Saturday, August 17, 2013

September 11, 2012: A day that will live in infamy

August 17, 2013
By James Lewis

 
September 11 of 2012, just eleven months ago, was the eleventh anniversary of the Declaration of Holy War signaled by three simultaneous attacks on America by nineteen Saudi Arabian suiciders, killing 3,000 innocent people in Manhattan, at the Pentagon, and in the air over Pennsylvania.

That Declaration of War came from the brutal desert theocracy of Saudi Arabia, run by its Wahhabi priesthood.  Wahhabism follows ancient Muslim war theology against all non-Muslims and against Muslims heretics like the Iranians.  Wahhabism runs a worldwide oil-funded missionary campaign, and mosques built by Arabian oil billionaires are often staffed by Wahhabi imams, who preach holy war against the rest of humanity.

"Islam" means surrender or else.

Since 2001, the Saudis and other brutal tribal cultures have continued to finance, agitate, indoctrinate, infiltrate, plot, threaten, manipulate, propagandize, commit mass murder, and sabotage their First-World benefactors.  The dead silence of the Western political and media elites about the Global Jihad means that billions of oil dollars have bought a lot of Democrats and Crony Media.

Across the Gulf, the other war branch of Islam keeps waging its own brand of murder and tyranny.  Sunnis and Shiites are at war with each other in Syria, but they also attack the First World at every opportunity -- politically, psychologically and by acts of terror.

Eleven months ago, on September 11 of 2012,  international news headlines showed two photos of simultaneous al-Qaeda terror attacks on American sovereign assets.  Benghazi was the most famous assault, killing our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.  But al-Qaeda always commits mass murders twice on the same day.  That is its signature.

A second jihadist attack was therefore headlined on the same day.  It was on our Cairo Embassy, where Qaedists briefly flew their black flag over a burned-out part of the Embassy, long enough for their tame news photographers to send their message around the world.

Every Muslim in the world instantly understood the meaning of that double-terror attack, the war signature of al-Qaeda.  But ordinary people in the West were blinded and deceived by our treacherous mass media, controlled by vast amounts of oil money.

The al-Qaeda message on September 11, 2012 was instantly understood in the White House, where Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama, and John Brennan are intimately familiar with the war theology of Islam.  They constantly find ways to enable it.

The flood of lies about Benghazi was engineered by our media and Democrat Party Machine, to cover up al-Qaeda's obvious message to the world.  Hillary Clinton and her husband were of course complicit in that massive cover-up.  Oil money may be buying the Hillary run for president of the United States. 

Today our media-political class is still trying to make you forget September 11, 2012.

If the media had told you the truth, Obama would have lost the election.

Whether you like Mitt Romney or not, the world would be much, much safer today if Obama had been defeated.

That is why September 11, 2012 is a day that will live in infamy.

It was a huge triumph of our deadly enemies against an administration and a political class that lives by denying the very existence of our deadly enemies.

We now know that Obama won re-election by organized fraud and abuse of his constitutional authority over the IRS, the FBI, and the national security apparatus.  The Corporate Media colluded in Obama's anti-constitutional actions, revealing the extent of their knowledge only after the election.

We know that Obama is a scofflaw, laughing when he gets away with screwing the American people and our Constitution.  Today he is clowning it up for the hopelessly corrupt media on the golf course in Martha's Vineyard, and like everything else in this administration, there are no accidental signals.  This is the fundamental nature of our One Party Machine today.

This column has previously described Obama's malignant narcissism and oppositional defiant disorder.  His day-to-day behavior continues to add to a mountain of evidence.  Every government and intelligence agency in the world knows all about Obama, and so does the Democratic Party Machine.

Still, the American people are kept in the dark.  We are a laughingstock around the world, and frankly, we will deserve the contempt of the world until we learn to face reality.

Here is a partial breakdown of 9/11/12 malfeasance.

1. Within minutes of the attack in Benghazi, President Obama, directly or indirectly, ordered the U.S. military not to protect Ambassador Stevens and the 30 or so CIA personnel who were under assault. 

This week, USAF Colonel (ret.) Phil Handley publicly explained the nature of that betrayal.

The combat code of the US Military is that we don't abandon our dead or wounded on the battlefield. In US Air Force lingo, fighter pilots don't run off and leave their wingmen. If one of our own is shot down, still alive and not yet in enemy captivity, we will either come to get him or die trying.
Among America's fighting forces, the calm, sure knowledge that such an irrevocable bond exists is priceless. Along with individual faith and personal grit, it is a sacred trust that has often sustained hope in the face of terribly long odds.
The disgraceful abandonment of our Ambassador and those brave ex‐SEALs who fought to their deaths to save others in that compound is nothing short of dereliction‐of‐duty. Additionally, the patently absurd cover‐up scenario that was fabricated in the aftermath was an outright lie in an attempt to shield the President and the Secretary of State from responsibility.

Please note that everyone in the world who knows the U.S. military understands these facts very well.  The "secret" of Obama's betrayal is therefore only a secret to the "LoFo voters" in America.

2. In Cairo, where we had just helped Islamic radical Mohammed Morsi rise to power, an al-Qaeda mob overran parts of the U.S. Embassy.  In a state dominated by police, military, and internal espionage, such mob attacks do not occur accidentally.  Morsi was put into power by Barack H. Obama, who told Morsi's pro-American predecessor, President Hosni Mubarak, to resign after thirty years of protecting the peace in the Middle East.

