Today, the President honored the undefeated 1972 football Dolphins in the White House. Read more
After the media’s breathless run up to the election of Pope Francis, it seems that they taken upon themselves the task of scrutinizing his past. They are examining everything from his childhood, his education, his role in resisting the Argentinian military dictatorship’s “Dirty War” back in the late seventies through early eighties. One story from the Huffington Post exemplifies this (MSNBC is also showing its concern):
The election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio as the new Pope Francis brought joy to Argentina, but has also cast a spotlight on the religious leader’s dark past, scarred by allegations of collaborating in the case of two Jesuits who were kidnapped by the country’s military dictatorship for five months in 1976. One of them accused Bergoglio — then his superior at the Society of Jesus — of being behind his abduction.
Now, while I am glad to see that the press actually has the capability to dig into a person’s past, where was all this curiosity and zeal was (and is) when Øbama, our “lord and savior” (according to that great pundit, Jamie Foxx, anyway), was being “vetted”? If anything, the press was strangely (or typically, depending on your viewpoint) incurious and silent on president’s background, and remains so to this day.
Why is the background of the Pope, who is powerful in his own right, but really has little effect many of the U.S.’s citizens, subject to such intense scrutiny, but the background of the president, who directly affects every single one of us (including the church, as evidenced by new Øbamacare rules for Catholic institutions), not the subject of comparable levels of microexamination? For that matter, one might ask why was the background of newcomer Sarah Palin the object of such passionate “journalism”? Of course, these questions are rhetorical; the answer is clear.
As Mr. Spock would say, it is “fascinating”.
Don’t forget that prior to the pope’s election, there was much talk about how the new Pope, whoever he might be, will deal with the recent sex scandals that occurred in the church and how the church will deal with its policies on homosexuality. It is beyond amazing to me that they could issue these observations when the pederasty problem in the church appears to originate with the homosexuals that have joined the clergy. Obviously, it isn’t politically “correct” to note this Gordian Knot.
Similarly, the media has been running with stories incorporating the meme of the “Stained glass ceiling”, and pontificating (pun intended) about the church’s “inflexibility” on things like women priests potentially leading to it becoming “inconsequential” in the world.
Consider this: if the church is becoming so “inconsequential”, why would Biden, Pelosi and DeLauro attend the investiture of the new Pope? If the church is so rigid and inflexible, why would they allow this trio of abortion enthusiasts to receive Holy Communion? If the position of the church on the role of women in the clergy is so egregious, when can we expect the stories to commence on the role of women in Islam? Given the parameters the press uses for the Roman Catholic church, shouldn’t Islam likewise be in danger of becoming inconsequential? When will our crack reporters tackle this?
Clearly, the hypocrisy and liberal bias of the press with respect to the Church compared to that of Øbama is palpable. Maybe it is time the press remembers that the Church, any church, is based on faith, is equally protected by the First Amendment, and if you don’t like the tenets of the church you are in, perhaps you should find another that fits your needs, rather than forcing the church to change to suit you.
Tomorrow is election day. Are you ready? Are you still undecided? Well perhaps this may just put some things into perspective for you. Read more
We all are coming to realize that the Øbama regime displayed remarkable stupidity in the way they covered up the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three others in Benghazi. Clearly, despite Øbama’s false outrage at debate #2, the coverup was clearly political, designed to keep the story suppressed and the blame off of Øbama prior to the election. The facts and the timelines support this. We now know what they knew and when they knew it.
But consider another side effect of this coverup: did the focusing of blame on an otherwise completely unknown anti Muslim movie to cover the regime’s incompetence in an election season spark all of the violent protests in the Middle East and beyond? So what was the real trigger?
As far as I can determine, the offending movie was posted on YouTube back on July 1, 2012 and nothing happened. No violence, no comments, no nothing. It didn’t go viral on the internet. Nothing. Then the preezy and his minions use it as a scapegoat to cover their incompetence. Then the violence begins. Øbama and his mouthpieces continue to blame the movie for his fecklessness for the next two weeks, even apologizing at the UN, and the violence increases.
If there is one thing we know about Muslim outrage, it is that it can be turned on like a light switch. So why the apparent delay?
I submit to you that there was no delay: nobody knew or cared about the movie until Øbama and his mouthpieces came out and put it out as the reason for their lousy support for our ambassador. That is when the troubles began. All the violence started after the preezy blamed the “protest” on the movie, not before. A look at Wikipedia on “reactions to Innocence of Muslims” show the violent protest, injuries and deaths as occurring on or after 9/11/12.
Did the Øbama regime scheme to use the hyper sensitivity of Muslims to cause the Middle East to blow up as it did to lend credence to their fabricated story, or was it just more rank incompetence? It really doesn’t matter at this point, as the effects are the same: people are dead, property destroyed and the image of the United States further besmirched by the clowns in the White House and the State Department.
