If and when Iran means to strike, it knows it must do it before Jan. 20, 2017.
Barack Obama made clear in his State of the Union address that he would veto any additional sanctions bill. Perhaps Congress will have a large enough majority to override the mullah’s veto. But whether it does or not, it is clear: If and when Iran strikes, it will be with the knowledge that Obama will do nothing. If Israel needs emergency backup, Iran knows that Obama will not provide it.
The message Obama is sending to Iran and the entire devout Muslim world is, “I am with you. Allahu akbar.”
In the famous 1997 movie comedy “Liar Liar,” actor Jim Carrey plays a lawyer who, as a result of his young son’s birthday wish being magically fulfilled, cannot tell a lie – he can only tell the truth – for 24 hours. Let’s imagine that such a wish forced President Obama to do the same, not for 24 hours, but only during his State of the Union address.
Here is what he said followed by what he would have said if he could only tell the truth.
Last week, we were once again treated to another presidential malfunction. Hours after Obamas State of the Union speech, the country of Yemen went into meltdown. This was one of the places that he had touted as a huge success story for us in the Middle East, and now it was being overrun by Shiite Houthi rebels who had succeeded in overthrowing one of the only friendly governments that we had in the region. The media ran footage of angry rebels shouting “Death to America!” and raising their weapons in defiance. Humiliating? I would say so.
With Yemen in tatters and ISIS and al-Qaida growing stronger by the day, Obama seemed oblivious to anything except his agenda.
If he actually qualified as a real leader, Mr. Obama would hold a press conference immediately where, surrounded by all our military top brass scowling at the camera, he states unambiguously that it is our clear and present objective to kill every Islamic vermin on the planet.
Once he’s done talking there should be a big television screen behind him with a live video of a missile or bomb blowing up some voodoo vermin training location.
First – when did this man who has has never held a real job become an expert in Criminal Justice? Harvard Law graduates do not summarily qualify as such, and Obama’s records from Harvard have been sealed anyway. His law degree could be as legitimate as Elvis Presley’s black belt for all we know.
Second, they’re going to put federal muscle behind those recommendations.
Recalling Obama’s advocacy for a civilian police force as well-equipped as the military during his 2008 campaign, we should have seen this coming, yes? While fomenting racial tension has had its uses for the administration, in the context of demonizing the police, there is an additional objective.
Try to imagine what it would have been like if Barack Obama were running things at the start of World War II.
After Pearl Harbor, he would have denied the Japanese were the enemy.
“It couldn’t be the Japanese that were the problem,” he might say. “The people commanding those planes and aircraft carriers were not Japanese. They couldn’t have been. After all, the Japanese people are good people. This attack must have been committed by some rogue elements – probably folks who don’t understand the peaceful nature of the Japanese culture and religion.”
Obama would then declare war not on Japan, but on sneak attacks.
Well, that didn’t take long. This summer after Barack Obama inexplicably (and illegally) freed five of the Taliban’s most deadly terrorists in exchange for army deserter Bowe Bergdahl, I asked a burning question – a question that remains unanswered: “What will it take for our spineless U.S. Congress to impeach this tyrant? This is way beyond partisan politics. This is about justice. This is about the safety of the American people. Barack Hussein Obama is America’s biggest threat to national security. He is ‘an enemy within.’”
Long gone are the days when calling an American president a tyrant and accusing him of treason amounted to political hyperbole. Just a few short decades ago this anti-American Marxist would not only have been accused of treason, he would have been tried for it.
But alas, inaction and injustice are the lawless hallmarks of today’s political milieu.
We’ve become “fundamentally transformed,” all right.
MRC Promotes Mark Levin's New Contract, Ignore His Racist Comment Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves Mark Levin -- so much so, in fact, that it will hide his most disturbing and inflammatory remarks from the MRC's readers.
Thus, you will not hear a thing about Levin's racist attack on CNN host Fareed Zakaria, mocking his "broken English."
You will, however, read at both NewsBusters and CNSNews.com all about Levin re-upping his radio show with syndicator Westwood One. At CNS, Barbara Hollingsworth serves up the gushy detail that "The news was hailed by leading conservatives, including fellow talk show host Sean Hannity, who called Levin 'a national treasure'." NewsBusters couldn't be bothered to put a byline on its Levin-fluffing, instead proclaiming that the contract extension is "Good news for Mark Levin fans."
