Friday, June 19, 2009
Where's Al Gore?
I’ve clipped and accumulated about a hundred news articles, decreasing in size and moving further back in the pages week to week, about the first political hostages of the Obama administration, the two reporters who work for Al Gore’s TV network. They were captured, held hostage, fake-tried and sentenced to 12 years in a labor camp in North Korea.I’ve also taken notes on the TV news coverage. At first, mention was routinely made that they were “employees of Current-TV, the company created and owned by Al Gore.” That fact has been mentioned less and less frequently. Even an item in the June 11 Wall Street Journal referred to them as employees of the San Francisco-based Current TV, omitting mention of Nobel Prize Winner, leading hero of the Left, all around good guy and humanitarian, conscience of America, internationally beloved and respected but, for the moment, silent and invisible Mr. Gore.
Given that two of the journalists in his employee have been snatched and held hostage, kangaroo court-convicted and are now beginning their term of enslavement, torture, and use as negotiating pawns by North Korea, shouldn’t we and the entire world be seeing at least as much of The Great Gore as when he was running around promoting his movie or preening about his award?
Shouldn’t he be everywhere on the TV dial, from “Meet the Press” to “Letterman?” On the editorial pages? At the White House, news-pack in tow, to meet urgently with his buddy the president and his old compatriot, Hillary, contributing his impressive intellect and world influence to the rapid rescue of these employees of his? On one of the giant carbon footprint jets he uses to zip about for speaking engagements and corporate board meetings? Shouldn’t he be landing in Beijing with the press-corps and maybe Jesse Jackson or Jimmy Carter or some other nose-sticker-inner, to meet with the Chinese leaders and compel their direct intervention?
Maybe I’ve just missed seeing all this happening. After all, what with the president’s relentless, endless campaign of “major speeches” and town halls, and travels to countries distant from our hostages, with infomercials coming out of the White House, something like Al Gore’s Rescue Mission might slip by unnoticed...
There is one other possibility. That The Great Gore is not very great at all. That he is a pompous blowhard and pretender and about as humanitarian as a tin can. That he is a yellow-bellied coward; a selfish narcissist not about to fritter away a dime of his quite enormous wealth, endanger his image or ego through risked failure, or sacrifice political capital by demanding action from our government or the feckless U.N. or the world community that’s bestowed so many laurels on him. That he has no influence or integrity. That he is perfectly willing to hide and cower and hope that, soon, the media will stop mentioning the hostages altogether. Then it’ll be safe for him to reappear on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show to lecture us all about the size of our cars or the aerosol cans we buy or the bottled water in our fridges.
(Dan Kennedy, Town Hall column, June 19)
Obama Headache: An Inspector General Who "Goes Not Gently Into That Dark Night"
Though the state-run media hasn't yet shown much interest in the matter, the illegal firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin may not go away as easy as Team Obama hopes. Here's a few of the latest soundings.* "Walloping Walpin" from "The Prowler" over at the American Spectator;
* "A Witness to Walpin-gate: The White House Excuse for Firing an IG Falls Flat" from the Washington Times editors;
* "How Republicans Can Crack the AmeriCorps Scandal" by Byron York over in the new Washington Examiner;
* "Gerald Walpin Is Superman" by Glenn Beck; and
* "Gerald Walpin is Not Afraid," a lengthy but excellent analysis by Rush Limbaugh.
Civil Rights Commission to Obama Administration: Not So Fast on Dismissing Voter Intimidation Case
About that deeply troubling malefaction committed by Obama's Justice Department last month in which it dismissed the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for their harassing, blocking, nightstick-weilding antics in front of a Philadelphia polling place. Jennifer Rubin reports in the "Contentions" section of Commentary that the affair may not be over after all.The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has now taken up the issue and sent a letter to Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division, demanding an explanation. By a vote of 4-0 (with one member abstaining for reasons not yet clear), the Commission members voted to send the letter seeking to get to the bottom of this. After setting out the facts which gave rise to the original Justice Department complaint, the Commissioners explain:
"Though it had basically won the case and could have submitted a motion for default judgment against the Party and its members for failing to respond to the Division’s complaint, the Division took the unusual move of voluntarily dismissing the charges against all but the defendant who waived [sic] the nightstick. Yet even as to that remaining defendant, the only relief the Division requested was weak - an injunction prohibiting him from displaying the weapon within 100 feet of any polling place in Philadelphia. It has since been revealed that one of the defendants had been carrying credentials as a member of, and poll watcher for, the local Democratic committee."
