“Obama in Wonderland” (officially titled “The Road We’ve Traveled”), the world’s first 16-minute political ad, would have pleased Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s infamous propaganda minister. Like the ruling party in George Orwell’s “1984,” this super-slick Hollywood production rewrites history with an alarming arrogance.
The first thing you see in this vulgar, vile, vitriol-filled video is the Obama family walking on stage to greet a huge crowd of tearful, cheering, flag-waving Stepford wives, husbands and children. The melodrama of it all rivals New York City’s 1951 ticker-tape parade for Gen. Douglas MacArthur.
Enough! Let’s get serious here. Let’s pretend that BHO is not a Marxist. Let’s pretend that he isn’t really trying to collapse the economy. Let’s pretend that he really isn’t obsessed with redistribution of wealth.
Even if none of these was true, it still leaves one inconvenient question unanswered: If a president’s only response to an ailing economy is that he inherited it, what does he think he was elected to do – play golf and fly around on Air Force One?
The specter of a communist takeover of the U.S. still remains singularly preposterous to millions of Americans who would quickly come to arms if they actually believed it a possibility. I’m not entirely certain how President Obama proposes to suppress those who would rise up against him were his intentions to become widely apparent, but I believe that part of the plan is to factionalize us (such as is occurring over the Martin case and Occupy Wall Street). I believe he’s also counting on deepening economic adversity to heighten Americans’ collective stress. Another element might be to provoke concerned patriots into action that he could point to as a threat to domestic tranquility, thereby convincing a preponderance of Americans to accept fundamental compromises to their civil liberties.
In such a case, Obama could then employ some of the more traditional Marxist tactics, such as mass executions, as cohorts of his friend Bill Ayers once advocated.
The “lesser evil” approach guarantees the triumph of wrong. So in choosing between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama we are like the cornered target of the hit man who says, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” The fatal outcome is inevitable in either case. Obama’s way takes us to domineering socialism along a path that moves more openly and harshly against right, conscience and property. Romney’s way takes us to domineering socialism along a path that reserves the harsher methods, preferring to use deception and prevarication so that we go more gently into the night.
Now, almost a decade later, our government, as well as our society as a whole, has grown even more corrupt than even during the Clinton years. The “regime” of President Barack Hussein Obama – who defrauded the American people to elect him president, his having taken advantage of the people’s political reaction to eight years of a disastrous and failed George W. Bush presidency – is more than a threat to our Judeo-Christian heritage and American way of life. Obama is, plain and simple, the black communist equivalent of the Manchurian candidate, an evil force who is bent on destroying our beloved nation and our religious freedoms. It is no coincidence that Hillary Clinton is his secretary of state.
Obama needs blacks to be angry and disaffected for two very important reasons. The first, as I have outlined in recent weeks, and as his history confirms, is that Obama is a socialist cut from the same cloth as Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers. The second is because Obama needs the black and Hispanic vote to get re-elected. This last reason is why Obama so quickly injected himself into Sanford, Fla. He needs this unrest because it attracts the very elements most likely to embrace his form of socialism. And let there be no doubt, Obama fears losing Florida. Ergo, he can use Trayvon Martin unrest to show he’s down with the cause.
Barack Obama, just as he did when there was the incident in Cambridge, Mass., a few years ago, immediately jumped to a racially based conclusion. Just as professor Henry Gates had to be right and Sgt. James Crowley and the entire Cambridge Police Department had to be wrong before anyone actually knew the facts of the matter, we had Obama solemnly intoning, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin.” Well, I suppose he would unless, Mother Nature being the naughty pixy she sometimes is, he came out looking like your Caucasian mother.
Obama’s vocal and loud endorsement of Trayvon Martin as a boy he would like to have sired sent a message to the nation and the world – much like his offensive threatening statements about the sovereignty of the Supreme Court – that he does not respect the rule of law and that he, as the nation’s fuehrer, can decide for the rest of us who is guilty and who is innocent. And, true to his black-Muslim leanings and associations, President Obama refused to, as is the correct approach, keep his mouth shut so as not to influence law-enforcement authorities or any eventual jury. Instead, he improperly used his office to judge for himself, and then broadcast, who caused the sad death of this young boy.