In the five years since Obama became president, both branches of the Muslim war theology have made major conquests.  Syria is now torn between the jihadists of Iran and the jihadists of the Arabian desert.  Whichever group wins, the civilized world will be the losers.

United States Embassies are legally American territory, and every diplomat knows the meaning of a mob attack on an embassy.  It means that by failing to provide police protection in obedience to international law, the host government is declaring a legal casus belli, a cause for war.

Notice that this is exactly what the first jihadist regime in the world did to Jimmy Carter in 1979 by kidnapping our diplomats in Tehran.  That international slap in the face ended up defeating  Jimmy Carter in the election of 1980, and bringing Ronald Reagan to the presidency.

It was Reagan who vigorously defended America and brought the Evil Empire to a well-deserved end.

Eleven months ago, the Obama administration and our Democrat National Machine plotted to cover up the two 9/11/12 attacks, to avoid a repetition of the Carter debacle and the rise of a conservative Republican administration.

That is why our deeply corrupted IRS targeted the Reaganesque Tea Party, and tried to destroy the most charismatic and well-qualified conservative on the national scene today, Governor Sarah Palin.

Our political class fears the rise of another Ronald Reagan.

Obama and the Democrat Machine acted brutally and illegally to prevent another Reaganite presidency.  They are still doing it every day.

3. Long before 9/11 of last year, the Obama administration was deeply penetrated by Muslim Brotherhood infiltrators, who have been widely exposed in the web-based media.

As Col. Allen West (ret.) just wrote,

... yes, we do have Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups and individuals infiltrated into this current Obama administration. This is serious.

Beginning in the 1970s, radical Muslims bought political power in the Black Nationalist movement.  Barack Hussein Obama has told the world in two autobiographies that he modeled his own life after Malcolm X, the Black Nationalist.  Today, the radical left in the black community claims to stand for all Americans of African descent.  That is of course another Big Lie.  The radical left constantly attempts to threaten and intimidate those who disagree with it, including courageous black people tired of seeing toxic demagogues destroying unnumbered lives in our inner cities.

The radical left-Muslim jihadist alliance began in the 1970s.  The evidence for that alliance is all over the international media today, including the Egyptian and Arabic media, which are expressing shock to see the extent to which America has been corrupted by its internal enemies.  The anti-Morsi coup in Egypt was conducted by nationalist and modernist political groups that did not want to be tyrannized by the medieval Muslim Brotherhood.  Jihadists  are our enemies -- they tell us so every day -- and modernist Egyptians cannot understand why Barack H. Obama is constantly supporting those who want to destroy us.

4. We have just learned that Benghazi culminated in jihadist terror groups stealing 400 ground-to-air missiles, which may threaten our civilian aircraft for years to come.

The damage in Benghazi was not just to American lives, reputation, national pride, international standing, and prestige.  It was material damage, threatening our national security in a clear and present way.  The 400 sophisticated ground-to-air missiles now controlled by jihadists are bound to be used against us.  In the last few weeks, massive coordinated jailbreaks took place in Yemen, Iraq, and Egypt, liberating thousands of terrorist killers who are now on the loose.

The United States has just forced Israel to release more than 100 convicted terrorist killers, who may soon join the others -- in Syria, where al-Qaeda rebels are making military gains against the relatively rational regime of Bashar Assad.  Or in Afghanistan, where the Obama regime is negotiating with the barbaric Taliban to surrender that country to their tender mercies.  Safe-haven countries for Muslim terrorists now include Iran, the Sudan, Arabia, Libya, and Pakistan.

Bin Laden had to run from country to country to finally find safe haven with...the Taliban.  That allowed al-Qaeda to plot the terror attacks on America on the first 9/11.

We will hear from them before this administration is finished.

5. Obama has been actively and knowingly complicit in empowering jihadist forces from the beginning of this administration. He has made no secret of his real sympathies.  Will choose the Muslim side.  No slander of the Prophet of Islam.

Imagine FDR responding to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor by lying about Imperial Japan.

That is what Obama and the Democrat Machine have done to us.

In Europe, the identical class of radical leftists are running their economy into the ground.  The European left has also smuggled in hundreds of thousands of easily radicalized Muslims from Pakistan, Africa, and Arabia.  Europe is committing suicide in front of our eyes.  If the left-jihadist political alliance is allowed to stay in power, it will destroy our country also.

We have real enemies, foreign and domestic.  About 100 million Americans know exactly who they are.  Our job as citizens is to guide our nation to safety against the malignant and corrupt network of enemies.

We must do so by peaceful persuasion if we can.

The alternative does not bear thinking about.

American Thinker

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Media Target the Powerless; Protect Powerful Liars, Bigots & Race Hoaxers



 Last month, a wealthy movie and television star took to Twitter to hurl homophobic slurs at a gay reporter, and to urge his million-plus followers to commit acts of violence against the man. Last week, a nobody -- a jester, a clown, a performer performing at a rodeo, donned a Barack Obama mask and joked about having a bull attack him.

Today, after much of the media chose not to report on Alec Baldwin's reprehensible behavior, he is in talks to join NBC News.

Meanwhile, the clown has been banned for life, the president of the organization that hired him has been forced to resign, and the powerful NAACP is demanding a full investigation.