It is my contention that the Øbama administration is to blame for the rash of post Benghazi violence and deaths in their haste to cover up the mess in Benghazi. The inescapable fact is that they bear full responsibility for all the collateral damage, both political and in lives and property.
Øbama says the buck stops with him. Let him prove it.
Political commentary is my brother’s forte, not mine. But, I feel a bit compelled to comment on tonight’s festivities. Read more
We, as voters, are confronted with two distinct theories of taxation in the upcoming election. Our choice will frame our future, so let’s look back for guidance. Read more
This is an amazing display of arrogance and disrespect for our legal system on President Obama’s part. Let me first give you the background. Read more
Our old “friend” Stephanie Cutter, Øbama deputy campaign manager, in yet another Romney attack, cited “a strongly worded anti-Mitt Romney editorial” from the official state news agency (read it: propaganda wing) of the Chinese Communist Party, Xinhua. (UPDATE: Joe Biden also cites this Chinese article to attack Romney.)
I know what you are thinking. Yes, even though parts of it read like a Democrat press releases or talking point memos, or a New York Times editorial, once you get past the obvious “why is the DNC citing ChiCom controlled news agencies?”, the rest of the article makes you wonder who is really being criticized. Sure, they lambasted Romney for “China battering”:
“While addressing a rally in the U.S. state of Virginia on Thursday, Romney, just as what he has done along his campaign trail, opened fire on China, claiming that it was Beijing’s undervalued RMB currency that forced U.S. manufacturers out of job.
What is more sensational is that this millionaire GOP candidate has vowed to declare China a currency manipulator on the first day of his presidency if elected.
Yet it is rather ironic that a considerable portion of this China-battering politician’s wealth was actually obtained by doing business with Chinese companies before he entered politics.”
And the latter is, of course the “money line” that Cutter wants you to hear and stop reading, but if you take the time to actually read the rest of the article, it is a real stretch to apply most of it to Romney: it actually turns out to be a criticism of Øbama’s policies:
“However, the U.S. economy is still undergoing one of the lousiest recoveries in history, while its unemployment rates remain staggeringly high and trade deficits with China continue to rise.”
“It has also become a handy tool for U.S. politicians who try to court the votes and support of ill-informed voters by ratcheting up antagonistic sentiment towards China, while truly serious social and economic woes within the United States have been left unfixed.”
Isn’t it obvious who is really making the “outsourcing” attacks? Who is supposedly in charge of the economy? You sure can’t say Romney is. And more:
“To cure its economic ailments, the United States needs to put its own fiscal house back in order, substantially slash its tremendous military expenditure, and optimize its economic structure.”
Now that sounds more like a condemnation of the past four years of this administration than anything else. But that isn’t the message Xinhua wants to put across. Notice how the name of Øbama is only mentioned in a Romney quote? One can understand why China doesn’t like “China battering”, and seeks to defend against it, but it is the Democrats who squeal loudest about job outsourcing, while Romney’s criticism is focused on the monetary manipulation of the Chinese yuan to further advantage the Chinese economy.
Could the lack of serious criticism of Øbama himself by Xinhua reflect a likely Chinese preference for the acquiescent, apologizing-for-America and bowing-to-foreign-leaders Øbama and his “disarm America” (directly and indirectly) as opposed to a pro military Romney? Could Øbama’s rank ineptitude in fixing the American economy (ironically borrowing from China to fund his schemes) be more beneficial to China than an economically revitalized economy under Romney?
If, as they claim, “a considerable portion of this China-battering politician’s wealth was actually obtained by doing business with Chinese companies before he entered politics”, that would be in China’s favor. Why would they be criticizing Romney and not the Democrats and Øbama in particular?
Perhaps because these claims are an exaggeration or aren’t really true? What is “a considerable portion”? They don’t say. Isn’t anyone buying a cheap Chinese DVD player “doing business with Chinese companies”?
Here is an interesting point: a search of Xinhua’s site for “Obama” reveals news from the Middle East, a pro Øbama article, another attack on Romney, lots more ME news, more pro Øbama post convention news (here and here), and it continues on and on. Check for yourself. You really get the impression that the Chinese are hesitant to criticize Øbama too much. Or at all.
Considering that Øbama has done more than any other president to put us in China’s thrall, and China’s subtle appreciation of that, do you think it might have been a mistake (on several levels) by the Democrats to cite Xinhua?
Maybe they should stick to reading and citing domestic propaganda sources, like the NYTimes and the Washington Post….
This video made the rounds yesterday via Townhall but the best part came immediately afterward when Matthews refers to MN Congressman Keith Ellison has “your crowd”, calling blacks the real Americans. Read more
As a conservatarian and I find this chunk of video from Barack Obama’s campaign in Ohio yesterday simply chilling. You’ll just have to decide for yourself. Read more