To say that Obama is a bad American is not to cast doubt upon either his citizenship or his birthplace. While the inept forgery that the White House attempted to pass off as his birth certificate does tend to raise questions, the larger problem is that the erstwhile eater of dogs appears to have a more tenuous grasp on America and what it means to be an American than the average European whose only exposure to the country was MTV and re-runs of “Dallas.” Americans are born rebels, a people born in violent rebellion, who view authority with a suspicious and jaundiced eye. Obama, on the other hand, instinctively bows to it and appears to be genuinely surprised when the American public don’t show an inclination to follow suit.
If Karl Marx were alive he could sue Barack Obama for plagiarizing his famous bedrock definition of Marxism. Look at the two quotes side-by-side. Marx said, “From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs.” Obama puts it like this (exact quote): “A fair shot for everybody; a fair shake from everybody.”
Yes, there’s a “new” voting bloc called “Failures” – “Losers,” if you prefer – and Obama can pluck that guitar deep into the night without striking a losing chord. “You didn’t build that business. Somebody else made that happen!” “Success is mostly luck.” Luck, that is, well-marinated in the monotonous flavor of big government. That Roanoke-Rebellion text is not long. It’s all there in plain English. And the attempts of Obama supporters to pretend he meant something else are as pathetic as the caught-in-the-act speaker who denies what he just said by screaming, “Who do you believe? Me or a Japanese microphone?”
Dear reader, the facts speak for themselves. These are many pieces of a puzzle that do not add up to a pretty picture of the president as regards the Jewish state of Israel. Remember, this next election is not the Super Bowl; it’s not a matter of rooting for your team. This next election is not about bumper stickers but rather about profound issues that will change the world we live in. There is nothing wrong with voting as an American and as a Jew who cares about the fate of the Jewish homeland. African-Americans, omosexuals, Hispanics and numerous other citizens vote proudly to defend their respective sects and interests – why can’t Jews be unabashed in taking their regard for their people into the voting booth as well? Maybe it’s time to ask a modified version of Golda Meir’s famous question: Do you hate Mitt Romney more than you love Israel? Now go cast your vote.
Suppose someone who truly hated America got elected president – using deception, fraud and, as extremist radicals like him would put it, “by any means necessary.”
What would such a person do to bring America, the land of liberty, to its knees?
One of the things he would do would be to nationalize 17 percent of the private sector in one fell swoop by mandating citizens to participate in a government-run health-care system.
Another thing he might do is to nationalize the one corporation that, more than any other, was a symbol of private enterprise – General Motors, stripping shareholders like my 88-year-old mother of part of their life savings and turning it over to a bunch of union thugs and coercing the company to build cars and trucks no one wants.
That’s just some of what a president who truly hated America would do if elected.
If you want to find out what a president like that would do if he were re-elected, read “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Secret Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed.”
America used a lower set of criteria to elect the first black president (affirmative action), and America is now paying a price for its bad decision. America did not even demand to see his sealed college transcripts to see how smart he really is.
Barack Hussein Obama, the first president without any executive experience of any kind, must be removed from office so we can save America from any more of his destruction.
There is no question that Barack Obama, assuming that is his real name, is a bad president, a bad American and a bad man. Unfortunately, there are a number of reasons to believe that as bad as Obama has been, the Republican alternative being offered in November, Mitt Romney, will actually be a good deal worse.
Neither Obama nor Romney is a man of strong character or principle. Obama has always skated along on the goodwill of others, being a pragmatic charlatan reliant upon affirmative action, white guilt and his image as the good, clean and articulate negro to get ahead. Every private school has a student or two like him, who always receives the benefit of the doubt and seven strikes for everyone else’s three, although none have ever before been able to ride the scam all the way to the White House.
On Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted on his website his most recent anti-Semitic tirade, saying global forces should join together to annihilate Israel. Meanwhile, in Orlando, Fla., President Obama had a take-out plate of pulled pork and rice.
Fellow Americans, America and the world need a U.S. president who will restore our economy and steady international chaos in the world, not usher in Armageddon with his anti-Semitic, non-committal, conciliatory, laissez-faire leadership. The very personage of the U.S. president should emanate deterrence, not indifference.
They hope I’ll think their question is casual and that I won’t suspect they’re worried about my sanity, but I see through it right away and I’m not offended. The question: “Barry, how can you stand by your prediction of a landslide for Romney?”
