Custom Search


Obama has the best propaganda machine since Joseph Goebbels




help fight the media




Items on this page are archived in the order of discovery.  Previous year in left column . . .
The Fourth Estate

A Fairy Tale Caricature Of Obama
Dana Loesch asks, "How on earth do you not challenge a statement like this?"

"I think it speaks volumes about the man’s temperament," said Robert Dallek, the presidential historian.  "He doesn’t crave the spotlight the way some of these other presidents have.  They needed to be constantly in the eye of the public; it propelled them into politics in the first place.  Obama is less that way; he is more of a self-contained person, someone who can genuinely spend time by himself with his family."

That the author of the article didn’t circle back with a question as to why a leader who’s appeared on everything from the late night talk shows to Mythbusters, earned him a write-up in Politico with the headline, "The Everywhere President," doesn’t crave the spotlight.

Did he miss Obama the other day discoursing on college basketball on ESPN?  Then perhaps he missed him chatting with Jay Leno on "The Tonight Show," or yucking it up with David Letterman.

Has he wondered how the first family stays in such fine shape in the White House?  Michelle Obama described their morning workouts earlier this month in People magazine. Last winter, before taking office, Obama and his bri
de also shared their thoughts on the family’s eating habits for Parents magazine.

From CNN to Men’s Journal, Obama has decided to make himself the "Everywhere President."

In an era where people can be famous for no reason other than being known, a tautologous way of climbing the ladder when fame amounts to experience and weight on a resume; Barack Obama isn’t the first to exploit this ascent up the ladder, but he is the first to be made entirely from it.  The "Barack Obama Show" began with his 2004 DNC keynote, after which he was, and continues to be, everywhere.  The main difference between Obama and Reagan is that Reagan was a better actor.  (And a more skilled leader with better policies, but definitely, better actor.)

The only other ways Obama and Reagan are alike are, they’re both humans, and they are both men.

The author of this article is either:

a)  A one-month old infant wunderkind who is unaware that Obama has had more airtime selling himself and his policies than Suzanne Somers selling skin care products on QVC.

b)  Someone who has no access to a television or access to high-speed Internet with which to see mention of Obama’s moonlighting.

c)  A reporter who thinks that doing good journalism is whatever amounts to making Obama look good, replete with a plethora of Reagan references because, 1) conservatives love him, and 2) he’s dead, which is the only sort of conservative liberals feel safe enough to allow themselves to like.

Lastly, can we please stop comparing socialists-turned-more-moderate-leftists-due-to-November-2nd to Reagan?  They’re Democrats, compare them to Democrats.  It’s a bass-ackwards way of reaching out to the middle sans any real action by saying someone is like a conservative when they aren’t.

The media creates unnecessary drama for itself by presenting complete falsehoods to the public with the expectation that we’re the media and by that qualifier alone you’ll believe us.  We’re not so far gone down that Orwellian road that people will accept such things without rejecting them outright.
Progressive Propagandists Rage
Immediately after the horrific shooting of Rep. Giffords and others, the Left began to stage-manage this tragedy to their political advantage.

The first to begin, was Arizona senator and despicable human being, Linda Lopez, who blamed the incident on the TEA Party, and described the shooter as an Afghanistan War veteran (never even in military).

Of course, professional whack-job, Keith Olbermann, jumped on the bandwagon, blaming Palin, Allen West, the Tea Party, Beck and O'Reilly for the shootings. (Video)

The New York Times chief propagandist Paul Krugman attacked the GOP for the assassination.

Arizon Sheriff Dupnik (D) held a press conference (he's a lefty, refused to enforce Arizona's immigration law).  He blamed the shooting on "vitriol coming out of certain people."  We all know who this scumbag is talking about -- the political Right.

The president of the top pro-abortion lobby group National Organization for Women went so far as to openly blame "extreme right-wing opponents" hours after the shooting, chastising Republican leaders and calling for a Justice Department investigation, "to the fullest extent of federal anti-terrorist legislation," to determine whether the shooting was "part of a conspiracy."  NOW president Terry O'Neill declared in a statement emailed to supporters:

"Conservatives cannot have it both ways, screaming sexist, racist and homophobic slurs at legislators as they vote for health care reform, putting legislators on a violence-inciting ‘Targets' list, and then simply saying how sorry they are when someone explodes into murder." 

Film Critic Roger Ebert joins the Left-wing Palin lynch mob, Tweeting, "Sarah Palin rummages online franticall erasing her rabble-rousing Tweets like a Stalinist trimming nonj-person out of photos."

Sorry, Roger, it was the DailyKos, and FaceBook that were scrubbing the evidence of Loughton's left-wing associations.

The murderer wasn't a conservative at all.  He was a Lefty, just like these knee-jerk lunatics, who jumped to all the wrong conclusions, and blamed all the wrong people, without a single fact, because they don't care about facts, because it doesn't fit their progressive narrative.
A Democrat's Advice For Obama
Politico says the references to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 echoed in other ways.  That horror, which killed 168 people including many children, helped then-President Bill Clinton stigmatize extreme anti-government rhetoric and re-energize his presidency at a time when Newt Gingrich and conservative Republicans were riding high in Congress.

"They need to deftly pin this on the TEA Partiers, just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people."


Getting A Grip On Obama’s Real Place In History
Peter Wehner says during the 2008 campaign, the historian Garry Wills compared Barack Obama’s Philadelphia speech on race with Abraham Lincoln’s Cooper Union address.  Now he’s back at it, though he’s raising the bar a bit higher.

As both Alana and Rick have pointed out, according to Wills, Obama’s Tucson speech, "bears comparison with two Lincoln speeches even greater than the Copper Union address" -- Gettysburg and Lincoln’s Second Inaugural address.

Actually, it doesn’t.

I thought Obama’s speech was a very good one.  But the gushing Professor Wills really does need to get a grip on himself.

We also learn in his blog that (surprise) the New York Review wanted to publish a booklet printing the Lincoln and Obama speeches together, but the Obama campaign (wisely) discouraged that idea, perhaps to avoid any suspicion that they were calling Obama a second Lincoln.  "Well," Wills informs us, in the aftermath of the Tucson speech, "I am willing to risk such opposition now."