The Commissioners write that the previously announced efforts by the Justice Department to play an aggressive role in enforcing voting rights “ring hollow if they are not accompanied by swift, decisive action to prosecute obvious violators.” The Commissioners ask that the Civil Rights Division advise the Commission of the rationale for dismissing the charges against defendants and of its evidentiary and legal standards for dismissing certain charges in cases of alleged voter intimidation.” They further ask for information on “any similar cases in which CRD has dismissed charges against a defendant.”
It should be noted that Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) has already sent a similar letter to the Justice Department demanding an explanation for the dismissal. It should also be noted that if the Justice Department stonewalls, the Commission does have the right to issue subpoenas and to investigate the matter further. Perhaps the Commission will get to the bottom of this issue and determine who in the Justice Department overrode the decisions of career lawyers and why the Justice Department chose to abandon a successful prosecution of the most egregious case of voter intimidation in recent memory.
What is even more remarkable in this already eye-popping story is that an independent commission has been forced to take this matter up because the relevant oversight committees in Congress have failed to hold a single hearing concerning the matter. One would think those in Congress who squawked so loudly about alleged failure in the Bush administration to enforce civil rights laws and who objected so strenuously to “politcization” of justice by appointees meddling with the work of career attorneys would have shown more interest in the matter.
Obama's Shameful Temerity on Iran
Charles Krauthammer's column in the Washington Post should be read in full. It is an urgent article that one hopes and prays will persuade the White House to take a decisive stand for freedom.Millions of Iranians take to the streets to defy a theocratic dictatorship that, among its other finer qualities, is a self-declared enemy of America and the tolerance and liberties it represents. The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.
And what do they hear from the president of the United States? Silence. Then, worse. Three days in, the president makes clear his policy: continued "dialogue" with their clerical masters.
Dialogue with a regime that is breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, expelling journalists, arresting activists. Engagement with -- which inevitably confers legitimacy upon -- leaders elected in a process that begins as a sham (only four handpicked candidates permitted out of 476) and ends in overt rigging.
Then, after treating this popular revolution as an inconvenience to the real business of Obama-Khamenei negotiations, the president speaks favorably of "some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."
Where to begin? "Supreme Leader"? Note the abject solicitousness with which the American president confers this honorific on a clerical dictator who, even as his minions attack demonstrators, offers to examine some returns in some electoral districts -- a farcical fix that will do nothing to alter the fraudulence of the election.
Moreover, this incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators.
This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East...
And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Today's Posts
Amanda Knox Case: New York Times Ignores the Evidence
Don't Worry About The Media Holding You Accountable, Mr. President. Just Make Stuff Up As You Go Along.
Komen Organization Responds to Criticism (But Not Very Well)
Robert Samuelson: "It's Hard to Know Whether President Obama's Health Care 'Reform' is Naive, Hypocritical or Simply Dishonest. Probably All Three."
Missing the NLRC Convention? You Don't Have to Miss The Terri Schiavo Story.
This Nearly Was Mine
Amanda Knox Case: New York Times Ignores the Evidence
...These are only a few examples of the wildly deceptive account of the Amanda Knox trial printed in the Times. The reason this is important is that this is how the Times portrays all criminal prosecutions: Ruthless prosecutor railroads innocent bystanders for mysterious reasons. (Unless the victim is a late-term abortionist or the accused is a Duke lacrosse player.)The only difference in the Knox case, compared to run-of-the-mill criminal cases, is that the copious foreign reporting on the case makes it child's play to see how egregiously the Times is lying this time.
I haven't been following this case but Ann Coulter certainly brought me up to speed. Perhaps more important, she reviews why I wouldn't have got the straight story anyway. Good reading.
Don't Worry About The Media Holding You Accountable, Mr. President. Just Make Stuff Up As You Go Along.
Victor Davis Hanson gives us another "must-read" in this superb (but alarming) NRO article, "Just Make Stuff Up: President Obama’s War on the Truth."In the first six months of the Obama administration, we have witnessed an assault on the truth of a magnitude not seen since the Nixon Watergate years. The prevarication is ironic given the Obama campaign’s accusations that the Bush years were not transparent and that Hillary Clinton, like her husband, was a chronic fabricator. Remember Obama’s own assertions that he was a “student of history” and that “words mean something. You can’t just make stuff up.”
