Obama's Monday News Blitz

From White House Dossier:

As the lead-up to his prime time presidential speech on Syria Tuesday, President Obama Monday will conduct interviews with the NBC, ABC and CBS network anchors, as well as with PBS, CNN, and Fox, according to a White House official.

The interviews will air Monday night.

The foundation is being laid right now by the networks: Syria, Syria, Syria. At the moment, I am watching CBS, but all the other networks are doing the same thing.

Demagoguery.

Wise Words From JFK

Hat tip to Social Sense:



Note these words:

“And so it is to the printing press, the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news, that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help, man will be what he was born to be —free and independent.”

Now, there is some irony here in that the the press at the time covered up JFK's personal activities.

But JKK's words do emphasize the importance of the responsibility to keep the press informed and the U.S. Constitution right of dissent to any government.

And JFK's words are prophetic if we consider what the media have degenerated to today.

LA Sunsett, a commenter to the above-cited post at Social Sense stated the following:

...JFK is NOT from the same mold as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama. He's as far away as one could get, without falling off the earth....

The latest self delusion on Tea Parties from the left ..getting better

Eugene Robinson:

Trust might as well be a four-letter word. American public opinion seems to have become an unguided Weapon of Mass Suspicion, and it's not hard to understand why. But those who would exploit distrust, dissatisfaction and anger for political gain had better worry about collateral damage.

The overhyped tea party phenomenon is more about symbolism and screaming than anything else. A "movement" that encompasses gun nuts, tax protesters, devotees of the gold standard, Sarah Palin, insurance company lobbyists, "constitutionalists" who have not read the Constitution, Medicare recipients who oppose government-run health care, crazy "birthers" who claim President Obama was born in another country, a contingent of outright racists (come on, people, let's be real) and a bunch of fat-cat professional politicians pretending to be "outsiders" is not a coherent intellectual or political force.

I thought we were the 13th green elite, as well?

Great Comment from Cjk!

To this post, about the lamestream media's bitching and whining about how dangerous the Tea Parties are:

Breathtaking lying hypocrites. These pieces of shit are sooo disingenuous and mendacious that I have to practice extreme self control in order to keep from beating my monitor with a baseball bat.

They wring their hands over what are in all truth probably the most non-violent demonstrations in American history for their size.

Yet when the left demonstrates in violent form while calling for the death of the president, vice president and everybody else they disagree with, that's patriotism in action.

Monday, April 19, 2010 10:43:00 PM

ABC News aka OBC News

Guest Commentary by Edward Cline:

The Drudge Report was the first to announce the latest step in the fascist/socialist march to dictatorship in the United States. To guarantee that there is no “debate” on the government’s plan to impose mandatory health care “reform” on the nation, President Barack Obama has made a deal with ABC News to conduct a phony prime time “town hall” style meeting from the Blue Room of the White House on June 24. The sanctimonious and overly chummy anchor Charles Gibson will host “World News” from that precious vantage point. He will welcome the nation to the to the first airing of the Obama Broadcasting Corporation.

Not even FDR was brazen enough to co-opt a broadcaster to shill for the New Deal.

No one in the Reichstag -- excuse me, in Congress -- is protesting this blatantly bogus “reality show” except in the most wimpish manner. Republican National Committee chief of staff Ken McKay, according to Drudge, “fired off a complaint to the head of ABC News.” The text of his letter is really just a complaint that the Republicans have not been invited to participate in the “debate.”

Today, the RNC requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected.

Drudge reported that ABC News Senior Vice President Kerry Smith replied to the RNC, claiming it contained “false premises.”

ABC News prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABC News is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue. ABC News alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president….ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.

Kerry Smith’s rebuttal must be taken with a hefty dose of sea salt. She is as much a liar as Obama when he states he doesn’t want to run a car company, or the banking industry, or any American business. “Thoughtful and diverse voices” are the last thing she and Obama want to hear. Note the disparagement of any political opposition that is to be excluded as a “partisan approach,” and the dismissal of “criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum” as a kind of unnecessarily divisive “polarization.” There is no such thing as an objectively verifiable truth, according to Smith, just a comfortable, non-judgmental middle ground amenable to the wishes of an administration willing to initiate force in its quest to “do good.”