Of course, neither post from the MRC subsidiaries informed readers that Levin is in business with the MRC -- Levin does live-reads for the MRC on his radio show, and the MRC runs ads touting Levin's endorsement of various MRC operations.
Reality, in the form of Levin's offensive words, can't be allowed to intrude on this little lovefest.
WND Still Hiding Evidence of Fraud In Houston Anti-Gay Petitions Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've detailed how WorldNetDaily refuses to acknowledge evidence of fraud in petitions seeking to overturn Houston's non-discrimination ordinance. That tradition continues in a Jan. 28 WND article by John Griffing.
Griffing is purporting to report on a trial over the petitions, and the bias is evident from the get-go. The headline of the article reads, "Big-city mayor calling own citizens 'criminals'" -- a blatant lie. The first paragraph makes it clear that one of the anti-gay ministers trying to overturn the non-discrimination ordinance is merely accusing Houston Mayor Annise Parker (who, in grand WND tradition, Griffing makes sure to inform us is a lesbian)of saying that. At no point does Griffing directly quote Parker making such a claim.
WND does have a problem of falsely quoting Parker, repeatedly asserting that she claimed the ordinance is "all about me."
Griffing can't be bothered to directly quote -- or even to identify by name -- any of the attorneys for the city cross-examining the anti-gay ministers trying to overturn the ordinance, but he gives one of those ministers, former WND columnist Dave Welch, plenty of space:
Welch told the court there may have been a mistake over the course of collecting tens of thousands of signatures.
“One petition page is far from being ‘rife with’ fraud. … These are citizens doing this, and someone may add on a signature not realizing something may not be notarized. It is a matter of investigative intent and process, and I have no issue with the process,” he said.
But when city attorneys started going through multiple pages of signed petitions, asking Welch to determine forgery, fraud or accident, he responded.
“I am not going to ascribe motives or intent to the individuals who collected these signatures,” he said. “Do you want me to keep repeating myself? This is a matter of process and enthusiasm of people getting out and getting signatures. A referendum drive like this has not been done in the city for many years.”
But nowhere in his article does Griffing explain what the petition issues are. World Magazine, a conservative Christian outlet, does a much better job than WND at doing so:
The definition of “signature” and where it should be located on the sworn affidavit portion of the petition represented two of the city’s major points of contention and most potent means of eliminating signatures. Before submitting their petition pages, each circulator was required to present them to a notary public, before whom the circulator would sign a sworn oath stating all of the signatures had been collected in his or her presence. The bottom portion of the petition page was reserved for that documentation and the notary’s signature and seal.
Welch testified he created the petition page by copying relevant elements gleaned from the Houston City Charter provided in a link on the city’s official website.
That proved problematic.
Welch left out a line in the notary verification portion of the document he said appeared “superfluous.” Harrison insinuated the line was for the circulator’s signature. Without a notary-certified circulator signature, the entire petition sheet with all its signatures was unacceptable, he said. That charge alone invalidated 1,268 petition pages containing 6,443 signatures.
In other words, there are clear issues with the petitions, not to mention the evidence of forged signatures. But Griffing has decided to put right-wing ideology over reporting the facts -- just the way WND likes it.
AIM, MRC Have No Problem With GOP Governor's State-Run Media Outlet Topic: Accuracy in Media
The ConWeb loves to echo Rush Limbaugh's contention that any media outlet that fails to bash President Obama to the satisfaction of right-wingers is "state-run media." But when confronted by actual state-run media -- run by a Republican governor, no less -- the ConWeb is much less disapproving.
In a Jan. 27 Accuracy in Media blog post, Don Irvine touts Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's plans to start a "state-run, taxpayer-funded news outlet that would compete with the local media," proclaiming it a "decisive and bold measure" and that journalists who are complaining about it "have only themselves to blame" because their "biased reporting" all but forced Pence to do it.
The Media Research Center's Scott Whitlock approved of the move as well, trying in a Jan. 28 post to liken it to public broadcasting and chiding PBS host Charlie Rose for criticizing it.Whitlock huffed that "PBS received about $445 million in taxpayer money in 2012" and sneered that "Rose is worth an estimated $23 million, some of which came from his work on PBS."