It should be clear by now, even to Obama’s most passionate supporters, that he’s no Lincoln (he’s closer to being another Carter).  Any effort to pretend that Obama belongs anywhere in same conversation with Lincoln is really quite silly.  But such is the state of mind of the New York Review of Books and its writers these days.  It’s not enough to be admiring of Obama; they have to be worshipful.

Like besotted adolescents, the left is rekindling its love affair with Barack Obama after only a single speech.  Be warned: queasiness to follow.
AP's Bogus Poll
Jeffrey Anderson says a widely reprinted AP story, based on a recent AP/GfK poll, is entitled, "Opposition to health care law eases."  Don't believe it.  What has eased isn't the level of opposition to ObamaCare, but rather the level of effort that AP/GfK has made to ensure that its polling sample is representative of American voters.

When the AP/GfK poll screened for likely voters a couple of weeks before the election, it estimated that 48 percent of voters leaned Republican and that 42 percent leaned Democratic (which the election showed to be about right).  In its latest survey -- the one that serves as the basis for the AP story -- AP/GfK didn't screen for likely voters and didn't screen for registered voters.  Instead, it merely surveyed 1,001 adults.  The result?  The percentage of Democratic-leaning respondents stayed the same (42 percent), but the percentage of Republican-leaning respondents dropped by 12 points, to 36 percent.

As one would expect -- with the same percentage of Democratic-leaning respondents having been surveyed both times -- the level of support for ObamaCare remained essentially unchanged: 41 percent supported it previously; 40 percent support it now.  Just as unsurprisingly, when the percentage of Republican-leaning respondents dropped by 12 points, the level of opposition to ObamaCare dropped by 11 points (from 52 to 41 percent).

And the pollsters are on board.
O Met Secretly With Rich, Maddow, Huff
Cindy Adams, writing in the Post, says, you don’t know this, because few know this because it’s secret because nobody wants anybody to know this because who knows why?  A pack of wide open tonsils like Frank Rich, Arianna Huffington, Rachel Maddow were imported to the White House for a hear all, tell all, blab all, on the "QT" meeting.

It’s been by deliberation unreported.

And the raison d’etre?

So America’s Talker-in-Chief can brainpick, monitor their views, borrow ideas, pin the tail on the conservatives and get re-elected…

There was a time when journalists viewed their role as keeping politicians honest.

Now, we have a bunch of alleged journalists from The New York Times (print), MSNBC/NBC (TV), and the blogsphere (World-Wide Web) scheming with the Schemer-in-Chief.

The election campaign is truly on, and the ObamaMedia are on board.
More Media Manipulation
Michael O'Brien says Obama met with several top news personalities and pundits on Tuesday before his State of the Union Address.

Per a White House pool report, Obama met with the group for lunch at the White House this afternoon.

Among the figures reported to be meeting with the president were CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos from ABC, Brian Williams from NBC and Chris Matthews from MSNBC.  It wasn't clear whether there were more attendees at the meeting.

Obama has been known to meet with journalists occasionally for informal chats.  The discussions are typically off the record, meaning that the content of Tuesday's discussion will likely remain unknown.

This is nothing more than supposedly "independent journalists" getting their propaganda talking points directly from The Man.

The concept of an independent press in the age of Obama is a joke.  These "journalists" are committing journalistic malpractice and are working directly for Obama -- and evidently, they don't care who knows.
Obama-Media Collusion
Jim Hoft says, don’t fool yourself… JournoList is alive and well.  It was apparent this week after Obama’s SOTU Address that the ObamaMedia is still coordinating their message to the American people.

All three major networks described Obama’s confusing speech as being "Reaganesque."  Just a coincidence?
They want so desperately for the failed socialist they helped elect to appear like the beloved Ronald Reagan.

And, here's another coincidence!  This video is MSNBC's contribution to the "Obama is Reagan" meme.

What are the odds?

The ObamaMedia wants us to believe that the socialist who bows to Hu Jintao and King Abdullah and the Japanese Emperor is the next Reagan.
Now we know what was on the agenda at the meeting between Obama and the representatives of CNN, and the three major networks -- the results are in the video -- "Obama is Ronald Reagan."

So much for a "free and independent press."  They now work for Obama.
A Chameleon
Nick Chagouris says this past week it was Ronald Reagan.  This could be seen coming from a mile away.  It really doesn't take a Nostradamus to predict these things in Obama's behaviors.  It was obvious after watching his preview video of his State of the Union address, posted on his web site.  And even the hardest of hearing heard about Obama reading Reagan on his Christmas vacation flight to Hawai'i.  No one should be surprised, despite the juxtaposition.

Everyone from the HuffPo to Breitbart found this topic irresistible.  But of all the many Reagan/Obama media mentions, Mark Rudd's warning words, "feint right, turn left," are the most ominous, and to this writer's mind, accurate.

And so last week, we witnessed a feeding frenzy from the media and the blogosphere, discussing the change in Obama's attitude and rhetoric.  Some made for juicy, thought provoking, reading.  Others were just spin.  The Big Three Alphabet Media agreed, Obama was "Reaganesque."  The problem for Obama is that we are now on to his character, if not yet his legal identity.

Chameleonesque is a better description for Barack Obama.  Therefore, this Reagan thing, won't work for him.

Do you wonder which historical, great leader, Obama and his handlers might choose next for him to impersonate?

Let us reflect upon some of the absurd, failed, comparisons from the lost and wandering left-bent hopefuls in search of their Champion, their voice, and their identity, over the first two years of this unprecedented presidency:

•  During his campaign, (the pre-election one) Obama was to become the next John F. Kennedy.  In the early afterglow days of the Democrats' victory, People, Time, and Newsweek Magazines, did their best to project that Jack & Jackie Camelot fantasy on to the Barry and Michelle blank screen to entice (propagandize) the population (sheep) to fall in love with this most exceptionally beautiful, and brilliant, ruling couple.  (Must have been Jackie's and Michelle's remarkably similar tastes in clothing?)

