Birther Book Pulled From
Slavish Obot, Mark Warren, the executive editor of
wrote, that in a stunning development one day
after the release of Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that
Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President, by Dr. Jerome Corsi,
World Net Daily Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah has
announced plans to recall and pulp the entire 200,000 first printing run
of the book, as well as announcing an offer to refund the purchase price
to anyone who has already bought either a hard copy or electronic
download of the book.
In an exclusive interview, a reflective Farah, who
wrote the book's foreword and also published Corsi's earlier
best-selling work, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak out
Against John Kerry and Capricorn One: NASA, JFK, and the Great "Moon
Landing" Cover-Up, said that after much serious reflection, he could not
go forward with the project. "I believe with all my heart that
Barack Obama is destroying this country, and I will continue to stand
against his administration at every turn, but in light of recent events,
this book has become problematic, and contains what I now believe to be
factual inaccuracies," he said this morning. "I cannot in good
conscience publish it and expect anyone to believe it."
if he had any plans to publish a corrected version of the book, he said
cryptically, "There is no book." Farah declined to comment on his
discussions of the matter with Corsi.
A source at WND, who requested
that his name be withheld, said that Farah was "rip-shit" when, on April
27, Obama took the extraordinary step of personally releasing his
"long-form" birth certificate, thus resolving the matter of Obama's
legitimacy for "anybody with a brain."
"He called up Corsi and really
tore him a new one," says the source. "I mean, we'll do anything
to hurt Obama, and erase his memory, but we don't want to look like
fucking idiots, you know? Look, at the end of the day, bullshit is
Corsi, who graduated from Harvard and is a
professional journalist, could not be reached for comment.
The entire article is a lie,
intended to negatively affect Corsi's book sales. The Left is
terrified of the book.
the bottom of the article, in small print, was this:
Tags: birther book, jerome corsi, where's the
birth certificate, drudge without context, birthers, wingnuts, humor
Warren later added:
UPDATE, 12:25 p.m., for those who didn't
figure it out yet, and the many on Twitter for whom it took a while: We
committed satire this morning to point out the problems with selling and
marketing a book that has had its core premise and reason to exist
gutted by the news cycle, several weeks in advance of publication.
Are its author and publisher chastened? Well, no. They
double down, and accuse Obama of perpetrating a fraud on the world by
having released a forged birth certificate. Not because this claim
is in any way based on reality, but to hold their terribly gullible
audience captive to their lies, and to sell books. This is
despicable, and deserves only ridicule. That's why we committed
satire in the matter of the Corsi book. Hell, even Obama has a
sense of humor about it all. Some more serious reporting from us
on this whole "Birther" phenomenon here, here, and here.
When Corsi's book was announced, it
jumped to #1 on Amazon.com. The day after Obama released his
latest bogus birth certificate, it dropped to #41. Today, it has
recovered, and is back to #18, and rising. The left is still angry at Corsi for torpedoing John F'n Kerry's presidential ambitions, and are
terrified that Corsi will do it again with "Where's the Birth
way, there is no such book as, "Capricorn One: NASA, JFK, and the Great
'Moon Landing' Cover-Up."
used to be a great magazine. Everything these liberals touch turns
Media Shielded Voters From Obama's Israel
says that when Barack Obama publicly endorsed the Palestinian view
of Israel's future this week, he took many Americans, including many of
his Jewish-American supporters, by surprise. Had the media been
doing their job, he would not have surprised anyone.
2008, Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times wrote a lengthy article
titled "Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama." The article
pulled some of its information from a video shot at a 2003 farewell
dinner for Rashid Khalidi,
a Palestinian booster and a de facto spokesman for the PLO during his
Beirut years. Khalidi, who had spent several years at the
University of Chicago, was leaving for New York.
terrorists Bill Ayers and
Bernardine Dohrn reportedly attended the dinner as well. This
would make sense. Khalidi begins the acknowledgment section of his
2004 book, Resurrecting Empire, with a tribute to the guy who lived --
and edited -- in their neighborhood. "First, chronologically and in
other ways," writes Khalidi, "comes Bill Ayers." Unlike the
calculating Obama, Khalidi had no reason to be coy about this
At the dinner, Obama thanked Khalidi and his wife
for the many meals they had shared at the Khalidi home and for reminding
Obama of "my own blind spots and my own biases." Obama hoped that
"we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not
just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table [...] [but around] this
Wallsten acknowledged that during this
"celebration of Palestinian culture," some of the guests made hostile
comments about Israel. One recited a poem accusing the Israeli
government of terrorism with the implicit threat that Israel "will never
see a day of peace." Another compared "Zionist settlers on the
West Bank" to Osama bin Laden. If worse had been said, or if Obama
had applauded these comments, the world beyond the LA Times newsroom
would not be allowed to know.