Yet Obama’s war against veracity is multifaceted.
Trotskyization. Sometimes the past is simply airbrushed away. Barack Obama has a disturbing habit of contradicting his past declarations as if spoken words did not mean much at all. The problem is not just that once-memorable statements about everything from NAFTA to public campaign financing were contradicted by his subsequent actions. Rather, these pronouncements simply were ignored to the point of making it seem they were never really uttered at all...
Outright historical dissimulation. On matters of history, we now know that much of what President Obama says is either not factual or at least misleading. He predictably errs on the side of political correctness. During the campaign, there was his inaccurate account of his great-uncle’s role in liberating Auschwitz. In Berlin, he asserted that the world — rather than the American and British air forces — came together to pull off the Berlin Airlift.
In the Cairo speech, nearly every historical allusion was nonfactual or inexact: the fraudulent claims that Muslims were responsible for European, Chinese, and Hindu discoveries; the notion that a Christian Córdoba was an example of Islamic tolerance during the Inquisition; the politically correct canard that the Renaissance and Enlightenment were fueled by Arab learning; the idea that abolition and civil rights in the United States were accomplished without violence — as if 600,000 did not die in the Civil War, or entire swaths of Detroit, Gary, Newark, and Los Angeles did not go up in flames in the 1960s.
Here we see the omnipotent influence of Obama’s multicultural creed: Western civilization is unexceptional in comparison with other cultures, and history must be the story of an ecumenical, global shared brotherhood...
Hanson gives examples from other categories too (i.e. the “Big Lie” and the Half-and Less-Than-Half Truth) in this fine piece. Don't let it get by.
Komen Organization Responds to Criticism (But Not Very Well)
In response to last week's post here, "The Fight Against Breast Cancer Deserves Better: Komen Foundation Continues To Partner with Planned Parenthood," Claire wrote to the organization. I print below their response. It's a courteous letter but completely unapologetic about Komen's involvement with the nation's largest abortion company, Planned Parenthood.There are other interesting items in the Komen response too. Among them is the use of "two Catholic ethicists" to try and prop up their partnerships with Planned Parenthood. Of course, organizations like Komen only trot out religious spokesmen and treat them as respected, reliable authorities when they carefully agree with the organization's aims.
Furthermore, the fellows cited are notorious for liberalizing Catholic teaching. For instance, they've defended the callous practices that resulted in the death of Terri Schiavo and Hamel has so distorted Church teaching that he urges Catholic hospitals to "treat" rape victims by giving them abortifacient chemicals! No wonder Komen sought out these kind of "ethicists."
You'll also notice that the Komen letter goes out of its way to pour cold water on the links between abortion and breast cancer. One wonders why they would even bring the issue up since Claire's letter concerned only the disgusting partnership between Komen and a business that daily destroys the lives of thousands of girls and boys. But simple denials are not a sufficient answer to the established scientific evidence...evidence that can be explored further right here.
Dear Claire,
This year, as in the past, Susan G. Komen for the Cure® is being criticized by some for funding a handful of women’s health programs run by, or with ties to, Planned Parenthood. I’m writing this letter to explain our position and to correct any misinformation you may have heard about this issue.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure exists for only one reason: to save lives and to end breast cancer forever. In the past 27 years, we’ve invested more than $1.3 billion to accomplish those goals through research and for programs that educate, screen and treat people in communities all around the world.
Early screening through mammograms and education is critical to end the suffering from this disease: 98 percent of women treated for early stage breast cancer, before it spreads, are alive five years later. The widespread use of mammography and heightened public awareness of breast cancer both contribute to these favorable statistics.
And while Komen Affiliates provide funds to pay for screening, education and treatment programs in dozens of communities, in some areas, the only place that poor, uninsured or under-insured women can receive these services are through programs run by Planned Parenthood.
These facilities serve rural women, poor women, Native American women, women of color, and the un- and under-insured. As part of our financial arrangements, we monitor our grantees twice a year to be sure they are spending the money in line with our agreements, and we are assured that Planned Parenthood uses these funds only for breast health education, screening and treatment programs.
As long as there is a need for health care for these women, Komen Affiliates will continue to fund the facilities that meet that need. Susan G. Komen for the Cure headquarters has never granted funds to Planned Parenthood.