Given the leftist bias of ABC News (and of its rivals, CBS and NBC), one can guess the composition of the audience and predict the kinds of prearranged questions that will be asked Obama. Sure, ABC News will “select” the audience and have “complete editorial control,” but not without every person and virtually every word first being vetted by chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and press secretary Robert Gibbs and whoever else on Obama’s staff is responsible for scripts. This kind of circus will not be put on without an enormous amount of preparation, and every precaution will be taken to prevent any untoward “dialogue” between Obama and any of the dupes in the audience. The June 24th broadcast will have all the spontaneity of a White House press conference. Furthermore, ABC News has always broadcast from one extreme end of the political spectrum, that of total government control over everything. It is immaterial, however, which network was chosen to be Obama’s stalking horse. They are all equally culpable.

The denial for “equal time” should have come as no surprise. The Republicans, because they abandoned individual rights and reason, can only suggest a watered-down version of socialized health care. They will not oppose the idea of socialized medicine. Why should Obama and Congress settle for less when they have demonstrated they can go the limit with no fundamental opposition?

Did ABC deny the request? Yes. On its own initiative? Doubtful. Neither Obama nor his allies in Congress want to hear any other “views“ on socialized medicine. Therefore, any request for “equal time” is unwelcome. Rational arguments against socialized medicine and health care would only prove to be distractions, or worse, illuminating. The arrangement is a preview of the reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine” under another label, a doctrine whose very nature guarantees the suppression of dissent for as long as the government controls the airwaves and has the power to dictate the content and character of speech. Obama and the Democrats want to enact that doctrine without it being called censorship. If ABC wishes to continue to be the favored network, it will take orders. Apparently, that will be voluntarily.

There must be more behind ABC’s anointment than just a “deal.” One can imagine the bidding war for Obama’s favor between ABC, CBS and NBC; one cannot help but wonder what promises ABC made to the White House for this show and for all future “town halls.“ One can even speculate on the reasons behind the choice of Gibson as the “moderator” of the forthcoming broadcast. CBS anchor Katie Couric has little or no verisimilitude. Anchor Brian Williams of NBC is even more abrasively sanctimonious and authoritarian than is Gibson. One can only suppose it was decided that Gibson’s features are less annoying and patronizing. Image is everything. They don’t want to bore or frighten the kiddies.

Drudge reports that the arrangement has “ignited an ethical firestorm.” But this development represents more than an issue of ethics. It represents a paucity of moral courage, which I do not believe ABC News ever knew the meaning of or was ever bothered by, coupled with a blind avarice for high ratings. Most importantly, ABC News endorses the government’s rapidly expanding control of not only the economy but of virtually every aspect of the lives of this country’s citizens. But the fact remains that all three news anchors and their co-anchors report the government’s wishes as the metaphysically given. “It is raining outside.” “You will be fined by the government for not enrolling in its health care program.” Period.

The print press is no less guilty. Frank Rich, for example, in his New York Times article on June 14, “The Obama Haters’ Silent Enablers," was moved to smear any verbal opposition to the Obama agenda as goading “violent extremists.” This position is in complete agreement with the DHS memo of April (discussed in “A Cavalcade of Collectivism,” April 18), which lumped together all opposition, rational, semi-rational and irrational, as phenomena to be monitored and possibly stymied by the authorities, and insinuates that it is this kind of “free speech” that provokes assassins and civil unrest. To judge by the frenetic tone of his op-ed, Rich would likely welcome an Obama and Congressional version of Hitler’s 1933 Enabling Act, one that would suppress all “provocative” speech.

One cannot doubt the news media’s complicity in bringing fascism to this country. It is a complicity whose root is not some vast ignorance of what was being done. Ignorance of the law of identity is no excuse for breaking it; in an individual, reality will correct such ignorance. But there is no possible excuse, either, for a news organization that poses as politically sophisticated. It acts with full knowledge of the fraud and deception perpetrated by the Democrats on the country ever since Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency.

The accession of ABC News as a de facto department of the Obama administration ought to serve as convincing evidence of that complicity.