Actually I’m predicting a landslide against Obama. Oh, I know all about Obama leading Romney in key battleground states and Obama’s negative ads seemingly working in Ohio. The polling data, indeed, amount to a statistical “sand castle” against Romney. But have you ever seen what a tsunami can do to a sand castle? Or even a nice big wave?
NewsBusters Pretends Limbaugh Ad Boycott Isn't Working Topic: NewsBusters
Remember last week, how NewsBusters' Matthew Sheffield -- while gloating that Carbonite's profits were down after wirthdrawing its advertising from Rush Limbaugh's radio show over his three-day misogynistic tirade against Sandra Fluke -- was insisting that the ad boycott against Limbaugh's show was "collapsing on itself"?
Well, not so much. Media Matters notes that Cumulus Media -- which owns 10 major-market radio stations that air Limbaugh's show -- has essentially admitted that the Limbaugh ad boycott has hurt business and contributed to a loss of $5.5 million in revenue on "the top three stations" in Cumulus' portfolio. That presumably includes New York's WABC, Limbaugh's flagship station.
As we've noted, Sheffield's MRC co-workers found nothing offensive in Limbaugh's misogyny, so they certainly can't understand why anyone would drop their ads from Limbaugh's show because of it.
CNSNews.com presents a theoretical as fact in an Aug. 10 article by Sabrina Gladstone, under the salacious headline "Obamacare Mandate: Sterilize 15-Year-Old Girls for Free--Without Parental Consent."
Of course, the claim that "Obamacare" does not mandate that 15-year-old girls be sterlized without parental consent -- which is what the headline claims -- is ludicrous on its face. What Gladstone's article actually claims -- that "Obamacare" allows 15-year-old girls be sterlized without parental consent -- relies on creating a theoretical and presenting it as fact:
Health care reform allows for "the full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity," which according to Gladstone covers "from the time of menarche to menopause."
Gladstone writes, "Menarche is the beginning of menstruation--again, on average, about the age of 12 for American women."
A few paragraphs later, Gladstone writes, "In Oregon, the age of informed consent is 15," which means that "The parents or guardians of a minor girl--between 15 and 18--can neither grant nor deny consent for a sterilization."
That's how Gladstone arrives at her claim -- to the extent that her assertion has any truth whatsoever, it applies only in Oregon. She offers no evidence that anybody, in Oregon or anywhere else, has ever advocated that teenage girls be sterilized.
Gladstone is being dishonest and deliberately provocative. But can we really expact anything different from a "news" organization that puts its hatred of President Obama before the facts?
Ellis Washington's Favorite Book Is Withdrawn Topic: WorldNetDaily
Over the summer, WorldNetDaily columnist wrote a series of columns based on David Barton's new book, "The Jefferson Lies." In one column, Washington called Barton's book "outstanding," adding that he "has once again presented an opus that shines the light of truth on the lies and propaganda of atheism, progressivism, liberalism, humanism and secular elites who possess a venal hatred for American exceptionalism." In a later column, Washington called Barton's book "revelatory."
Now Washington will have to call Barton's book something else: discredited.
Barton's publisher, Thomas Nelson, has withdrawn "The Jefferson Lies" from sale, concluding that the book contained material that was "not adequately supported":
In a statement on Friday, Thomas Nelson said it "was contacted by a number of people expressing concerns about the book. We took all of those concerns seriously, tried to sort out matters of opinion or interpretation, and in the course of our review learned that there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported." The publisher decided to withdraw the book last week but didn't disclose it at that time.
Casey Harrell, a spokeswoman for Thomas Nelson, declined to say how many copies are in print. "We are in the process of recalling all copies," she said.
Thomas Nelson also said it has ended its publishing relationship with Mr. Barton and that it has reverted the rights to the book back to him.
At this writing, Barton's book is still available in the WND online store, and WND has not reported on the book's withdrawal.
The Trump-fluffing continues at Newsmax with an Aug. 9 article by Jim Meyers onhow "Donald Trump has declined an offer to deliver a prime-time speech at the Republican National Convention," citing "sources with knowledge of convention plans."
Meyers adds: "But Newsmax has learned that the billionaire businessman has been asked to deliver a big 'surprise' at the convention in Tampa, Fla., which begins on Aug. 27." But Meyers is not done fluffing:
Trump, who hosts the hit NBC show "Celebrity Apprentice," is also said to be mulling an offer from ABC to join Barbara Walters in her live coverage of election night this November.
Trump’s people also have told the Romney campaign that while he fully supports the Republican candidate’s presidential bid, he cannot spend the full week in Tampa due to pressing global business pursuits.
That focus is what kept Trump out of a presidential run, even though he catapulted to the lead of a presumed field of Republican candidates after he told Newsmax and other media that he was strongly considering a run.
The Lies Just Keep Coming From Joseph Farah's Mouth Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah just can'tstop lying, can he? Apparently not, since now he's down to recycling his old lies.
In his Aug. 8 WorldNetDaily column, Farah claims that former White House communications director Anita Dunn "fawn[s] over the greatest mass murderer in history, Mao Zedong. (She calls him one of her two 'favorite political philosophers.')"
As we pointed out when he made this same claim two months ago, Farah is deliberately taking Dunn out of context, Dunn actually said that Mao, along with Mother Teresa, were "two of my favorite political philosophers ... that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices."
Apparently, Farah thinks that lying is a good business model for a "news" website.
MRC's Baker Whines: Media Won't Report That Record July Heat Is Just Barely A Record Topic: NewsBusters
Brent Baker sums up his whining in the headline of his Aug. 9 NewsBusters post: "NBC Hypes July as ‘Hottest Month Ever’ – Doesn’t Bother to Mention It Was Barely Hotter Than 1936."
Yes, Baker is really complaining about that. He expands a little in his post:
So, all of NBC’s excitement came from temperatures 0.2 tenths of a degree hotter than before the widespread industrialization blamed for global warming and before the widespread development which causes heat islands that mean temperature stations which used to be in isolated areas are sitting next to pavement and buildings.
The heat of 1936 came during a drought that lasted much of the 1930s and contributed to the dust storms the ravaged the plains. By the summer of 1936, much of the plains were no longer being cultivated, and the bare ground contributed to the high temperatures, Burt said.
Further, as Slate notes, the the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration adjusts recorded temperatures to account for the heat island effect.
To sum up: Baker fails at being a global warming denier.
WND's Kupelian Lies About Obama, Military Voting Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian uses an Aug. 9 column to claim that President Obama's re-election campaign is trying to "suppress, in that pivotal swing state, the votes of America’s military men and women – people who traditionally lean conservative and vote Republican" by filing a lawsuit in Ohio over early-voting laws that allow members of the military three days longer to vote early than civilians.
Needless to say, Kupelian is lying through his teeth. The goal of the lawsuit is to extend civilian early voting to that of the military, not reduce the military deadline to the existing civilian one.
The funny thing is, Kupelian sort of concedes that by admitting that pretty much everyone else, which he disparagingly characterizes as "the vast, perpetually mesmerized pro-Obama media," as well as "the establishment’s arbiters of All Truth On The Internet, Snopes, Politifact and FactCheck," all disagree with that assessment.
But Kupelian has never been one to let facts get in the way, has he? So he stumbles forward with his anti-Obama attack:
What?, you may ask. How could everybody, including the military, having three more days to vote hurt our soldiers? Indeed, “what’s the matter with everybody having three extra days to vote?” is the current establishment refrain, its purveyors claiming incorrectly that all Ohio voters used to have those same three days for early voting. They didn’t: Although state law allowed it, local voting authorizes could decide if they wanted to implement early voting or not. Only “six counties had weekend voting and extended hours and 82 of them didn’t,” lead defendant and Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted told the Associated Press.
And why was that? Husted explained, in a Bloomberg Businessweek interview, that setting limits on early voting for most Ohioans – other than the relatively few in the armed forces – is necessary so Ohio’s election boards can synchronize the early balloting records with those at 9,800 polling places to prevent voter fraud – people voting more than once. And as Ohio’s state GOP chairman, Bob Bennett, said in a written statement: “Nobody is being disenfranchised here, as Ohio’s voters who choose to vote early can do so by mail 24 hours a day, seven days a week or at early voting polls.”
The REAL issue at stake here, the one virtually no one is talking about, and the reason it hurts the military if the judge forces Ohio to open all its polling places for all voters for the final three days, is the legal precedent that will be set – namely, that our soldiers cannot constitutionally be given a break, a few extra days, to get their votes in.
Friends, you can’t obtain “reasonable results” through abominable means and then call it good. (That would be like me robbing a bank and then going home and saying, “Dear, I made a lot of money today.”) The price America will pay to obtain in Ohio a totally unnecessary “three extra days for everybody to vote” (if the judge rules the way Obama for America is asking it to rule) is the creation of a new legal precedent that it is unconstitutional to give any special consideration to military voters. After all, that is precisely the plaintiffs’ legal argument.
But as the Ohio defendants’ legal response points out so eloquently, America has always made special concessions for its soldiers to assure their opportunity to vote, going back to the Revolutionary War.
In fact, even right-wing voting rights activist Hans von Spakovsky agrees that there is no massive problem with voter fraud in American elections, so that argument falls flat. Further, Ohio is apparently the only state that has such a two-tiered system.
But Kupelian's not done misleading yet:
Then in 2010, ex-DOJ attorney M. Eric Eversole spoke out against the Obama Justice Department for its failure to safeguard the military vote.
Although Congress had passed in 2009 a law mandating that military personnel overseas be given sufficient time to participate in U.S. elections, the DOJ’s Voting Section was ignoring the new laws, potentially allowing thousands of uncounted ballots to fall through the cracks, said Eversole, a former litigation attorney for the DOJ Voting Section.
Eversole was hired by DOJ under the Bush administration during the period the Justice Department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility said that Schlozman was improperly considering political affiliation when hiring career attorneys. What he and Kupelian portray as the DOJ purportedly "ignoring the law laws" -- for which Eversole provided no substantial evidence -- was actually the DOJ working with states that had not changed their primary voting deadlines for to preserve the intent of the law.
If WND's managing editor is promoting such lies and dishonesty, is it any wonder that the rest of WND reads the same way?
CNS' Jeffrey Tries to Heather An Archbishop Topic: CNSNews.com
The Media Research Center's practice of Heathering -- berating and shunning conservatives who fail to march in total lockstep with the right-wing agenda -- gets a big expansion by CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey, who not only expands it to religion but targets one of the most prominent Catholic officials in America.
President Barack Obama, who is moving ahead with a regulation that forces observant American Catholics to act against their consciences and the teachings of their faith, will be one of the keynote speakers at an Oct. 18 white-tie fundraiser hosted by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The fundraiser—the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner--will benefit the foundation, which Cardinal Dolan serves as board president. The foundation's website says it provides funding “for healthcare causes.”
Al Smith, a three-term governor of New York, became the first Catholic presidential candidate in U.S. history when the Democratic Party nominated him in 1928.
Mitt Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts determined that Catholic hospitals in that state would be required to distribute Plan B abortion pills to rape victims, will join Obama as a keynote speaker at the white-tie dinner.
It takes some chutzpah -- to mix religious metaphors -- to suggest that the archbishop of New York is failing at being a Catholic.
In addition to the Heathering, Jeffrey starts deviating from the facts -- for instance, he falsely claims above that Plan B is an "abortion pill." He also claims that Obama is "outspokenly and unambiguously pro-abortion," refusing to acknowledge the fact that favoring abortion rights does not equal "pro-abortion."
Jeffrey also misleads with this statement:
In Illinois in 2001, Obama was the only state senator to speak on the senate floor against legislation that would have simply said a born baby is a “person,” a “human being,” a “child,” and an “individual” and thus entitled under the 14th Amendment to equal protection of the law.
In fact, the bill is not as "simple" as Jeffrey claims. Jeffrey is referring to a "born alive" bill, which would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive. Critics said that the bill could have been used to challenge Roe v. Wade. Obama specifically said on the Illinois senate floor regarding the 2001 bill that it "would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."
So not only is Jeffrey bashing a Catholic bishop for not being Catholic enough, he's being dishonest.
Jeffrey ramped up his dishonestly by waiting until the 27th paragraph of his article to let an archdiocese spokesman explain that "It is the tradition of the Smith dinner to invite the presidential candidates in the presidential election years in the spirit of nonpartisanship, good humor and good fellowship."
Jeffrey is not only an inflexible Catholic, he's a dishonest reporter. Will he confess his sin at confession time and seek forgiveness for his dishonesty?
MRC Is Mad That Article About Conservatives Uses The Word 'Conservative' Topic: Media Research Center
Last February, the Media Research Center's Clay Waters was upset that a New York Times article about a gathering of conservatives uses the word "conservative." He's at it again in an Aug. 6 MRC TimesWatch post:
New York Times reporter John Eligon filed a "conservative"-loaded story from Topeka on Monday on the battle between conservatives and moderates in the Midwest: "In Kansas, Conservatives Vilify Fellow Republicans."
Eligon's story could be the paper's all-time winner as far as labeling density, with a staggering 33 uses of the word "conservative" in non-quoted material within the 1,367-word article, plus two labels in photo captions, plus the one in the headline. By contrast, the common conjunction "and" appeared a mere 27 times under the same parameters.
That's right -- Waters is mad that an article about conservatives uses the word "conservative."
Waters doesn't explain how the article should have been written differently.
Monckton Becomes A WND Columnist Topic: WorldNetDaily
Apparently, the only criteria for becoming a WorldNetDaily columnist these days is slavish devotion to right-wing talking points, no matter how false, and hatred of Barack Obama.
That would seem to explain how Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, has been named a WND columnist. In touting Monckton's appointment, WND states that Monckton is an "internationally known challenger to the claims of climate-change alarmists." We've previously noted how Monckton has presented himself as an anti-global warming expert despite having no scientific credentials.
But Monckton is also a birther, and WND just loves birthers -- even as the amount of willing ignorance of the facts it takes to remain one grows exponentially. (But WND won't report the facts, so Monckton and its readers remain in the dark.)
Monckton keeps up the Obama-bashing in his inaugural column, complete with plug for Aaron Klein's guilt-by-association book:
The United States is now governed not so much by Obama – who has become a dangerous irrelevance – as by China. The dirigiste, etatiste, centraliste policies detailed in “Fool Me Twice” are precisely the policies Communist China has so disastrously pursued since the unhappy days of Mao Zedong.
Monckton also repeats the discredited claim that Obama "moved Churchill’s bust out of the White House as an indication of his atavistic hostility to the West."
Character Assassin Bozell Complains About Character Assassination Topic: Media Research Center
In an Aug. 7 CNSNews.com post, Craig Bannister excerpts a Daily Caller interview of his boss, Bozell:
“What is the degree to which the left has gone to the strategy that ends justify the means? And increasingly they’ll do whatever they need to do to get their way. Character assassination is now a way of life with these people.
That's right -- the guy who called President Obama a "skinny ghetto crackhead" is complaining about "character assassination."
The Republican book on President Obama is that his foreign policy, like everything else he has done, is a disaster. Don't tell that to Christopher Ruddy.
Ruddy begins his Aug. 2 Newsmax column in typical right-wing fashion, claiming that Obama's "re-election seriously is in jeopardy because, in the early days of his administration, the president rejected a path of compromise and bipartisanship on domestic policy matters." This ignores the fact that Republicans also rejected compromise and bipartisanship.
Then, Ruddy doe something uncharacteristic for a right-wing activist: praises Obama's foreign policy:
Two years ago, I thought an Obama presidency would be a redux of the Jimmy Carter years. Remember them? The Soviets invaded Afghanistan and cracked down on Poland. Armed communist guerillas were prevalant throughout Latin America and Africa. Iran fell into the hands of the ayatollahs.
But I was wrong. Obama has, in fact, offered an engaged foreign policy, backed up with a strong military hand.
I hear, from time to time — on talk radio, for instance — that Obama is weak on national security and that he's dismantling the U.S. military (I am being mild here about how Obama is described).
Recently, I was in Washington and talked privately with one of the nation's highest military officers, a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I asked him for the Pentagon take on Obama. He told me bluntly that Pentagon officials that worked under Bush and Obama believe them "both to be very good" on national security matters.
He added that the Obama White House has been extremely supportive of the Pentagon and its initiatives. Rarely do they have disagreements, and when they do, Obama usually comes down on the side of the Pentagon brass.
In fact, the officer said Obama had been engaged and supportive in ways that had amazed many in the upper ranks. For example, last year when the Joint Chiefs put together a document known as the Strategic Review, a white paper outlining the nation's potential threats and setting the global military priorities of the Defense Department for the next decade, Obama played a key role.
The Joint Chiefs met six or seven times to hash out the details of the Strategic Review. Typically, presidents have little involvement in the review process.
Obama, the officer, told me, joined almost all the key meetings with the Joint Chiefs, some of which lasted several hours.
"He asked a lot of really good questions; he made a lot of good comments; he really bought into the plan," the officer related, saying that no one in the Pentagon could remember a president so supportive and involved.
This vignette about Obama is part of the larger, positive picture that emerges about him on the national security front, but it is also a story about how he has used his leadership skills to bring disparate parties together for common goals and shared interests.
Of course, Ruddy may be saying such things in order to make Newsmax appear less blatantly partisan. Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid has quoted the maker of a fantastically speculative anti-Obama film claiming that Newsmax canceled the advertising campaign he bought on the website to promote the film because "they wanted to move to the Center.'" Newsmax's attempt to purchase Newsweek was another grasp at mainstream respectability.
Ruddy's blips of truth are admirable, but they are only going to get him Heathered by right-wingers who care nothing about the truth and everything about trying to destroy Obama.