Of course, unlike public broadcasting, whose mandate is to focus on educational, information and arts programming that mass media outlets ignore, the Pence's news service explicitly stated it would compete with established news outlets and would "function as a news outlet in its own right."
After all the negative criticism -- though not from anywhere in the ConWeb -- Pence endeavored to walk the plan back and eventually pulled the plug on his planned news outlet. Irvine and Whitlock are probably heartbroken.
WND's Evidence for 'No-Go Zones' Cites Repudiated Evidence Topic: WorldNetDaily
As Jerome Corsi has demonstrated, WorldNetDaily has been rather desperate to promote the idea that there really are "no-go zones" in Europe where non-Muslims are prohibited from entering, no matter how shaky. But other WND writers have botched the story even worse than Corsi (shocking, we know).
Art Moore tried to bolster the "no-go zones" claim -- infamously promoted by self-proclaimed Middle East expert Steven Emerson in a Fox News appearance for which Fox later issued an abject apology -- in a Jan. 20 WND article:
The French government lists on its website 751 Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, that the state does not fully control, notes Middle East foreign policy expert Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum.
The French zones, which have specific street demarcations, were first identified by the government in 1996. An estimate that is now 10 years old found 5 million people living in the zones, Pipes noted.
Pipes, who was one of the first to use the term “no-go zone” in reference to Muslims in Europe, noted in 2006 that France’s Sensitive Urban Zones ranged from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassonne to 12 in the heavily Muslim city of Marseilles, with hardly a town in the country lacking one.
Pipes has continuously updated his original 2006 post, citing references by politicians, civil leaders and journalists to “no-go zones” in Britain, Germany and Sweden, as well as France.
Since 2007, Pipes has visited largely Muslim areas of Paris, Copenhagen, Malmö, Stockholm, Berlin and Athens to find out for himself what is happening. He explained that for “a visiting American, these areas are very mild, even dull.”
“We who know the Bronx and Detroit expect urban hell in Europe too, but there things look fine. The immigrant areas are hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails,” Pipes said.
“These are not full-fledged no-go zones,” he explained, “but, as the French nomenclature accurately indicates, ‘sensitive urban zones.’ In normal times, they are unthreatening, routine places. But they do unpredictably erupt, with car burnings, attacks on representatives of the state (including police), and riots.”
But Moore omits one key observation Pipes made: that the "sensitive urban zones," or ZUS, aren't no-go zones, even though he stated it in that "continuously updated" post Moore cites. Pipes wrote:
Before my travels, I expected these areas to be similar to the worst areas of the United States, such as the Bronx or Detroit, where buildings are decrepit, streets menacing, and outsiders feel distinctly unwelcome.
My experiences starting in 2007 belied this expectation. All the immigrant areas turned out to be well maintained, with safe streets, and no sense of intimidation. I walked around, usually with camera in hand, and felt at ease. I encountered no difficulties at all.
That said, there is a reason why the French government calls these regions sensibles (sensitive, delicate). They contain many social pathologies (unemployment, drugs, political extremism), they seethe with antagonism toward the majority society, and are prone to outbreaks of violence.
So, from an American point of view, these areas are a bit confusing: potentially dangerous, yes, but in normal times very ordinary looking and with no sense of foreboding. Thus, the term no-go zone does not accurately reflect the situation.
A Jan. 22 WND article by Bob Unruh apparently cribbed from Moore's article in suggesting that Pipes has called the ZUS areas "no-go zones" when he has repudiated the claim.
Unruh simply stole from Moore's article because he's just that lazy of a reporter, but what's Moore's excuse? There's no way he couldn't have read it, so we can probably assume his selective editing of Pipes was deliberate.
Don't expect a Fox News-like apology from WND -- it really doesn't do such things unless it's too painfully false to ignore (like it did in 2012 when it falsely claimed that Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly believed the Bible prohibited interracial marriage).
CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey writes in a Jan. 28 article:
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch at a confirmation hearing today that the fact that, in support of Planned Parenthood, she had advocated for partial-birth abortion did not "disqualify" her from serving as attorney general of the United States.