One year ago, two Catholic ethicists – Ron Hamel, Ph.D. and Michael Panicola, Ph.D. – examined the moral implications of our funding decision. They concluded that it was morally permissible for the church to be involved with Komen in light of its funding agreements with Planned Parenthood.
“The fact that some Komen affiliates, at times, provide funding to Planned Parenthood specifically and solely for breast health services cannot on the face of it be construed as wrongdoing,” the ethicists wrote. “The good that Komen does and the harm that would come to so many women if Komen ceased to exist or ceased to be funded would seem to be a sufficiently proportionate reason” for Catholics to support our funding decisions (emphasis added).
Another piece of misinformation being spread by many who criticize Komen for the Cure for its Planned Parenthood grants is that abortion causes breast cancer. Well-conducted research consistently fails to support this claim. We agree with the bulk of scientific evidence – from the National Cancer Institute, Harvard, a rigorous study in Denmark and from Oxford University – that there is no conclusive link between breast cancer and induced abortion or miscarriage.
It is important for women to receive accurate information about risk factors for breast cancer. There are steps a woman can take to reduce her risk of developing breast cancer (for example, maintaining a healthy weight) as well as important steps every woman should take to make sure that, if she does develop breast cancer, it is detected and treated as soon as possible. A complete list of risk factors and screening recommendations can be found on our website www.komen.org.
More detailed information is on our web site at www.komen.org. We invite you to review the documents there, and we thank you again for taking time to investigate our position on this issue.
Jamie Benton for Eric Winer, M.D. Chief Scientific Advisor
Susan G. Komen for the Cure®
In Claire's follow-up letter to the organization she quotes Judie Brown's analysis of Komen's justification of their involvement with Planned Parenthood:
...Or to put it another way, if organization A (Komen) can make a claim of doing good and helping the bad organization B (Planned Parenthood) do some good at the same time, then all the bad the bad organization is doing can be ignored and the fundraising for organization A can continue without question. The good outweighs the evil.
If I take this argument to its logical conclusion, then one can assume that collaboration with an evil enterprise is acceptable because "cooperation" with the evil B is involved in is not direct cooperation. But isn't it?
If Komen provides, for example, a $100,000 grant to Planned Parenthood of Anytown, USA, then wouldn't it be possible for the grant to free up $100,000 of Planned Parenthood's existing funds, to provide other services? Could that mean more money for sex education, birth control for minors without parental consent or for marketing abortion to expectant mothers?
Can all the good in the world that A is doing outweigh the murder of even one preborn child – be it a one-day-old preborn or a six-month-old preborn – that B is committing? Can we tolerate a little evil now for a promised larger good later? Should any organization hold hands with evil?
Throughout my experience with moral theologians who take pages and pages to explain something that is questionable, it has always been my opinion that a simple yes or no would be a whole lot better.
In the case of Komen and its alliances with Planned Parenthood, given my non-degree in moral theology, I say no to Komen, no to collaboration with Planned Parenthood on any level – just plain no!
Robert Samuelson: "It's Hard to Know Whether President Obama's Health Care 'Reform' is Naive, Hypocritical or Simply Dishonest. Probably All Three."
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), the main architect of the President's health care reform, can now count the Chamber of Commerce, the Washington Post, and the White House among his bill's latest critics. Even the administration, which tapped Kennedy to lead the overhaul, is backing away from the proposal that it helped conceive. After the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an unflattering picture of the bill's cost, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs couldn't backpedal fast enough. "This is not the administration's bill," he tried to explain.The President may sidestep his involvement in the legislation, but he cannot distance himself from the expensive reality of a government takeover of health care--a goal that could cost well over $1 trillion in the next decade. He claims the government can cut billions from Medicare and Medicaid to pay for the initiative, but the only way the President could possibly save money is to limit benefits, that is, by rationing health care.
According to the CBO, liberals are lowballing the price of Kennedy's plan. As the Cato Institute points out, when Medicare was launched in 1965, Part A (coverage for seniors) was projected to cost $9 billion. By 1990, it had cost $67 billion. "It's hard to know whether President Obama's health care 'reform' is naive, hypocritical or simply dishonest. Probably all three," writes Newsweek and Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson. "The president keeps saying it's imperative to control runaway health spending. He's right. The trouble is that what's being promoted as health care 'reform' almost certainly won't suppress spending and, quite probably, will do the opposite."