Earlier this week, on the pages of Politico, a powerful Hollywood director smeared rural whites as racists with the bigoted and provably false claim that they would not see a film with an all black cast.

Three decades ago, a woman who is now 66 years-old and once hosted a cable cooking show, used the N-word.

Today, Lee Daniels can be seen all across the media landscape in softball interviews asking him about his
 Oscar chances with "The Butler." He has never once been challenged on his bigoted beliefs.

Meanwhile, a national media frenzy has destroyed Paula Deen and everything she worked for.

Last week, a nobody shopgirl was globally defamed after one of the most powerful people in the world publicly accused her of racism.

Today, Oprah Winfrey's tale of being victimized by this shopgirl has completely collapsed.

Meanwhile, the media are too busy talking about Winfrey's Oscar chances to vindicate this poor shopgirl's honor or to hold Winfrey accountable for her behavior.

Last month, even after all the evidence proved race had absolutely nothing to do with the fatal shooting of a Florida teenager, a sitting president and the architect of the Tawana Brawley race hoax teamed up to falsely claim it did.

Today, Barack Obama and Al Sharpton are hailed by the media as the new face of civil rights, even though the fallout of their dishonesty included dozens of acts of racial violence and lawlessness.

Meanwhile, George Zimmerman has been forced into hiding for fear of his life.

Last year, a sitting president and secretary of state falsely accused a nobody filmmaker of causing a riot that resulted in four American deaths at a diplomatic outpost in Libya. An unquestioning media ran with the story and the filmmaker became a worldwide pariah.

The worldwide notoriety would result in the hapless filmmaker being arrested in the dead of night (on a parole violation).

Today, we know the film had nothing to do with the terror attack in Libya. We also know that Barack

Obama and Hillary Clinton were aware of that at the same time they were calling for the filmmaker's head.

Obama and Clinton falsely scapegoated an innocent man to cover up their own incompetence and to win an election. The American media have responded (with very few exceptions) only by doing everything in their power to protect them.

Today, after almost a year in prison, that nobody filmmaker lives in hiding for fear of his life.

Meanwhile, the media are eagerly prepping Hillary Clinton's coronation as the next president of the United States.

Big Journalism

Sunday, August 11, 2013

The Crusades Reconsidered

August 11, 2013
By Mike Konrad

One of the idiocies passed off for decades among Western historians is bemoaning the Crusades as evil. The Islamic world -- the Ummah -- has disseminated this imaginary charge against the West, and like fools, we have absorbed Arab lies and taken the blame to heart. But the most superficial reading of Western history should put that canard to rest.

Shortly before he died in June 632 AD, Mohammed ordered Muslims to prepare to wage war against the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire.

Upon his death, Mohammed's successor, Abu Bakr, planned to fulfill those instructions. Plans were also made to conquer Zoroastrian Sassanid Persia.

This vainglorious troop of bandits should have been easily dispatched,

However. Persia and Byzantine Rome had just come out of a savagely vicious war which ended in 628 AD. Emperor Heraclius had finally imposed the total defeat over Persia that had eluded the earlier Roman Republic and the Caesars -- but Byzantine Rome, though victorious, was severely mauled. Persia was reduced to a state of anarchy; and forced to pay indemnities to Constantinople.

The Persian and Eastern Roman empires were attacked almost simultaneously around 633 AD, while both were still licking their wounds. So frightening were the Islamic advances that these former blood enemies made a sadly futile alliance. By 644, Persia fell anyway.

By 634 AD, Byzantine Palestine and Syria were being attacked. The Battle of Yarmouk in August 636 AD would see Eastern Roman forces beaten. Emperor Heraclius, the victorious warrior, a mere 8 years earlier, would have to sneak out back to Constantinople in a boat.
Farewell, a long farewell to Syria, my fair province. Thou art an infidel's (enemy's) now. Peace be with you, O' Syria -- what a beautiful land you will be for the enemy hands -- Emperor Heraclius, after the defeat at Yarmouk.
Roman-held Jerusalem was besieged in November 636 AD, and surrendered by the following April.

By 674 AD, the Muslims had taken Egypt and much of Anatolian Turkey, and were besieging Constantinople. The Byzantine Romans, unlike the Persians, still had some fight left and managed to lift the siege using Greek fire, a fearsome weapon similar to a flamethrower.

By 709 AD, all of Christian North Africa had fallen to Islam. Though it took the Muslims centuries, eventually all of Christianity was eliminated in the Maghreb.

In 711 AD, the Muslims invaded Spain, again taking advantage of weakness caused by internecine wars. It would be 781 years before Spain would be free. Among Islamic Andalusia's contributions to civilization were the demanded tribute of 100 white virgins every year to staff their harems. Every other contribution was plagiarized from other civilizations the Muslims had plundered.

By 732, the Muslims had advanced to central France, where they were finally repelled by Franks at the battle of Tours. Western Europe had been temporarily spared.
Sicily fell under Islamic rule for almost two centuries, until finally liberated by Norman Franks around 1091 AD.
 

According to tradition, Malta fell to Islam in 870 AD. Islam's contribution's to local culture was piracy. Malta became a staging point for predatory raids on Southern Europe.

After two centuries, Malta was finally retaken in 1091 AD.

