MSNBC host, Andrea Mitchell, attacked Mitt Romney for making collections to help the victims effected by Hurricane Sandy.
“And then you have the image of Mitt Romney, doing what they say is not a campaign event, in the same space they were going to hold a campaign event,” says Mitchell. “They say they are making collections for hurricane and storm relief. Chris Cillizza, first to you: We checked with the Red Cross, the Red Cross said, well, they are always grateful for donations, but this is not what they need or want. That they always tell people, please donate money, because we have our own packagers, wholesalers. They have their own distribution system. And to now get these canned goods from the Romney event in Ohio, and have to first package it–used clothes, they have to clean, they can’t go directly to victims. So, what they need are donations of blood and donations of money. It does seem like a thinly veiled–why Ohio? Why choose Ohio?”
“Right,” responds Cillizza, “because the storm is kind of there” in Ohio, while Mitchell interjects simultaneously, “not in Ohio.”
Per the Toledo Blaze, “High winds spinning off the edge of superstorm Sandy took a vicious swipe at northeast Ohio early Tuesday, uprooting trees, cutting power to hundreds of thousands, closing schools and flooding parts of major commuter arteries that run along Lake Erie.
“At least 250,000 homes and businesses in Ohio — the majority in the Cleveland area — were still without power by early afternoon. Scattered outages reached down into central and eastern Ohio, with some in the southern part of the state. Utilities said it could be days before it’s fully restored.”
Chris Matthew Host of Hardball Photo courtesy Wikimedia
Following the debate last night Chris Matthews quickly grabbed the race card from his pocket. According to the host of Hardball, those against an Obama second term are racist Southern right-wingers who hate President Obama more than al-Qaeda.
Is this a sign of desperation by a news station that put all its eggs into the Obama basket and his loss will leave them with nothing? Perhaps.
Remember the ‘reporter’ who felt a thrill up his leg when Obama spoke? Can it be that this hero worship blinded Matthews so much that he can’t see the policies and failures of this administration?
Or is this a grasping at straws argument geared toward inciting the left base into action? By calling conservatives racists is this an effort to improve the vote numbers by the minority population?
Maybe all of the above are true.
It is an insult to say that if I disagree with President Obama then I must be racist; that I might have some concocted hate filled agenda that to promote.
Isn’t it entirely more likely that conservatives will be voting with a true concern for the continued faltering economy complete with malaise and despair this country is currently in?
Watch the clip for yourself…the text is below.
Chris Matthews speaking about conservatives, “Well, I think they’re more political than either you or I. I think they hate Obama. They want him out of the White House more than they want to destroy al-Qaeda. Their number one enemy in the world right now, on the right, is their hatred, hatred for Obama. And we can go into that about the white working class in the south about looking at these numbers we’ve been getting the last couple days, about racial hatred, in many cases. This isn’t about being a better president, they want to get rid of this president. That’s their number one goal and they’re willing to let Romney go to the hard center, even to the left on some issues, as long as they get rid of this guy.”
“Romney went in there tonight with 16 ounce gloves. He didn’t want to look too ferocious, he just wanted to win. And the way he wanted to win was not making himself into the right-winger that the right wing that’s supporting him really are.”
Scandals bring out the worst in politicians, and politicians engage in scandalous behavior on a regular basis. Of course the people only end up hearing about the latter when said politicians get caught. Normally, this would happen as the result of members of the traditional media uncovering their dastardly deeds, but the age of investigative journalism in the mainstream media is drawing to a close. Now, it is in the hands of new media, and sometimes, other politicians.
Voice of America (CC)
In the case of the Benghazi scandal, it is a little of each. Now, anyone that believes that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was the result of protest against an anti-Islam film is either delusional, or has been living under a rock for the past couple weeks. In the interest of being thorough, if anyone lost track, they can consult the timeline here. As for the Congressional Hearings, if nothing else, it can be called a “who’s who of the administration that will be thrown under the bus, if they haven’t been already.” Obviously, the lowest on the totem pole are likely to take the worst. But, as we saw in the Vice Presidential debate, someone obviously forgot to get Joe Biden on board with the administration’s official story on the matter. His statement that he didn’t know the Consulate needed more security came off as though the administration as a whole was unaware. The current message is (maybe?) that Biden and Obama didn’t know, implying some sort of disconnect between the Oval Office and the State Department.
Well, maybe that’s more than just implied, since it’s obvious that there is now a rift between Clinton(s) and Obama. That begs the question why Obama would now trust Bill to hit the campaign trail on his behalf – but, who wants to warn him that could blow up in his face? No one? Figured that.
Otherwise, in the endless effort to blame anyone but themselves, the Obama administration is at least attempting to stick with the “evil Republicans cut the State Department budget, so we couldn’t afford more forces there” argument. They shouldn’t expect that to work very well for two reasons. First, it doesn’t fly when one considers the “greening of Europe” initiative pointed out by Congressman Mike Kelly. As was pointed out in the hearings, obviously the State Department has their priorities a little out of order, since they’re spending huge sums of money on electric cars in Europe, while neglecting to provide needed security personnel in the Middle East and North Africa. But apparently the State Department can afford to send an attorney to babysit Congressman Jason Chaffetz on his trip to Libya to investigate the situation. Perhaps that was why Congress cut the budget in the first place? Second, there’s the problem with communication on National Security matters in the White House. We’ve been told for ages now that Obama rarely bothers with National Security briefings. Now, apparently he’s also not interested in hearing requests for increased security at Embassies. That is a rather odd decision under the circumstances, but who are we to question his choices.
For the pending second presidential debate, the format agreement says that after each question from the audience and a two-minute response by each candidate, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are expected to have an additional discussion facilitated by the moderator. This year the Hofstra University town hall debate moderator will be Candy Crowley of CNN. The language of the debate-format agreement means that Crowley’s participation is to be limited.
As the document states: “In managing the two-minute comment periods, the moderator will not rephrase the question or open a new topic … The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period.”
Yet Crowley’s take on her role is: ‘I’m not a fly on the wall’. It has been suggested that debate questions must be pre-submitted in order to allow Crowley to choose the questions.
Of course, coming from members of today’s openly biased media this is nothing new.
In 2008 Tom Brokaw of NBC News moderated a town-hall debate between Obama and John McCain. Brokaw redirected the topics, changed questions from the audience and asked too many of his own questions. Brokaw defended his performance by citing that a debate commission official praised that debate as “good television.”