The Times, which endorsed Obama
for president, steadfastly refused to share the videotape despite the
demand by the McCain camp and others to release it. This was, of
course, one of many clues to Obama's character that the media either
suppressed or refused to seek.
"A major news organization is
intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link
between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain spokesman Michael
Times spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan blew Goldfarb off.
"As far as we're concerned, the story speaks for itself," she responded.
The Times would add no details beyond what had appeared in Wallsten's
April article. Obama, after all, had many affluent Jewish
supporters in the Los Angeles area. Why worry them with a little
The video of the event remains hidden to this day.
Covering For Obama's High Unemployment
asks if Obama can be re-elected in
2012 with unemployment figures at record highs? If the media and
Democrat operatives have their way, it just may be possible.
Witness this article by Jeremy Greenfield headlined "Unemployment: The
Greenfield introduces the notion that there are
plenty of jobs, but not enough workers with sufficient skills. It
seems, according to the article, that there has been a "talent mis-match"
forming since the 1970's that is only now coming to a head -- just in
time for Obama to skate by on his woeful performance on the economy.
You see, it's not his fault!
In contrast, just a few years ago,
in early 2006, the unemployment rate in the U.S. was 4.7%. That
was when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took majority roles in Congress.
It's been a fiscal disaster since then, with the election of Obama in
2008 greasing the skids of a near total economic collapse.
us hope that clever articles like Greenfield's do not take hold on the
American electorate that must vote their way out of this mess.
Congressional Report Lists 36 Pages Of
says congressman Darrell Issa has produced a shocking new report
detailing the Obama administration's extensive use of taxpayer-funded
propaganda, which he says breaks federal law. The report created
for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform details how
the former Alinskyite community organizer has channeled the resources of
the federal government -- that is, your money -- to create "a
sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign" made up of
"inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda
The highlights include:
federal arts grants to spread Obama's legislative message.
Last August 10, administration officials held a conference call with
National Endowment of the Arts grant recipients. Buffy Wicks,
a college radical who worked in Valerie Jarrett's Office of Public
Engagement, told the invitees, "we're going to come at you with some
specific 'asks' here," specifically supporting Obama's initiatives
on health care, the environment, or energy. She suggested, "We
wanted folks to connect…with federal agencies, with labor unions,
progressive groups, face groups [faith groups, perhaps?], women's
groups, you name it." Within 48 hours, no fewer than 21 arts
organizations released a statement endorsing ObamaCare.
The Dept. of Health and Human Services paid MIT economist Jonathan
Gruber nearly $400,000 for various jobs. He did not disclose
his employment by HHS while writing a string of op-eds, nor while
testifying before the Senate, in favor of ObamaCare.
The Justice Dept. hired Tracy Russo, the former blogger for John
Edwards, to comment on internet articles or bulletin board messages
that criticized Barack Obama and his agenda. She did this
anonymously or used a pen name.
• A Dept. of Education
officer used the White House email to send his colleagues eight
bullet points to "communicate the merits of the President's proposal
with your members and their audiences."
• The federal
government "highly recommended" constructing highway signs that tout
big government and advertise politicians (including Obama).
(Watch the committee's video on the subject
• Obama attempted to enlist "voluntary"
Hollywood propaganda for his proposals through the
• Andy Griffith starred in a
Medicare "update" that doubled as a commercial for Obama's health
care legislation. Not only is the PSAl propaganda, it is
erroneous. A writer with the nonpartisan FactCheck.org
remarked Griffith's scripted "promise that 'benefits will remain the
same' is just as fictional as the town of Mayberry."
says the New York Times and Washington Post raised eyebrows this
week by hiring a bunch of additional staff to go through every snippet
of Sarah Palin’s emails as Governor -- even asking the public to help
them sift through every last syllable:
More than 24,000 e-mail messages sent to and
from Sarah Palin during her tenure as Alaska’s governor will be
released Friday. Join The Post in digging through them.