But Lynch did not "advocate for partial-birth abortion," as Jeffrey himself concedes in his very next paragraphs:
"In 2006, you signed an amicus brief supporting Planned Parenthood's opposition to partial-birth abortion ban; is that correct?" said Graham at Lynch's confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Yes," said Lynch, "I was one of a number of former Department of Justice officials [who signed it]."
"Although, the amicus brief that we signed was focused on the issue of the facial issues of the law, and how it might impact the perception of law enforcement's discretion and independence," she said.
Signing onto an amicus brief opposing a law banning "partial-birth abortion" does not equal "advocating" for the practice. And it's clear she was discussing issues of the law, not defending the practice.
Jeffrey does not provide a link to the amicus brief in question so his readers can see for themselves what, exactly, she supposedly was "advocating."
In other words, Jeffrey is lying about Lynch. Is that something the editor of a self-proclaimed news organization should be doing?
NEW ARTICLE: The Super PAC That Didn't Do Anything Topic: WorldNetDaily
A super PAC endorsed by WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi did not donate to candidates, got the bulk of its money from WND, and spent it all on administrative expenses and fundraising. Read more >>
The latest MRC writer to whiff on the subject is Kristine Marsh, who offers up this alternative version of reality regarding a recently tabled anti-abortion bill in a Jan. 23 MRC item:
The focus of the March for Life is celebrating life and pro-life legal victories, however the media chose to celebrate a GOP fallout over a pro-life bill instead. The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act was dropped before it could make it to a House vote the night before the March for Life. The bill would’ve banned abortions after 20 weeks but was dropped for voting after North Carolina GOP Rep. Renee Ellmers allegedly led a resistance against the bill because it did not cover exceptions for cases of rape. Luckily another pro-life bill was passed in it’s place, forbidding federal funds from going towards abortion and disabling tax credits for insurance plans which pay for abortions.
Marsh gets the issue completely wrong. The problem Ellmers and other female Republicanhouse members had with the bill is not that it didn't create a rape exception, it's that the exception in the bill was granted only if the woman had reported the rape to law enforcement.
Marsh then huffed that one media outlet "cloaked the pro-life bills in ominous language saying the GOP was 'forbidding' access to abortions." Forbidding access to abortion is exactly what the bills are designed to do. Why does Marsh think it's "ominous" to report accurately on the bill's intent?
Vicious Hypocrite At WND Complains About 'Vicious Hypocrisy' In Media Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Jan. 25 WorldNetDaily article by Jerome Corsi originally carried the headline "News media caught in vicious hypocrisy."
Think about that. Corsi is well known for his viciousness in peddlinglies and unverified sleaze to advance his right-wing agenda --not to mention his complete refusal to retract all his reporting promoting birther conspiracies that has proven utterly wrong -- and he's attacking the media for "vicious hypocrisy"? That's rich.
Anyway, the gist of Corsi's article is trying to rehab the reputation of right-wing anti-Muslim activist Steven Emerson after having to apologize for falsely fearmongering about the alleged existence of "no-go zones" in Britain and Europe:
While longtime counter-terrorism expert Steven Emerson was strongly criticized by establishment media for his remarks in a Fox News interview about Muslim “no-go” zones in Europe where police have lost control, many of the same news outlets have repeatedly used the term for at least a decade.
“The political left in the mainstream media has decided to demonize me,” Emerson said in a WND interview. “It’s outrageous for media outlets to apologize, saying ‘no-go zones’ don’t exist in Europe, when even the New York Times for years has published articles documenting Muslim ‘no-go zones’ do exist in European countries like France.”
Since this is Corsi, he's being unsurprisingly dishonest. His very first example to support his claim is an article referencing unrest caused by "gangs hoping to turn their neighborhoods into no-go zones for police so drug trafficking and racketeering can thrive." Not that no-go zones actually exist -- but that perpetrators hope they will. And the article in question did not single out Muslims as being the driving force behind this drive.
Corsi then went on to suggest that all of the hundreds, or thousands, of areas in France designed as "sensitive urban areas" (or ZUS) were no-go zones. But as Snopes points out, ZUS areas are not exempted from policing or French law, something that even fellow anti-Mulsim activist Daniel Pipes has backtracked on.