(Family Research Council's Washington Update, June 17)
By all means, let your political representatives know your opinions about government-run heath care. Use the material above and perhaps a few lines from the Samuelson article mentioned (I've provided the link for you above) and let's kick this thing back in the can. For contact info on your Senators, Congressman and the President, go here.
Missing the NLRC Convention? You Don't Have to Miss The Terri Schiavo Story.
If you're attending National Right to Life's annual convention which starts today in Charlotte, North Carolina, you'll be privileged to attend a special screening of the new documentary, The Terri Schiavo Story. But if you're not in Charlotte, don't worry. You can see The Terri Schiavo Story in your own home.Better still, you can do what we have done and host your own screening of this powerful and compelling film for friends plus presenting a second showing for our whole church.
Here's a previous Vital Signs post about that. And here's more on the film itself.
This Nearly Was Mine
AP Photographer Pablo Martinez Monsivais snapped this pensive, almost poignant shot of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last Tuesday.Clinton is standing in the colonnade of the White House, looking on from a distance at the joint news conference of President Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak in the Rose Garden.
Is she thinking of what might have been? Of what, in fact, almost was?
And liberal as her politics are, when compared with the radical assault on the U.S. Constitution, America's economy and the nation's values that has been mounted by Barack Obama, there's a lot of Americans (Republicans included) who feel the same sighing regret.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Monday Morning at an Abortion Clinic: What's Normal Is Exactly What's So Tragic
I mentioned last Monday our sidewalk counseling at the Bellevue abortion clinic where the notorious Leroy Carhart kills preborn children. As regular visitors to this blog know, a few of us engage in this peaceful, prayerful ministry every week there. And our demeanor, our purposes, and our methods are the same that they've been for nearly three decades: beginning at abortion clinics on 49th and L (now closed down), at 46th and Douglas (now closed down), on S. 16th Street in Council Bluffs (now closed down), and at various other abortion facilities around the country.Those guidelines for our sidewalk counseling ministry can be read right here at the Vital Signs Ministries website.
During our time we have seen several abortionists quit the grisly business: Epp, Weidman, Orr, and Severson. We continue to pray for them -- none of them has yet repented from the innocent blood they've shed -- even as we continue to pray for the thugs who continue to commit abortions in our state, Carhart in Bellevue and C. J. Labenz who kills children for the enrichment of Planned Parenthood in Lincoln.
The vigilante assassination of George Tiller in Kansas (which we denounced the day of the murder and several times since then in print, in cyberspace and even on TV) has had direct effects here in our area because of Carhart's association with Tiller. Thus the unusual circumstances we encountered Monday morning that I briefly cited in Monday's post. Those circumstances included federal marshals escorting the abortionist to and from the trashy facility there on Mission Avenue plus the intimidating presence of two other cops of some sort near the abortion clinic entrance.
One wonders why the feds and local police haven't responded in a similar way to the murder of Pvt. William A. Long by Muslim terrorist Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad. After all, federal marshals are not escorting military recruiters to their jobs. Nor are they investigating the recruitment and training of Islamic jihadists in American prisons and tax-supported Muslim schools. No, I'm afraid that the police response is just as troublesomely uneven as have been President Obama's and the general media to these two murders. It's a very disturbing picture of how distorted our nation's values have become.
I walked over and talked to the two plainclothes policemen (feds, I think; local detectives probably wouldn't have been driving a rental) but they weren't admitting to anything, particularly that they were The Man. Still, it was a pleasant chat (a bit of cat and mouse, to be sure), but I wanted them to get a fuller, firsthand picture of what pro-life activists are about. Not crazy. Not vengeful. Not full of hate and bitterness. But kindly, intelligent and dedicated to the Christian virtues.
There was another unusual conversation earlier that morning as a young woman came out claiming to be a writer from New York doing a story for Newsweek. Was she? Who knows -- we've encountered a lot of gags over the years. But she played her part well and we did ours too, giving her 15-20 minutes of conversation. She was obviously well steeped in the abortionist's regular justifications, distortions and sheer lies. And whether or not Quint and I broke through, we don't know. We both figured afterward that she probably was a reporter and so I'd ask you to pray that she does a fair news story for her magazine.
But with all the unusual trimmings on the morning, the most important activity was the young women (we believe there were at least eight) who went in to have abortions. Quint and I had a little time to appeal to them from our vantage point. "Girls, the reason we're here this morning is to let you know a few of the facts about abortion -- facts that they withhold from you inside this place. Can we talk to you just a couple of minutes and let you know about the dangers of abortion to your health and future? And let you know of the alternatives we can offer you?"