Good television? Has the bar for debates between two people vying to be President of the United States of America been arbitrarily reduced by news media pundits to being “good television”?
So, when are the hosts of Survivor, American Idol, or Snookie and Kate plus eight going to declare their candidacy? Should the briefcase brigade from Deal or No Deal be considered among the front runners for 2016?
Members of today’s news media are so openly biased they would keep protecting and defending Obama while actively working for his re-election even if there was verifiably authentic video showing Obama burying Caylee Anthony’s body in the Florida swamp.
Having people of this ilk unilaterally changing their role in debate proceedings because it is “good television” is most certainly not in America’s best interests.
It is a suicide pact.
America is at an existential decision making point. The 2012 presidential election will be a watershed moment in history.
All the questions submitted by the Hofstra audience should be shuffled by twelve different people who are not actively involved in the debate proceedings, then read by Crowley in the order she receives them. She should be a professional, stick to the role assigned her and keep her two cents out of the debate.
As NewsBusters reported immediately after Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his running mate:
“…the goal of the Obama-loving media is to rip him to shreds. Doing her part Saturday was CNN’s Candy Crowley who claimed some Republicans (unnamed, of course) think this ‘looks a little bit like some sort of ticket death wish.’”
The reason Romney won the first debate and is experiencing a major surge in popularity is it was the first time a large number of American voters were able to see Romney as he is, rather than the filtered version presented to the public by the “progressive” Party Pravda.
When watching the Hofstra debate proceedings, remember Crowley, like her fellow “progressives” in the media, is openly pulling for Obama.
Newly released ‘The Project’ papers, ‘Civilization Jihad’ and necessary steps in understanding the immediate threat of Islamic influence in America.
“One might think that if international law enforcement and Western intelligence agencies discovered a twenty-year old document revealing top-secret plans – by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world – to launch a program of “cultural invasion” in conquest of them, that news would scream from headlines on front pages and above the fold of the New York Times and Washington Post.” [AINI, 2006, abbreviated]
Maybe you knew from the beginning. Maybe you suspected but kept an open mind. Maybe you’re still working through it. Most of us can pinpoint a moment when the light bulb went off: ‘This just isn’t American.’ When did you realize something with this president was awry?
Remember the now infamous Obama pledge to “fundamentally change” America? If Barack Hussein Obama had stated that in the context we now know he meant it, would Americans have embraced the idea? Of course not, that’s why he didn’t.
Information Dominance – The difference between information available to opposing sides; the difference between understanding information in the context of its specific purpose.
Until a few months ago I was convinced Communism was at the core of understanding Obama and by understanding him I’d understand America’s enemy. Just when I thought I had it all figured out I was confused again. And isn’t that the way it goes with Obama. No one’s that ‘incompetent,’ clearly it is by design. Not knowing your enemy is the equivalent of shadow boxing, you’ll wear yourself out and you can’t win.
Barack Obama came at the end of the Baby Boomer generation and his mother at the budding cusp of it. He was double dipped in its revolutionary mentality. History reminds us that era was prime for Communists to grab fertile minds on our college campus’ and they wasted no time. About 25% of Americans are Baby Boomers, who, for both its good and bad, literally gave birth to what we see in America today. Read Cloward-Piven and Saul Alinsky strategies.
By now most of us know that Obama’s youth was saturated in third world cultures reeking of anti-American sentiment. His character was nurtured by people just as stealthily steeped in pro-communist influence. Both are monumental in understanding precisely ‘where’ Obama is trying to take America. What some of us haven’t pieced together is that Communism is just a symptom of a much larger and considerably more immediate danger: Islamic extremism.
Islamic extremists use Communist tactics, which is why that felt so familiar (see last article). Understanding that Communism is merely a vehicle to drive Islamic law in America allows us to begin to know our real enemy. And, America, we need to get there fast.
Before Obama we had little cause to learn the intricacies of Communism let alone of Muslim Islamists. Bringing ourselves up to par on Communism was relatively easy but Muslim ways are a whole ‘nother animal. Understanding how Muslims are working in America is urgently needed if we’re going to save ourselves. In that respect perhaps Obama did us an unintended justice, as we would otherwise surely remain wholly unaware.
Muslim extremists use what they refer to as their “religion,” Islam, as a spring board into American culture. They learned early-on to exploit American civil liberties. Islam relies on their Koran, written about 600-years after Christ’s birth. Muslims believe the Koran is an accounting of revelations from God to their prophet Muhammad and it dictates Sharia law. Not all Muslims adhere to Sharia and many in America have no interest in living it. Hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide don’t live according to Sharia but they are being put under greater pressures to conform.
Biblical history plays a profound role in understanding the irreconcilable differences between the Muslim world, Israel and the West. It goes back to Abraham who descended from Adam (as in ‘Adam & Eve’). In Genesis 17 of the Biblical Old Testament God promises Abraham:
“… Thou shalt be a father of many nations … I will make thee exceedingly fruitful and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant. And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession … .”
Note: ‘Canaan’ is an ancient term for present-day Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip plus parts of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.
Abraham married a Hebrew, Sarah, and unable to have children she gave to Abraham her Egyptian servant named Hagar. Hagar bore Abraham’s son, Ishmael. Years after Sarah gave Abraham a son named Isaac and they lived in Canaan (the Israel region). Eventually Hagar was cast away and she returned with her son to her homeland of Egypt. Muslims descend from Hagar; Jews & Christians descend from Sarah. Therein lies the innate hatred Muslims have for Christians and no amount of apologies or foreign aid is going to fix it. Clearly God did make Abraham the Father of many nations.
Muslims are comprised of various sects and institutions. The Muslim Brotherhood is an organization of Salafi Muslim (“Salafists”), who are the ones working to spread Sharia law in America. Salafists in particular became more interested in a violent Jihad – a ‘holy war’ or ‘struggle.’ Al Qeada, for example, came out of the Muslim Brotherhood and their leader is a ‘Muslim Brother.’
Islam’s Sharia Law dictates an entire way of life for Muslims. It governs their complete existence, from personal practices of faith to how the world should be ruled. Sharia law is the polar opposite of America’s Constitution, which draws very clear lines between religion and government. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy puts it this way:
“Sharia law is patently incompatible with the Constitution of the United States … [it] precludes unalienable and constitutionally guaranteed rights. Those who dispute this are either ignorant of the true nature of Sharia or they’re deliberately misrepresenting the truth [known as] ‘lying for the faith.’”