•  He has been the incarnation of Abe Lincoln (They are both tall and lanky.)

•  He has been called "Jeffersonian".  (Aside from sharing the same brand of Teleprompter, we're at a loss.)

•  Michelle Obama compared to Marie Antoinette.  Like Marie, Michelle mysteriously gave up her license to practice law, or was disbarred. (same with hubby)

•  Obama, the next Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (Probably because of the Beer Summit, combined with the work Obama's DOJ has done, absolving the New Black Panther Party of that bogus voter intimidation case.)

•  Gandhi: Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize for his excellence in reading other people's utopian words from a teleprompter.  (One year later, we are in awe over the Global Peace this man has singlehandedly created, particularly in the Middle East.)

•  Here, Obama is FDR

•  And of course, everyone's favorite, Obama as Christ.

Why does the characterization of Obama's persona, and therefore his purpose and direction, as described by his adoring media advocates, change so frequently?  This is truly unprecedented.  Has any former national leader been likened to so many former great figures in world history?  Will the list continue to increase?  Why would anyone imagine the trend to end here?  Why isn't the media asking why Barack Obama cannot seem stand upon his own identity.

Because Barack Obama has no identity.  He's spent a lifetime crafting a bogus identity for political reasons.  His true identity is under lock and key.  Why?  What is so horrible about this guy's true identity that he has to hide it from the American People?
ABC Frets About Obama's "State Run" Media
Region Rat says when he started referring to the mainstream media as The Obama Media Group, it was the perfect descriptor; the mainstream media has been anything but mainstream for decades.  While its minions have parroted liberal talking points for years, they reached a new low with the arrival of Barrack Obama on the national political stage.  So much so, that even Saturday Night Live spoofed their pro-Obama slant during his debates with Hillary Clinton.

How times change.  Now, ABC News is whining wondering out loud if the Obama Administration might just want to replace the traditional press with its own "state run" media.  Yes folks, one of the charter members of the OMG is worried that "the White House Press Office now not only produces a website, blog, YouTube channel, Flickr photo stream, and Facebook and Twitter profiles, but also a mix of daily video programming, including live coverage of Obama’s appearances and news-like shows that highlight his accomplishments."

Our pals in the liberal media are miffed because White House cameras have been granted unprecedented access to Obama, while administration officials have blocked news outlets from events traditionally open to coverage, as well as limited opportunities to publicly question Obama himself.  Welcome to the club.

Remember when Obama refused to even call on correspondents from Fox News during his early press conferences?

"The Administration has narrowed access by the mainstream media to an unprecedented extent," moaned ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton.  "Access here has shriveled."

Relax Ann, things could be worse.

Another example of Team Obama controlling the message.
Obama Is Innately Hostile To America
An essay by Mike McDaniel at PajamasMedia is incredibly difficult to refute:

Begin with the reality that Obama is a socialist.  Those doubting this assertion of fact need only refer to Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.  There, Stanley Kurtz meticulously and undeniably lays bare Obama's socialist education, associations, mentoring, roots, beliefs, and actions.  Let us also keep in mind that socialism, like Marxism, is fundamentally incompatible with freedom, democracy, and capitalism as embodied in America's founding documents and as practiced in America.  If Obama is indeed a socialist -- and he is -- then his belief system, his way of thinking, is innately hostile to America.  Socialism and American democracy cannot coexist, so if Obama is pursuing socialist policies, American democracy must, of necessity, be weakened or destroyed.

But if this is true, how did Obama get elected?  It boils down to this: He lied.  He lied about who he is, about his background, his fundamental beliefs, his intentions, and his methods.  He employed standard Marxist/socialist tactics and concealed his true nature so as to seize power and impose his will, and for two years, he pretty much got away with it.

And he got away with it by having a media that was willing to not only propagate the lie but affirm and willfully sell it as truth.

It's something Americans need to be reminded of again and again as 2012 approaches for the lies will once again be put front and center and once again be disseminated by an accomplice media.

The mantra of the American people ought to become, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
"Everything Obama's Done Has Been Good for This Country"
Scott Whitlock says that professional Obama fan Chris Matthews appeared on Friday's edition of the Martin Bashir show to slam the Obama's critics and to swoon, "Everything he's done has been good for this country."

Matthews went on an extended rant against those who oppose Obama, theorizing, "...They go back to the old nativist root, this old dark night of the soul thing that people worry about, a black man in a White House.  And they start working on that.  'Oh, he's a Mau Mau.  He goes back to a Muslim background.'"

Indirectly referring to columnists such as Dinesh D'Souza, who has highlighted political beliefs of Obama's father and grandfather, Matthews attacked, "It's using race.  It's using the paranoid fear of whites of black males against this president whose life has been spotless, has been the American dream."

After an extended bout of praising Obama, Bashir regained control of the show and ended the segment by enthusing, "Chris, I gotta draw you to a close, but that's the best pep talk I've heard for a long time.  So, thank you so much."

A partial transcript of the March 4 segment is here . . .

"Tingles" is off his meds again!
Obama To Party With Washington Reporters
The AP is reporting that Barack Obama will speak at the 126th annual Gridiron Club dinner in Washington on Saturday evening.

The white-tie event is an opportunity for journalists to poke fun at public figures and political themes of the day.

This will be the first time Obama has appeared at the event.  Last year, former President Bill Clinton stood in for Obama, who was preparing for a probable House vote on health care reform.  Obama, however, did speak to the dinner via videotape.  Vice President Joe Biden represented Obama in 2009.

The White House refused to comment on rumors that Obama was appearing this year because the "journalists" all agreed to sign "loyalty oaths."
Obama's Flaming Hypocrisy
Zip says the White House canceled Obama's Openness Award after being called out on their flaming hypocrisy.

And by flaming hypocrisy, I mean he had four closed-to-the-press meetings scheduled prior to receiving his transparency award.

The White House announced Wednesday it has postponed a ceremony for Obama to accept transparency award from a government watchdog group.

The event was scrubbed due to scheduling changes, according to a White House pool report, and is supposed to be rescheduled.