But the key counseling is provided by Claire and the women that stand with her near the abortion clinic entrance. None of the clients availed themselves (and their babies) of our offers of help on Monday. That was the only "usual" thing of the morning -- and that's what made it, as all such days are, terribly tragic.
How Can Killing One's Child Be Considered "An Adventure in Parenting?" Ask the New York Times.
Only in the convoluted, wicked thinking of the modern era could a bunch of whiny, egotistic excuses for murdering one's own preborn baby be lodged in the New York Times' "Adventures In Parenting" feature!
This is one of the most nauseating pieces I've read in awhile.
Dear God, save us from our shameless, monstrously self-centered rebellion.
This is one of the most nauseating pieces I've read in awhile.
Dear God, save us from our shameless, monstrously self-centered rebellion.
The Cult of Barack
In a world gone wacky, I appreciate more than ever the clear thinking, sound advice and direct writing of such people as Victor Davis Hanson, Chuck Colson, Mark Steyn, Michelle Malkin, Randy Alcorn, Tony Perkins, Conn Carroll...and, of course, David Limbaugh.Excuse my mastery of the obvious, but I have to believe the greatest obstacle to America's return to policy sanity is the electorate's cultish adoration of Barack Obama.
If it weren't for this disturbing phenomenon -- not to discount a healthy dose of blind partisanship -- it is inconceivable that the majority of people would tolerate Obama's dismantling of America's free market system, his returning America to a pre-9/11 mindset against terrorists, his increasing usurpations of power, and his corrupt ties and practices, from the public funding of ACORN to the summary dismissal of the case against the Black Panthers to his firing of inspector general Gerald Walpin apparently for uncovering corruption by Obama's friends.
I don't quite understand how people, especially religious people, can place their trust for salvation in a fellow mortal, but history shows they do, and present-day America shows they are. From MSNBC's Chris Matthews' admitting Obama sends a thrill up his leg to audience members' fainting at his speeches to young girls' kissing his statue like brainless bookends, the trend continues unabated.
Even some not entranced by his supposed charisma are indirectly affected by it, evidenced by their unbounded willingness to give him the benefit of every doubt. They are impervious to his narcissism, indifferent to his megalomaniacal pursuit of power, ceaselessly forgiving of his childish scapegoating of the previous administration, and oblivious to his extremism.
The mainstream media are his biggest institutional enablers, drooling over his every utterance, irrespective of his many contradictions, his assaults on the Constitution and our liberties, and his spate of broken promises.
...Cultish attraction destroys logic, reason and sound judgment.
Nor can rational thought explain the serial applauses from Obama's American Medical Association audience as he told them he is going to place the square peg of socialized medicine into the round hole of improving quality and decreasing costs -- all without diminishing patient choice or physician authority.
Then consider the American Jewish community, which still overwhelmingly supports Obama despite his egregious displays of disrespect toward Israel, its history, its moral position and its fundamental right to national defense. And there are large segments of the Christian community -- Catholic and evangelical -- that either lie to themselves about Obama's depraved, militant position in supporting even partial-birth abortion or compartmentalize it into artificial irrelevance.
And how about rank-and-file Democrats who consider themselves fiscally conservative? Partisan loyalties notwithstanding, how can they sit by idly as they watch Obama's spending horror show unfold? How can they delude themselves into believing this obscene and insane spending -- guaranteed to financially, and maybe politically, enslave our children -- can ever be justified?
At some point, the spell will dissipate. The question is whether that will happen in time to prevent irreversible damage to this nation.
The Obama Doctrine: “Treat Your Enemies Like Friends, and Your Friends Like Enemies.”
Are these the hallmarks of the Obama Doctrine?
It sure looks like it to J.G. Thayer over at Commentary. Check it out.
It sure looks like it to J.G. Thayer over at Commentary. Check it out.
Letterman's Sponsors -- Tell Them What You Think.
About those sponsors of David Letterman's Late Show, you know, the sponsors that should be hearing our displeasure that they still advertise on the program despite the outrageous, dangerous "jokes" Letterman made about the public rape of Sarah Palin's daughter?
You'll find them (and a lot more) at Fire David Letterman.
You'll find them (and a lot more) at Fire David Letterman.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)