Sure, I’m a birther, because nobody has yet seen Barack Obama’s actual birth certificate. But this isn’t about the president’s place of birth or parentage. It’s about his Americanism.
So, what if we had an American president, raised from infancy through the formative years to recognize that our country’s virtues far outweigh its flaws? What if we had a president who was instructed during his adolescence and collegiate years about the genius and fortitude of our nation’s founders?
What if we had a president who revered the Constitution as a living document, not because he could stretch it to fit his wants, but because of its rigidity in the exaltation of freedom?
Barack Obama has no ability to run on a platform of “what I’ve accomplished during my tenure” as nearly every area that measures a successful administration has been met with incompetence, futility and abject failure. Yet his message of “Free” stuff seems to be carrying him to the promise land of four more years. I hope for our country’s sake I’m mistaken – for if I’m not, America as we have known her will now and forevermore be a thing of the past.
As a prelude to next week’s column on this passionately faithful pro-abortion president, I am revisiting a fervent petition that was made to Obama three days after he was inaugurated. In my article for the Human Life Review, I wrote about Luke Robinson, a black pastor confronting the first black president, who said at the 2009 March for Life in Washington, D.C.:
“Please, Mr. President, be that agent of change that can commute the sentence of over 1,400 African-American children and over 3,000 children from other ethnic groups sentenced to die every day in this country by abortion. … At the conclusion of your term in office, may it never be said that you presided over the largest slaughter of innocent children in the history of the country.”
Yet Obama increasingly supports and encourages the abortion-created corpses of innocent black children.
Remember those video scenes of the overweight Japanese warrior in a 15th-century robe solemnly walking up to a rather thick log sitting there with each end on a hip-high rock? After bowing to the shrine, the Japanese warrior, with one bare-handed karate chop, cut the log cleanly in half. You were glad the log was not you.
This time the log is you, and me, and all who want regime change in America. I suspect the Obama team is out to do to our end-of-campaign will exactly what that Japanese warrior did to that log. It’s only my suspicion, but I’m the world’s foremost authority on what I suspect!
The truth is that Obama has accomplished a great deal. That’s why he keeps insisting that his plan has “worked.” And he’s right because, in reality, everything works.
Communism works, if your purpose is to enslave people. Stealing works, if all you care about is money. Lying works, if you don’t care about your personal integrity. Literally anything, no matter how monstrously immoral, will work, depending on the outcome you’re after and how you define the term work. So the question should never be whether or not something works, but whether it accomplishes things we deem to be desirable.
That being the case, anyone who understands that the Duplicitous Despot’s objective from the outset has been to fundamentally transform the United States of America into a Third World Marxist country would have to admit that his strategy has worked very well. So Barack Obama means it when he says, with a straight face, that his plan has “worked.” But what he doesn’t say is that for most Americans it has worked only to the detriment of their freedom and financial well-being.
At age 51, Barack Obama is certainly too young to have been a 1960s student militant, but he was mentored by a coterie of bona fide revolutionaries, including communist organizer Frank Marshall Davis and Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers. Then, of course, there is Obama’s black separatist minister for 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who, by the way, gets a generous shout-out in the revisited Obama speech. After Wright’s animus toward the USA became common knowledge – for example, his notorious “God damn America” sermon – Obama famously cut official ties with Wright, but that just seems like window dressing. It all is.
A radical left message lives and beats at the heart of the Obama administration. It makes me wonder: Will these chickens ever come home to roost?
Obama didn’t just lose a debate. He demonstrated that he is incapable of running a small business, let alone the largest bureaucracy on planet earth.
And why are we just seeing this now?
Because, as has been pointed out over and over by many others, Obama was never vetted as a candidate, never screened for constitutional eligibility – and, as we now see – never challenged with any tough questions or criticisms of his policies over the last four years by the establishment press he may as well own.
Regardless of the outcome of the election – even if he loses – Obama will have 80 days from Nov. 6, 2012, to Jan. 19, 2013, to fulfill his treacherous promise to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is still an active KGB communist agent, to deliver America’s allies like Israel, Poland and the Czech Republic to Russia on a silver platter.
Let all Americans of good will work assiduously to save our country from socialism before Nov. 6, before Obama steals a second term. If he does, it will become like Putin’s Russia – America’s last “election.”
WND's Flaherty Drags Obama Into His Race-Baiting Topic: WorldNetDaily
Colin Flaherty tries to drag President Obama in to his race-baiting rhetoric in an Oct. 3 WorldNetDaily column:
And now for a few words from our commander in chief:
“And most of the ministers here know that those riots didn’t erupt overnight; there had been a ‘quiet riot’ building up in Los Angeles and across this country for years.