We are looking for 100 organized and diligent readers who will work
alongside Post reporters to analyze, contextualize, and research the
emails. Think of it as spending some time in our newsroom.
Our hope is that working together, we can efficiently find
interesting information and extract new stories that will lead to
The Los Angeles Times announced it would be putting
up an "online database" of this supposed treasure trove of
correspondence from 2006 through her naming as John McCain’s running
mate in 2008:
Today the state of Alaska released nearly
25,000 emails from Palin’s tenure as governor. Our team is in
Alaska and scanning them in. They will appear on this page
through the day. If you find anything we should be writing
about, email a tip to email@example.com
Curiously though, this same L.A. Times has -- for 3
years running -- repeatedly, despite numerous requests, refused to
release a video it possesses of Barack Obama reportedly praising
Palestinian radical Rashid
Khalidi at 2003 Chicago dinner. The same Khalidi who has
called Israel a "racist" state and who called suicide attacks a
justified response to "Israeli aggression." The same Khalidi who
organized a 2000 fundraiser for Barack Obama’s unsuccessful
congressional bid, and whose Arab American Action Network received a
$75,000 grant from the Woods Fund of Chicago, while Obama served on its
Yes, THAT Rashid Khalidi, the lavish praise for whom by
then-candidate and now-pretender Barack Obama the L.A. Times apparently
finds less relevant than Sarah Palin’s emails sending Merry Christmas
wishes, or updating staff on the latest techniques in waste management.
I wonder why the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles
Times have not hired any staff to look into the information that is
completely unknown about Barack Hussein Obama. You know, little
things like these.
The ObamaMedia accepted Obama's
latest bogus birth document without question. Not one major media
outlet or journalist has ever questioned Obama's fraudulent birth documents --
major media outlet or journalist has ever asked Obama why he's hiding
all his life documents.
Those facts tell you all you need to know. The
ObamaMedia are agents of Obama -- propagandists, not journalists.
The Myth Of Obama’s Competence
The Conservative Byte
says that is well stated in a number of ways. Because one of
the things -- and, again, anecdotal, just the past two, three days,
including in the e-mails, all this controversy that has arisen here
about Palin ever since Annette called here and said: "Rush, you’re
missing the boat. The reason why women don’t like Palin is she’s a
"10." She’s good looking, and they’re just jealous." The
firestorm that inspired! It’s being talked about on other
broadcasts all across the country, and the e-mails I’m getting obviously
are in response to that, and the comments are based on that comment.
There’s maybe two e-mails in this -- and no phone calls -- in this whole
period of time (the last two-and-a-half days) disagreeing. Only
two people said: "Rush, I don’t care about any of that. I just
don’t think she’s qualified."
I’ve only had two people say, "I
don’t think she’s qualified." Now, maybe that’s because her
qualifications aren’t the subject being discussed, her appearance is.
But even so, the door’s been open here to tell us why you don’t like
Sarah Palin and nobody has said she’s not qualified. So here we’ve
got Ron saying, "She’s going to be the greatest president ever.
She’s going to move the country forward and do great things," and the
media is scared to death that’s going to be the case. They didn’t
know anything about Obama and they don’t care where Obama’s taking the
country. They don’t care. He’s right about that. We’re
sitting around, we’re watching the country disintegrate in front of our
eyes and they don’t care. All they care about is, "Will he
continue to get away with it?"
Issue by issue it’s, "How will
this affect Obama? How will this affect this re-election?"
Uh, Mr. Matthews, are you concerned that he’s destroying the
"No, I only care about his re-election."
don’t care. They have no interest in that. Because
everything in politics is a war. The decency, the goodness, what’s
right for the country is not what’s on the table. The left is
circling the wagons to protect their Weiner. They’re circling
their wagons to protect Obama. They’re circling the wagons to
protect liberalism. The country? "Meh, we’ll deal with that
The media think Obama is one of them. They think
Palin is not one of them, even though she went to journalism school;
Obama didn’t. The media believe they and Obama are one, that they
are from the same class, that they are from the same ideological stripe
and so forth. So there’s a kinship there. What he’s doing to
the country policy wise they couldn’t care less. In fact, their
frustration is that his approval numbers are not higher given how hard
he’s trying and how "smart" he is and, "Why don’t people appreciate him
as much as we do?"