Tag Archives: FoxNews

President Obama Press Conference – April 30th

Barack-Obama-portrait-PD

Barack-Obama-portrait-PD
As stated by the President, this press conference was in honor of outgoing White House Correspondents’ President Ed Henry, of Fox News. Accordingly, the first recognized was Henry, and he offered questions on Syria and Benghazi. On Syria, Henry asked what the next move is for this administration. It is not surprising that since chemical weapons are the bone of contention in Syria, that Obama went directly for what can only be considered a thinly-veiled statement referring to actions of the Bush Administration on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq:

And what we now have is evidence that chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria, but we don’t know how they were used, when they were used, who used them; we don’t have chain of custody that establishes what exactly happened. And when I am making decisions about America’s national security and the potential for taking additional action in response to chemical weapon use, I’ve got to make sure I’ve got the facts.

That’s what the American people would expect. And if we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, then we can find ourselves in the position where we can’t mobilize the international community to support what we do. There may be objections even among some people in the region who are sympathetic with the opposition if we take action. So, you know, it’s important for us to do this in a prudent way.

When pressed by Henry on the question of whether or not the U.S. would act militarily against the Assad regime in Syria, Obama came short of stating that would happen, opting to merely state that he has options outlined by the Pentagon. What those options are were not mentioned, for security reasons.

On Benghazi, the question was on members of the administration that have apparently been blocked from testifying about what they know about the attack that lead to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, and three members of the consulate staff.

Ed, I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody’s been blocked from testifying. So what I’ll do is I will find out what exactly you’re referring to. What I’ve been very clear about from the start is that our job with respect to Benghazi has been to find out exactly what happened, to make sure that U.S. embassies not just in the Middle East but around the world are safe and secure and to bring those who carried it out to justice.

It’s not surprising that Obama denied that anyone was being blocked from testifying, but it’s also unlikely that there will be any follow-up on the question as promised. Obama moved on to the next reporter after this.

Jessica Yellin of CNN offered the next question on whether or not we, as a nation, are moving backwards in national security and intelligence, citing Senator Lindsey Graham’s concerns on the matter. Note that the question focused on the failure in preventing the Boston bombing, not the subsequent reaction and investigation.

No. Mr. Graham is not right on this issue, although I’m sure it generated some headlines. I think that what we saw in Boston was state, local, federal officials, every agency, rallying around a city that had been attacked, identifying the perpetrators just hours after the scene had been examined. We now have one individual deceased, one in custody. Charges have been brought.

I think that all our law enforcement officials performed in an exemplary fashion after the bombing had taken place. And we should be very proud of their work, as obviously we’re proud of the people of Boston, all the first responders and the medical personnel that helped save lives.

What we also know is that the Russian intelligence services had alerted U.S. intelligence about the older brother as well as the mother, indicating that they might be sympathizers to extremists. The FBI investigated that older brother. It’s not as if the FBI did nothing. They not only investigated the older brother; they interviewed the older brother. They concluded that there were no signs that he was engaging in extremist activity. So that much we know.

Obama did go on to note that we need to be vigilant to prevent a future attack, stated that the Department of Homeland Security and FBI had done their jobs, and stated that we need to go on living our lives.

The next question was from Jonathan Karl at ABC, and bluntly asked if the President felt that he had the ability to pass his agenda, given the push back he has been getting from both sides of the aisle in Congress. Sequestration was also brought up in this segment, particularly the FAA.

Look, we — you know, we understand that we’re in divided government right now. Republicans control the House of Representatives. In the Senate, this habit of requiring 60 votes for even the most modest piece of legislation has gummed up the works there. And I think it’s — comes to no surprise, not even to the American people, but even to members of Congress themselves, that right now things are pretty dysfunctional up on Capitol Hill.

Despite that, I’m actually confident that there are a range of things that we’re going to be able to get done. I feel confident that the bipartisan work that’s been done on immigration reform will result in a bill that passes the Senate and passes the House and gets on my desk. And that’s going to be a historic achievement. And I’m — I’ve been very complimentary of the efforts of both Republicans and Democrats in those efforts.

And on the FAA, and Congress:

Well, hold on a second. The — so the alternative, of course, is either to go ahead and impose a whole bunch of delays on passengers now, which also does not fix the problem, or the third alternative is to actually fix the problem by coming up with a broader, larger deal.

But, you know, Jonathan, you seem to suggest that somehow, these folks over there have no responsibilities and that my job is to somehow get them to behave. That’s their job. They are elected, members of Congress are elected in order to do what’s right for their constituencies and for the American people. So if, in fact, they are seriously concerned about passenger convenience and safety, then they shouldn’t just be thinking about tomorrow or next week or the week after that; they should be thinking about what’s going to happen five years from now, 10 years from now or 15 years from now.

The only way to do that is for them to engage with me on coming up with a broader deal.

And that’s exactly what I’m trying to do is to continue to talk to them about are there ways for us to fix this. Frankly, I don’t think that if I were to veto, for example, this FAA bill, that that somehow would lead to the broader fix. It just means that there’d be pain now, which they would try to blame on me, as opposed to pain five years from now. But either way, the problem’s not getting fixed. The only way the problem does get fixed is if both parties sit down and they say, how are we going to make sure that we’re reducing our deficit sensibly; how are we making sure that we’ve investing in things like rebuilding our airports and our roads and our bridges and investing in early childhood education and all — basic research, all the things that are going to help us grow, and that’s what the American people want.

The last questions were offered by Bill Plante of CBS, Chuck Todd of NBC, and Antonieta Cadiz of the Chilean press, offering questions on Guantanamo Bay, ObamaCare, and Immigration respectively. Obama did make a parting statement on NBA player Jason Collins “coming out of the closet”. A full transcript of the press conference is available at the Washington Post website.

Pentagon’s war on Christianity

Jesus_midiman

Jesus_midimanWhen it is one situation, it’s possible to just say it’s an aberration. Two? Well, the likelihood that it’s a coincidence starts going down dramatically. Three? Like the baseball analogy, “three strikes, and you’re out!” And that is precisely where the U.S. military is right now.

Since April 5th, readers of Todd Starnes writing have been shown examples of the U.S. military adopting policies or actions that can’t be called anything but firmly anti-Christian. In that first report, Starnes pointed out that the U.S. Department of the Army had labeled Evangelical Christians and Catholics as religious extremists. That is sensitive terminology, because it is typically attached to potential security risks – individuals or groups that may engage in violent activities to promote their goals. Using that terminology in reference to those religious organizations places them on a list with terrorist organizations. Of course, objections to this classification have been lodged, but it remains to be seen whether or not there will be any changes made.

Then, there was a report about a directive given to soldiers, requiring that they remove a reference to a bible verse that is etched on the scopes of their weapons. There were instructions on a procedure to remove the references entirely, including filing and cleaning. The references were placed on the scopes by the vendor. Why the military considers a minuscule marking on the equipment such a danger to service members remains to be seen. It could be argued that it could be bothersome in the field, if the scopes were seen by enemy combatants. However, it is no secret to anyone that there are many Christians in the U.S. military.

Finally, there is a report about military personnel not being able to access the Southern Baptist Conference website from base computers. Other than preventing members of that denomination from being able to access information from their churches, it is also hampering the ability of Baptist Chaplains to perform their duties. And, apparently, this block isn’t being initiated by the Pentagon, but by “Team CONUS” – the entity that is in charge of maintaining security for the computer systems in question. As for the reason given to users about why the site is being blocked, they are shown a screen that states the site may contain “hostile content.”

Any one of these situations is not a good sign, and definitely runs contrary to the old military adage “there are no atheists in foxholes.” Put them all together, and it appears there is a trend building in the military to remove religious references entirely.

Media Matters, Rush Limbaugh, and the Delusional Left-Wing

Media Matters for America has had a hard-on to nail Rush Limbaugh to the wall for years now. Since they have taken some degree of credit for the departure of Glenn Beck from FoxNews network, they’ve been riding high on their perceived accomplishments. So when the whole Sandra Fluke affair came on the scene, they leaped into action.