“If you had gone to any street corner in Chicago or Baton Rouge or Hampton – you would have found the same young men and women without hope, without miracles and without a sense of destiny other than life on the edge – the edge of the law, the edge of the economy, the edge of family structures and communities.”
Thank you, Mr. President.
You may recognize these words as part of the newly re-discovered video of a speech Barack Obama made to black ministers in 2007. They sure answer a lot of questions.
But President Obama is one of the few to look racial violence right in the eye and tell us what it is all about, without flinching: Blacks are angry because racist white people are holding them back.
Way to put words in Obama's mouth there, eh, Colin? Obama said nothing about "racist white people" -- in fact, Obama specifically said he did not "excuse the violence of bashing in a man’s head or destroying someone’s store and their life’s work. That kind of violence is inexcusable and self-defeating."
Funny that Flaherty didn't tell his readers about that.That would have contradicted his message that all black people are violent thugs, and Flaherty can't have that.
Indeed, Flaherty quickly pivots to keeping up his black-people-are-scary obsession, purporting to repeat tweets from "black people promising violence if the election does not turn out they way they want it." He concluded: "No matter if you want to explain it, or justify it, or prepare for it, promises of even more racial violence are good to know."
Flaherty, for his part, is promising to keep up his WND-endorsed race-baiting. That's good to know too.
CNS Won't Report Good News About Economy Topic: CNSNews.com
How in the tank for Mitt Romney is Terry Jeffrey and his CNSNews.com? Jeffrey's website won't report that the unemployment rate went down last month because it might make President Obama look good.
Instead, Jeffrey wrote two stories cherry-picking obscure statistsics. The first carried the headline "Unemployment Rate Plummets to 4.3%--For Government Workers." Jeffrey doesn't mention that the public sector has decreased by more than 580,000 since 2009, or that the ratio of government employment to the general population is at its lowest point in nearly 30 years.
Jeffrey's other article makes a big deal about how there are "there are now 1,035,000 fewer construction jobs in the United States than there were in January 2009, when Obama was inaugurated." It's not until the final paragraph that he mentions that "Construction jobs in the United States started declining before Obama entered office, having peaked at 7,726,000 in April 2006."
Neither article mentions that the overall unemployment rate decreased from 8.2 percent to 7.8 percent.
Such biased reporting is blatant electioneering for Romney. How does that square with the nonprofit status of CNS' parent, the Media Research Center?
WND Wants to Scare You Into Voting for Romney Topic: WorldNetDaily
Remember how Joseph Farah wants you to believe that his WorldNetDaily is merely a "watchdog on government" and isn't trying to "shape the news"? Yeah, not so much.
The latest issue of WND's Whistleblower magaine, meanwhile, rejects both approaches for some good ol' fearmongering. As described in in an Oct. 1 WND article:
Gun and ammo sales are through the roof, as is the popularity of post-apocalyptic TV shows like “The Walking Dead” and “Revolution.” Foreclosures, debt, the “misery index” and suicide rates are also way up, while employment, consumer confidence, median family income and optimism about the kind of country today’s children will inherit are way, way down.
Against this turbulent backdrop, America – her people more polarized than at any time since the Civil War – faces the most staggeringly consequential election in generations.
In a very special pre-election issue, October’s Whistleblower magazine provides a stunning “crystal ball” look at the future of America should Obama win reelection. It is titled, “THE TIPPING POINT: Life in America under 4 more years of Barack Obama’s leadership.”
Here are some of the wild speculation the magazine engages in:
“Obama’s 2nd-term dream is America’s nightmare” by Aaron Klein, who takes readers on a tour of Obama’s upcoming policies, as revealed by the think tanks that created his first-term agenda
2nd-term plan: “Disarm border agents” (Protect illegal aliens in multitude of ways, grant amnesty, convert into voters)
2nd-term plan: “Take control of ‘every industry’” (Government’s ‘success’ with automaker bailouts to be replicated throughout economy)
2nd-term plan: “Institute ‘Marxist’ jobs plan” (Government-mandated ‘living wage’ could ‘crash and burn’ entire economy)
2nd-term plan: “Morph Obamacare into hardcore socialized medicine” (Single-payer system is waiting in the wings)
2nd-term plan: “Gut military and transform soldiers into social workers” (New focus on ‘global warming,’ ‘injustice,’ poverty, bolstering the U.N.)
