Sunday, September 30, 2012

Obama Phone

As the “Obama Phone” video goes viral, libs and Democrats out there in the media and blogs are doing what they do best—crying racism.  Wow, what a shock.  No one saw that coming at all.

Liberals are feigning “racism” again in an attempt to detract from all the salient issues that this video highlights.  The first and most obvious issue at hand is the exposure of the government program – LIFELINE.  To be fair, LIFELINE is an EXTENSION of a program that has existed since 1985.  However, the extension part is that Obama authorized providing cell phones to low-income people to ensure they “have the opportunities and security that cell phone service brings” including being able to connect to family and emergency services.  

This program is a gross abuse of government expansion.  Liberals will try to argue this isn’t a taxpayer funded program, and technically they are right.  It is however, still a GOVERNMENT program. The LIFELINE program is funded by Universal Subscriber Fee (USF)—that ~10% added fee at the bottom of your phone and cell phone bills.  The government mandates through laws and regulations that USF is tacked onto every paying customer’s phone bill and collected to ensure that all Americans have access to quality telecommunications services at affordable rates.  The USF ensures that customers in hard to access and predominantly rural areas receive quality telecom services at prices they can afford, it also subsidizes services for low-income consumers and programs such as Internet services for schools, libraries, and rural health care providers, and supports the hundreds of thousands of payphones found across America.  In other words, LIFELINE is not funded through taxes; it is funded by a law enforcing a government mandated “fee” that the telephone and wireless communications companies pass along to their paying consumers.  This is the government using a cutout to tax customers to pay for a government program.

If the purpose was solely to provide a communications device to call for help in the event of an emergency, then the cell phones handed out as part of this program should be pre-programed with only emergency contacts in them.  However, payphones process on average about 1.7 billion calls per year and all 911 calls are FREE from payphones.  I’d argue that low-income individuals who live in the city and have a nearby phone have even less need for a personnel cell phone.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t support paying for and providing cell phones to low-income people so they can “connect” with their family.  Ever heard of the postal service and a stamp? They can write a letter.

The other issue this video highlighted was the liberals and unions “rent a mob” method of getting protesters out on the streets.  The woman in the video was at an SEIU sponsored rally for Obama.  This brings up an interesting dilemma.  If the woman in the video was indeed an SEIU member, that would imply that she has a job.  So how did she qualify for the free phone? To qualify for LIFELINE, one must earn at or below 135% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.  Is she an employed SEIU member who still earns below 135% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines?  Yet she found time to go protest, and not take on an extra shift or second job to earn more money.  I’d like to go to rallies, campaign events, and protests too—but I’m too busy working to attend those types of things.

See folks, the liberals and Democrats want to focus all attention on portraying conservative’s reaction to this video as racist for a very simple reason. They cannot defend Obama’s needless expansion of this program at a time when our national debt is at an historical all-time high.  They cannot defend this program when far too many middle-class citizens-- like myself--are feeling the burdens of all the extra “fees” and taxes to support handouts and entitlement programs--regardless of whether the government is collecting the money as a tax or they are forcing a third party to collect it as a fee. It would not have mattered if the subject in the video had been a white woman; liberals would have called conservatives anti-women.  It would not have mattered if the subject in the video had been an old white man; liberals would have said it was proof conservatives hate old people.  What the liberals and democrats will not do—is discuss the real issue: how entitlement programs are bankrupting our country and creating a culture of poverty and dependence with expectations that someone else should pay your way. So they deflect, change the subject, and cry racism—just like they always do.

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” ~ Milton Friedman

7 Minutes or 19 days and counting….

The liberal media gleefully ripped into President Bush’s decision to wait about 7 minutes in a classroom full of second graders at Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida after being told a second plane flew into the World Trade Center.  He waited about 7 minutes before leaving to deal with the worst terrorist attack in US history. They pounced on this as proof of how he was indecisive, stupid, and in over his head as President and Commander in Chief. 

ABC's Good Morning America did a segment showcasing how Michael Moore's faux documentary Fahrenheit 9-11, highlighting how after President Bush was informed a second plane had hit the World Trade Center, he stayed in front of elementary school kids for another seven minutes. Charlie Gibson asked, "Was valuable time wasted?" and Diane Sawyer did her best to sound deep by professing, "It was seven minutes in the life of a President, seven minutes in the history of the nation, it's seven minutes a lot of people are using as a kind of Rorschach test."  George Stephanopoulos commented to Sawyer that "those seven minutes are painful to watch."  Michael Moore claimed President Bush sat dumbfounded, “Not knowing what to do, with no one telling him what to do.”

What would the arm chair quarterbacks in the liberal media and pathetic Hollywood mock-umentarians rather President Bush did in a classroom full of 7 and 8 years old kids.  Run out of the room screaming? Have a full barrage of Secret Service rush in and yank him out? Scare the living crap out of the children?  President Bush remained calm, and brought his session with the students to an end in a responsible manner.

The attention that these 7 minutes has received from the left is excruciating….almost as excruciating as watching the liberal media play defense for the Obama Administration’s gross mishandling of the terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Libya on September 11, 2012.

The Obama administration repeatedly denied the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi, Libya, in which the US ambassador and three other Americans were killed, was a terrorist attack.  Instead, they tried to tell the Americans--and the world--that the attack sparked from a “spontaneous” protest that turned violent in reaction to an offensive Christian-made anti-Muslim video. It was immediately apparent that the attack was a highly coordinated, preplanned terrorist strike (most notable among the clues was the attackers' use of mortars and rocket-propelled grenades) yet Obama and his minions repetitively claimed there was not enough information to determine if it was a terrorist attack and kept emphasizing the attack was a reaction to the video.  The liberal media towed the line as dutiful little lackeys, and never bothered to question the administration on the facts leading up to the attack or Obama’s response following the attack.  Instead they choose to focus on why Romney had the gall to issue a statement saying, “It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Did the liberal media question Obama on why he hadn’t been meeting with his morning intelligence briefer in the weeks leading up to the attack? No.