Obama was scheduled to accept an award from the Freedom of Information Day Conference recognizing, "his deep commitment to an open and transparent government -- of, by, and for the people," according to press guidance.

The right-leaning Drudge Report played up the award ceremony Wednesday on its site under the headline, "All WH events Wednesday 'closed press' -- except for ceremony praising Obama's 'commitment to transparent government'. . ."

A pool spray was scheduled to cover the top of the event.


Obama Has A New Lawyer

Upstaged by The Donald, it appears that Bill O'Reilly has taken it upon himself to become Obama's defender -- and he does a terrible job.

O'Reilly says that Obama didn't write a thesis, but Obama's professor, Michael Baron, said he did.

Obama's former professor who graded the now-elusive paper recalled in an interview with NBC News that Obama easily aced the year-long class.  Baron described the paper as a "thesis" or "senior thesis" in several interviews, and said that Obama spent a year working on it.  Baron recalls that the topic was nuclear negotiations with the Soviet Union.

"My recollection is that the paper was an analysis of the evolution of the arms reduction negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States," Baron said in an e-mail.  "At that time, a hot topic in foreign policy circles was finding a way in which each country could safely reduce the large arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at the other … For U.S. policy makers in both political parties, the aim was not disarmament, but achieving deep reductions in the Soviet nuclear arsenal and keeping a substantial and permanent American advantage.  As I remember it, the paper was about those negotiations, their tactics and chances for success. Barack got an A."

O'Reilly finally admitted after nearly 3 years of lying that Obama has not released a birth certificate, while saying that the State of Hawaii said Obama's birth certificate is "on file."

Actually, Dr. Fukino, the Director of Hawaii Department of Health, said that she had "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

The intentional ambiguity of that statement raises more questions that it answers. The specific type of certificate was not identified.  It could be the certificate for someone born outside of the State of Hawaii.

Being "on record" could mean either that its contents are in the computer database of the department, or an actual "vault" original.  If the latter, those are the words used to describe what is there.  The data base record could have been entered based on a birth record for someone born outside of Hawaii.

Therefore, the value as prima facie evidence is limited and easily overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained and verified with a Court Order.

But, the killer is, we KNOW FOR A FACT, that the current governor of Hawaii, an Obama booster, was unable to find Obama's long-form birth certificate anywhere in Hawaii, and he had a COURT-ordered search warrant.  All he found was something in the "archives" that was "written down."

Then O'Reilly references that damned COLB that is on the Internet.  The one that Janice Okubo, the Communications Officer for the Department of Health has been quoted as saying, "I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."  The one that would not be accepted by Hawaii for eligibility for some state government programs?

O'Reill repeats the allegation that Obama was born in a Honolulu hospital, but NO hospital ANYWHERE in Hawaii, will confirm that Obama was born in its facility.  NO hospital ANYWHERE in Hawaii has a plaque in its lobby saying, "Birthplace of the 44th President of the United States."

Regarding the questions about Obama receiving foreign aid at Occidental, O'Reilly says, "someone just made that up."

How does he know that?  And if it was made up, why did Team Obama fight so hard to keep his Occidental records sealed, going so far as to threaten sanctions against inquiring attorneys.?

Poor Bill -- I'm afraid he's jumped the shark -- again.  Verdict?  Bill O'Reilly is a pinhead.

Related:  State-Run Media Springs Into Action to Protect Obama

Related:  Romney to Trump: Obama Doesn’t Need a Birth Certificate

Related:  RINO Romney says, "Barack Obama was born here.  Period."

I guess that settles it!  But where is "here?"
ObamaMedia Invents News (Again)
The US News and World Report has taken to inventing the news, as demonstrated in this extract from an article entitled, "GOP Boss Says Birther Claims a Distraction."

Newly-installed Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has a message for Donald Trump and other so-called "birthers": Shut up!

Priebus, who's starting to score some fundraising and organizational victories inside GOP HQ, having taken over for controversial former Chairman Michael Steele, says the debate over Obama's birthplace and whether he can be president is a huge distraction away from the party's effort to fight Democratic spending and tax plans.

The problem with this report is that it isn't true.  It is completely fabricated.  Priebus Tweets:
Related:  Zip says it turns out The New York Times was lying (shocker!) when they mocked us for sounding the alarm on death panels during the debate on ObamaCare.

Paul Krugman writes, "That's what cost-control looks like!  You have people who actually know about health care and health costs setting priorities for spending, within a budget; in effect, you have an institutional setup which forces Medicare to find ways to say no."

"And when people start screaming about death panels again, remember: you can always buy whatever health care you want; the question is what taxpayers should pay for."

Wait a minute!  How can poor people, the elderly and children (it's always for "the children" with these people) buy whatever health care you want?  More lies.  More inventions.
The Dishonorable Media
Lawrence Sellin says we now have the media of an one-party state.

I was watching ABC’s George Stephanopoulos interviewing Donald Trump about the birth certificate issue, and it struck me how much more Stephanopoulos sounded like an Obama staff member than an independent and objective journalist.

Continuing his crusade to save Obama from the dustbin of history, Stephanopoulos, on Good Morning America, waved a copy of Obama’s alleged Certification of Live Birth at Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).  He demanded that she renounce her recent heresy of questioning Obama’s eligibility to be president by swearing an oath to the purity of her thoughts in order for her to be considered an acceptable contender for the Republican presidential nomination.

Stephanopoulos is the caricature of a main stream media (MSM) news anchor, who moved seamlessly from being press secretary for the Clinton administration to being the spokesman for left-wing Democrats at ABC news.  Of course, the MSM long ago discarded any pretense of independence and objectivity.  They have completely bought into the Obama agenda and they want to protect their investment.  The MSM are now enthusiastically shielding Obama from doubts about his eligibility by making the "Birther question" a litmus test for potential Republican candidates.  There may be no length that the MSM will not go to protect Obama and left-wing Democrats.  They appear willing to defend them against any accusations of atrocious crime or dangerous policy and any displays of ignorance or arrogance.