Newsmax Promotes Trump's Presidential Ambitions -- Again Topic: Newsmax
Sandy Fitzgerald writes in a Jan. 24 Newsmax article:
Real estate mogul Donald Trump insists he could have defeated President Barack Obama in 2012, and regrets that he didn't run for office.
"I was leading in every poll...I regret that I didn't stay in," Trump told The Des Moines Register on Friday, a night before he was to speak on Saturday's Iowa Freedom Summit, an event attracting numerous GOP presidential hopefuls.
"I would've won the race against (President Barack) Obama," Trump continued. "He would've been easy. Hillary [Clinton] is tougher to beat than Obama, but Hillary is very beatable."
Fitzgerald neglected to mention that the main driving force behind egging on Trump's presidential ambitions in the 2012 election cycle was Newsmax.
We've documented how former Newsmax reporter Ronald Kessler -- a longtime Trump suck-up -- used Newsmax to tout the idea of Trump running for president, even proclaiming that his Trump-pumping secured Trump a speaking slot at the 2011 CPAC conservative confab.
Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy is a Trump buddy as well, having partied with him and once declaring, "In my book, Trump’s a giant. He’s a 'big picture' visionary."
Kessler may be gone, but it looks like Trump can count on Newsmax to promote his latest round of teasing a run for president.
WND Plugs Profitable Anti-Boehner Campaign In Middle Of Boehner Highlighing Anti-Boehner Profiteers Topic: WorldNetDaily
In another entry from the "you can't make this stuff up" department, here's a Jan. 24 WorldNetDaily article:
Why is House Speaker John Boehner the target of so much criticism from conservatives?
He’ll tell the nation on “60 Minutes” Sunday his critics on the right are turning him into a “human piñata” so they can profit off their attacks.
“The issue with the tea party isn’t one of strategy,” he says. “It’s not one of different vision. It’s a disagreement over tactics, from time to time. Frankly, a lot is being driven by national groups here in Washington who have raised money and just beating the dickens out of me. It works. They raise money, put it in their pocket and pay themselves big salaries.”
And then, there's the very next paragraph, in bold italic type:
Agree with Boehner? Then don’t support “Dump Boehner Now” campaign. It allows you to reach every single Republican House member with hard copy letters with FedEx delivery guaranteed. So far, 575,000 have been delivered in two months.
That's right -- WND is promoting its anti-Boehner campaign, which generates a tidy profit for WND, in the middle of an article about Boehner complaining about political operatives profiting on anti-Boehner sentiment.
That's either monumental self-unawareness or monumental chutzpah. We're not sure which.
CNSNews.com, it appears, just doesn't care about journalism anymore, increasingly dedicating itself to being a right-wing propaganda outlet.
The headline of a Jan. 21 CNS article by Penny Starr reads, "Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards: ‘We Proudly…Provide Abortions’." But Starr actually quotes Richards in the second paragraph of her article as saying, "We proudly provide safe and legal abortion."
Not only did CNS improperly pluralize "abortion," it put ellipses in the wrong place for its dishonest removal of "safe and legal."
Starr is an anti-abortion crusader, and her bias shows in her article by irrelevantly noting Richards' salary as Planned Parenthood president. By contrast, we can't recall any CNS article that disclosed the compensation package of its boss, Brent Bozell.
WND's Unruh Tries To Keep The Birther Flame Alive Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh is a dishonest reporter, so it should be no surprise that he's a birther as well.
Unruh pours on the birther prose in a Jan. 24 WND article:
Barack Obama has been focusing more and more, including in his 2015 State of the Union Tuesday, on what pundits describe as legacy issues.
He may envision a legacy 20 or 30 years after his White House tenure of a Web-oriented, Washington-centric health care system that efficiently dispatches what system managers believe people need for health care – a quick abortion, dietary rules or a painkiller for a terminal disease.
In that future, he may hope, as a result of his executive amnesty, for a new Hispanic majority that routinely gives the Democratic Party power as the GOP fades into oblivion.
He may even visualize little plaques on community college campuses across the 50 states noting that Americans are attending for free in exchange for mandatory public service, because of the work of President Barack Obama.
But it’s doubtful he’s rejoicing in the fact that it was his presidency that raised the issue of constitutional eligibility to headlines, courts and congressional debate, and possibly even a ruling from the Supreme Court.