Gaffney adds that ‘lying for the faith’ is an obligation under Sharia. That amoral approach to ‘religion’ should give Americans a good idea of what they’re up against. Sharia law can be more aptly defined as an instrument for totalitarian control. That, coupled with a well documented propensity for violence and human torment, particularly horrific against women, is what makes radical Islam so very dangerous.
What Americans are experiencing today is the Muslim Brotherhood’s phase of ‘Civilization Jihad.’ This is detailed by the Muslim Brotherhood through only recently exposed ‘The Project’ papers written as a proclamation against Jews and ‘People Of The Cross.’ Authored in 1982, the papers were not found until a raid just after 9/11 attacks in 2001; and they were not published at all until 2005, even then limitedly so in France. The Project lays out Islamist goals for the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Global Jihad.”
One might think that if international law enforcement and Western intelligence agencies discovered a twenty-year old document revealing top-secret plans by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world, to launch a program of “cultural invasion” in eventual conquest of them, that the news would scream from headlines published on the front pages and above the fold of the New York Times and Washington Post.
Such a document was recovered in a raid by Swiss authorities in November 2001, two months after the horror of 9/11. Since that time information about this document, known in counterterrorism circles as “The Project”, and discussion regarding its content has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson of Le Temps, and his book published in October 2005 in France (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists’ Secret Project), has information regarding The Project finally been made public. One Western official has described The Project as “a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies.”
Civilization Jihad creates peaceful conditions in preparing for the terrifying violence that will finish what is directed of them by the Koran: Subduing “the infidel.”
By 2010 the Muslim Brotherhood demonstrated even more readiness to move from the phase of ‘propaganda and base-building’ to one of revolutionary action. In February 2011 after Mubarak was removed from power, Egypt’s Supreme Council announced a highly irregular, new working relationship with the violence-prone Muslim Brotherhood Salafists.
‘The Project’ Papers
Part Idescribes Global Jihad and much of it is taken from the Communist Goals for America as read into our Congressional Record in 1963. Reportedly America is currently undergoing the Islamic “Departure” stages of 9, 10 & 11. Click link for original document, the English translation begins on page 15.
Part II is based on Part I and discusses how the Muslim Brotherhood plans to destroy America from the inside. There are reportedly 80-cases of these documents stored under lock and key by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), who’s released only a portion of them – and only to the Muslim Brotherhood. Click link for its original “Explanatory Memorandum,” the English translation begins on page 15.
Our Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reportedly refuses these documents to our own Congress. We’ve seen the Left media’s persecution of Congressmen who ask for information on Muslims already in our government. There’s a reason for the Left’s irrational and concoted, melodramatic over-reaction, rooted in but certainly not limited to the Democrat Party. In my opinion it’s fair to say, be suspect of any Congressman (or candidate) that tries to tell you otherwise.
The Gaffney video series, its first embedded below, provides absolutely shocking documentation of the overwhelming number of fund raising “Influence Operations” and “operatives” that Islamic extremists have garnered. They create one organization only to spin it off into three more and so on. They’ve been practicing Civilization Jihad at relatiely unfettered (unrecognized) speed in the United States for no less than the past two decades, embraced by the Democrat Party and in-roaded by way of their platform.
Islamist extremists began infiltrating the Conservative movement during the Bush Administration at behest of that era’s goodwill naivete’ and a few ill-informed advisors. Bush implemented preventative policies and prosecuted terrorists, then being clearly identified as ‘terrorists.’ Obama has moved so aggressively to the far radical Left that the mere word ‘terrorist’ isn’t allowed and understanding their ways has been cleansed from our Internet and military materials. This is an urgent and self-destructive momentum that must be dealt with.
Now you know your enemy. The next time you learn of Muslim demands to consume American culture, use your voices. We’ve seen how not reacting to ‘seemingly harmless’ initiatives leads to unthinkable consequences. This requires each of us. There is power in numbers and knowledge is power and we have both. We won’t win every battle but we must win this war.
From Chapter III of The Art Of War about 200-400 b.c.: “Know Your Enemy”
Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
Replacement ref throws up hands in disbelief. NFL rules a touchdown.
When reading MSM stories concerning the hypocrisy of Republicans or conservatives it is often difficult to decide whether the reporters are actively dishonest or just stupid.
An AP story by Scott Bauer and a Washington Post effort by Brad Plumer are prime examples. Both concern a tweet sent by Republican Gov. Scott Walker (R–WI) after the Green Bay Packers were robbed of their victory by a high school level replacement referee who was unable to distinguish between an interception and a touchdown.
Tuesday morning Walker tweeted, “After catching a few hours of sleep, the #Packers game is still just as painful. #Returntherealrefs.” If you are a liberal journalist working for the Associated Press or the WaPost (I know that’s redundant) this is obviously an example of conservative hypocrisy.
The Post headline was: “Wisconsin governor fumbles on Twitter: Walker sees collective bargaining in a new light after the Packers’ loss.” The headline over the AP story was: “Union–busting Wis. governor calls for return of NFL’s union refs after call seals Packers loss.”
Both headlines reek of hypocrisy on Walker’s part and the Post even claimed a change of heart that existed only in the reporter’s fevered mind. But not all unions are alike, just as not all reporters are equally biased.
Both writers overlook the obvious fact that Walker’s fight in Wisconsin was against public employee unions and his tweet was about private sector unions. There is no hypocrisy involved in supporting one form of union and opposing the other.
Public employee unions are a conspiracy against the taxpayer. Union officials bargain with elected officials. The elected official wants union support in his next election. The union official simply wants more. They come to an agreement. The taxpayer, who picks up the tab, is not represented at the table. There are no market constraints on public employee unions. As long as taxes can be raised to cover salary, insurance and pension costs, the benefits keep rolling along.
This is not how it works in the private sector. Plumer attempts to graft the American Airlines’ labor dispute onto the Wisconsin controversy when he writes, “the referee feud is fairly representative of modern labor battles playing out in Wisconsin and elsewhere.”
This is simply false. Wisconsin labor disputes involved public employee unions and although flying American Airlines in many ways resembles a visit to the DMV, it is still a private sector entity with a private sector union.
Walker, as opposed to the two reporters, knows there’s a difference.
Another distinction is American Airlines declared bankruptcy because it could not survive in the private sector with the cost structure imposed on it by declining revenue and union contracts. Taxpayers and public employee unions are not involved.