So, once again, Obama has shown his true colors; he is a racist, black-Muslim sympathizer and Jew-and-white hater himself. For this, with all of the whoredom on display in the last weeks, he wins the prize for the biggest and most evil whore of all.
Too many white Americans voted for Barack Obama for president in 2008 because they wanted to prove they weren’t racists. They believed Obama’s promise that his election represented a triumph over racism. Those white Obama voters have been betrayed.
Then and now, opponents of Barack Obama are routinely labeled racist. Hillary supporters found that out in 2008. Nothing’s changed. The president, who promised a post-racial presidency, has played the race card ever since.
From “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” to “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama has deliberately fanned the flames of racial resentment among black Americans.
The racial divisions in American society are worse now than when Obama took office.
MRC Adds to 'GCB' List Of Offenses (Which It Still Won't Publish) Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Lauren Thompson cranked up her outrage detector once again for her weekly viewing of "GCB." Her headline seems to sum up her feelings: "Easter ‘GCB’ Shills for Porn in Christian Marriages."
Thompson now informs us that she has now compiled 157 "Christian-bashing" offenses in the show. And, asbefore, she refuses to publish the entire list. But how will we know how offensive they are if she hides them from us?
WND is republishing Klein's years-old attacks on Obama and his aides. The first article starts with this editor's note:
Editor’s note: In 2008, WND thoroughly vetted President Obama’s radical background. Many of those original exclusive reports, almost entirely ignored by the establishment news media, currently are being utilized four years later by some media outlets in the lead up to this year’s presidential election. From now until election day, WND will present its original investigations into Obama and his radical ties with bonus updates. These reports are as important today as they were in 2008. Following is the first in a series of articles aimed at re-vetting Obama.
And what is this article about? Strongly suggesting that Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett is a communist plant. A follow-up article, containing the same editor's note, falsely claimed that Obama called for "Israel's destruction" in speeches during thte 1990s at "fundraisers for Palestinians living in what the United Nations terms refugee camps." Even Klein backs away from that outrageous allegation, offering no evidence he knows what Obama said during these speeches.
Um, Aaron? Guilt-by-association is not "vetting."And re-publishing guilt-by-association is not "re-vetting."
Meanwhile, Wonkette has a different view of Klein's reruns, positing that Klein and WND are mad that the Breitbart websites are stealing Klein's stuff for its own "vetting," adding, "This is the sound of a riding glove meeting a soft hairless cheek!"
An April 10 CNSNews.com article by Edwin Mora uncritically touts an analysis by Charles Blahous of George Mason University’s Mercatus Center claiming that "President Obama’s health care legislation, contrary to promises made by proponents, will add up to $530 billion to federal deficits and boost government spending by at least $1.15 trillion over the next decade." Mora went on to claim that "Blahous explained that the fiscal crisis generated by Obamacare, formally known as The Affordable Care Act, is fueled by a gimmick contained in the law that involves double-counting of funding."
Mora ignored the fact that the Mercatus Center is funded in part by foundations controlled by the Koch family, generous funder of right-wing causes.
While Mora noted that the White House "accused Blahous of making erroneous claims about the fiscal ramifications of the health care law," he failed to note that economic and health care experts, as well as Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler, have also criticized Blahous' analysis and called his accusation of double-counting an "old, discredited argument."
Meanwhile, an April 10 MRC item by Scott Whitlock also highlighted the Blahous report. Whitlock conceded that Blahouse is a "conservative economist ," but he did not mention the Mercatus Center's link to the Kochs, nor did he acknowledge any criticism of the report, even as he criticized non-coverage of it in the media.