The issue arose even as he ran for president the first time. It surged on his election, was on fire after his inauguration and has been in the courts ever since.
Of course, the only reason the question of Obama's "eligibility" has been repeatedly in the courts is because birthers -- and their enablers at WND -- refuse to acknowledge the existence of evidence that discredits them.
Unruh's article is in the service of promoting the latest birther lawsuit; this one seeks to impose a duty upon the state of California to verify the eligibility of presidential candidates despite the fact neither state nor federal law mandates such a duty.
Unruh notes that one of the plaintiffs, John Dummett, "was a write-in candidate for president of the United States on the California election ballot," but doesn't explain how a write-in candidate can have standing to sue over a ballot issue, especially one who apparently did no campaigning for his so-called presidential run in 2012 if his Facebook page is any indication. Indeed, it seems Dummett is only claiming to be a presidential candidate for the sole purpose of trying to establish standing to sue over Obama's "eligibility."
The lawsuit -- which in this case is actually an appeal seeking to overturn a lower court's dismissal of the lawsuit -- makes this laughably false statement:
However, this Petition does not ask this Court to determine the eligibility of any particular individual to serve as President of the United States. Neither does it ask this Court to define the phrase “natural born citizen.” Article VI of the U.S. Constitution already requires that both “the Members of the several State Legislatures,” and “all executive ... Officers [of the] several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” All this Petition asks this Court to do is to ensure that, in fulfilling that oath by exercising their constitutional duty to determine the matter of selection of electors, these state legislators and state officers give meaning to the eligibility requirements for the office of President.
Of course, the entire goal of lawsuits like this is to specifically target Obama. Given that the lawyers in this case are noted birthers like William Olson and Herb Titus, it's even more laughable.
Speaking of laughable, here's how unruh summarized the California court's dismissal of the Dummett lawsuit: "But the California judges shrugged, more or less said 'So what?' and dismissed the case." At no point does Unruh quote what the court actually said, apparently decided what the court "more or less said" is accurate enough for WND.
Even though its birther obession ruined what little journalistic credibility WND had, it apparently is unable to stop pursuing it.
CNS Doesn't Want To Talk About Rape And Abortion Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com was eager to report that House Republicans scuttled a proposed bill to outlaw abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. It was much less eager to tell readers why.
A Jan. 22 CNS article by Melanie Hunter highlighted how "Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List, said Thursday she was 'disappointed' that the Republican-controlled House delayed a vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act." Another article by Hunter the same day detailed how "Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Thursday said despite the House delaying debate on the late-term abortion bill Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, GOP House leadership has not abandoned the 'pro-life effort.'"
Interestingly, neither of those articles saw fit to explain to readers why the vote on the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" was scuttled: Female Republican House members objected to a provision that allowed an rape exception only if that rape was reported to law enforcement.
Later CNS articles mentioned the reason the bill was scuttled, but really didn't want to talk about it much further. A Jan. 22 article by Susan Jones noted that "a few Republicans objected" to the rape provision, then huffed, "Expanding the bill's exemption to cover all claims of rape would allow more abortions." But none of the people Jones quoted in her article expanded on the issue of the rape provision.
A Jan. 23 article by Lauretta Brown reported on "A crowd of pro-life millennials" who gathered outside the office of one of the House Republicans who objected to the rape provision, Rep. Renee Ellmers, "to express their anger with her for delaying and attempting to dilute the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act." Brown noted that the "pro-life millennials" were "angered" by the scuttling of the vote, but strangely, she did not ask any of those protesting "pro-life millennials" thought of the rape provision.
Why doesn't CNS want to get into the meat of the rape provision, even though it's at the center of the controversy over the anti-abortion bill, so much so that even normally pro-life Republicans find it objectionable? Perhaps it's following Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham's advice to conservative to keep from letting such controversies over definitions "become the issue." But by censoring the issue, CNS can only make sure it becomes an issue.
Wait, doesn't CNS pledge to "fairly present all legitimate sides of a story"? Yes, but it's hard to do that by pretending that one prominent side of a certain issue doesn't actually exist.
No first lady in history has behaved as this one has – and it is a certainty that no other first lady would have even entertained the idea of behaving in the uncouth ways she has.
The late Jackie Kennedy, Rosalind Carter, or Laura Bush would never have been caught rolling around on the floor of a late-night television stage. They are justifiably held to a higher standard than that, but the Obama woman is expected to behave commonly and discourteously. She is expected to be angry and contumacious because, after all, she is a descendant of slaves. She has been mistreated by evil whites her entire life – at least, that is, if we are to believe her narrative.
It is the same with Obama. He has been soundly criticized at every turn and justifiably so. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter were viciously criticized for their policies. But is there anyone who would argue that they would have been permitted to finish their terms if they had been involved in an illegal gun-running operation that led to the murders of innocent Americans and hundreds of innocent Mexicans? Would any American president before Obama have been permitted to knowingly and openly lie about his abominable health-care bill with impunity?
Simply put, Obama was not about to pass up the NFL’s most watchable weekend – all four of my teams won, by the way – to march for a cause he does not believe in.
From his emergence on the national scene in 2004, Obama has been all about suppressing speech. As the titular head of the various progressive sub-cults – black, Hispanic, environmental, feminist, socialist, gay, and (bizarrely) Muslim – he has either endorsed or ignored any number of assaults on speech by his subalterns.
Historically, Obama’s progressive shock troops have contented themselves with hectoring and humiliating those who say something askance.
I have previously addressed in this space the fact that while it is being done rather quietly, Obama has been furiously importing Muslims into the U.S. – no doubt in order to reach that elusive percentage point of no return I mentioned earlier, whereupon ongoing Muslim-fomented civil unrest becomes inevitable.
The proof of Obama’s dedication to Islamist ascendency – some of which has been criminal in nature – is overwhelming, yet it is being widely denied and conveniently avoided, like the fundamental threat of Islam itself. The press ignores it, Congress is far too corrupt to address it, and in the meantime, we are treated to such classics as Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein stating that there are Islamist terror cells inside the United States, but there’s “no credible defined threat” to America.
America knows Barack Hussein Obama (Barry Soetoro) and Nancy Pelosi are wicked and corrupt. They are without a doubt constitutionally ignorant and blind to America’s enemies, because they are America’s enemies.
America knows the bad, but does she know the good, the bad and the righteous?
“We may have different takes on the events of Ferguson and New York,” said Barack Obama in his absurdly disingenuous State of the Union speech Tuesday night.
What Obama did not say is why we have “different takes” on Ferguson, namely because he and his allies in the media have done everything in their power to sell black America a false narrative of gratuitous victimization.
How many times is it worth reiterating that the president of the United States – an individual who attained that office by criminal artifice and systematic deception, by the way – has committed serial treason and is being shielded from the consequences of his actions by corrupt and compromised elected officials? There is a major push on worldwide toward advancing the designs of militant Muslims, minimizing the danger they represent and demonizing all who attempt to realistically frame the argument – and it has all been catalyzed by the individual in the White House. The wholesale failure of Obama’s supposed political opponents to publicly call him out on his crimes is as much of a crime as his own.
The foregoing considered, I trust I will be forgiven for not getting too wrapped up in the tone and content of this week’s State of the Union address.
President Obama delivered his sixth State of the Union message to a Congress that is now completely controlled by Republicans. In case you missed it, here is a brief synopsis:
“I fixed the economy (wages are stagnant and the work participation rate is a paltry 62.8 percent, the lowest since 1978), so it’s time to let the good times roll. I’m giving away free ice cream, and we’ll make the rich pay for it. Now, who wants free ice cream?”
Before you grab your dish and line up for a scoop, let me warn you. You may not get the flavor you want or need, and in the end, it will cost you more than you ever thought you would pay.
After all is said and done, my words at the World War II Memorial that rainy and cold day in October 2013, now ring truer than ever. And, those MSNBC commentators who tried to use these words to take down the tea party and our allies, now should eat crow. But they won’t, since these leftist pro-Muslim media allies of Obama share his vision for our nation – one that is socialist, anti-Judeo-Christian and which in one manner shape or form advances their so-called progressive revolution.
And our culture is surely rotten to the core when the president of the United States can openly defy the Constitution and make laws by administrative edict the same way barbarian societies have done for thousands of years – all to the applause of our media and educational elites.