“Burn down the suburbs?” by Stanley Kurtz, who documents the shocking truth that Obama is actually trying abolish America’s suburbs
“Obama is bringing about ‘nightmare scenario’” by Troy Anderson, in which Dinesh D’Souza, the author and filmmaker who made “2016,” says America is becoming vulnerable to both financial collapse and nuclear attack
Shocking, maybe. Truth? Probably not. But when has WND ever cared about the truth?
MRC's Bozell Is Still A Coward, And A Liar Too Topic: Media Research Center
One almost has to admire Brent Bozell's ability to lie so nakedly.
In his weekly appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox News how, Hannity played a two-year-old tape of liberal radio host Ed Schultz calling conservative host Laura Ingraham a "talk slut," then asked Bozell, "Would a conservative survive that?" Bozell responded, "No, they'd be fired."
Not only does Bozell know that's not true, he put the Media Research Center's full support toward conservative host after he did the same exact thing.
As we've detailed, when Rush Limbaugh went on a three-day tirade of misogyny against Sandra Fluke, calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute" among many other things. Bozell refused to publicly denounce Limbaugh for saying those words -- after all, the MRC gave Limbaugh its inaugural "William F. Buckley, Jr. Award for Media Excellence" in 2007. The only outrage Bozell could work up was to tepidly declare, "Let’s all agree Limbaugh crossed a line."
When it seemed Limbaugh might get fired for his misogynistic attack, Bozell tried to make sure he wasn't by launching an "I Stand With Rush" website, where he declared that "I stand with Rush Limbaugh and appreciate the massive contribution that he has made to the conservative movement and our nation over the last 25 years." (Oddly, that website disappeared about a week after it was launched.)
When presented with an opportunity to evenly apply his professed moral standards on a nonpartisan basis, Bozell refused. Instead, he defended the man who spoke the very same words he found offensive when they came out of the mouth of a liberal.
Molotov Mitchell Laughably Claims He's The 'Best Friend' of Gays Topic: WorldNetDaily
Molotov Mitchell is still trying to spin away his hatred of gays.
Reading a letter from a critic who reminded him of his tacit endorsement of a proposed anti-gay law Uganda that permitted the execution of people for committing homosexual acts, Molotov responded in an Oct. 2 WND video:
Fact: Molotov Mitchell has never called for the execution of "the gay" in Uganda. Years ago, in an episode of "For the Record," I defended Ugandans' right to make their own laws concerning homosexuality. In the video, I referenced Uganda's cultural and historical sensitivity, and applauded their willingness to stand up to the mounting pressure of European political correctness. And as a Ron Paul, freedom-loving conservative, I thought and still think that white people in America should stop trying to control black people's lives in Africa. If Ugandans wants to ban homosexuality, as a white American, frankly it is none of my business.
And for taking that radical libertarian position, liberals still sling mud at me, calling me a hatemonger, a Nazi, a guy who wants to kill all "the gay." These people clearly have no idea what a real Nazi or a real hatemonger looks like.
He then dismissed his critics as "limp-wristed American liberals," concluding, "I may not want to hold hands with you, but I'm one of the best friends you've got."
Let's go back and look at what Mitchell actually said in that 2009 video. As we noted at the time, Mitchell justified the proposed Uganda law by claiming that "our founding fathers also made homosexuality a capital offense" adding that "don't think that our founding fathers wouldn't support this legislation all the way." Mitchell falsely claimed that Ugandans "don't want to kill the homosexuals" -- even though the proposed law at that time would have permitted exactly that. Mitchell also declared that "If gay Ugandans don't like the law, they are more than free to leave," ignoring the fact that the law also could be applied to Ugandans living outside the country, even in countries where homosexuality is legal.
Would Molotov be so vociferously defending Uganda's "right to make their own laws" and their "cultural and historical sensitivity" if it involved a law that permitted killing Christians? Doubtful. And if Molotov wanted to back up his statement that "white people in America should stop trying to control black people's lives in Africa," shouldn't he be criticizing people like white Americans like Scott Lively, who reportedly played a role in inspiring the law?
Ol' Molotov 's history shows that he believes that the execution of gays is perfectly acceptable to him. He's a self-proclaimed "zealot" -- even has the word tattooed on his arm -- and has stated that he favors the "abolition of homosexuality."
Molotov's claim that he is the gays' "best friend" rings as hollow as his "some of my best friends are gay" video that he produced in response to his original defense of Uganda's proposed law. Anyone who so eagerly invokes anti-gay smears as "limp-wristed" is no friend of gays -- or anyone, really.
CNS Bats Cleanup For Romney After the Debate Topic: CNSNews.com
CNS is moving beyond merely promoting right-wing talking points as "news" and becoming a full-fledged media arm of Mitt Romney's campaign. Several CNS articles published after the debate served to reinforce Romney's talking points, attack President Obama, and even elucidate on issues it felt Romney didn't sufficiently cover during the debate.