Crossposted at The Dougout

False Associated Press Report: Obama Did NOT Say Iran Must Respect Voters’ Choice

Bob McCarty writes of another instance of the Press carrying Obama's water:

Obama’s comments were mushy, yes, but at least he said the most important thing, according to AP:

He said it’s up to Iran to determine its own leaders but that the country must respect voters’ choice.

Why then have reputable people continued to pass harsh judgment? And why would AP paraphrase what would have been Obama’s key statement?

Turns out President Barack Obama said no such thing. What he actually said is that the VOICES of the Iranian people should be heard and respected, not their votes:

And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected.

This is consistent with the rest of Obama’s remarks. He never said a word about respecting votes. Obama did mention “the democratic process,” but far from saying anything about this process having to meet any standards of integrity, he instead implied strongly that he will accept whatever result the “process” followed by the Mullahs produces:

I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football…

Democracy means that Iranian sovereignty lies with the Iranian people and that a regime that rigs an election is NOT sovereign. Yet Obama is explicit that he will continue to treat the mullahs as the Iranian sovereign no matter how they judge the election.

Go read the whole thing at Bob's site.

Two Good Questions To Ask

UPDATE AT BOTTOM OF POST (from Pastorius)

The next time somebody tries to smear conservatism by citing James Von Brunn's attack on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, below is a strategy to use in the discussion: (from this essay by Andrew Breitbart):

[1] "Why was it outrageous 'guilt by association' to connect Barack Obama to a domestic terrorist like Bill Ayers and an anti-Semite like [the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.], but it's perfectly mainstream to associate all conservatives with this nut job?" asked Jonah Goldberg, best-selling author of "Liberal Fascism" and a nationally syndicated columnist.

[2] Or what about the countless terrorist attacks by unaffiliated Muslim groups or individual jihadists that the media explains away as isolated incidents? Somehow the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its media defenders win the day with their collective cry: "Don't rush to judgment!"

Mr. Breitbart concludes his essay with the following paragraph:

Right now, the Democratic-Media Complex is using the single act of a lone lunatic far removed from the political mainstream to split this country on racial grounds in the pursuit of its own political advantage. With the listless Republican Party lacking in any vocal leadership, it will probably succeed.

Don't let the tactics of leftist hypocrisy succeed! Answer back!

Please take time to read Andrew Breitbart's entire essay HERE.

(Hat tip to LA Sunsett for alerting me to the above essay)

Crossposted earlier this week to THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS and Infidel Bloggers Alliance

UPDATE: Damien left these links for us (thanks Damien):

"James von Brunn a Radical Atheist who Hated Christians and William F. Buckley, Just like Daily Kos!," 

"James von Brunn was an Admitted Socialist with Connections to Noam Chomsky"

Someone Please Tell Evan Thomas That The Rumors Of Obama's Godhead Are Greatly Exaggerated

I understand that Thomas is not, literally, saying that Obama is God, or even that he is, in some way, truly like God, all-knowing, all-powerful.

However, he is, literally, saying that Obama is, compared to other men, almost all-knowing and all-powerful.

That is fucking insane to me. It's the kind of delusion that a paranoid schizophrenic would come up with about a celebrity before he embarked on a serious stalking jag. This is the kind of delusion that often leads people, like Mark David Chapman, to murder people like John Lennon.

It ought to be a huge story that our media is so biased that the Editor of Newsweek could get away with saying this, and not get laughed out of the business.

Now, let us suppose that Evan Thomas knows that, even as compared to his fellow men, Obama is not a head-and-shoulders standout when it comes to being all-knowing and all-powerful.

If it is the case that Thomas is indeed cognizant of Obama's limitations when it comes to Omiscience and Omnipotence, then what the hell was Thomas referring to? Could he have been referring to the fact that Obama seems to be able to speak to a larger vision which many of the nations in the rest of the world would seem to need?

If this is the case, then it might help Thomas to know that Obama is not the first American President in history to make the decision to help other nations to arbitrate their moral problems. Reagan, Bush, FDR, Eisenhower, Truman, and even Bill Clinton, to some extent, did this.

This is what we mean, at least in part, by American Exceptionalism.

The Brits also played the role of moral arbitrator in pursuing their "Imperialistic" policy, what Kipling referred to as "White Man's Burden".

The Romans did this as well, obviously.

Russia did it too, in the sense that Communism was a philosophical system (religion) which dictated it's own moral vision to a huge number of the nations around the world.

But, Evan Thomas seems to think Obama has invented something, and that this invention puts him in a different class of leadership than any man before him.

Is that not complete insanity

=====================================================

Midnight Rider adds:

Evan Thomas is absolutely right in what he says but wrong for why he is saying it. This is exactly what Obama believes of himself and is his mission. To unite the world as one big happy fucking kumbaya we used to be the bully but now we're all pals and I'm just the Godlike person to do it.Spit.Well, we were never the bully you fucking moron Evan. We were an enforcer, a (often reluctant) policeman that stood up to the bullies of the world. The Hitlers, the Husseins, the Andropov's. Once Obama has emasculated us (sorry, ladies, best word to use at the moment) what are the rest of you going to do, Merkel and Sarkozy and Brown et. al. when Putin bares his fangs for real, when and ascendant China makes her move, or a crazy damn NorK leader decides to send one flying south? Who ya gonna call?This is precisely why I said a few days ago the biggest threat to The United States and our National sSecurity is not Al Qaida or North Korea or Iran or China or even Obama. It is our own fucking media who spew this vomit believe it themselves and thereby get a stupid sleeping citizenry to believe becasue they are too damn lazy to look elsewhere and too much of a rush for Little Johnny's soccer match and get home in time for Desperate Housewives to think for their fucking selves

Instead of praising Obama for this kind of nonsense he shoudl be using the same phrases to slam him for it.

Evan Thomas: "Obama...Is Sort Of God"

Gateway Pundit has more.

The problem with priorities?

Day after day, for over 8 years, we were contaminated by the MSM's drool, inundated with their screams of glee and nary a peep from the government, over pictures like these:

Yet, when the right throws a couple of these:

the MSM screams in frightened hysteria and the government labels us extremists?

We've got a problem.

Rabbi Holtzberg was not murdered because of a territorial dispute over Kashmir or because of Bush’s foreign policy.

As usual, Mark Steyn gets to the heard of the matter:

Shortly after the London Tube bombings in 2005, a reader of Tim Blair, the Sydney Daily Telegraph’s columnar wag, sent him a note-perfect parody of a typical newspaper headline: “British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow’s Train Bombing.”

Indeed. And so it goes. This time round — Bombay — it was the Associated Press that filed a story about how Muslims “found themselves on the defensive once again about bloodshed linked to their religion.”

The discovery that, for the first time in an Indian terrorist atrocity, Jews had been attacked, tortured, and killed produced from the New York Times a serene befuddlement: “It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.”

Hmm. Greater Bombay forms one of the world’s five biggest cities. It has a population of nearly 20 million. But only one Jewish center, located in a building that gives no external clue as to the bounty waiting therein. An “accidental hostage scene” that one of the “practitioners” just happened to stumble upon? “I must be the luckiest jihadist in town. What are the odds?” (Read it all)

Learn More:

1. Video-- Robert Spencer takes a look a the UK's Orwellian "Islam is Peace" campaign, which is actually designed to fight critics of terrorism, not terrorism itself:


(Hat tip: Drishtikone)

2. Tom Gross: How the media tries to avoid the truth-- If This Isn't Terrorism, What Is?

3. When will the media show some consistency in defining terror?

4. London Times Coverage of Mumbai Events Includes Anti-Semitic Remark

5. Previous coverage: Mumbai attack - Analysis and Comments by Mark Steyn, Bill Roggio, & others; Videos

6. Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, delivers his address at the memorial service for Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg at the Chabad House in Westwood California. Video & related links.

7. During the "Mohammed Cartoon Crisis", much of the MSM did not publish the cartoons-- often claiming that this was out of a desire to avoid hurting the feelings of the world's Muslims. But was this the real reason?

8. Mark Steyn's book-- America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It

Related articles on Newsvine by topic: Anti-Semitism, India, Media bias, Terrorism, More videos,



Vote for/Discuss on Digg

(Cross-posted on A Deeper Look)