Annoy Rush - MMFA

ginnerobot (CC)


Contrary to what the MMFA minions might try to say, this was definitely on the back-burner for a long time now. The stickers pictured here were photographed in 2009 in Pittsburgh, PA, according to the photographer’s notes on Flickr. Sorry, but investing in stickers is a sign that an organization either already has definitive plans to deal with a given issue, or is at least in the process of making them. Then there are the claims by the folks on Twitter that are supporting this campaign to put Limbaugh out of business that they are not employed by MMFA. Yes, they probably aren’t being paid to smear not only Limbaugh, but also his advertisers. However, they are doing precisely what MMFA wants them to do.

Jeffrey Lord, former Reagan White House political director, explores the concept of left-wing tactics against Limbaugh exhaustively here. Primary to this sort of campaign working is the recruitment of “true-believers” that will carry out what the organizers want with little or no support or direction from above. So, while these campaigners might like to believe that they are not working on behalf of MMFA, they are – inadvertently at least. Lord explores the similarities between this campaign, and previous ones from socialist ideology. Of course the MMFA troops on the ground are ridiculing his contentions, presumably because they don’t even realize that they are essentially puppets for the left-wing media organization.

But don’t be lulled into thinking that this is a harmless exercise because it is being carried out by puppets. The harm that they are causing is very real. It has moved beyond simply asking advertisers not to continue supporting Limbaugh, to rather high levels of intimidation. The following video is an interview with Mark Stevens, CEO of MSCO, a marketing firm in Rye Brook, NY. Stevens contends that the left-wing campaigners against Limbaugh have gone too far, and crossed line between protesting and terrorism.

I’ve already pointed out the poisonous rhetoric seen from the left here where it’s being vented against Rick Santorum’s daughters, and here against me personally. But in the case of Limbaugh, one only needs to Google “Kill Rush Limbaugh” to see many examples of calls to violence. In the case of advertisers, however, it’s gotten to the point where anti-Limbaugh campaigners are posting phone numbers online, encouraging fellow followers to call businesses of all shapes and sizes to stop advertising.
Left-wing economic stimulus
In case anyone missed it, the economy is still not in the best shape. Small businesses have been considered the most likely candidates to pull us out of our problems. So what does the left-wing do? Of course, they engage in a virulent campaign against small business owners over a radio personality. If it stuck to just words on a screen or on the phone, it would be fine. However, as Stevens pointed out, it has taken a more dangerous turn, to the point where protesters are invading the privacy and safety of business owners. And the only sin that these businesses committed was that they recognized that their potential client pool listens to the Rush Limbaugh show. The protesters causing all of this trouble probably would never use the services of any of these small, local advertisers, and they are contacting these businesses from other states. Complaining to businesses that one would actually use is one thing, but this is something else entirely.

But other than forcing Limbaugh off the air, what could MMFA’s agenda in this really be? Well, we need look no further than the radio industry wonks for that answer.

RBR-TVBR observation: We have to wonder if all of this is actually just plain ol’ politics. We’re heading toward the presidential election and Rush’s focus has been taken off his usual ball, onto his own crisis. Limbaugh has a lot of impact on elections. The less he says against Obama and the more he says on defending himself just diminishes the sway he has with listeners, specifically independent voters. Yes, he sure did a terrible thing, but are Media Matters’ efforts really all about him at this point or affecting the influence he has with voters? Remember, George Soros gave Media Matters a $1 million donation last year. Looks like we know where at least some of that money is going. Look, Media Matters serves a good purpose as a media watchdog, but it seems to be going a bit beyond its charter lately.

So, while it might be tempting to engage the left-wing on this one, perhaps the best advice is to essentially let it slide. Do vocally and financially support the advertisers that haven’t left the show. Do write to Limbaugh with questions and topics that will get him back on the ball when it comes to Obama. Do encourage businesses that suffer from intimidation from the left-wing to take the same route Stevens has, and refuse to back down. Don’t condescend to even communicate with the MMFA minions. Just keep an eye on them, to keep up with their shenanigans.