Thursday, October 25, 2012

Why I'm Disappointed in the News Media

I listened to National Public Radio's Morning Edition this morning as I do every morning.  What a superb news organization!  The news stories presented are in depth, thoughtful and thorough.  I'm convinced there isn't a finer news organization working today.


Today and all this week there hasn't been a single story about the most important new event since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.  I'm referring, of course, to the 9/11 Anniversary attack on the  Consulate in Benghazi, Libya including the rape, torture and murder of our Libyan Ambassador AND the subsequent bizarre cover-up of events by a White House in the middle of an Election Year Crisis. 

This is a news worthy story. In fact there isn't a single story that even approaches this in terms of importance.  Yet there is no coverage.  No one on NPR is asking the important questions. No one is asking any questions.

This isn't a news blackout.  The New York Post ran the story on their front page.  There have been stories on CBS and ABC News.  And FOX NEWS has it properly positioned as the single most important story of this decade.

FOX NEWS ratings are going through the roof.  The public recognizes the importance of this story.  When the story is completely ignored by MSNBC and only minimally covered by CNN, the audience goes where they must to learn the facts.

Of course FOX NEWS is presenting this story with a distinctly Republican spin.  That makes the FAILURE of NPR and other major news organizations even more disturbing.  The public needs an objective, dispassionate and in depth look at the facts and the White House Spin.  NPR could do that.  But someone, somewhere high up in their news organization is blockading the story.  WHY?

The cheerleader news groups (MSNBC and FOX) do their loyal viewers no good by eliminating news unfavorable to their candidates.  Better they should face the bad news head on and over it properly.  But the other news outlets who claim to be unbiased really betray us all by covering up a story that they will eventually be forced to cover.  All they do is lose credibility by being late to the scene.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Why Did Obama Lie? Why Did Others Lie?

Slowly buy surely the actual facts in the Islamic radical assault on our Consulate in Benghazi, Libya are coming to light. 

We now know that Ambassador Stevens asked for increased security many times before the attack.  We know the State Department turned him down in a dismissive and arrogant manner.  It appears no one at the State Department will pay the price for this gross error in judgment.

We now know that drones overhead witnessed the attack and that officials in the CIA, the State Department and even President Obama himself knew this was a terrorist attack.

We now know that there was no protest of demonstration preceding or during the assault on the Consulate.

And today we know that President Obama was fully aware that the radical group Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.  The White House had emails from this al Qaeda allied group within two hours of the attack.

What we will never know is why President Obama lied continuously and consistently for two solid weeks about the attack.  We will never know why he forced Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary to lie, when Carney knew the truth.

We will never know why the President ordered Susan Rice, the United Nations Secretary to outright lie on four Sunday Morning News Interviews, destroying her credibility forever.

We will never know why in the world Vice President Biden told such an involved fictional account of the information known to the administration, even recounting totally false dates, during the Vice Presidential Debate.  Biden knew from day one.  Why did he destroy any chance he might have had of becoming President? 

Certainly the administration will never explain these lies and the bizarre and unnecessary cover-up of the facts.  It's a mini-Watergate with no logical explanation. 

We can only guess that the President was trying to place the blame elsewhere, on an obscure video maker, to avoid any direct blame that would harm his re-election chances.  It just all seems so odd.

If President Obama wins re-election the Main Stream Media will then investigate and ask these same questions.  If he loses it will fall upon a disgruntled staffer to reveal the truth.  But either way, Mr. PResident, the truth will come out.

Friday, October 19, 2012

The Video Game President

There is a world wide uproar over President Barack Obama's appearance on Comedy Central last night.  President Obama stated that the rape, torture and murder of Ambassador Stevens and three others was "not very optimal."

"Not very optimal."

Sean Smith was one of the diplomats slain in an attack Obama has been trying to cover up for weeks.  He mother feels sorry that the event just wasn't "optimal" for the President.  She told a reporter for the UK Daily Mail, "My son is not very optimal - he is very dead."

As I mentioned in yesterday's blog, Whoopi Goldberg asked Ann Romney how her husband could possibly speak to parents of fallen soldiers since he himself had never served in Viet Nam.  I can answer that question right now for you, Whoopi, "One Hell of a lot better than Barack Obama did last night!"