The NFL referee’s union is obviously a private sector dispute being played out in public. And as a customer of the NFL and a supporter of the Packers, Walker is both intellectually consistent and within his rights to demand the NFL solve the problem by retuning the “real refs.”
Evidently this obvious distinction escaped the two “journalists” who thought they had a gotcha story.
On the other hand, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is the one with the political problem. He has manifestly failed and lost this strike. He has committed the cardinal firing offense for a business leader: being unprepared for a crisis he knew was coming, while debasing his product.
Goodell better hope he can keep 17 votes in his favor among the 32 NFL team owners. Otherwise he might be biggest casualty of this strike.
Yahoo News and ABC News, two dependable card carrying members of the “progressive” Party Pravda, completely ignore spreading violence in the Islamist world, the White House cover up of the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack and Barack Obama’s decision to appear on a daytime talk show rather than meet with world leaders.
Nothing to see here folks, keep moving along.
Instead, they focus the Yahoo website headline on attacking GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. This is done by using an ABC News/Washington Post poll to “report” that criticism of Romney’s campaign has grown. The poll of 1,012 adults claims that sixty-one percent of those asked rated his efforts negatively. Poll results show that number has risen by twelve percentage points since mid-July.
The poll also shows that a majority of Americans have an unfavorable view of Romney’s comments about the forty seven percent who pay no income taxes.
The article then gushes all over Obama’s positive grades for handling his presidential campaign.
Leave it to the “progressive” Party Pravda to use their online footprint to “nudge” voters leftward in Obama’s direction based solely on polling information about how the two candidates are running their campaign.
Never mind the lack of jobs. Never mind the consistently high unemployment, never mind pocket book crippling inflation at the grocery store, the gas pump, or on the family electricity bill. Forget about the rising cost of college tuition or escalating healthcare premiums. That there are Islamist countries around the globe burning American flags, burning Obama in effigy, while attacking American embassies and consulates is not important. Having four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya, butchered in a premeditated terrorist attack on 9/11 is just a “bump in the road”.
What is important is to indoctrinate low information voters into judging the two presidential candidates based on how a handful of voters, carefully selected by ABC News and the Washington Post, view the way the two candidates are running their campaigns.
That makes understanding the presidential race more like watching American Idol or Dancing with the Stars, something those who are not fortunate enough to be included among the “intellectual elite” can comprehend.
Of course, if you believe those 1,012 voters have in no way been influenced by the openly biased reporting of Yahoo News, ABC News and the Washington Post you are seriously prone to stating that Brian Williams is a straight shooter…and to buying more snake oil from a certain salesman hailing from Hawaii, by way of Indonesia, by way of Chicago.
As the GOP nominee to be President of the United States, it would seem reasonable to expect that members of your own political Party would support you.
Apparently, for Mitt Romney, that is an unreasonable expectation.
Peggy Noonan, a former speech writer for President Ronald Reagan (who joined with Colin Powell in turning their backs on the Republican Party while publically supporting Barack Obama in 2008), wrote of Romney’s campaign that “an intervention” is needed because it is “incompetent”.
Noonan continued: “It’s not big, it’s not brave, it’s not thoughtfully tackling great issues. It’s always been too small for the moment. All the activists, party supporters and big donors should be pushing for change.”
She doubled down later, when she said: “The Romney campaign has to get turned around. This week I called it incompetent, but only because I was being polite. I really meant ‘rolling calamity.’”
This is not entirely unexpected from someone who’s credentials were built on being a speech writer for a President who had very little need for speechwriters, who of her own free will turned her back on her political Party to publically support an obviously inexperienced, unqualified, community organizer who was manufactured into a pop star candidate by institutionalized “progressive” leftists in America’s media. A candidate who had never run a business, never met a payroll…who had voted “present” over one hundred times as an Illinois State Senator. A candidate who had lived his entire life not only surrounded by anti-American radicals, but who when in school actively sought them out.
The attacks coming from Bill Kristol, editor of the ‘Weekly Standard’, who worked as chief of staff to former Vice President Dan Quayle, are less explainable.
Recently, Kristol wrote: “It remains important for the country that Romney wins in November (unless he chooses to step down and we get the Ryan-Rubio ticket we deserve!). But that shouldn’t blind us to the fact that Romney’s comments, like those of Obama four years ago, are stupid and arrogant. Has there been a presidential race in modern times featuring two candidates who have done so little over their lifetimes for our country, and who have so little substance to say about the future of our country?”
When Kristol states that this election features “two candidates who have done so little over their lifetimes for our country” is he honestly comparing a former community organizer (radicalizer) who since moving into the White House has continuously placed obstacles in the path of job creating small businesses, stifled energy development, socialized huge portions of the private sector economy, and created catastrophic chaos overseas, to a capital investor who succeeded within the American free market enterprise system, saved businesses from insolvency, created jobs, protected the nation from international embarrassment when he rescued the Salt Lake City Olympic Games from bankruptcy, who as Governor reduced his State’s debt without raising taxes while improving their schools to the best in the country? Or is Kristol just trying to sound important in hopes of remaining relevant?
If this can be counted on from Republicans, who needs Kaili Joy Gray of the Daily Kos?
Gray gleefully joins in the “pile on Mitt Romney” festivities, but prefers to first attack the candidate’s wife: “Ann Romney is once again up on her gold-plated cross, and she’s got another message for the ingrates out there who don’t appreciate how hard it is to be her.
During an interview early this evening with Radio Iowa, Mrs. Romney directly addressed her fellow Republicans who’ve criticized her husband.
‘Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring. This is hard and, you know, it’s an important thing that we’re doing right now and it’s an important election and it is time for all Americans to realize how significant this election is and how lucky we are to have someone with Mitt’s qualifications and experience and know-how to be able to have the opportunity to run this country’.”
When Gray does quit picking on the candidate’s MS stricken, breast cancer surviving wife and slithers off to attack Mr. Romney, the following spews forth: “It really is a message that would resonate well if they could just get past some of their biases that have been there from the Democratic machines that have made us look like we don’t care about this community. But no. You people just won’t let up, with the mockery of the Romneys’ car elevator; with the questions about all those millions stashed away in secret bank accounts; with the outright disgust at Ann’s tales of woe about struggling to survive on Mitt’s inherited stock portfolio.”
Gray and Kos have carefully aligned themselves with the class warfare strategy of the White House re-election campaign.
In the final weeks of what is an extremely important tipping point election, possibly the most significant American election since the 1860s, is it really too much to ask for Republican pundits and journalists to at least offer constructive criticism instead of plain old Daily Kos style attacks?