Recently, CBS news captured Obama making potentially offensive comments to a group of big money donors, and apparently, CBS only released snippets of his remarks, purportedly leaving out the part where Obama called ordinary Americans "slugs."

On another subject, I have often wondered why, with so many qualified African-American spokespersons, the MSM promotes outwardly controversial and divisive figures like Al "racism is my business" Sharpton?  He is a man ostensibly dedicated to rooting out either real or imagined racism, mostly, it seems, the latter.  The MSM recruits such commentators because divisive policies are also part of the business case for left-wing Democrats, who would become extinct under E Pluribus Unum.

Nevertheless, the MSM continue to wrap themselves in a cloak of noble intentions and enlightened opinions as they eagerly censor the news, presumably to protect us rustics and rabble from our coarser instincts like requesting the truth and protecting the Constitution.

In the end, however, it will not be the MSM who will pay the penalty for participating in this scam, because they can walk away from their mistakes and update their web pages.  Those potentially liable are Obama and the Congress.

According to the 20th Amendment, Section 3, it is not the responsibility of the American people to prove that Obama is not eligible, but for Obama to prove that he is.  In addition, the Congress is required to validate Obama’s eligibility.

When the truth is finally known and history is eventually written regarding Obama’s actions and the acquiescence by members of Congress, the words of Thomas Paine might come to mind:

"The world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an impostor; whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any."


An ObamaMedia Fantasy
And Politico calls itself "independent."
Fantasywriter says, okay!  I totally get that the mainstream media is the propaganda arm of the left.  Yes -- that much is obvious!  However, what I’m wondering is if there isn’t at least one press person whose love of life and self-preservation instinct can’t override his/her ideological servitude.

I’m wondering, specifically, if not even one of them listened to Barry’s childish drivel about cool phones in the White House and had a sinking feeling deep inside.  It’s obvious Barry envisioned being POTUS as a combination of James Bond and the Commander of the Starship Enterprise.  Coming from a grown man, that is S.C.A.R.Y.

Here’s an example.  Suppose liberals and conservatives are all aboard a huge cruise liner.  Let’s say the name is the Titanic.  Prior to casting off, a fierce debate over the choice of captains pitted the two groups against each other.  The liberals won out, and installed a young, cool [all this from their POV only], hip, inexperienced captain.  After all, he looks so good in the uniform!

What I’m saying is, the sea has turned treacherous, icebergs cropping up, and the captain is wondering aloud why his control room doesn’t look more like something Jules Verne would cook up.

Granted, most liberals would smile indulgently and remark that he’s too cool even for the role of captain.  But isn’t there at least one, somewhere, who has begun to worry about going down with the ship?

Maybe not.  But it seems like that spiel about Trekkie phones at the White House should have been a wake-up call.  You can -- I can -- debate whether he’s borderline insane or psychotic, but isn’t there at least one prominent liberal wondering whether he’s competent enough even to avoid the next iceberg???

Related: redirects users to Obama’s campaign website,
The Late Bin Laden
Victor Davis Hanson has a few thoughts on presidential leadership and the media.

There was something quite Roman in the killing of Osama bin Laden, something reminiscent of the manner in which the Romans eventually dealt with a rogue’s gallery of charismatic tribal enemies -- Spartacus, Vercingetorix, Jugurtha, Mithridates, Boudica, and others -- all of whom claimed victory over the Romans and invulnerability from their global reach, only to be eventually defeated, forced to kill themselves, executed, or killed in battle.

The killing reminds us that there are official rules we cite and unofficial ones that, thankfully, we actually follow.  Pakistan is to be praised publicly as a partner, even as privately it is recognized as the sort of enemy that allows bin Laden to build a mansion in a suburb inhabited by its retired military officers.  So we swiftly invade the country, kill him, and then praise the Pakistanis for their help -- with full knowledge that bin Laden couldn’t have been there for years without Pakistani government assistance.  I have no idea whether disseminating such disinformation is sustainable.

The bin Laden hit came at an opportune time: the U.S. had been talking of decline and "leading from behind," and yet just pulled off a commando raid beyond the capability of most other countries -- at the same time that the Arab world has gone topsy-turvy, and its half-dozen ongoing rebellions and insurgencies have diverted the attention of the Arab Street.  So Osama is dead and in Davy Jones’ Locker, while crowds chant against Assad and Qaddafi.  The success of the operation should also raise "if you are going to take Tripoli, take Tripoli" questions, and may remind Obama to finish his ill-conceived Libyan adventure, which can only succeed by achieving, either de facto or de jure, the mission objective of regime change.

The mission was a targeted hit, but we describe it as a firefight, apparently to preclude the sort of legal mess that has ensued with Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- or the ongoing saga of a captured Saddam Hussein, which stood in such contrast with the abrupt fate of his sons.  Death ends legal issues, and in our postmodern, out-of-sight, out-of-mind world it is apparently as acceptable to act as judge, jury, and executioner of terrorist leaders (and rogue leaders like Qaddafi) as it is considered illegal and immoral to detain or water-board them.  Killing bin Laden and his son, or Qaddafi’s son, is permissible, it seems, as long as we cite the circumstances of an ongoing war or a firefight, and maintain that we are not doing what we are in fact doing.

It’s also easier to conduct assassinations abroad if the Commander-in-Chief is liberal.  This neutralizes criticism from the media, universities, the legal community, and Hollywood.  Obama, the law professor, can assassinate bin Laden in Pakistan, dump his body in the ocean, and with first-person emphasis boast of our brilliant mission in a way Bush the Texan could not get away with -- in the same manner that killing the son of Qaddafi, and the effort to kill Qaddafi himself, are not really forbidden targeted assassinations under Obama, and in the manner that Guantánamo, tribunals, renditions, preventive detentions, Predators, wiretaps, and intercepts that so bothered Senator Obama and others are now deemed essential.  This paradox is just the way it is; the media will report Obama’s Predator drone attack or commando hit as done with reluctance and without other viable choices.  Were a conservative leader to take the same actions, he would be portrayed as a trigger-happy war-monger reveling in the violence.  Thus, the street celebrations that ensued when news of bin Laden’s death broke are seen by the media as a new unity inspired by Obama.  Three years ago, they would have been seen as macabre triumphalism.