This get back to the point I raised a few days ago in the blog entry, The Paint By Numbers President, where I discussed Obama's use of sterile form letters to parents of fallen servicemen and women.  President has no feel for the office of President. He has no sense of gravity.  He avoids all aspects of the job of being President except for the Television appearances and perks of the job.

He is exactly like a child playing the popular video game "Call of Duty."  None of it is real to him.  It's all just a video game.  

That's all the raid on Osama bin Laden was to him.  A big video game, an opportuninty to brag (and release government secrets to the press).  Likewise, the drone attacks that kill terrorists along with innocent Pakistanis.  It's one big video game.  And Obama gets to play the President.

This time I hope America elects a real President.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Mary at FREEDOM EDEN Takes on The View

Working in retail and heading into the Holiday selling season, I've just not had the time to prepare and write the blog posts I want to write.  I'd like to write an entire blog post about the amount of shear "hatred" I read in many posts, especially on the left.  And Twitter? OMG!!!

I will devote a few short paragraphs to Candy Crowley's role as Moderator of the Presidential Debate this past week.  President Obama won the debate, exactly as I predicted and expected.  No surprise there.  But why and how did Candy Crowley suddenly jump into the debate to defend President Obama with an obscure single word, out of context, factoid from a Rose Garden Speech?  It revolves around one word, "terrorism." 

In fact, why did President Obama, after weeks and weeks of absolute denial of ANY KNOWLEDGE THIS WAS A PLANNED, ORGANIZED, TERRORIST ATTACK during that first ten day period following the torture and murder of Ambassador Stevens (including a lengthy and tortured denial by Vice President Biden last week), suddenly remember he actually DID call it terrorism before any of the "facts" were known?  

More importantly why did the otherwise objective Candy Crowley have that Rose Garden speech literally memorized?  How was she suddenly able to verify Obama's obscure single use of the word "terrorism" in the middle of the Wednesday night debate?  

And why did she need to "fact check" Mitt Romney instantly?  

This smells bad.  I have no proof, of course, but I genuinely believe there was some sort of collusion between Crowley and the President's Election Committee. I don't believe in accidents.  And this was no accident.  This doesn't feel right.  

And it wasn't necessary. President Obama was winning on style and substance.  Worse yet we now know that Candy Crowley was essentially wrong.  She herself has personally "walked back" the interruption saying that Romney essentially correct.

Finally I'm bothered by the vicious attack on Ann Romney on The View today.  Mitt Romney wasn't there (and he should have been).  But, after the sickeningly sweet cotton candy interview of President and Michele Obama, how is it that Barbara Walters let the Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar dogs loose on Ann?

I'm going to let superb blogger Mary from FREEDOM EDEN take it from here. Read her entire post:   ANN ROMNEY: THE VIEW

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

The Paint By Numbers President

I have three thoughts tonight that need little or no expansion.

1.)  I remember the "Bush Haters" really well from just four years ago.  It seems like a century ago, doesn't it?  President Bush could do nothing right.  McCain lost, at least in part, because he was unable to distance himself from the reviled President Bush.

2.)  Four short years later we have the mirror image of the "Bush Haters" in the "Obama Haters." For these critics Presidnet Obama can do nothing right.  Every tiny move is subject to review and criticism.  

The newest cause celeb in the "Obama Haters" click is the growing critcism of President Obama's use of one single standard and terribly impersonal form letter being sent to the families of every soldier killed in Afghanistan, Iraq or on any duty.  One cold letter, printed and signed again and again and again.  They point out that President Bush, for all his flaws, usually wrote personal notes,often by hand.

The Gateway Pundit has covered the controversy here: Confirmed: Obama Sent Same Form Letter to Parents of All Fallen Soldiers, Marines, SEALs

3.) I will refuse to ever become an "Obama Hater."  He is not a bad man.  He doesn't deserve the vilification thrown his way. 

I'm voting for Mitt Romney for a variety of rational reasons outlined elsewhere in this blog.  I think this "letter" controversy is overblown.  But, it does reflect Obama's approach to his entire Presidency.  He has no feel for the job or its gravity.  It's all paint by the numbers, sign the form letters, then on to The View.

He's not a bad man.  He's just not the man we need in the Oval Office.