With friends like Noonan and Kristol, who needs Gray?
One thing I’ve learned over the years is that truth is relative, especially in politics. While Mother Jones might be thinking they’ve really done Romney some major harm, I think they are sorely mistaken. First, let me point out what should have been bloody obvious from the start here – whoever got that video of those private fundraising events is not different from the Nixon operators that broke into the Watergate offices to spy on the Democrats. The fact that no one is pointing that out is thanks to Ford pardoning Nixon, and therefore setting the precedent that political spying is “A-Ok.”
Perhaps even worse than the media touchdown dancing the end-zone is the GOP establishment response. Seriously? They now think that it is a bad thing for the American public to know that major Romney donors would love to hear their candidate say that he’s not going to waste time chasing votes of Obama Zombies? And why exactly aren’t GOP strategists madly typing away right now, producing content for stump speeches that actually flaunt this little video?
Since the folks on the right are obviously slow on the uptake here, I guess it’s necessary to point out a few interesting points. Of course people that are dependent on the government, and don’t pay taxes aren’t going to give a rat’s ass about Republican principles or plans. That might mean that they might actually have to get off their collective (socialist) asses, and get a job. The economy sucks? There are no jobs? Go back to the previous stump speeches on real economic recovery, that includes offering some semblance of stability to business owners, so that they actually attempt to expand their ventures, and hire people! And yes, that means stop even suggesting that Obamacare is negotiable at all, since that’s arguably one of the biggest reasons why employers aren’t hiring. Sure, argue out a soft consumer market, and increasing costs due to rising fuel prices. But, the bottom line is that when businesses get nervous, the people get nervous, people stop buying, demand goes down, production goes down, job numbers go down, and then businesses get more nervous – continue, ad infinitum, or until the economy collapses. Simplistic? Yes. But that is the point. Voters aren’t pundits! They understand simple English, not jargon laden double-speak with graphs and charts.
And since I brought up Nixon at the beginning here, it wouldn’t hurt to point out a few simple things. The obvious would be that whoever got that video and released it, while the Dems might cry otherwise, is with them. (You know, the whole “if you’re not for us, you’re against us” rule.) So, why isn’t anyone saying that the Dems are so bloody desperate to keep the public from looking too closely at Obama’s latest string of severe screw ups, that they have resorted to publishing Romney’s speeches to the “inner circle”? Why isn’t anyone pointing out the obvious, that Romney wants his audience to give him money, so of course he’s going to point out that he’s not going to waste those dollars by chasing after votes from people everyone knows damn well would never vote for him in the first place? I know, in that beautiful Dem world of pixie dust and unicorn dreams, money grows on trees, and they don’t worry about whether or not they waste it. If you run out, you just print more – just ask Ben Bernanke. But, in the real world, where people actually earn their cash, the fact is that you have to prove you’re not going to waste that money before you get it. So, thanks lefties. You just firmly placed this campaign in Romney’s court – it’s the economy, stupid! I can just hear it now on the campaign trail – “I won’t waste the hard-earned dollars you pay in taxes. I don’t waste the dollars donated to my campaign, and in the White House, I will do the same. It would be my job as President to ensure that your dollars are not wasted.”
It’s nothing new to point out that the mainstream media has placed itself as the tool of the Obama Administration. However, over the past 24 hours, that contention has taken on a truly frightening meaning. Bluntly, it seems that there are countless examples of the media regurgitating whatever the Obama Administration spoon feeds it, and passing it off as journalism. It’s gone beyond the point of even considering fact-checking, and “news” has become almost purely opinions pieces – not “straight journalism.”
While examples of this abound, the focus here will be on the mainstream media hijacking the narrative to place this administration in a good light, and it will include a true opinion piece – not something that’s being schlepped as real news. The Fix from the Washington Post passed along a lovely example of this wonderland mentality that really doesn’t have a firm grasp on reality. Now, to be fair, this item was probably started before the events in the Middle East, and just maybe, Chris Cillizza might change his tune a little bit once the actual political fallout from these events come home to roost, so to speak. But, as of this morning, his contention is that Mitt Romney is panicking, and he dutifully offered some comments from some Republicans on this. Of course, it should go without saying that the Romney camp should examine this article for some of the finer points, and maybe make some minor adjustments accordingly. There are some worthwhile points made in this article. However, they are definitely overshadowed by Cillizza’s regurgitating of the Obama camp narrative that has been permeating the mainstream media.
Like the assertion that Romney made a mistake by calling the Obama administration on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo tweeting apologies to Muslims before, during, and after the attack there. It’s been observed, repeatedly, that if it was a Republican in the White House (George W. Bush, for example), the press would have been all over him for this. That is absolutely true. But where is the press now? Well, they’re buying the quasi-retraction from the Obama administration, and focusing on Romney, calling him an alarmist, or worse. Or they’re complaining about him breaking the 9/11 promise, and talking politics – but please don’t mention that the Obama camp was active from point one, fundraising, soliciting for volunteers, sending out surrogates, and sniping against the Romney camp on Twitter. But, back to the utter failure of the media, where were the questions on that Obama retraction? If that statement was “unauthorized”, who’s really in charge? Or was this statement merely an extension of an already established position of this administration? Either way, what Romney did or didn’t say isn’t the story here. The story is in that Embassy and in this administration.
And to keep things even here, even the right-wing media missed this one. Sure, it might feel good to say that someone in the Obama administration deserves to be fired, but that doesn’t change the fact that the real story lies somewhere much higher than that one staffer. Again, where are the questions about who is really in charge here? On one hand it’s said that this president is leading from behind, a perfect example of this falls in the laps of the conservative media, and all they can come up with is that a relatively low-level diplomatic corps employee deserves to get canned? Talk about a lost opportunity!
But, back to Cillizza’s wishful musings. Other than giving the Romney camp a mini-roadmap for fixing some issues in their campaign, what does this piece say? Given the number of words devoted to the whole Libya issue, it wouldn’t be out of the question to suggest that the administration doesn’t want anyone focusing on what’s actually happening now, when it comes to a response to the incident. After reading, and re-reading Romney’s statement, the only problem is this:
America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We’ll defend also our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion.