A vocal minority want Obama to take all the credit for the kill shot that sent Bin Laden to hell.  It would appear Obama supporters, weary of defending him have latched onto this to justify their blind support these past two years.  These supporters needed a reason to continue to stand behind the man they voted for other than he’s not Bush.  So in an effort at redemption, Obama has been elevated with his "gutsy" move to approve the killing.

Does cutting nine holes off your golf game to spend 45 minutes in the same room as Hillary qualify as a gutsy move?  Does basking in the glow of our Special Forces stretch credibility too far?

Related:  Top Dem official says Barack Obama showed "as much courage as our Navy SEALs"

Related:  Osama bin Laden mission agreed in secret 10 years ago by US and Pakistan (Deal made between Musharraf and Bush in 2001)

Looks like everybody got the "Gutsy" memo.
Reprehensible "Journalist" Baits Tom Tancredo -- Gets Eaten
MSNBC's Martin Bashir asks former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo (CO) if he... "preferred the death of the president as opposed to bin Laden?"
Such is the state of American "journalism."
ObamaMedia’s Ploy To Exploit Bin Laden Thrill Kill Failing
In this extract, William J. Kelly says apparently, the ObamaMedia believe that Barack Obama did more than telling your military advisers, "OK, yeah, just go ahead." Much more.

They way the media portrays it -- it was Obama's overarching philosophy in the War on Terror, his courage since 9/11, and his experience in military tactical strategy that saved the day.  After all, former President George Bush and the post 9/11 intelligence infrastructure he created were so yesterday.  And, really, who cares that the waterboarding stuff Obama has been condemning as torture actually worked?

Recently, Bill Maher, that respected journalist-comedian (since liberals can’t tell the difference), heaped on the accolades calling you a "multi-tasking ninja."  Barbara Walters, host of ABC’s "The View" announced, "I would hate now to be a Republican candidate thinking of running (against Obama in 2012)." Then there’s Walters’ gifted associate, Joy Behar, who cackled, "They (the Republicans) should just skip the next election."

This week, the parade of gushing high-fives and accolades -- "gutsy" was the word -- for Obama continued from Democrat members of Congress, cable news pundits, and newspapers around the country.  The same Democrats who called and continue to call George Bush a 'war criminal.'  The same pundits who demonized the Bush-approved 'enhanced interrogation techniques' that CIA Director Leon Panetta admitted were instrumental in the Bin Laden raid’s success.  But why let a silly thing like political hypocrisy spoil all the progressive fun?

Of course, political hypocrisy may not count but poll numbers do.  A new Pew Research Center poll released today finds that Obama’s post approval rating has already fallen 10%, or six points, to 50%.  (It had jumped to 56% right after the announcement of the Bin Laden’s death.)  His disapproval is at 39%, a return to late-February levels.  Poor Obama.  That Bin Laden bump just couldn’t last.  Gallup, Pew, and New York Times/CBS recorded a 6-point bump, a 9-point bump, and an 11-point bump respectively.

GOP pollster Adam Geller said, "The fundamentals of 2012 are still going to be unemployment, the economy, gas prices, jobs and all this other stuff."  So much for the suggestion from the likes of Maher and Behar that we just "skip the next election," eh?

However, there is a bigger hole in the mainstream media’s 2012 strategy to save Obama.  They underestimate just how little Americans have come to trust them and Barack Obama.

In 2008, the mainstream media lost credibility with voters and independent voters, in particular, due to its zealous one-sided coverage of the presidential race.  In 2011, voters have borne witness to Obama’s ineptitude, his mismanagement of the economy, failed stimulus, broken promise on unemployment, and the unethical tactics he used to ram through unpopular ObamaCare (and his incessant lying).

In terms of foreign policy, Barack Obama has maintained an anti-American world view.  He does not believe in 'American exceptionalism.'  In his first 100 days, he apologized for the "sins of America" on three continents.  He has been more concerned with building a mosque at Ground Zero, closing Gitmo, banning the term 'War on Terror' in favor of 'overseas contingency operation,' and extending his popularity in the Muslim world rather than halting the spread of dangerous Islamic extremism in the world.  He has not been helped by images of him bowing to the Chinese or hugging South American dictators named Hugo.  His unapologetic probe of Bush CIA agents who used "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- especially now in the wake of the success of his Bin Laden raid -- screams hypocrisy.

For their part, the biased ObamaMedia have been in a constant state of spin, attempting to manipulate popular opinion through by repetition and saturation of specific pro-Obama storylines and themes.  So far, that strategy has failed.

In 2012, it will come down to one fundamental question: "Is Barack Obama one of us?"  In 2008, the answer was "yes."  In 2012, the answer is most likely to be a resounding "no."

Complete article here . . .

The polls the writer mentions above were all oversampled with Democrats.  Rasmussen shows that 25% of the nation's voters "Strongly Approve" of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role.  Thirty-seven percent (37%) "Strongly Disapprove," giving Obama a "Presidential Approval Index" rating of -12, and that figure is trending downward.
Esquire Pulls Stunt
Esquire Magazine announced -- "BREAKING: Jerome Corsi's Birther Book Pulled From Shelves!"

Slavish Obot, Mark Warren, the executive editor of Esquire, wrote, that in a stunning development one day after the release of Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President, by Dr. Jerome Corsi, World Net Daily Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah has announced plans to recall and pulp the entire 200,000 first printing run of the book, as well as announcing an offer to refund the purchase price to anyone who has already bought either a hard copy or electronic download of the book.

In an exclusive interview, a reflective Farah, who wrote the book's foreword and also published Corsi's earlier best-selling work, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak out Against John Kerry and Capricorn One: NASA, JFK, and the Great "Moon Landing" Cover-Up, said that after much serious reflection, he could not go forward with the project.  "I believe with all my heart that Barack Obama is destroying this country, and I will continue to stand against his administration at every turn, but in light of recent events, this book has become problematic, and contains what I now believe to be factual inaccuracies," he said this morning.  "I cannot in good conscience publish it and expect anyone to believe it."