Later on, historians would blame the Dark Ages on the Germanic Tribes, but the Goths and Vikings readily Christianized and embraced the higher civilization of the lands they conquered. The reality is that Islamic raiding is what produced the Dark Ages. Trade and the economy collapsed under the Muslim threat, plunging Europe into stagnation.

In 1095, after centuries of Muslim aggression, Pope Urban II finally had enough, and called Christians to war. He did so after the Byzantine Empire, now broken away from Roman Catholicism, appealed for fraternal help from the Western Christians to save them from Islam. After over 4 centuries of war with Islam, the Byzantines were on the verge of collapse. Most of Spain was still under Islamic tyranny. Malta and Sicily had only been recently freed.

 

One may condemn the atrocities of the Crusaders, but what infuriates the objective student of history is that the far greater crimes of Islam are ignored.

The Crusades was Christendom finally fighting back, not always honorably, but against a foe which had plunged Europe into darkness for centuries.

Instead we allowed our students to be brainwashed, and force fed an Islamic line that we have to feel guilty. The Muslims invaded Southern Europe, yet somehow we Westerners are labeled the imperialists.

Islamic aggression did not end with the Crusades.

The reason Columbus headed West was because the Muslims had blocked all trade routes to the East. Yet, we are never told this.

Up until the 16th century, Italy was regularly invaded by Islam. Otranto was taken by the Turks in 1480, and held for only 10 months. Yet, it was time enough to behead over 800 Christians who refused to convert.

Piracy and kidnapping was so common that Catholic Churches in Southern Europe had donation boxes where the faithful could contribute to ransom hostages.

One could go on and on. The Islamic subjugation of Greece and the Balkans. The kidnapping of hundreds of thousands of Christian boys, over the centuries, to be forcibly converted to Islam, and compelled to serve in the Ottoman Army as Janissaries.

The Islamic attempt to take Vienna. Twice! In 1529 and 1683.

A half million or more slaves from the British Isles were kidnapped on the high seas by the religion of peace.
 

It was not until the U.S. Marines took on the Barbary Pirates and the French razed Algeria that Islamic predation finally stopped in the 19th century; but all of this is forgotten. Somehow, white Christians are the only villains now.

We hear the Muslims bewail about British imperialism; but the British do not want to go back to Egypt. The Muslim do want Andulasia back. We hear about French crimes in Algeria -- which were real -- but do we remember that Islamic predation that was the real agent which caused the Dark Ages. Europeans were in North Africa for only a century, but Islam pounded Europe for 1200 years. Yet, it is the Arabs who claim victim status.

But what do our politicians do, but apologize for the Crusades. Why?! Have the Muslims apologized for 1400 years of their crimes?!

Part of this idiocy stems from a hyper-liberal view of history which views European Christianity as inherently evil. It permeates the culture of academia; and refuses to see the real evil of Islam.

Sadly, a second cause is an ancillary residue of historiography which has a tradition of exaggerating the real crimes of Catholicism out of all proportion. The Spanish call this exaggeration the Black Legend of the Inquisition; and it results in a pseudo-acquittal of Islam, by blaming the Crusades on Catholicism.

Let us not forget that it was Catholic Europe which insulated Northwest European Protestants from Islam's full fury. It was Catholic Spain which eventually broke the Turkish fleet at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. It was Catholic Poland's Jan Sobieski who saved Northwest Europe at Vienna in 1683 AD. It was the Catholic French who tamed Algeria in 1830.

Let us not forget either that it was Catholic France which saved the Christians of Lebanon in 1860 while the Protestant British were arming the Druze.

The time for apologizing to Islam must end. 

American Thinker

The Medal of Freedom Free-for All

August 11, 2013
By Jeannie DeAngelis

 
 On the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's establishment of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Barack Obama, the guy who's done more to obstruct freedom than any American president in history, will be the one handing out the medals.  Having Barack Obama dispense freedom medals is on par with Hitler lighting Shabbat candles or Bill Clinton hosting a couples' seminar on the joys of marital fidelity.

Nonetheless, according to the White House website, the purpose of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which is the nation's highest civilian honor, is to pay tribute to those who've made "meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors."

President Obama had this to say about the Medal of Freedom:

The Presidential Medal of Freedom goes to men and women who have dedicated their own lives to enriching ours. This year's honorees have been blessed with extraordinary talent, but what sets them apart is their gift for sharing that talent with the world. It will be my honor to present them with a token of our nation's gratitude.

The individuals due to receive the medal are supposedly selected by the president or recommended to him by the Distinguished Civilian Service Awards Board.  Judging from the list, it's easy to see that when choosing the 2013 recipients, Barack Obama was guided by his own personal opinion. 

This year's group is made up of the following luminaries: liberal politicians from the left-of-left wing to the just plain old RINO left wing; one liberal journalist, plus a Berkeley-schooled psychologist; a departed Obama-supporting female astronaut and a living Jimmy Carter-supporting coal miner's daughter; a Cuban musician; a Berkeley-schooled Mexican scientist; a black athlete; a female Democrat judge; a deceased LGBT activist; and a couple of civil-rights leaders.

Although the group consists of many standouts, three in particular have Barack Obama's fingerprints all over them, the first being former President Bill Clinton.  If Bill Clinton deserves anything, it would be a medal for freeing the Oval Office from the confines of presidential dignity.

While Commander-in-Chief Clinton cavorted with a chubby intern, lied about it, perjured himself under oath, and was impeached, now that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" has been fully exposed, he's one of 16 candidates for a Presidential Medal of Freedom. 

Barack Obama had to be behind giving Bill Clinton a medal.  After all, what better way for the present occupant of the White House to make his sorry self look good than to give a medal to someone just as sorry?

Therefore, Bill Clinton deserves a Medal of Freedom for freeing Barack Obama from a future of indignity associated with being a God-awful president.

Then there's feminist Gloria Steinem.  How she got on the list is a Ms-tery.  It must be because Obama respects Gloria for dedicating her life to America's enrichment by fighting for the right to deprive children in the womb of the right to be born.

Seventy-nine-year-old Gloria proudly wears an "I had an abortion" T-shirt, openly boasting about aborting her own child who, had he or she lived, would be 57 years old today. 

Ms. Steinem fondly reminisced about that abortion:

I used to sit and try and figure out how old the child would be, trying to make myself feel guilty. But I never could! ... Speaking for myself, I knew it was the first time I had taken responsibility for my own life. I wasn't going to let things happen to me. I was going to direct my life, and therefore it felt positive.

Who can argue with Obama choosing to give a medal to Steinem for being so cold, heartless, and self-serving that she makes a guy who believes in allowing babies born alive in botched abortions to die without warmth, hydration, or oxygen seem like a pillar of compassion?

Hence, Gloria Steinem deserves a Medal of Freedom for decades of freeing fetuses from the wombs of women who refuse to be deterred from directing their own self-absorbed lives.

Last but not least, we have Oprah Winfrey.  Besides being a gazillionaire and a media magnate of gargantuan proportions (shh, don't you say it), Oprah was one of Barry's biggest supporters in 2008.  She probably secretly credits herself for singlehandedly catapulting Barack Obama from the mean streets of Chicago into the family residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Among her many achievements, Oprah is an actress, broadcast journalist, and talk show host who, in a similar way to how Gloria Steinem's dead baby was Gloria's new lease on life, considered the untimely death of the newborn infant she delivered at 14 years old a "second chance."

Oprah Winfrey deserves a Medal of Freedom, all right, but not for her varied accomplishments, nor for her outstanding ability to bring home the bacon.  Rather, she should take a medal for involuntarily freeing her false eyelashes from her eyelids during Barack Obama's 2008 acceptance speech in INVESCO Field.

Anyone who can be so moved by Barack Obama's "transcendent" oratory that the salty droplets gushing from her tear ducts dissolves her eyelash glue and destroys a perfectly good set of Ardell Demi Lashes deserves a medal. 

Couple the eyelash episode with being identified as Oprah, which sort of resembles the name Obama, and Winfrey may very well have shown up the other 15 recipients and earned herself not one, but two Medals of Freedom.

With the award ceremony months away, there's still time for Commissioner of Liberty Barack Obama to hand out medals to a few more freedom-lovers.

Let's see...how about Queen of Free Birth Control Sandra Fluke, MSNBC Head Lesbian Rachel Maddow, IRS official Lois Lerner, ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, and the no-longer-closeted basketball player/newly-christened homosexual icon, Jason Collins?  Meanwhile, Barack Obama is probably trying to concoct a way to give one of those medals to his number-one choice -- himself.

American Thinker

The President's ObamaCare Straw Man

August 11, 2013
By Joseph Smith

 
 Leave it to President Obama, with one foot out the door, to sling one more verbal jab at any Republicans who have the temerity to oppose his health care law.

In a Friday afternoon presser before his vacation getaway, the president called efforts to defund and repeal ObamaCare the Republicans' "holy grail" and an "ideological fixation."

Which is not to be confused with Obama's own fixation on passing health care despite sustained opposition by more than half the country. 

The president went on to set up and knock down his own straw man, as The Hill reports:

The idea that you would shut down the government unless you prevent 30 million people from getting healthcare is a bad idea...
I'm assuming they will not take that path...I have confidence that common sense, in the end, will prevail.

Defending his delay of the employer mandate, the president said that going through Congress would be the "normal thing" to do, "[b]ut we're not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to 'ObamaCare[.]'"
 And why would that be, Mr. President?

Does it have anything to do with the backhanded manner in which the law was passed, with zero Republican votes?

Could it have anything to do with a party with the audacity to impose their idea of transformation through social engineering that has seen consistent majority opposition for more than five years?

Or does it have anything to do with the fate of a nation having been determined by a Supreme Court chief justice who is accountable to no one on this earth parsing the meaning of a tax?

Or how about the 21 new taxes that arguably amount to the biggest tax increase in our history?

Or a job-killing and innovation-stifling medical device tax that is opposed by 33 Democrat senators (whose ox is gored by that tax)?

And what of the IPAB, or Independent Payment Advisory Board, aka death panels, that even one-time Democrat presidential candidate Howard Dean recently termed a "health care rationing body" that Congress should be "getting rid of"?

Does it matter that the health care law was passed with a rigged cost estimate of less than $1 trillion, using six years of costs and ten years of taxes, and that the ten-year estimate has now reached $2.6 trillion?

What of the fact that health insurance premiums are soaring despite the president's empty promise to reduce a "typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year"?

Take also the president blithely claiming four years ago that:

... [i]f you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.

In reality, ObamaCare is worsening an already serious shortage of doctors, many employers are likely to drop health coverage, and there has been widespread reduction of work hours to avoid providing employee health insurance.