There is no doubt that is Romney’s opinion on the matter, however it is unlikely that the Obama administration agrees. Romney should have avoided talking about reaction by the government at all, since he’s not in a position to cause any action himself at this time. As it is, Marines apparently will not be permitted to use live ammo in Egypt, and while there are ships going to the region, it is unclear if there are any plans of action by the U.S. military. That in itself should be making headlines nationwide, but given the mainstream media’s love affair with Obama, that’s unlikely. Another item that should be getting the attention of journalists is the fact that Obama yet again walked away from taking questions from the press. Romney didn’t, but instead of being happy with the opportunity to get questions answered, the mainstream media found it necessary to conspire against him. Or so they thought, because it could easily be argued that Romney handled the questions very well, especially considering the fact that the journalists were ganging up on him. It was particularly heartening to hear his refusal to even consider hypothetical questions, and if his replies to their questions this time are any indication, it is fair to guess that the mainstream media will be crying regularly that he refuses to answer anything on national security, except in a very broad sense. Also, don’t expect any of the journalists to point out that Romney might have learned not to do that from Obama himself. They do try to forget his campaign promises of 2008 on Afghanistan and Gitmo, after all.
So, instead of having journalists and the press act as watchdogs over the government, we are left with the “Obama Administration State Media.” And that is the death of journalism in this nation. When journalists stop questioning our leaders meaningfully, and start acting as little more than mouthpieces for politicians, it is no longer a free press. It is no different than the state-controlled media in regions like the Middle East. Perhaps we all need to mull over the sad irony of that.
Twitter was a-buzz yesterday with violent headlines. I couldn’t recall seeing so many at one time. Violence against the U.S.A. by other countries and against people within the U.S.A. by people of the U.S.A. Where was our president? On the campaign trail? What was going on?
But I knew. Most of us do.
There’s been a lot of hype about D’Souza’s 2016 movie. I didn’t expect to be excited by it, having followed Barack Hussein Obama closely since his 2007 campaign. To contemplate all that Americans have learned in those short five years is a trip down the lane of our naiveté. How naïve many of us still are, but that assumes you believe what polls report and I don‘t, which is another topic for another day.
Even though I understood the bigger picture, something very important came from D’Souza’s movie that I doubt any American understands without seeing it. D’Souza’s history of himself being reared in a third world country gave hands-on insight into Obama’s father(s)’ disdain for America as a “colonized“ country. Simply put, a hate for one of the world’s ‘stronger’ nations. D’Souza made a clear case for Obama executing his birth father’s long held “anti-colonialist” vendetta against America. Putting that into proper context was a twist of awe in understanding what we see Obama doing to us today.
Anti-colonialism is just what it sounds like: An opposition to colonization. The Free Dictionary online defines ‘colonialism’ as ‘the exploitation by a stronger country of a weaker one; using the weaker country’s resources to strengthen and enrich the stronger country.’ It’s worth noting the Free Dictionary also suggested, “See Government.”
Of course governments use their ‘strength’ over a country’s citizens to exploit them. There’s never been a better example of that in America than Barack Hussein Obama. What I find impossible to ignore is, if Obama hates colonization so much, why is he pretending it’s okay to use that same ‘strength’ against America’s people? It’s supposed to be the very principle he opposes, right? Yet Obama has no qualms implementing that same principle against others to achieve his own personal gains. Clearly, that cannot possibly be a principle of any moral value if he – and others – use it themselves. That just makes it selfish, greedy hypocrisy.
The question for most of us now isn’t who this Obama guy is. The questions now are how can so many Americans fall for his amoral goals? How can anyone, with America’s demise being their goal, be in any serious contention for our White House? How is it we keep running into numbskulls that argue vehemently in support of this man as if he has anything serious to offer them or our people?
There can be only one answer: Those arguing for Obama see an illusive rainbow all beautiful in primary colors with its mythical pot of gold at the end, if and when they can only find the end of it. How can they know so little about the history of the path this guy’s taking, that they’re willing to sacrifice themselves and their families – and the last country of individual liberites on earth – for such self-serving ideals? Do they truly not see the hypocrisy? Do they actually believe such an unprincipled man intends to do them ‘right’ when his ways are the epitome of all that is wrong?
That, of course, takes us into the realm of our educational system, by now loaded with liberal ideologues whose goals are exactly the same: ‘Me.’ It is all about them, they mistakenly think. That’s how Socialism sells itself. That’s why and how politicians sell Socialism. Denying it is ‘Socialism’ is just part of the ruse that they so enjoy. It gives them bragging rights upon which their fragile egos thrive: “Aren’t these people so dumb and I so smart,” they must certainly laugh among themselves. And sadly, apparently they’re right.
In the early 1900s Vladimir Lenin of Communist U.S.S.R. murdered millions of Russian people by starvation alone, to say nothing of grievous torture. Many were once farmers with fertile land of their own – before Communism. Lenin stated it very clearly, “The goal of Socialism is Communism.” Historians repeatedly document Socialism as being the necessary step from Capitalism into Communism. There can be no question about that if you steer clear of rewritten or cleansed history, much of that already being Obama’s.
Obama’s well known cleansed Wikipedia describes Socialism this way, to which a history scholar responded: “This definition reads like the [Wikipedia] author got his idea of colonialism from Lenin’s embellishment of Marx,Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism:”
For orthodox Marxists [which, without question, Obama is], socialism is the lower stage of communism … the upper stage of communism becomes possible only after the socialist stage further develops … .
The term Useful Idiots is attributed to Lenin. Unlike America’s everyday people, Useful Idiots are the likes of college professors, Hollywood elite and Left Main Stream Media. They are educated or influential, self-endowed people who know precisely what’s unfolding. Their fatal flaw is believing they will come out on the top of the heap; that they will find some personal gain in pushing Socialist propaganda. Just as Obama is using our government now, they neither have concern for using their ‘strength’ to mislead America’s people, whom they also will, without question, horrifically use for what they believe will best serve them.
Lenin did not refer to these people as “Idiots” for no good reason. ‘Idiot‘ is a particularly operative word for the very reason it implies: These people are promoting a system that will not recognize them any more than they plan to recognize you when they do reach the end of that illusive rainbow. It’s the same unprincipled means that Obama is using to promote a system that he also professes to detest. If you are an Obama “social justice” promoter, that may be why you promote it. There can be no doubt that many everyday Americans are pushing Socialism for their own selfish reasons, very well knowing better. No one but Obama comes out of this okay; and it would not be the least surprising when all is said and done to learn that Obama himself is being used.