Bozell Demands That Congress Harrass A Private Business for Partisan Purposes Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center Brent Bozell is taking his war against NBC over the editing of an audiotape to a new level, demanding that Congress to harass a private business in service of the MRC's right-wing agenda.
That's the only conclusion one can draw from the MRC's April 10 press release:
Today, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell announces the media watchdog is calling upon Congress to investigate Comcast / NBC News for the intentional editing of the George Zimmerman audio that was broadcast multiple times and subsequently flamed the fires of racial hatred and animosity:
“NBC is laughing at the public. Last week we said we would have more to say if their behavior in this matter didn’t change. Given their continued irresponsibility, today we open up a new front. “
Bozell is not demanding this because NBC violated any federal law or policy -- at no point does he identify any such violation. It's because Bozell has made NBC his enemy, and he wants Congress to play along.
Bozell whines that "This is a complete violation of the public trust" -- but Bozell provides no evidence that Congress has ever involved itself with such matters in a private business.
The only justification Bozell provides for congressional involvement in the editing of an audiotape is that Comcast, NBC's parent company, "is in the midst of a business deal with Verizon requiring approval by the Federal Communications Commission and the United States Department of Justice; the public policy issues related to the approval of this deal are so critical that the United States Senate held hearings on the matter." But this proposed deal involves Comcast selling wireless spectrum to Verizon -- it has nothing to do with NBC. Which just further proves that Bozell's goal is harassment.
Bozell is playing politics here -- nothing else. He wants Congress to help him destroy a business that he has been spectacularly unsuccessful at doing on his own.
Make no mistake: NBC's destruction is what Bozell wants. Not fairness. Not justice. Destruction.
Mychal Massie kicks off his April 9 WorldNetDaily column like this:
Many say Barack Obama is the most divisive, egocentric megalomaniac ever to hold his office. Others say he is the most ruthless and defiantly determined Marxist-Leninist ever to become president. I say he is, by definition and actions, both.
Where are these "many" who say that? Do they exist outside of his fevered brain?
The craziness continues:
His attacks against the court were not simply reflexive, they were instinctive, calculated components of his training by his mentor, Saul Alinsky.
Actually, Alinsky died when Obama was a child, and the two never met. Therefore, Alinsky could not have "mentored" him.
People asked why it took a month for the Trayvon Martin incident to become an issue. I submit it was because his minions were waiting for the high court to begin hearing his health-care legislation. Using tragedy as a means to foment rage, and then using that rage as a match to ignite dried grass, is what communists like Alinsky taught. Obama honed this skill by following Alinsky’s teachings to the letter as he helped build the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) while in Chicago. As McLeod reminded us, both of those groups were built following Alinksy’s model of community agitation, or as Alinsky taught, by “rubbing raw the sores of discontent.”
That is what Obama did – he helped fan the flames of controversy in Florida and then took that contempt and turned it toward the courts. In military terms, he was softening the ground, i.e., heavy bombing runs, before sending in the ground troops. He knew full well the things he was saying were outright lies, and he knew that he would be criticized for his intentional dishonesty.
Massie never quotes what Obama said about Martin, and therefore doesn't identify exactly how he "helped fan the flames of controversy" or what exactly he said were "lies." Given that Obama said nothing particularly controversial about Martin, Massie is the one who's lying.
But never mind the facts -- Massie's in full-froth Obama derangement:
Obama is a hardcore Marxist-Leninist. He was one of Alinksy’s best disciples and, as Alinsky’s son proudly boasted, he learned his lessons well. We cannot give this Erebusic evil another term. The question is, what do we replace him with? This is why the tea-party movement is so important – we must vet candidates and replace the vapid and feckless in Congress with trusted patriots.
Obama has no respect for our institutions, the Constitution, or the people of this country. Every time he arrogantly tilts his head back with his nose in the air, he’s telling us he’s better than we are. He has alienated our allies, he detests Israel, and by all indications, he is selling her out on Iran. And when he was caught red-handed (pun intended), promising Russia our secrets when, not if, he is re-elected – the following day he made light of it, wanting us to believe he was just joking about giving away our secrets.