Does it matter that the ObamaCare economy has resulted in the creation of "seven times more part-time 
jobs" than full-time jobs?

Or that some insurers are packing their bags and leaving entire states?

Why have the administration's best PR efforts failed to move the dial on ObamaCare, with a recent Fox News poll showing that 63 percent of voters think the law needs to be changed, and a 57-percent majority feeling that implementation is "a joke?"

Which brings us to the extralegal machinations by the Obama administration to hide the bad news from as many unwitting Americans as possible.

Is delaying the employer mandate any indication of trouble in paradise? 

How about the recent announcement that the ObamaCare bureaucracy will be using the honor system, aka "just lie" when applying for premium subsidies, because they have no way to verify the veracity of such claims?

And is it not disturbing that our infinitely wise health care administrators in Washington are unable to decide whether or not our personal data is secure until the day before the exchanges are scheduled to open?

Then again, the exchanges may not be ready on schedule anyway, even after three and a half years of preparation.

Does it matter that a Congress with an approval rating in the teens gave itself new subsidies, just before adjourning for the August recess, to avoid the higher costs the rest of us commoners will face on the ObamaCare exchanges? 

And why did twenty-two House Democrats vote with Republicans last month to delay the individual mandate?  Are those Democrats hoping voters won't notice who owns ObamaCare?

Does it matter, Mr. President, that while you doled out some 2,000 waivers to your friends, the rest of us bitter clingers are forced to succumb to the will of a handful of all-knowing central planners for a most basic need?

Does it matter that more than half the states have rejected building ObamaCare exchanges, and many have also rejected the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion as well?

Does the fact that states without state exchanges are "not statutorily allowed to trigger enforcement" of the employer mandate have anything to do with delaying the mandate?  How about the fact that a lawsuit has been filed challenging the employer mandate on that basis?

What is it about ObamaCare that caused James P. Hoffa, president of the Teamsters Union, to warn Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in writing that ObamaCare would "shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class?"

And what are we to make of Hoffa's further statement that campaigning for the health care law "has come back to haunt us?"

And speaking of haunting, does anyone in this country look forward to being scrutinized by the IRS on every aspect of his or her personal health care decisions, especially after we learn of the politicizing and privacy abuses by that agency?

Is it not disconcerting that even the IRS employees' union is seeking a way out of ObamaCare?

And why are there more than 60 lawsuits challenging the Obama administration's contraception mandate and the ObamaCare attack on religious freedom, with the likelihood that "at least one of these cases may well reach the U.S. Supreme Court in the next term?"

And, for that matter, why is religious freedom such an obstacle for our beneficent government?

The president cannot answer any of these questions.  He tossed out a straw-man argument on Friday because he has no other defense.  

It is time for Republicans to stand up and put an end to this charade.

American Thinker

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Daily Beast Concedes Tea Party Not Dying

 
4 Aug 2013

 
 The Daily Beast, a publication that ran stories at the beginning of 2012 about the demise of the Tea Party, has conceded the Tea Party is far from dead and has actually come "roaring back" after the 2012 elections.

David Freedlander wrote in the publication, which also recently harassed private citizens who donated to Sarah Palin's political action committee, that the movement the mainstream media wrote off and the Republican establishment tried to get rid of is actually having a resurgence.

As evidence, he cites Texas Attorney General and Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott, who "once described his daily routine as going into the office, suing Barack Obama, and then calling it a day." Freedlander notes Abbott has "sued the federal government 27 times in all" and a sign at his campaign announcement read, “Fast cars, firearms, and freedom--Endorsed by Greg Abbott.”

Freedlander mentions Republican Virginia Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli and Tom Emmer, who is the frontrunner to replace Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) in Congress.

He notes the popularity of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), much to the chagrin of  "Republican bigwigs decided that they would need to do something to prevent" the Tea Party and conservatives from "hijacking the primary process."

As former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who moves Tea Party voters more than any other politician in primaries, has repeatedly said, the Tea Party, as Freedlander observes, is a movement "not without precedence on the American political landscape" from both sides.

"In the mid-1990s H. Ross Perot ignited a wave of tired-of-the-same-old-politics voters with his Reform Party," he writes. "Ralph Nader and the Green Party enjoyed some momentary momentum at the end of the Clinton era."

Freelander notes that "establishment figures" he interviewed for his article refused to concede that the Tea Party will take over the Republican Party but could not, as they did after 2012, predict the movement's demise in light of its recent surge.

"None of the establishment figures interviewed for this article thought that the Tea Party would become a permanent part of the Republican Party," Freelander wrote. "It is too old, too white in a young and diverse country. But few were willing to predict when the demise would ultimately come."

In his article, Freedlander also observes that the Tea Party movement grew out of the "conservative disappointment with the George W. Bush administration" on policies like No Child Left Behind and TARP, in addition to President Barack Obama's wasteful spending, stimulus, Obamacare, and bank bailouts.

Freedlander notes that the Tea Party's ultimate appeal is due to the fact that Tea Party conservatives do not see a difference between Republicans and Democrats in the permanent political class and view supporters as underdogs "punching above" their weight class.

Big Journalism

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Six Reasons Why CNN Is Now... The Most Disgraced Name In News


Introduction
On February 26, 2012, neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman fatally shot 17 year-old Trayvon Martin. Almost eighteen months later, a jury would unanimously acquit Zimmerman after his attorneys made a case that the shooting was an act of self-defense.
Zimmerman is Hispanic. Martin was black.

Under the mistaken impression (probably based on his last name) that Zimmerman was white, within a couple of weeks after the shooting, major media outlets begin to drive the story with a  white versus black racial narrative.

The evidence that shows that the media mistakenly believed Zimmerman was white is convincing: On March 8, the Associated Press describes Zimmerman as "white." March 13, NBC's Al Sharpton hosts Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump on his primetime MSNBC show; Crump repeatedly refers to Zimmerman as "white." That same day, Matt Gutman, the ABC News reporter covering the case for the network in Florida tweets that Trayvon was killed "bc [because] he was black." March 19, CBS News falsely describes Zimmerman as white.

Apparently, sometime between March 19 and March 22, the media discovered Zimmerman is Hispanic.

The Media's Dilemma
Once it was revealed Zimmerman is Hispanic, the media had a real problem on its hands. The white vs. black narrative was already in place. Sharpton was set to hold a high-profile rally in Florida on March 22; and In order to launch the story into the stratosphere, President Obama would -- without a shred of evidence -- inject race into the story the very next day, March 23.



In other words, this was already a runaway black vs. white train. But due to a lack of simple due diligence and fact-checking, the all-important "white" part was found missing -- but only after it was too late.

What to do?

It was at this point that the media as a whole entered into an eighteen month push to prop up a fabricated white vs. black racial narrative. And before it was over, most every major news outlet in the country would sully themselves in some way to keep this manufactured reality alive.

But no outlet, not even NBC, would play as dirty or come out as tarnished as CNN.

Here, and in no particular order, are the six categories (and the winners in each) that led to CNN winning the award for Most Shameful Coverage of George Zimmerman:

1. Singling Out George Zimmerman for a Lack of Racial Purity
Due to the fact that a now-unstoppable black vs. white narrative train was already carrying the entire mainstream media, Al Sharpton, left-wing civil rights groups, and even the president of the United States, something had to be done to ensure it didn’t derail based on the inconvenient fact that Zimmerman is Hispanic.

Expert: Zimmerman was in worse shape than Martin

Enter the term "white Hispanic." The rationale…

Like Barack Obama, George Zimmerman has one white parent. Quite properly, the president has always been described as black for the simple reason that he is black. Historically and editorially, racial purity has never been an issue for the mainstream media when it comes to describing Hispanics, American Indians, blacks, Arabs,  Asians, etc. 

That didn't matter, though, and the loophole the media came up with to deny Zimmerman his racial identity was that he failed a racial purity test. The white part of him would now be cynically amplified at every opportunity.

Though Zimmerman is as Hispanic as Obama is black, for the next eighteen months, various news outlets, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, and CNN, would strip Zimmerman of his identity by making the previously unheard of editorial decision to describe him as a "white Hispanic," or some variation of "self-described Hispanic."

Thanks to a recent editorial by former CNN staffer Roland Martin, we now know that the network's decision to focus on Zimmerman's lack of racial purity was an institutional one -- not a decision made on-the-fly by individual producers or anchors.

Winner: Tie

It is highly likely that the same institutional decision was made at other news outlets to use a racial purity loophole to artificially prop up the white vs. black narrative. For that reason, there is no clear winner in this category.

2. Fabricating Evidence Against George Zimmerman
Three major news outlets are responsible for violating basic editorial standards in order to frame George Zimmerman as a racist and/or murderer. The first network guilty of this was CNN.

 

CNN:
On March 21, CNN falsely accused Zimmerman of using the racially explosive term "fucking coon" on a 911 call. Live, on the air, during Anderson Cooper's primetime show, an audio expert listened to an unintelligible audio tape and incorrectly concluded Zimmerman had described Martin as a "fucking coon" just moments before he shot him.

This irresponsible and premature segment aired the very night before Al Sharpton's high-profile rally in Florida.

After the audio was fully enhanced (something CNN obviously didn't wait to do before falsely defaming Zimmerman), it became clear that Martin had either said "fucking cold" or "fucking punks."

More than two weeks would pass before CNN would retract its falsehood.

NBC News:
On March 27, the "Today Show" would air audio of a 911 call that they had maliciously edited.

Here is what NBC broadcast:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

Here is the actual conversation:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. 

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.

After the fraudulent editing was discovered (first by Breitbart News), NBC News issued a full retraction and fired a number of the producers involved.

ABC News:
On March 28, ABC News proved themselves every bit as irresponsible as CNN by breaking a major story before the evidence was all in. Using surveillance video that hadn't yet been fully enhanced, ABC claimed that "video taken the night that Trayvon Martin was shot dead shows no blood or bruises on George Zimmerman."

This premature and completely false accusation would be retracted by ABC News four days later after a full enhancement of the video clearly showed lacerations on Zimmerman's head.

Winner: CNN by a mile

Though Zimmerman and his attorneys have filed a lawsuit against NBC News for the malicious editing of the 911 tape, what CNN did is far worse.

NBC News was attempting to make Zimmerman look like a racial profiler. CNN, on the other hand, was attempting to make Zimmerman look like an enraged outright racist (there was no racial angle in ABC's fraud). It also took CNN far longer to retract their story than either NBC or ABC.

Moreover, on its own airwaves, CNN would allow the complete fallacy that Zimmerman had said "fucking coon" to live on.

Which brings me to…

3. Outright Dishonesty
Unfortunately, there simply isn't enough room on the Internet to list all of the media dishonestly hurled at Zimmerman. To save time, rather than make a comparison, I will simply focus on the very worst of it, which undoubtedly came from CNN.



Nothing was more harmful to our country or to Zimmerman personally than the lie that race somehow was involved in this tragic shooting. Therefore, the worst of the media's outright dishonesty came from their zeal to falsely prop up  the  false narrative that Zimmerman is racist or that race had anything to do with the shooting.

On two separate occasions (I'm aware of), even though CNN had retracted the falsehood back in 2012, the inflammatory lie that Zimmerman had described Martin as a "fucking coon" moments before shooting him was allowed to live on uncorrected during CNN broadcasts in July of 2013, when racial tensions were at their highest.

On July 16, 2013, on Erin Burnett's primetime CNN show, guest Safiya Songhai claimed Zimmerman's "on the tape saying F-ing coons."

Burnett did not correct the record.

Even worse, however, is that three days earlier on the 13th, one of CNN's own employees spread this lie.

Nancy Grace falsely claimed Zimmerman said "fucking coon" during her HLN primetime show.

As far as I know, Grace has never corrected the record.

Winner: CNN

Again, the dishonesty throughout the media during this affair was everywhere, and at times  staggering. But nothing I know of reached the heights of a cable news network intentionally allowing racial tensions to be enflamed by something they knew was an outright lie.

4. Phony Objectivity
It might be a little unfair to declare CNN the winner partly because of the fact that their phony objectivity is a 24/7 juggernaut, but there is more to condemn them than just that.

 

While ABC, CBS, NBC, the Washington Post , AP, etc. were all on the exact same dishonest narrative track in covering this case, they are not a 24/7 bullhorn across numerous media platforms. CNN is, and while it is true that MSNBC is not objective, unlike CNN, MSNBC does not pretend to be objective.
CNN, therefore, is far more sinister than MSNBC in how it disguises its leftism as objective truth. And when it came to the Zimmerman case, the network was especially toxic for all the reasons listed above.

There is, however, one CNN segment of outrageous bias that sticks out like no other.

Even if this particular segment had occurred on the openly left-wing MSNBC, it would have been worthy of note. But for it to happen on a network that advertises itself as "objective" made for an extraordinary thirty-minutes of television.

In 2012, and before there was a shred of proof race had anything to do with anything, President Obama injected race into the Martin shooting. His cynical goal was obvious: In a swing-state crucial to his upcoming reelection, Obama sought to turn a tragic local story into a national media obsession that would galvanize his Florida base via racial division

Post-verdict, what Obama did last week was even worse. After the trial and a thorough FBI investigation, the president knew that race had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting. Regardless, on July 19, the president made a surprise appearance in the White house briefing room and delivered the kind of racially divisive remarks unheard of from a sitting president in my lifetime.

CNN's reaction from its "objective" anchor Brooke Baldwin and four "objective" analysts (Gloria Borger, Jessica Yellin, Sonny Hostin, and Candy Crowley) can only be described as orgasmic. The surreal segment is described in detail here.

The topper, though, was when "objective" CNN anchor Don Lemon joined the celebration by breaking down into tears.

Winner: CNN

5. Outright Racism
The mainstream media's decision to single out George Zimmerman for his lack of racial purity was without question a shameful and bigoted act. But the only moment of outright virulent racism occurring in the mainstream media came from CNN's Nancy Grace during her HLN primetime show.

With racial tensions at their peak as America awaited a verdict, a sneering Grace lashed out at the Hispanic Zimmerman with a racial tirade about him enjoying a life of "driving through Taco Bell every night, having churros" as Trayvon Martin lies dead.
--

--
In my two decades of watching the mainstream media, I have never once seen any media personality use this kind of open racism on the air. The fact that the rest of the media have ignored Grace's statement is depressing. The fact that Grace still has a job is outrageous. The fact that neither CNN nor Grace have even acknowledged or apologized defies explanation.

In 2010, CNN fired Hispanic anchor Rick Sanchez for falsely accusing Jon Stewart of racism.

In 2013, a CNN anchor is using CNN's own airwaves to hurl racism at a Hispanic, and there have been absolutely no consequences.

Winner: CNN not only wins this category, "The Most Trusted Name In News" stands alone.

6. Lies of Omission
The media almost made a game of not reporting proven facts inconvenient to their phony  white vs. black racial narrative. This is a form of lying known as lying through omission. There are almost too many lies of omission to count, but let us focus on this:

George Zimmerman's past indicates he is color blind. He has dated black women, tutored black children, once stood up for a black homeless man against the police (we're told he so desperately wants to impress), has black relatives, and voted for the first black president.

Moreover, the investigative arm of Eric Holder's Justice Department, the FBI, did an in-depth investigation into Zimmerman and found no evidence of racism in his past or the night of the shooting.

Winner: Tie
Every mainstream media outlet in America shamefully downplayed these facts.
--
Of these six categories, CNN tied in two and handily won four.

In a vast ocean of reprehensible media behavior surrounding the coverage of George Zimmerman, CNN -- once one of the most respected and trusted news outlets in the world -- stood alone as a bright, beaming lighthouse of falsehoods, racism, and fabrications.

Big Journalism