When asked if he had any plans to publish a corrected version of the book, he said cryptically, "There is no book."  Farah declined to comment on his discussions of the matter with Corsi.

A source at WND, who requested that his name be withheld, said that Farah was "rip-shit" when, on April 27, Obama took the extraordinary step of personally releasing his "long-form" birth certificate, thus resolving the matter of Obama's legitimacy for "anybody with a brain."

"He called up Corsi and really tore him a new one," says the source.  "I mean, we'll do anything to hurt Obama, and erase his memory, but we don't want to look like fucking idiots, you know?  Look, at the end of the day, bullshit is bullshit."

Corsi, who graduated from Harvard and is a professional journalist, could not be reached for comment.


The entire article is a lie, intended to negatively affect Corsi's book sales.  The Left is terrified of the book.

Way at the bottom of the article, in small print, was this:

Tags: birther book, jerome corsi, where's the birth certificate, drudge without context, birthers, wingnuts, humor

Warren later added:

UPDATE, 12:25 p.m., for those who didn't figure it out yet, and the many on Twitter for whom it took a while: We committed satire this morning to point out the problems with selling and marketing a book that has had its core premise and reason to exist gutted by the news cycle, several weeks in advance of publication.  Are its author and publisher chastened?  Well, no.  They double down, and accuse Obama of perpetrating a fraud on the world by having released a forged birth certificate.  Not because this claim is in any way based on reality, but to hold their terribly gullible audience captive to their lies, and to sell books.  This is despicable, and deserves only ridicule.  That's why we committed satire in the matter of the Corsi book.  Hell, even Obama has a sense of humor about it all.  Some more serious reporting from us on this whole "Birther" phenomenon here, here, and here.

When Corsi's book was announced, it jumped to #1 on  The day after Obama released his latest bogus birth certificate, it dropped to #41.  Today, it has recovered, and is back to #18, and rising.  The left is still angry at Corsi for torpedoing John F'n Kerry's presidential ambitions, and are terrified that Corsi will do it again with "Where's the Birth certificate."

By the way, there is no such book as, "Capricorn One: NASA, JFK, and the Great 'Moon Landing' Cover-Up."

Esquire used to be a great magazine.  Everything these liberals touch turns to shiite.

Related:  White House panic:  Corsi book targeted
Media Shielded Voters From Obama's Israel Intentions
Jack Cashill says that when Barack Obama publicly endorsed the Palestinian view of Israel's future this week, he took many Americans, including many of his Jewish-American supporters, by surprise.  Had the media been doing their job, he would not have surprised anyone.

In April 2008, Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times wrote a lengthy article titled "Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama."  The article pulled some of its information from a video shot at a 2003 farewell dinner for Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian booster and a de facto spokesman for the PLO during his Beirut years.  Khalidi, who had spent several years at the University of Chicago, was leaving for New York.

Domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn reportedly attended the dinner as well.  This would make sense.  Khalidi begins the acknowledgment section of his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire, with a tribute to the guy who lived -- and edited -- in their neighborhood. "First, chronologically and in other ways," writes Khalidi, "comes Bill Ayers."  Unlike the calculating Obama, Khalidi had no reason to be coy about this relationship.

At the dinner, Obama thanked Khalidi and his wife for the many meals they had shared at the Khalidi home and for reminding Obama of "my own blind spots and my own biases."  Obama hoped that "we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table [...] [but around] this entire world."

Wallsten acknowledged that during this "celebration of Palestinian culture," some of the guests made hostile comments about Israel.  One recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism with the implicit threat that Israel "will never see a day of peace."  Another compared "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden.  If worse had been said, or if Obama had applauded these comments, the world beyond the LA Times newsroom would not be allowed to know.

The Times, which endorsed Obama for president, steadfastly refused to share the videotape despite the demand by the McCain camp and others to release it.  This was, of course, one of many clues to Obama's character that the media either suppressed or refused to seek.

"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb.

Times spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan blew Goldfarb off.  "As far as we're concerned, the story speaks for itself," she responded.  The Times would add no details beyond what had appeared in Wallsten's April article.  Obama, after all, had many affluent Jewish supporters in the Los Angeles area.  Why worry them with a little anti-Israel rabble-rousing?

The video of the event remains hidden to this day.
Covering For Obama's High Unemployment Results
James Estrada asks if Obama can be re-elected in 2012 with unemployment figures at record highs?  If the media and Democrat operatives have their way, it just may be possible.  Witness this article by Jeremy Greenfield headlined "Unemployment: The New Norm".

Greenfield introduces the notion that there are plenty of jobs, but not enough workers with sufficient skills.  It seems, according to the article, that there has been a "talent mis-match" forming since the 1970's that is only now coming to a head -- just in time for Obama to skate by on his woeful performance on the economy.  You see, it's not his fault!

In contrast, just a few years ago, in early 2006, the unemployment rate in the U.S. was 4.7%.  That was when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took majority roles in Congress.  It's been a fiscal disaster since then, with the election of Obama in 2008 greasing the skids of a near total economic collapse.

Let us hope that clever articles like Greenfield's do not take hold on the American electorate that must vote their way out of this mess.
Congressional Report Lists 36 Pages Of Obama's Crimes
Ben Johnson says congressman Darrell Issa has produced a shocking new report detailing the Obama administration's extensive use of taxpayer-funded propaganda, which he says breaks federal law.  The report created for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform details how the former Alinskyite community organizer has channeled the resources of the federal government -- that is, your money -- to create "a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign" made up of "inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives."

The highlights include:

 Using federal arts grants to spread Obama's legislative message.  Last August 10, administration officials held a conference call with National Endowment of the Arts grant recipients.  Buffy Wicks, a college radical who worked in Valerie Jarrett's Office of Public Engagement, told the invitees, "we're going to come at you with some specific 'asks' here," specifically supporting Obama's initiatives on health care, the environment, or energy.  She suggested, "We wanted folks to connect…with federal agencies, with labor unions, progressive groups, face groups [faith groups, perhaps?], women's groups, you name it."  Within 48 hours, no fewer than 21 arts organizations released a statement endorsing ObamaCare.