Obama is a communist and we had better understand that because this Alinskyite is not just destroying our way of life, he is betraying us to our enemies.
MRC-Linked Protesters Bash Wis. Paper For Reporting Facts About Walker Topic: Media Research Center
We've already pointed out that the Media Research Center's "Tell the Truth" campaign has nothing to do with telling the truth -- it's all about trying to intimidate the media into not reporting anything negative about conservatives.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel endorsed Scott Walker for governor.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has supported much of Walker’s agenda.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has opposed the effort to recall Walker.
But the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has reported on the John Doe inquiry that has seen a number of Walker’s closest aides and contributors charged with felony wrongdoing.
Does that make the Journal Sentinel anti-Walker? Anti-Republican? Is it a practitioner of “media bias”?
On Saturday, a handful of conservative activists picketed the offices of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel holding signs that read, “Don’t believe the liberal media.”
They said they were part of an effort by the Media Research Center to “keep media bias out of the 2012 election.”
They were not limiting their expressions of concern merely to the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall race.
But they did seem a mite ungrateful.
If newspapers that back Republicans like Scott Walker — and oppose efforts to hold Walker to account — are unacceptable to the guardians of right-wing orthodoxy, then it is clear that they are not concerned about “media bias.” They simply want stenography to power. That the Journal Sentinel has refused to provide that is very much to its credit.
That's right -- these MRC-inspired protesters attacked a pro-Walker paper for reporting something negative about Walker. Not because it was false, but because it was reported.
That's the ultimate agenda behind the MRC's anti-media campaign. Remember that.
Funny what the lure of a "special invitation" to the White House will make some do.
Newsmax is a haven for Obama-haters (right, Wayne Allyn Root?), but apparently, that White House invitation, even to do a fluffy article , was apparently too tempting. Thus, we have an April 10 article by Paul Scicchitano and Kathleen Walter on Newsmax's health website that got almost as fluffy with the White House chef as Ronald Kessler does with Mitt Romney:
Newsmax accepted a special invitation from the Obama White House to speak with White House Chef Sam Kass, who is playing a key role in first lady Michelle Obama’s national campaign to fight childhood obesity.
During an exclusive interview with Newsmax’s Kathleen Walter, and a personal tour of the White House garden, Kass disclosed details of Michelle’s new program, called Let’s Move.
Yes, bragging that Newsmax got a "special invitation" to the White House is in the very first paragraph.
And for good measure, the article included a picture of Walter posing with Kass to immortalize the moment:
Maybe Bill Clinton should've tried this with Christopher Ruddy back in the '90s.
NEW ARTICLE: Dan Gainor, The MRC's Apparatchik Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's T. Boone Pickens Fellow is nothing if not a loyal spouter of right-wing talking points -- so loyal, in fact, he can keep a straight face while spouting off about how the Muppets are brainwashing your children. Read more >>
Olbermann Inspires Newsmax's Kessler to Trash Jimmy Carter, For Some Reason Topic: Newsmax
Ronald Kessler does love to bash liberals, and alleged bad behavior by Keith Olbermann has somehow inspired Kessler to attack Democratic presidents like Jimmy Carter. From Kessler's April 9 column:
Democrats profess to be for uplifting the downtrodden. But as Current TV’s firing of left-leaning Keith Olbermann demonstrates, when it comes to treating the less fortunate with respect, Democrats may be the worst offenders.
Among the complaints by Al Gore’s Current TV was that the anchor went through eight different car pick-up services, often complaining that the drivers “smelled” or that they “talked to him.”
As outlined in my book “In the President’s Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect,” Democratic presidents who claim like Olbermann to be for the little guy often are the nastiest with staff and Secret Service agents. Jimmy Carter — codenamed Deacon — was a prime example.
After taking shots at Bill Clinton and Lyndon Johnson for allegedly being rude while liberal, however, Kessler is forced to admit the flaw in his partisan theory by admitting that Secret Service agents "say both Barack Obama — codenamed Renegade — and Michelle Obama treat them with respect."
CNS' Jeffrey Spews Yet Another Petty, Hateful Attack at Obamas Topic: CNSNews.com
What is it about the Obamas that has made CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey abandon all pretense of fairness and objectivity and head straight into paroxysms of rage? Jeffrey simply must flail at every perceived offense, no matter how bizarre or petty, or invent new ones.
Thus, we have an April 9 article by Jeffrey that begins this way:
Speaking Friday at what the administration called “The White House Forum on Women and the Economy,” President Barack Obama said that after his two daughters were born, he and his wife—both Harvard Law School graduates—could not afford the “luxury” of having her stay home with the children.
In 2005, when Obama began serving in the U.S. Senate (and his daughters turned 4 and 7), he and his wife were earning a combined annual income of $479,062. Barack Obama was paid a salary of $162,100 by the U.S. taxpayers, and Michelle Obama was paid $316,962 to handle community affairs for the University of Chicago Medical Center.
Jeffrey offers no evidence that Obama was talking about any year after 2004, the only years for which he provides the Obamas' income. He cannot possibly know what era Obama was talking about, yet it's enough for Jeffrey to devise this mean-spirited tirade.
There is no "news" here -- this is a petty attack, designed only to draw a link on Drudge and attract the kind of hateful, borderlineracist commenters Jeffrey apparently believes should be CNS' core audience.
This article demonstrates nothing beyond how much Jeffrey has been driven around the bend by his dripping hatred for all things Obama. You can call that lots of things, but responsible journalism isn't one of them.
AIM's Caruba Pretends He Has Nothing To Do With Heartland Institute Topic: Accuracy in Media
Alan Caruba peddles his bizarre brand of global warming denialism in his April 6 Accuracy in Media column -- now with an added level of denialism.
As he has before, Caruba rails against the release of documents from the anti-global warming group the Heartland Institute as have been "fraudulently obtained," while describing stolen emails in the so-called "Climategate" non-scandal as merely a "massive data leak."
Then, after declaring that Heartland "needs your support" because it "has already paid a big price for its efforts and needs donors to replace General Motors’ support," Caruba concludes with an editor's note: "To forestall the likely warmist response to this commentary, Mr. Caruba is not in the employ, nor receiving any funding from The Heartland Institute."
That, quite simply, is a lie. In February, Caruba himself wrote: "Full disclosure: Years ago I received a small stipend from The Heartland Institute to help cover the costs of writing articles regarding the global warming hoax." Caruba seems to be taking refuge in the word "receiving" to mean that he is not currently receiving Heartland money, but the way he worded his statement makes it clear he was trying to imply that he never received Heartland money.
In addition to the money, Caruba is clearly affiliated with the institute in other ways:
Caruba has his own bio on the Heartland website as one of its "experts."
MRC Still Can't Be Bothered to Respect A Deceased Journalist Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has a history of insufficiently respecting deceased journalists -- remember back in 2005, when the MRC used the death of Peter Jennings to remind people that "The MRC's archive is packed with documentation of liberal bias from Peter Jennings."
The MRC is doing the same thing with the death of Mike Wallace. In April 9 NewsBusters post, MRC VP Brent Baker whines that an ABC report on Wallace "began with a clip of Wallace, from either 1976 or during the 1980 campaign, demanding of Reagan: 'How many blacks are there on your top campaign staff, Governor?'"
Baker then recounted Wallace-bashing items from the MRC's archive, as recounted in a 2006 MRC post. At no point does Baker or anyone else at the MRC offer any other comment about Wallace's death that does not involve bashing his purported political views.
Erik Rush Rampant Paranoia Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
The day Obama snuffs out Internet truth
You awake one morning this summer to a radio alarm that startles you out of bed with blaring white noise instead of music or your news show. Annoyed, you soon discover that you can’t tune in any stations at all, not even on the other radios in your home. It isn’t until you determine that there’s nothing on the television but snow and “Cannot find server” messages online that you become concerned.