Yuri Bezmenov is Russian. He’s not a flashy guy and his videos aren’t entertaining in today‘s warp speed of “give it to me fast and furious in primary colors.” The vids are not high density, his accent can be difficult to understand and sometimes seconds feel like moments as he struggles for words to say what needs to be said. But the guy knows his stuff.
Bezmenov defected to America after serving as a KBG Communist agent in Russia. He’s a Russian insider who knows all there is to know about converting a country’s people to Socialism so Communism can be established; and just what Socialism and Communism really are.
If there’s nothing else to come from this, let it be Yuri’s experienced words. America is on a most dangerous cusp. If you have not registered to vote, do it now. If you didn’t plan to vote, commit to voting. This year’s election is not about picking ‘the least of two evil men.’ This year’s election is about putting the last free beacon of light back on its hill – for everyone in the world, not just Americans. It is the simple choice between freedom or tyranny. That is the only decision you have to make. If we have any hope for salvaging freedom, it begins with this year‘s vote:
“You will have nowhere to defect unless you want to live in Antarctica with the penguins. This is it. The United States is the last country of freedom and possibility.” [Yuri Bezmenov]
The violent headlines we’re reading today – and this government’s remiss lack of response to them – is not by happenstance.
Some of Yuri Bezmenov’s forewarnings follow. If you’ve any skepticism and especially if you‘re someone who thinks Obama is anywhere near suitable as an American president, it is essential you read Bezmenov’s words. There is a more complete article briefly recounting Yuri’s words in more complete context here, including video.
As unbelievably relevant to today as Bezmenov’s words are, when he spoke them Ronald Reagan was America’s 1985 re-elected president following the devastating years under Jimmy Carter Democrats, to whom Obama is so often compared. It is not by accident they ring true. Emphasis is the speaker’s:
“Ideological subversion changes every Americans’ perception of reality to the extent that, despite their abundance of information, no one is capable of coming to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, their country. It is a brainwashing process that goes very slowly … .”
“The Left useful idiots that idealistically believe in communism must go, because those disillusioned with it become [communists‘] worst enemies. Their instructions were to … forget about those political prostitutes – aim higher.”
“Try to get into wide-circulation … reach movie makers, intellectuals … cynical, egocentric people who can look into your eyes with angelic expression and tell you a lie. These are the most recruitable people, people who lack moral principles, who are too greedy or who suffer from self-importance, people who feel they matter a lot.”
“When their job is complete they are not needed anymore. They know too much. Some of them, when they get disillusioned, when they see Marxism/Leninism has come to power, they will get offended.”
“They think that They will come to power. That will never happen, of course. They will be lined up against the wall and shot. They could turn into the most bitter enemies of Marxists/Leninists when they’ve come to power.”
“It will be psychological shock when they see what the beautiful society of ‘equality and social justice’ means in practice. They will be very unhappy, frustrated people and the Marxists/Leninists regime does no tolerate these people.”
“A person who is Demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with authentic truth, with documents, with pictures, even if I show in person, he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom. When the military boot crashes his a**, THEN he will understand, but not before.”
“It can take only 6-weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis. You can see that in  Central America. After the Crisis, with a violent change of power, structure and economy, you have the so-called period of ‘Normalization.'”
“The benevolent dictator will go to Moscow to kiss the bottoms of a new generation of false assassins. He will create false illusions that the situation is under control. The situation is NOT under control. The situation is disgustingly out of control.”
“At this time the United States is at a period of war. Undeclared, total war against the foundations and basic principles of this system. The initiator of this war is the world communist system or the world communist conspiracy.”
“Whether that scares some people or not, if you are not scared by now nothing can scare you.”
“At least part of the United States is convinced that the danger is real. They have to FORCE their government. And I am not talking about sending letters, signing petitions and all of that beautiful noble activity. I am talking about FORCING the United States Government to stop aiding communism.”
“You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen … you will be handed over to be persecuted … you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away … and will hate each other and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.” [Matthew 24:6-11]
Headline image courtesy of RealityZone.com, The Testimony of Yuri Bezmenov, KGB Propagandist, Interviewed by G. Edward Griffin. Includes complete manuscript.
Today the White House released its monthly jobs report, and strangely enough the White House continues to think that the recovery is strong despite strong evidence that says otherwise. “T oday’s employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover,” wrote Alan B. Krueger, chair of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Here is the memo the White House released to the press:
While there is more work that remains to be done, today’s employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression. It is critical that we continue the policies that are building an economy that works for the middle class as we dig our way out of the deep hole that was caused by the severe recession that began in December 2007. To create more jobs in particularly hard-hit sectors, President Obama continues to support the elements of the American Jobs Act that have not yet passed, including further investment in infrastructure to rebuild our Nation’s ports, roads and highways, and assistance to State and local governments to prevent layoffs and to enable them to rehire hundreds of thousands of teachers and first responders. To build on the progress of the last few years, President Obama has also proposed an extension of middle class tax cuts that would prevent the typical middle class family from facing a $2,200 tax increase next year.
Today’s report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows that private sector establishments added 103,000 jobs last month, and overall non-farm payroll employment rose by 96,000. The economy has now added private sector jobs for 30 straight months, for a total of 4.6 million jobs during that period.
The household survey showed that the unemployment rate declined from 8.3% to 8.1% in August.
Employment rose notably in leisure and hospitality (+34,000), professional and business services (+28,000), health care and social assistance (+21,700), and wholesale trade (+7,900). Manufacturing lost 15,000 jobs, including a 7,500 drop in motor vehicles and parts, which is partly payback for there having been relatively few seasonal auto plant shutdowns in July. Over the past 30 months, manufacturers have added more than 500,000 jobs. Government lost 7,000 jobs, as state government payrolls fell by 6,000 and local governments shed 4,000 jobs. Since February 2010, State and local governments have lost 504,000 jobs.
As the Administration stresses every month, the monthly employment and unemployment figures can be volatile, and employment estimates can be subject to substantial revision. Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.
Ok. So I don’t exactly know, but I can offer an educated guess. Before we get into that, a little background is necessary.
Let’s go back to 2003. Back then, James Moore was starting his own little cottage industry on the back of Karl Rove. That “other-Moore” released a couple books, and one was made into a movie – “Bush’s Brain.” Of course, the whole marketing scheme was that George W. Bush couldn’t possibly be smart enough to do it all by himself. Rove was the puppet-master, and he was ruthless political operator manipulating the hapless Bush. Liberals ate this up with relish, and for at least a little while, they actually knew who Rove was (now, they apparently don’t, outside the Beltway at least.) Why was this idea so popular? Well, Bush did it to himself, in some ways. There just had to be someone very smart helping him along the way. How else could a former frat-boy make it to 1600, daddy being a previous resident notwithstanding?