•  The Dept. of Health and Human Services paid MIT economist Jonathan Gruber nearly $400,000 for various jobs.  He did not disclose his employment by HHS while writing a string of op-eds, nor while testifying before the Senate, in favor of ObamaCare.

•  The Justice Dept. hired Tracy Russo, the former blogger for John Edwards, to comment on internet articles or bulletin board messages that criticized Barack Obama and his agenda.  She did this anonymously or used a pen name.

•  A Dept. of Education officer used the White House email to send his colleagues eight bullet points to "communicate the merits of the President's proposal with your members and their audiences."

•  The federal government "highly recommended" constructing highway signs that tout big government and advertise politicians (including Obama).  (Watch the committee's video on the subject here.)

•  Obama attempted to enlist "voluntary" Hollywood propaganda for his proposals through the iParticipate campaign.

•  Andy Griffith starred in a Medicare "update" that doubled as a commercial for Obama's health care legislation.  Not only is the PSAl propaganda, it is erroneous.  A writer with the nonpartisan remarked Griffith's scripted "promise that 'benefits will remain the same' is just as fictional as the town of Mayberry."

You can read the full Issa report here . . .
ObamaMedia Scrutinizes Palin -- Ignores Obama
Sheri Urban says the New York Times and Washington Post raised eyebrows this week by hiring a bunch of additional staff to go through every snippet of Sarah Palin’s emails as Governor -- even asking the public to help them sift through every last syllable:

More than 24,000 e-mail messages sent to and from Sarah Palin during her tenure as Alaska’s governor will be released Friday.  Join The Post in digging through them.  We are looking for 100 organized and diligent readers who will work alongside Post reporters to analyze, contextualize, and research the emails.  Think of it as spending some time in our newsroom.

Our hope is that working together, we can efficiently find interesting information and extract new stories that will lead to further investigation.

The Los Angeles Times announced it would be putting up an "online database" of this supposed treasure trove of correspondence from 2006 through her naming as John McCain’s running mate in 2008:

Today the state of Alaska released nearly 25,000 emails from Palin’s tenure as governor.  Our team is in Alaska and scanning them in.  They will appear on this page through the day.  If you find anything we should be writing about, email a tip to

Curiously though, this same L.A. Times has -- for 3 years running -- repeatedly, despite numerous requests, refused to release a video it possesses of Barack Obama reportedly praising Palestinian radical Rashid Khalidi at 2003 Chicago dinner.  The same Khalidi who has called Israel a "racist" state and who called suicide attacks a justified response to "Israeli aggression."  The same Khalidi who organized a 2000 fundraiser for Barack Obama’s unsuccessful congressional bid, and whose Arab American Action Network received a $75,000 grant from the Woods Fund of Chicago, while Obama served on its board.

Yes, THAT Rashid Khalidi, the lavish praise for whom by then-candidate and now-pretender Barack Obama the L.A. Times apparently finds less relevant than Sarah Palin’s emails sending Merry Christmas wishes, or updating staff on the latest techniques in waste management.

I wonder why the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have not hired any staff to look into the information that is completely unknown about Barack Hussein Obama.  You know, little things like these.

The ObamaMedia accepted Obama's latest bogus birth document without question.  Not one major media outlet or journalist has ever questioned Obama's fraudulent birth documents -- not one. 

Not one major media outlet or journalist has ever asked Obama why he's hiding all his life documents. 

Those facts tell you all you need to know.  The ObamaMedia are agents of Obama -- propagandists, not journalists.
The Myth Of Obama’s Competence
The Conservative Byte says that is well stated in a number of ways.  Because one of the things -- and, again, anecdotal, just the past two, three days, including in the e-mails, all this controversy that has arisen here about Palin ever since Annette called here and said: "Rush, you’re missing the boat.  The reason why women don’t like Palin is she’s a "10."  She’s good looking, and they’re just jealous."  The firestorm that inspired!  It’s being talked about on other broadcasts all across the country, and the e-mails I’m getting obviously are in response to that, and the comments are based on that comment.  There’s maybe two e-mails in this -- and no phone calls -- in this whole period of time (the last two-and-a-half days) disagreeing.  Only two people said: "Rush, I don’t care about any of that.  I just don’t think she’s qualified."

I’ve only had two people say, "I don’t think she’s qualified."  Now, maybe that’s because her qualifications aren’t the subject being discussed, her appearance is.  But even so, the door’s been open here to tell us why you don’t like Sarah Palin and nobody has said she’s not qualified.  So here we’ve got Ron saying, "She’s going to be the greatest president ever.  She’s going to move the country forward and do great things," and the media is scared to death that’s going to be the case.  They didn’t know anything about Obama and they don’t care where Obama’s taking the country.  They don’t care.  He’s right about that.  We’re sitting around, we’re watching the country disintegrate in front of our eyes and they don’t care.  All they care about is, "Will he continue to get away with it?"

Issue by issue it’s, "How will this affect Obama?  How will this affect this re-election?"

Uh, Mr. Matthews, are you concerned that he’s destroying the economy?

"No, I only care about his re-election."

They don’t care.  They have no interest in that.  Because everything in politics is a war.  The decency, the goodness, what’s right for the country is not what’s on the table.  The left is circling the wagons to protect their Weiner.  They’re circling their wagons to protect Obama.  They’re circling the wagons to protect liberalism.  The country?  "Meh, we’ll deal with that later."

The media think Obama is one of them.  They think Palin is not one of them, even though she went to journalism school; Obama didn’t.  The media believe they and Obama are one, that they are from the same class, that they are from the same ideological stripe and so forth.  So there’s a kinship there.  What he’s doing to the country policy wise they couldn’t care less.  In fact, their frustration is that his approval numbers are not higher given how hard he’s trying and how "smart" he is and, "Why don’t people appreciate him as much as we do?"
Follow The ObamaMedia's Shenanigans In The Forum

Media Malfeasance
Comments . . .

©  Copyright  Beckwith  2011
All right reserved