At 6 p.m., the television, which had been on in case something was broadcast (but with the volume turned down to spare you that damnable white noise), springs to life. Within moments you’re all huddled around it. The screen displays a dark background with a U.S. Department of Homeland Security emblem in the center. Presently, an announcer comes on, audio only, stating that for reasons of national security, it had become necessary for the DHS to suspend airline travel and commandeer broadcast frequencies, as well as the Internet, but that there was no longer any danger, and more information would follow. They also mention that for reasons of public safety, the president has ordered a nationwide curfew from 7 p.m. until 6 a.m. the following morning.
As you may have surmised by now, you’re unable to find WND – or Townhall, Realclearpolitics, Hotair, GBTV, DailyCaller, theHill, NationalReviewOnline, PJmedia, Washingtonexaminer, nor any of your favorite political blogs. Without exception, they return “404 – Page Not Found” error messages. Most of the social media sites are up, but your accounts don’t seem to be there any longer. It’s as though you were never a member.
The left-wing websites are another story. They’re up and running and, while they don’t have any useful insights per se, their lead stories reflect a perverse glee at the fact that, whatever else this phenomenon has wrought, it has resulted in an apparent suspension of operations of certain “right-wing hate sites” they’ve long reviled.
Dashing back and forth now between the television and your computer – and with the radio on in the background – you begin to put the pieces together. None of the media upon which you’ve relied can be found. One TV news network you watch is broadcasting, but the commentators are people you do not recognize, and the programming lineup has changed entirely. A religious program you’ve watched from time to time is no longer on the channel lineup.
A decidedly uneasy feeling begins to well up in your gut. No one in the press is discussing any details or repercussions from the previous day, nor anyone’s reaction to same, either foreign or domestic. Were there riots? Was anyone hurt? Were world markets affected? They’re also not talking about the presidential campaign or the upcoming election. Surely the candidates would have something to say about this.
In the distance you hear a loudspeaker, most likely on an official vehicle, because it is moving, becoming louder, although you can’t make out what’s being said just yet. There are voices as well now, of men in the street, barking in sharp, peremptory tones.
Noel Sheppard Unhappy Obama Did Introduction for 'To Kill A Mockingbird' Topic: NewsBusters
How much does the Media Research Center so utterly despise President Obama? He's not even allowed to innocuously comment on a movie without criticism.
Thus, we get the spectacle of Noel Sheppard using an April 8 NewsBusters post to rant about Obama providing an introduction to the USA Network's broadcast of the classic film "To Kill A Mockingbird." Sheppard rather vociferously insists his criticism isn't about race or even the content of what Obama said, but the fact he was allowed to do it in the first place:
Let's be clear: there's absolutely nothing I disagree with concerning the content of the President's introduction.
"To Kill A Mockingbird" is my favorite film. Gregory Peck should win an Oscar every year for his remarkable performance, as should Horton Foote for writing a screenplay adaptation that is actually far better than the book. That's a very rare feat.
Beyond this, despite the concern of many conservatives, there was absolutely nothing provocative in this introduction. Thankfully, there was no mention of how the film somehow relates to the Trayvon Martin shooting.
But did the USA Network have to give the President more free face time in front of the public during an election year?
We saw the President before the Super Bowl. Just last week he appeared during the NCAA college basketball Final Four, and got a lot of airtime prior giving his bracket selection.
With the Olympics coming up this summer, it seems a metaphysical certitude we'll be seeing a lot of Mr. Obama during those Games. Likely the World Series just before the elections as well.
If Obama were a Republican, one envisions liberals shouting from the rooftops about such free face time, especially before a classic film revered by the Left for its treatment of racial prejudice.
With tongue in cheek, I daresay that for the 46 percent of the nation that doesn't approve of the job he's doing, having Obama introduce this film was "sort of like shooting a mockingbird."
Is Sheppard really this small and petty? Apparently so.