During Wednesday night’s presidential debate, when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney explained why wanted to repeal and replace Obamacare, he cited four reasons, including because it is “expensive,” it “cuts $716 billion” from Medicare, it includes an “unelected board” that could determine what kind of medical treatments people get, and it “killed jobs.”
He did not mention as one of the reasons he would like to repeal Obamacare the fact that if mandates that all Americans must purchase health insurance, a mandate that conservatives have argued is unconstitutional and that only survived a Supreme Court challenge earlier this year when Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberals on the court and said the government had the authority to order people to buy things as long as it did so under the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause not the Commerce Clause.
Yes, pointing out that Romney failed to mention the individual mandate is the entire point of Lucas' article. He did concede, however, that an individual mandate exists in the health care plan Romney spearheaded as Massachusetts, though he fails to mention that the individual mandate had longtime support from Republicans before it was opposed by them in the wake of Obama's health care plan embracing it.
Then, Melanie Hunter claimed that Romney "corrected the president" on his claim that Romney supports a plan that calls for a $5 trillion tax cut. In fact, Romney made no correction; he simply denied that he has such a plan. But Romney arguably does -- the Tax Policy Center interpreted that Romney's call for a 20 percent tax rate reduction and other tax cuts he has called for add up to about $5 trillion over 10 years. Hunter fails to mention the TPC report; instead, she documents all the instances in which Romney countered Obama on the $5 trillion tax cut claim.
An article by Susan Jones dismissed Obama's claim that companies can "a [tax] break for shipping jobs overseas" because "the full story" is that it refers to a tax deduction for business moving expenses that doesn't discriminate on where the business moves to. Jones quoted a senator criticizing a bill that would disqualify business operations moved overseas for the tax break.
Another article by Lucas essentially calls Obama a liar for claiming that Americans can keep their health insurance under Obamacare because "the law’s regulations on contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs may compel some people to change their health insurance plans or drop them entirely." Of course, any such insurance change is not a mandate of Obamacare, it's a personal decision.
And Christopher Goins attacked Obama for claiming that Social Security is "structurally sound" because "Social Security’s Board of Trustees said in their 2012 annual report that the program faced $8.6 trillion in 'unfunded obligations.'"
How does CNS' blatant shilling for Romney square with the 501(c)3 tax-exempt status of its parent organization, the Media Research Center? Perhaps CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey can explain that to his readers.
WND Follows Our Lead on Savage's Replacement Topic: WorldNetDaily
Weirdly, we seem to be driving WorldNetDaily's "news" coverage of late.
As we've noted, the posting of our article on Jerome Corsi's bottom-feeding at Huffington Post appears to have inspired WND to post Corsi's latest sleazy attack on President Obama. Now, our blog post on WND having taken sides with Michael Savage against his former syndicator and longtime WND collaborator Talk Radio Network appears to have brought a response.
Some hours after our blog post went live, a WND article went up noting exactly what we had -- that TRN replaced Savage's radio slot with Jerry Doyle. WND didn't mention any of TRN's veiled attacks on Savage in its announcement of Doyle, such as its portrayal of Doyle as a program local affiliates "can sell locally with pride" and that "Jerry shows up 5 days a week, 3 full hours a day because his work ethic is second to none."
The WND article, however, went on to promote his inaugural Internet-only talk while he negotiates a new radio contract, which is "available through his website." The article didn't mention that WND hosts Savage's website.
Newsmax Career Rehabilitation Watch Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax has long been trying to rehabilitate the reputation of Ralph Reed, who has been tarnished by his association with scandal-ridden lobbyist Jack Abramoff and got stomped in a 2006 Republican primary for Georgia lieutenant governor -- even bizarrely letting him denounce political corruption.
Newsmax is still at it with an Oct. 3 article and video by Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter allowing Reed to opine on what Mitt Romney had to do in last night's presidential debate. Meyers and Walter, needless to say, make no mention of Reed's connection to Abramoff or his political failure.
Guess this means we'll be hearing from fellow rehabilitation project VitoFossella pretty soon...
WND Falsely Claims SPLC Called It A 'Hate Group' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Minor began his Sept. 30 WorldNetDaily article promoting a hatchet job on the Southern Poverty Law Center published by the Capital Research Center -- employer of the factually challenged Matthew Vadum -- by claiming that the SPLC "has labeled WND and other conservative organizations 'hate groups."
In fact, it appears that the SPLC has never labeled WND a "hate group." An SPLC profile of WND published earlier this year, for example, never makes that designation, though it notes that WND has a record of publishing and associating with members of "anti-gay hate group."
Further, the SPLC's map of hate groups does not list WND under its longtime home base of Oregon, its current corporate home of the District of Columbia, or in Virginia where editor Joseph Farah resides.
That's not to say WND isn't a hate-driven organization, of course -- the published works of Mychal Massie and Jerome Corsi, to name but two, demonstrate that in spades. But you don't get to lie about others, even if the lie has the ring of truth to it.
George Stephanopoulos Proves The MRC Wrong Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Rich Noyes launched a pre-emptive pre-debate attack on ABC's George Stephanolpulos, bashing his allegedly "pro-Democratic" record on debate analysis and complaining that "in eight out of the last nine general election presidential debates (every one since he joined ABC News in 1997), Stephanopoulos has gone on his network’s airwaves to claim victory for the Democratic candidate, all in the guise of offering impartial analysis."
But Noyes offered no evidence that Stephanopoulos' view of those debates deviated from general public -- in fact, as we've pointed out, Stephanopoulos' opinion of the outcome of the 2008 debates accurately reflected that of the American public as indicated by post-debate polling.
Nevertheless, the MRC was a bit flummoxed that Stephanopoulos is continuing to reflect public opinion. From an Oct. 4 NewsBusters post by the MRC's Matthew Balan:
ABC's George Stephanonopoulos carried a eight-out-of-nine record of declaring the Democratic presidential candidate the winner into Wednesday night's Obama-Romney presidential debate. Surprisingly, the Clinton administration veteran affirmed that Mitt Romney scored points on President Obama: "I think Governor Romney definitely more crisp in his presentation tonight....he was able to be aggressive without being offensive."
Again, post-debate polling found that the majority of Americans thought Romney won the debate. It's not surprising at all -- the MRC simply chooses to play partisan politics by blaming everything it doesn't like on "liberal bias," even when the facts prove them wrong.
NEW ARTICLE -- Annals of Obama Derangement: Larry Klayman Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's resident sue-happy defamer is driven around the bend -- and toward clear acts of libel -- when it comes to President Obama. Read more >>
MRC's Graham Launches Pre-Emptive Attack on Debate Moderator Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham does his thing in an Oct. 3 NewsBusters post, doing a pre-emptive attack on debate moderator Jim Lehrer, with the headline "Can Jim Lehrer Moderate Debate Fairly Given Romney's Desire To Cut Subsidy For PBS?"
Of course, professional journalists put aside their biases in an attempt to be as fair as possible. Such professionalism, meanwhile, is not practiced -- and certainly not encouraged -- on the right, which is why Graham appears to be unfamiliar with the concept.
Graham also bizarrely takes Lehrer to task for cheering that the wildly corrupt President Nixon was taken down. We didn't know that Graham was a secret Nixon-lover.
All of Graham's ranting about Lehrer's supposed liberal bias ignores the fact that liberals have complaints about Lehrer's previous debate performances as well. Which seems to suggest that Lehrer plays things more down the middle that Graham will ever admit.
Then again, Brent Bozell is paying Graham to make such a reasonable analysis.
WND's Corsi Is Back in the Cesspool Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ah, serendipity. Just as the Huffington Post put a version of our article on Jerome Corsi's growing obsession with Barack Obama's purported sex life as a diversion from the failure of his birther conspiracies, Corsi lets fly with even more cesspool-dwelling.
Corsi's Oct. 2 WorldNetDaily article begins with this lengthy italicized introduction:
After nearly four years in office, many Americans still express frustration that much about Barack Obama remains a mystery as establishment media remain incurious about the Democratic president, while seemingly ready to dispatch crack investigative teams at a moment’s notice to probe into the personal lives of Republican figures such as Sarah Palin. Largely ignored in 2008 was research by the Hillary Clinton campaign based on contacts developed with members of the church Obama attended for two decades, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. This is the first of a series of articles WND has developed from months of in-person interviews with church members who have known Barack and Michelle Obama over many years. The sources requested that their identities not be published because they believe their disclosures would put their security at risk.
Corsi's article features "a source identified for this article as 'Carolyn'" who he claims "has played a role in church administration and knows the Obamas personally." As is usual for COrsi's reporting, there's no on-the-record substantiation of any of the claims made, just repetition of rumors.
Corsi also repeats Larry Sinclair's "sensational charge" of doing drugs and having sex with Obama, but failed to mention that Sinclair has a lengthy criminal record.
Corsi doesn't care about the truth -- only about sliming and destroying Obama by any means necessary. But then, being a bottom-feeder is what WND is paying him to be.