Just a year later, Barack Obama comes on the national scene, at that year’s DNC convention. Of course this charismatic man was being groomed to run for the presidency. Everyone knew it, just as we can easily predict the rising stars in the GOP today. But how did Obama get there, and more importantly, how did he get into the White House? We all looked at Bush’s pedigree, and the left immediately leaped on any perceived deficiencies they could, leaving a huge market for Moore’s books on the topic. But, that was just a couple years into Bush’s first term. Only now are the Republicans starting to really delve into the past of the elusive Obama. Hopefully, it’s not “too little, too late.”
Instead of Moore, there’s Richard Miniter, and his book, Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him. I humbly suggest that it was no coincidence that the phrase “leading from behind” was used more than once on the floor of the RNC convention, by no less than Condi Rice, for one. This book suggests that there isn’t just one Rove in the background pulling strings in the current administration, but no less than three. That is, if you are only going to count the women.
In turns, Obama was (and still is) influenced highly by certain women in his life. That list includes Michelle Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Valerie Jarrett. While both Michelle and Pelosi obviously have some sway in Obama’s world all the time, admittedly Pelosi’s real time of influence was during the debates and passage of the Healthcare Reform Act. No one is likely to forget her infamous “we’ve got to pass it to know what’s in it” plea, and Miniter actually contends that we should be referring to that legislation as “Pelosi-Care,” not Obamacare, to give credit where it is actually due. As for the current debacle with the platform, it’s highly unlikely that either Michelle or Pelosi would have suggested such a thing as removing reference to God and Jerusalem.
So, that leaves Hillary Clinton and Valerie Jarrett to consider. Sure, it’s possible that both of these women had a hand in this, for different reasons. While all the Dems have been making hay about Bill Clinton’s speech at the convention, I’ve been quietly considering Romney’s response to it. It really wasn’t a very good speech for Obama. If nothing else, Bill Clinton is good at smiling while delivering an obscure insult. It could be argued that is precisely what that speech was. Does anyone really think that Bill forgot about Reagan’s inheritance from Carter, and what he did with it? If you do, you must be a Democrat. So yes, there is a strong argument for Hillary suggesting, or at least supporting, the removal of the reference to God and Jerusalem in the Democratic Platform. Or you could buy into Alan Dershowitz’s contention that it’s the result of “rogue elements”. Not very convincing, however, it is interesting to consider Dershowitz’s opinion on Hamas.
And that leaves Valerie Jarrett. She is arguably the one that conservatives should be calling “Obama’s Brain.” And just who is she, really? To hear it from the Obama’s, she’s a very old friend. Considering they met sometime in the 1990’s, it does make one wonder what it takes to become an “old friend.” Otherwise, Jarrett resides in Rove’s old office, and some might even say that she has greater access to and influence on Obama than Rove ever did with Bush. And, by all accounts, Jarrett is a radical left-wing political player, and probably the biggest proponent of secularism in the current administration. Miniter’s book does cover the history of Jarrett and the Obama’s such as can be gleaned from the few that are willing to talk about her. Of course, it’s not likely anyone will get many statements on her going forward, and certainly not from anyone like Robert Gibbs, who she probably caused to end up outside the White House.
So, my bet is on Valerie Jarrett being the culprit, and there is no way it was a typo. And, like many other mistakes in this administration, there never was any intention for there to be a real vote on the issue on the floor of the convention. The fact that the delegates actually spoke their minds had to be highly annoying to Obama. After all, the only deity he wants to see people worshiping is him, right?
An Obama campaign official confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD that President Obama “personally” intervened to alter the Democratic platform to include a reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The new platform, adopted this evening at the Democratic convention in Charlotte, now includes pro-Israel language that the previous document did not.
The president did want to make clear what his personal beliefs were because they were not in the original platform,” the campaign official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
The new language reads, “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.”
However, while the new Democratic platform apparently now reflects the “personal beliefs” of President Obama, it is now at odds with Obama administration policy.
In July, when White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked to name the capital of Israel, he refused to do so. Acknowledging that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, the Obama administration insists, would pre-judge one of the “final status issues” in the peace process.
The campaign official acknowledged this discrepancy. “The president has a personal view, but the president and the administration’s view as a matter of policy is ultimately that Jerusalem is a final status issue,” said the official.
She elaborated, “It doesn’t make sense for a U.S. a president impose his personal beliefs in a policy context. … But it’s important for him to make clear where he stands on these issues.”
So while Obama personally believes Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, his administration will not say so.
The official insisted, however, that it is commonplace for presidents to hold conflicting personal and policy views on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, citing Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan as examples.
But let us not forget what President Obama said last year concerning the borders of Israel.
“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states,” Obama said. “The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”
2 p.m.-4 p.m.: Caucus Session 3. Rural Council (Room 203AB).
11:35 a.m.: First lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden will speak at the Women’s Caucus Meeting.
11:45 a.m.: International Leaders Forum: Madeleine Albright; Michele Flournoy; Jack Lew, White House chief of staff.
12 p.m.-2 p.m.: Caucus Session 2. LGBT Caucus (Room 203AB). Senior Council (Room 211AB/212AB).
12:10 p.m.: Dr. Jill Biden will speak at the LGBT Caucus meeting.
1 p.m.-3 p.m.: The Rev. Al Sharpton and the National Action Network will host the nation’s prominent black clergy and civil rights leaders at NAN’s ministers’ luncheon to declare a state of emergency over voter suppression. Participants: the Rev. Al Sharpton, president of NAN and MSNBC host; Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus; the Rev. Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson, chairman of the Conference of National Black Churches; the Rev. Freddie Haynes, senior pastor of Friendship-West Baptist Church; Roslyn Brock, chairwoman of the NAACP; John Kee, gospel singer.
2 p.m.-4 p.m.: “Electoral Dysfunction” screening — After discovering that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote, political humorist CBS correspondent Mo Rocca sets out on a road trip to see how voting works — and doesn’t work — in America.
8 p.m.: Web-only convention special hosted by actor Kal Penn that will include interviews with campaign officials and guests, including Marc Anthony, Elizabeth Banks, Aisha Tyler, Olivia Wilde, Fran Drescher, Zach Braff and Alexis Bledel.
The 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina