President Barack Obama is remaking the world according to his vision of a less influential America, and one result is chaos abroad that leads to disasters like the apparent shootdown this week of a passenger jet over war-torn Ukraine, conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza told Newsmax TV on Friday.
"This downing of the airplane is a small indication of what happens when American power is subtracted from the world," D'Souza told "MidPoint" host Ed Berliner.
D'Souza said President Obama, in withdrawing from the international stage and conceding management of global affairs to others, is helping to make the movie's point.
"For the past 60 years, we have been living in the American era, in which nothing important can happen in South America, in the Middle East or in Asia without America having a big say-so, if not actually determining the outcome," said D'Souza. "People all over the world — from Somali pirates on the high seas to Iranian mullahs to Russian separatists — have always had to worry, 'If we do this, what will America do?' Except now, under Obama."
According to D'Souza, that suits the president.
"He has an ideology that is opposed to an active American presence in the world," he said.
Having D'Souza spout such nonsense without allowing an opposing view -- no evidence is offered that one was provided -- just makes Newsmax look like the outlet for those who think Fox News is too liberal.
Last week we witnessed four denominations emboldened by this criminal, “sodomite-advocating” administration, joining the ranks of the apostate in America. Namely, the United Church of Christ (that claims 1 million members with about 5,200 congregations), the Presbyterian Church USA, the Moravians, who voted to ordain gay clergy, as well as the Pentecostal Church International (1 Timothy 4:1).
J. Bennett Guess, United Church of Christ’s first openly gay church executive, said that he was, “being a bold voice for progressive Christianity.” This would be like a criminal with a police badge trying to convince everyone that he is upright simply because of his man-ordained title.
This is spitting toward Heaven; and rest assured, they (along with whoever tolerates their crimes) will fall on their own backs.
When it comes to the issues at hand concerning our culture, we can clearly see that the majority of professed Christians are guilty of contributing to America’s state of moral anarchy (which they so boldly proclaim), proven by their support of antinomianism and the effeminate lifestyles they perpetuate.
It is revealing that these “churches” are “coming out” and exposing “what” and “who” real Christians have always known them to truly be: counterfeits that open doors wide to the gates of hell.
In summary, the “gay” agenda is to eliminate the existing Judeo-Christian model of civilization, grounded in marriage-based procreative sexuality, to make way for an irrational and impossible cultural Marxist model which imagines family-less, unlimited “sexual freedom” (anarchy), while somehow preserving orderliness in every other aspect of human society. It reflects an insane and Satanic delusion that breeds chaos, and can only be stopped by unceasing reaffirmation of biblical values and the natural family by the rest of us.
According to its leftist proponents, ENDA would merely insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual conduct (sexual orientation) or those who suffer from gender confusion (gender identity) against employment intolerance. In truth, however, this legislation effectively would codify the very thing it purports to combat: workplace discrimination.
Though in its current form ENDA contains an extremely weak religious exemption that might – and I mean might – partially protect some churches and religious organizations (until they’re sued by “gay” activists), this so-called exemption would leave most others, such as Bible bookstores and many Christian schools and para-church organizations, entirely unprotected. It would additionally crush individual business owners’ guaranteed First Amendment rights.
As the recent Hobby Lobby decision reaffirmed, the government cannot legislate away religious free exercise. Where your desire, intense though it may be, for me to employ you despite your antagonistic values system, pay for your abortion, or host, photograph or otherwise bake a rainbow cake for your faux “wedding,” comes into conflict with my absolute right to religious liberty, the result is a forgone conclusion.
Joel Gilbert Buys Positive WND Coverage Of His New Film By Putting Corsi In It Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joel Gilbert may be an utterly discredited filmmaker, but he knows one of the oldest tricks around that: Put a reporter in your next film, and make sure they are lacking in scruples and ethics so they will mindlessly generate positive press coverage.
Gilbert found his stooge -- er, reporter in WorldNetDaily's Jerome Corsi, who's one of the featured performers in his latest factually challenged anti-Obama smear piece, "There's No Place Like Utopia." A screenshot from Gilbert's website is to the right. (For good measure, he stuck WND conspiracy-monger Jack Cashill in it too.)
Corsi, meanwhile, is upholding his end of the bargain by fawning over the film. We've already noted back in May how Corsi gushed over the film despite not only Gilbert's record of lies but Corsi himself getting suckered by a fraudulent claim about Barack Obama's wedding ring that his fellow birthers felt compelled to debunk.
Gilbert clearly knows Corsi has his back -- there was no mention of Gilbert's history of mendacity, let alone a correction of the fraudulent ring claim Corsi gullibly swallowed.
Corsi devoted another fawning WND article to the film on July 14. While Corsi admits he's in the film, he's also delivering the rah-rah coverage Gilbert knew he could count on. Corsi talked only to Gilbert and the film's distributor, again making sure he adequately repaid Gilbert for the screen time by pretending his substantial history of fraud doesn't exist.
WND is complicit in the cheerleading -- what self-respecting news organization would let a so-called reporter present as a "news" article gushing PR pieces on a film he appears in?
Finally! MRC Discloses Its Link To Catholic League Topic: NewsBusters
Matthew Balan devortes in a July 17 NewsBusters post to the latest rant from the Catholic League's Bill Donohue, this time complaining about David Letterman "making light about Pope Francis's recent remarks about priestly celibacy." For the first time that we've noticed, Balan makes an important disclosure: "it should be pointed out that MRC President Brent Bozell serves on the board of advisors for the Catholic League."
We've documented how the MRC has regularly failed to disclose Bozell's links to the Catholic League in uncritically echoing whatever new outrage Donohue felt compelled to issue a press release about.
Balan is correct that Bozell's link to the Catholic "should be pointed out," which raises the question about why the MRC hasn't felt compelled to point out this blatant conflict of interest until now.
WND's Unruh Censors How Todd Akin Was Challenged During Fox Interview Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh is a good corporate lackey, doing his part for WorldNetDaily's ill-fated decision to relitigate Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" remarks as a promotion for his WND-published book. His July 15 WND article on Akin's interview with Fox News' Megyn Kelly is a thinly disguised PR piece:
Eighteen months ago, then-Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin made an admittedly awkward description of rape, was abandoned by his own party and eventually lost to Democrat Claire McCaskill.
Monday night, on Megyn Kelly’s “The Kelly File” on the Fox News Channel, he broke his silence and charged that members of both parties were eager to make sure a true Reagan conservative wasn’t in Congress and asserted Democrats imposed a double standard.
He pointed out to Kelly that the Democrats own convention speaker, Bill Clinton, had a long history of facing claims of assault from women.
His own party’s leaders, he said, displayed arrogance, using his plight to argue social conservatives of his kind couldn’t get elected.
Akin clarified for Kelly that there are stress factors that can affect whether a victim gets pregnant, and he said that by “legitimate rape” he meant a “legitimate rape claim.”
And that's all Unruh has to say about Akin's discussion with Kelly about his previous remarks -- which conveniently leaves out all the parts where Kelly challenged Akin's narrative. More honest reporting of the Akin-Kelly interview took place at TPM:
Fox News host Megyn Kelly took failed Missouri GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin to task Monday night for his infamous claim that the female body could terminate a pregnancy in a case of "legitimate rape."
Akin appeared on "The Kelly File" to promote his new book, "Firing Back," in which he defends his original remarks on the grounds that stress can decrease fertility. Kelly challenged that defense, arguing there is no conclusive evidence tying the two together.
"But the thing that got people so upset was that you seemed to be putting the onus on rape victims, saying if yours was a legitimate rape, if you actually were raped, then your body will shut down the pregnancy," Kelly said. "And if your body doesn't shut down the pregnancy, then you are not the victim of rape."
"I think you're putting words in my mouth, I didn't say that," Akin responded.
"I'm just saying this is what people heard," Kelly said.
"I think that's what they heard, and that's why we did the apology," Akin said.
"See I get that, that's why you did the apology, but you seem to be dialing it back now," Kelly pressed.
Akin later said that he never meant to diminish women or the seriousness of rape as a crime in his comments.
"But you now acknowledge that a woman who is legitimately the victim of rape does not have a medical way of getting rid of -- an emotional way of getting rid of the pregnancy," Kelly said.
"No, I never believed that," Akin said. "That wasn't what I was trying to say, or I don't think I did say that. But people perceived that, and that's why we did the apology."
Unruh's article does include the video of the Akin-Kelly interview, so it's clear he had access to the full interview. He simply chose to not accurately report what was said.
NewsBusters Joins MRC Freak-Out Over Obama Using First-Person Terms Topic: NewsBusters
Mark Finkelstein devotes a July 17 NewsBusters post to an anti-Obama rant:
But enough about me. Let's talk about how you feel about me . . . Maybe Barack Obama should modify his famous New Age-y line, uttered after the 2008 Super Tuesday results, to read "I am the one I have been waiting for." In recent times, it's become an entertaining parlor game to count the number of self references in President Obama's public statements.
The latest opportunity to play the game comes via a fund-raising email the prez sent out this morning. Defiantly entitled "I Won't Apologize," the short message contains by my count no fewer than 11 self-references [12 if you count the URL for the fund-raising link]—a self-adoring assortment of I, I'm, I'll and me. View the complete email after the jump.
Why would a man with such a sorry record in office have such high self-regard? Let's hear from our armchair psychoanalysts out there!
This follows in the footsteps of CNS' Terry Jeffrey -- like NewsBusters a division of the Media Research Center -- who has a similar obsession with how often Obama refers to himself in the first person, despite the fact that it's hardly out of line with previous presidents. Like Jeffrey, we don't recall Finkelstein showing concern over the first-person usage of Republican presidents.
Someone should also remind Finkelstein of the mission of the organization that publishes him. It's supposed to be a media watchdog, not a place for right-wing rants, which would seem to jeopardize the Media Research Center's nonprofit tax status.
Perhaps Finkelstein should stick to media issues, like whether Matt Lauer is secretly showing support for Palestinians by wearing a scarf.
WND's Aaron Klein Is Still A Proud Birther, Facts Be Damned Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein is still a birther, and he's so proud of it that he has devoted a July 15 article to trying to prove his case.
Klein lays out his thesis at the start of the article:
One central point seems to be missing from the national conversation about impeaching President Obama for alleged violations of the Constitution.
When Obama was first proposed as a presidential candidate in 2007, the nation failed to have a meaningful debate concerning the serious constitutional issue of electing someone whose father was not a U.S. citizen.
According to correspondence from the original framers of the Constitution as well as Supreme Court rulings, the legal writings that helped establish the principles of the Constitution and even a Senate resolution affirmed by Obama himself, Obama likely does not qualify for the constitutional requirement that stipulates only a “natural born” citizen can serve as U.S. president.
In other words, Obama’s very presidency could itself be unconstitutional. And the matter has nothing to do with where the president was born.
While Klein concedes that "natural born citizen" isn't defined in the Constitution or federal law, he has decided that he knows better by citing Emmerich de Vattel's "The Law of Nations." But as we've noted, no direct equivalent to "natural born citizen" appears in Vattel's original French, and the phrase shows up only in English translations of the book issued after the Constitution was written.
Klein also invokes the Supreme Court's 1874 Minor v. Happersett decision as authoritative on the definition of "natural born." But that decision involved a woman who was suing for the right to vote, not presidential eligibility; the woman's status as a "natural born citizen" was not the issue; and the court ruling discusses only two types of citizens, "natural born" and "naturalized."
Klein makes no mention whatsoever of a decision that much more directly applies to the issue at hand -- the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in America was a U.S. citizen.
Klein goes on to insist that a 2008 Senate resolution declaring John McCain to be a "natural born" citizen "seems to define the term as one who is born to two U.S. citizens." The Senate may have done so regarding McCain's citizenship, but it also did not establish two citizen parants as the only possible way to be defined as a "natural born" citizen.
Klein has also decided he won't even concede that Obama was born in Hawaii. He writes only that Obama "was born Aug. 4, 1961, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr." but won't mention the location. That attitude contradicts what he wrote in his 2009 book "The Manchurian President," in which he declared there was "no convincing evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, nor that his birthplace was any place other than Hawaii, his declared state of birth."
All Klein has done here is simply rehash what he and WND was claiming since at least 2011 -- pretty much cutting-and-pasting previous work -- while making no effort whatsoever to examine any of the evidence that discredits birthers like himself, let alone acknowledge that such evidence exists. But then, hiding the fact that birthers have been discredited is how WND rolls.
The fact that Klein is still peddling discredited birther nonsense doesn't bode well for the veracity of Klein's upcoming book, in which he purports to tell "the real Benghazi story."
Because unlike rank-and-file American news watchers and our comatose Congress, Israel and other world leaders know that the seemingly inexplicable rise of ISIS is anything but inexplicable. The shiny new armaments and off-the-rack fatigues they possess did not fall into their hands out of the sky, and they did not steal all of them along the way.
They know that for all intents and purposes, Barack Obama is ISIS.
ou would think that even Democrats, who insist that every House investigation into Obama’s numerous scandals are examples of partisan politics, would have to agree that the timing of our abduction of Benghazi terrorist Ahmed Abu Khattala was anything but coincidental. Although Khattala has been interviewed any number of times by American newsmen while lolling at sidewalk cafes in Libya, it took the chilling optics of Islamists taking back Iraq to finally get Obama to order his capture.
Recently, I read a chilling 1934 essay written by Communist Leon Trotsky entitled, “If America Should Go Communist.” It was a sort of “how-to” about spreading communism into the United States, and reading it gave me a terrible sense of déjà-vu. Almost every word of the essay has been parroted by any number of liberals. Trotsky’s words are their words. Everything Obama’s pal Van Jones has said could be quoted almost verbatim in Trotsky’s essay.
Is this really what the celebrities and liberals of America wanted when they bought their tickets to Obamaville? Most people I personally know who supported Obama in 2008 continue to do so today – and if anything, they believe his administration hasn’t gone far enough.
No longer the force in the world for good, the United States now sanctions and supports evil.
The Obama administration did not require Hamas or Fatah to recognize Israel. The Obama administration did not require Hamas to change its charter, wherein the first paragraph calls for the annihilation of Israel in the cause of Allah.
For agreeing to work with Hamas alone, this saboteur should be impeached. It was shortly after the Obama administration agreed to work with the Hamas-Fatah government that the schoolboys were kidnapped and murdered.
The failure of Obama’s policy of submission and sanction of our most vicious enemies is evident in the chaos and savagery we see in Benghazi, the whole of Libya, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Gaza and Israel. And now in the deaths of these three schoolboys.
Obama backs these savages. Obama bullies and threatens Israel to submit to these savages. Obama is on the side of jihadists every time. America has been hijacked.
We have all seen the roving reporter man-on-the-street interviews. I’m sure we all have some friends, acquaintances, even family members and others who have uttered the painful statement. I don’t know about anyone else, but when I first heard people say that they voted for Barack Obama because he was black, or that it was “time” for a black president, my skin crawled.
I am well aware that that statement of mine will be isolated and made out to be “racist” by the dishonest media and the maniacally boneheaded Saul Alinsky gang over at the Huff-n-Puff Post and beyond, but the real horror is that the worst case of racism I have ever witnessed in my lifetime was the indecent choice en mass by millions of Americans who defiled the sacrifices and vision of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and spat on his grave when they actually admitted that they voted for this president based on the color of his skin instead of the content of his character.
The response to my question about the advisability of Barack Obama’s being impeached in 2015, after the midterm elections, was slightly more mixed than I expected, with 188 votes for and 48 against. But the majority of those voting No explained that they really wanted him going to jail; were afraid it would backfire on the Republicans in 2016; or, in a few cases, didn’t want to see Joe Biden in the Oval Office.
Leftists have long been using “the children” to manipulate the emotions of the public, extort American taxpayers, gather power and degrade our way of life. Barack Obama has taken this process to an insane extreme with his self-created border mess.
Barack Obama treats his job as though it’s something to fit in between vacations, golf games and photo ops designed to show him as just one of the guys but a really nice guy even though he’s president.
Quite frankly, I don’t want the president of the United States – the president of my country – to be “one of the guys.”
I don’t want him regarded as a street buddy to everyday Joes.
Obama clearly isn’t, but he attempts to play that role so the average guy can “relate” to him.
How else do you explain his beer-drinking, pool-playing, surf-splashing, golfing, bike-riding efforts to appear casual?
In reality, he doesn’t look the part, doesn’t dress the part and certainly looks more than uncomfortable.
Bottom line: Barack Obama is a bad actor; he can’t pull off the act to be what he’s not.
I’m wondering where the American spirit is these days, because I’m encountering conversations and commentary pushing the notion that Sarah Palin, a prominent conservative politician and noted tea party champion of We the People, should concede and hush her mouths for the sake of Republicanism.
Specifically, I’m speaking of the former governor’s choice to proudly display some American spirit and tell Congress to impeach Barack Obama.
Yes, I am on the Palin bandwagon in this issue. Our country is at stake.
CNS Parses Diplomatic Deaths Under Bush To Keep Benghazi Alive Topic: CNSNews.com
Patrick Goodenough didn't like Bill Clinton's highlighting how Republican members of Congress failed to criticize deaths of embassy personnel during attacks occurring under the Bush administration the way they are freaking out over Benghazi, and he devoted a June 30 CNSNews.com article to parse how Clinton's criticism is purportedly meaningless:
Unstated by the former president, however, was the fact that those U.S. diplomatic personnel who were killed during the George W. Bush administration died in circumstances other than an attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission:
U.S. diplomatic missions around the world did come under attack a number of times during the Bush years, but those attacks killed foreigners, and in some cases American civilians – not serving U.S. diplomatic personnel:
Gotta love how Goodenough insists those deaths under the Bush administraiton don't count because they don't fit the exact circumstances of Benghazi.
Is CNS really this desperate to keep Benghazi alive that it must portray other deaths as insignificant by comparision?
Hostile Joseph Farah Pretends He's Not Hostile To Gays Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah devotes his July 11 WorldNetDaily column to taking offense at the idea that Christians are hostile to gays. Needless to say, Farah does so in a way that makes his hostility all too clear.
What set Farah off this time was an article about pro-gay evangelicals "committed to ending their church’s longstanding hostility toward gay people”:
Let me first say that this is a hellishly bigoted comment by people who claim to be fighting bigotry.
Secondly, evangelicals come in all shapes and sizes and beliefs and don’t belong to one church.
Lastly, the idea that evangelical Christians have a longstanding hostility toward homosexuals is a lie by the reporter, the publication and the misguided organization that is attempting to make sinners comfortable in their sin – an idea repugnant to all forms of biblical Christianity.
And let the hostility begin:
Today, in the popular culture, it’s cool to be “gay” – a word that has been hijacked by a political movement that embraces sin.
Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore
It may be popular to embrace sin today, but those who do so in the name of Christ are the ones who are truly hostile and unloving to homosexuals. They are actually condemning them to death.
There’s an old expression in Christianity very relevant to this discussion: “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”
That’s what true evangelicals believe.
Showing love to the sinner means evangelizing them. Chaplains who evangelize murderers on death row don’t tell them they were just practicing an alternative lifestyle. They confront them with the sixth commandment and attempt to bring them to repentance. It’s an act of selfless love.
Likewise, evangelizing homosexuals requires that their sin – not just their sexual practices, but all of it – is confronted.
There is nothing loving about rationalizing sin as an alternative lifestyle.
Note what Farah does here -- he plays linguistic games by putting "gay" in scare quotes because he doesn't like gays co-opting the word, and he denies medical reality by portraying homosexuality as an "alternate lifestyle."
And in a final Orwellian twist, Farah declares his hatred of gays is really love:
This movement is not about rejecting bigotry as it claims. It is about creating a new form of bigotry – against those with sincerely held, biblically supported worldviews.
In effect, it is a movement that redefines sin. It’s a new religion that allows man to decide what sin is rather than God. The new sin is “homophobia” – the imaginary fear and loathing of those who practice homosexuality.
Where does this lead?
It leads to forcing Christians to violate their own consciences, as is beginning to happen in the U.S.
It leads to state-sponsored anti-Christian and anti-biblical indoctrination in schools.
It leads to so-called “hate-speech” laws, which punish people not so much for what they do but what they might think.
It leads to persecution and martyrdom.
And it leads to eternal separation from our Creator-God.
None of that is good. None of that is happy. None of that is “gay.” None of that is tolerant. None of that is merciful. None of that is compassionate. None of that is loving.
Farah's so-called news organization unambiguously hates gays (except for that one guy). And Farah himself is such a homophobe that he thinks anyone who calls him out on his homophobia wants him (and America) to undergo "forced homosexualization."
Does God really approve of Farah's homophobic methods? Farah probably thinks so, but the vast majority of thinking Christians probably differ.
WND's Molotov Mitchell Puts On A Suit, Runs For State Senate In NC Topic: WorldNetDaily
PoliticsNC reports that WorldNetDaily's very own Molotov Mitchell is running for a state senate seat in North Carolina. He's got an uphill climb toward victory; PoliticsNC states that Mitchell "is running in a strongly Democratic district, and his opponent is none other than Josh Stein, the Democratic Senate Minority Whip. Stein has been in office for almost six years now and appears to have a secure hold on this seat."
Needless to say, ol' Molotov has to do a lot of whitewashing to make himself palatable. He's covered up his "Zealot" tattoos with a suit and tie, and he's endeavoring to cover up the far-right extremism that he could get away with at a fringe website like WND but can't in the real world.
Mitchell's campaign website is already a model of whitewashing. For instance, here's what his "issues" page states about LGBT issues:
As a Christian, Molotov strongly supports the concept of “free will”.
People must be free to live however they see fit, and they have a constitutional right to do so. At the same time, people also have the freedoms of speech and religion, which can create conflict over issues like gay marriage. Censorship and bullying (from either side) will only exacerbate the problem. Molotov firmly believes in a democratic solution. While Washington often weighs in on these sensitive matters, it is ultimately the job of North Carolinians to vote and settle them at the state level.
This ignores the fact that Mitchell advocates "the abolition of homosexuality" to the point that he effectively endorsed a proposed law in Uganda that would execute homosexuals.
The website includes pictures of Mitchell's wife, but doesn't mention that she posts videos at WND under the name D.J. Dolce, where she has proven herself to be at least as homophobic and birther-obsessed as her husband.
Mitchell's website also whitewashes the nature of WND, described only has having "been ranked the 2nd most trustworthy news websites by Discerning Times. As we've documented, Discerning Times is part of a so-called news operation run by a cult-like church in a small town in Oregon, and it exists mainly to proclaim the innocence of a church pastor facing child-sex charges. That's how much this "2nd most trustworthy" designation is worth.
While we know all about the Mitchell family's extremism, the big question is whether North Carolina media will point it out to voters, or if they will accept Molotov's whitewashing and make no attempt to investigate his record.
MRC's Graham Ignores Maureen Dowd's Professional Jealousy Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loved New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd when she bashed the Clintons during the 1990s, but when she followed that by going after the Bush administration, they dismissed her as just another East Coast liberal -- Brent Bozell dismissed her as a "liberal windbag."
But now that Dowd has returned to Clinton-bashing, she's back in the MRC's good graces.
MRC director of media analysis Tim Graham devotes a July 14 NewsBusters post to praising Dowd for having "the audacity to knock Chelsea Clinton for giving speeches for $75,000 a pop, even if it went to the Clinton Foundation, which is designed for the further aggrandizement of the Clinton reputation."
But Graham ignores the idea that there may be a little professional jealousy behind Dowd's sniping. Media Matters notes that Dowd makes less than half of what Chelsea Clinton makes for her speeches, adding that "Dowd did not respond to a request for comment seeking to determine whether she donates her speaking fees to charity."
But then, Dowd was spouting the MRC party line, which earns her temporary immunity from having her motives questioned.
NEW ARTICLE: Jack Cashill's New Favorite Killer Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily columnist's soft spot for murderers continues with his insistence that anybody but George Zimmerman is to responsible for Zimmerman's alleged criminal behavior, as well as his race-baiting of the black teen Zimmerman killed. Read more >>
CNS' Jeffrey Is Obsessively Counting Obama's Words Again Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey really did devote an entire July 11 article to this piece of worthless trivia:
Not counting instances when he quoted a letter from a citizen or cited dialogue from a movie, President Barack Obama used the first person singular--including the pronouns "I" and "me" and the adjective "my"--199 times in a speech he delivered Thursday vowing to use unilateral executive action to achieve his policy goals that Congress would not enact through the normal, constitutional legislative process.
Jeffrey is bizarrely upset that Obama's speech does not favorably compare to the Gettysburg address:
The White House presented Obama’s speech, which the president delivered at Austin’s Paramount Theatre, as “Remarks by the President on the Economy.” The remarks, the White House reports, ran 40 minutes, and the full transcript (including annotations for “laughter” and “applause”) is more than 5,500 words.
By contrast, President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettyburg Address was only 272 words--and did not include any form of the first person singular.
In President Obama’s speech, he used a first person singular, on average, every 12 seconds. At that rate, had Obama spoken for just 15 more minutes, he would have used the first person singular more than 272 times in one speech—exceeding all the words in the Gettysburg Address.
In one 68-word passage--in which he vowed to act unilaterally if Congress did not enact legislation he liked--Obama used the first person singular five more times than the zero times Lincoln used it in his 272 words at Gettysburg.
Jeffrey and CNS have a weird fixation on the words Obama uses -- Jeffrey even devoted a column to Obama's supposedly excessive use of the first person back in 2009. This ignores the fact that one analysis found “Obama has distinguished himself as the lowest I-word user of any of the modern presidents.”
This week it was announced that not only did the Republican Party incredibly choose the city of Cleveland, Ohio, for its 2016 National Convention, but that LeBron James, the basketball star who had wisely decided to abandon the “mistake on the lake” years earlier for the Miami Heat, had decided to return to the Cavaliers basketball team. As someone who had the displeasure to live in Cleveland for some time after my 2004 candidacy for the U.S. Senate in Florida, I was shocked by both events, as this “fair city” has for decades represented the epitome of a loser image – it’s not suitable for the hopes of either Republicans or LeBron.
First, why the Republicans would choose a city whose precincts voted well over 90 percent for Barack Hussein Obama in the last two presidential elections, and which is perhaps the most leftist major city in the United States, is absurd. The chance of Republicans picking up votes in Cleveland is null and void. If indeed winning the key electoral state of Ohio was the objective, then the cities of Cincinnati or Columbus would have been a better alternative.
Second, Cleveland is woefully short of top-notch hotels and restaurants and is dangerous. In this regard, downtown Cleveland, where the convention will be held, has at most three decent eateries and no first-rate hotels in safe areas to speak of. Having lived in the Warehouse District, which is the most “fashionable area” of downtown, the number of street people and beggars approximates the number of white or blue collar workers who frequent and live in the area. The district is not only dangerous, it is depressed beyond imagination, so much so that when I considered buying a condominium there, since it was close to the law firm where I had become a partner, the advantage was only that real estate taxes would be abated for 10 years as an incentive. Accordingly, the facilities and venue of Cleveland are not suitable for a national political convention and portray a poor image for a party already in difficulty if not permanent decline.
Yes, I do have one good friend in Cleveland and thus not all is bad or pathetic. But in all honesty, the city is the poster boy for losers.
Klayman hints at his real reason for his Cleveland derangement in this rant:
Fifth, as a lawyer, I have to also attest to the now proven fact that Cleveland has one of the most corrupt legal systems in the country, stocked with incestuously compromised lawyers and judges who scratch each other’s backs. For a political party that is attacking Obama and his comrades over so-called phony scandals, this is not the right image. The family law courts, for instance, are routinely trashed by the local newspaper, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, for their sleaze.
What Klayman doesn't admit: The Ohio court system he's bashing is also where a magistrate found, and an appeals court upheld, that he engaged in "inappropriate behavior" with his children:
The magistrate further found it notable that Klayman, “for all his breast beating about his innocence * * * [he] scrupulously avoided being questioned by anyone from [children services] or from the Sheriff’s Department about the allegations,” and that he refused to answer any questions, repeatedly invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, about whether he inappropriately touched the children. “Even more disturbing” to the magistrate was the fact that Klayman would not even answer the simple question regarding what he thought inappropriate touching was.
The Ohio courts also shut down his vindictive legalisms against his ex-wife by letting stand an order that he pay $325,000 in her legal fees. Judicial officials found that "Klayman purposefully prolonged litigation, telling [his ex-wife’s] mother that if she did not settle, he would take the case through years of litigation which would cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars. Klayman did not deny that he made the statement."
Ohio seems to be one of the few states that has demonstrated a very low tolerance for Klayman's incompetent legal shenanigans. No wonder he's mad.