Did the liberal media question the appropriateness of Obama jetting off to Las Vegas within 24 hours of the attack for a campaign fundraiser? No.

Did the liberal media question Obama’s appearance on “Letterman” as violent anti-American demonstrations spread to Europe, Africa, and Asia? No.

Did the liberal media question Obama’s choice to appear on “The View” rather than meet with world leaders at the United Nations? No. 

The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense have publically acknowledged the 9/11/12 attack was Al-Qaida linked and indeed a preplanned terrorist attack, and information has come to light that this was well known in the intelligence community and to Obama within 24 hours of the attack.  Is the liberal media pouncing on the 19 days that have passed since the attack that the Obama administration misled the Americans, on how such an intelligence failure could happen, the lack of security for overseas personnel at the Consulate, or on the complete and utter mishandling of events since the attack? No.

The media has no desire to report what really happened in Benghazi. To do so would deviate from the carefully constructed political strategy the Obama administration concocted to convince America that his foreign policies have worked.  To do so would mean they would not be able to blame the attack on the one thing they have repeatedly tried to blame almost all violent acts—a crazy right wing extremist – in this case an offensive “right-wing” video produced by a Christian.

The biggest reason of all though is that to do so would mean the media would have to concede that Obama is in over his head and has no clue on how to react or what to do next.

It’s been 19 days and counting and Obama has still not been honest with America about the 9/11/12 terrorist attack and thus far, there has been no active response to the attack.

Yet the same media that gives Obama a pass, giddily dissected those 7 minutes President Bush sat silently with the children before excusing himself, exiting the classroom in a calm manner on 9/11.  If there were any responsible members left in the “media”—they’d focus on Obama’s statements, retractions, revisions, and actions for the last 19 days and counting as rigorously as they focused on 7 minutes of Bush’s presidency.   But we all know that won’t happen.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
~ Abraham Lincoln 

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Journalism or Propaganda? Is There a Difference?

Over the past two weeks the so-called main stream media has once again proven that journalism is dead.  The media no longer reports the news.  They are by all accounts active agents of Democrats and liberals who promote the liberal agenda and try to shift attention away from the failures of this President, his administration, and his policies.   The media is not reporting on news that may or may not impact public opinion—they are actively trying to INFLUENCE public opinion.   

Following the attack in Libya that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including our Ambassador, information has surfaced that not only was there intelligence indicating an attack was being planned, but that the Obama administration was warned about it days beforehand.  Yet on the 11th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, and the first 9/11 since the death of Usama bin Ladin, when our US Embassy in Libya was attacked, the so-called main stream media did not demand response from the White House on the complete and utter failure of Obama and his administration to circumvent these attacks. 

No.  Instead they focused all attention on Gov. Romney. 

In response to the protests and breeching of security, US Embassy Cairo put out an official statement condemning “… the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims…” and then Gov. Romney issued a statement saying, “It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”   The media and the liberals went crazy trying to portray this as some foreign policy gaffe and that Romney had no right to “launch a political attack” at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya.”

With all due respect to the Ambassador and his family, was the Ambassador’s death more tragic than any other American killed in action overseas?  Did the Democrats, liberals, and the media give President Bush the same consideration to not launch political attacks when our country was confronting the tragic deaths of our troops overseas who were waging war against a vile enemy on our behalf?  Absolutely not.  Democrat John Kerry said, "there is no reason ... that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing women and children…”  Democrat John Murtha said that a squad of Marines who responded to an IED ambush and firefight in Haditha, Iraq, rampaged through the village, murdering civilians “in cold blood.”  

It seems the Democrats have no problem politicizing events.  The main difference is the Democrats side with our enemies and those that are hostile against us.  Democrats had no problem blaming our troops for alleged crimes before facts were known.  And Democrats make excuses for those who commit violence and murder against our citizens. 

Additionally, while Obama, his administration, and the media are desperately trying to promote the narrative that the September 11, 2012 Libyan attack and the Islamic protests that eventually spread to over 20 countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia were some sort of “spontaneous” violence that erupted in response to a video, nothing could be further from the truth.  The video was posted on YouTube in June 2012.  So expecting anyone to believe that the attack in Libya and Muslim protests, which began three months after a video Muslims think is offensive was posted online, on a date that coincides with the deadliest Muslim terrorist attack on our nation’s soil was unprompted or spur of the moment is ridiculous.  Furthermore, the Libyan attack was a coordinated, military-style raid that took place in a two-part operation that included an invasion on a supposedly secret safe house and lasted for hours.   Anyone who has been a part of the military or a police force knows that these things don’t just “happen,” significant planning goes into planning something of this sophistication.

The fact is, the past few weeks have shown what an utter foreign policy FAILURE the Obama administration has been.  During the so-called Arab Spring, Obama did practically nothing to ensure radical Islamists and terrorist groups wouldn’t come into power or get ahold of massive amounts of weapons.  Obama embraced the Arab Spring movement and even tried to take credit for some of it.  Now, many of the Arab Spring nations have governments that may be less friendly to the United States than the rulers that were overthrown.  Obama himself even stated he does not consider Egypt's new Islamist-led government an ally or an enemy.  He doesn’t even know who our foreign allies are -- and no one in the main-stream media is calling this out as a major foreign policy failure!  I would think “Foreign Policy 101” is knowing who our friends and foes are.

And while all this is going on, additional information surfaced that Obama has not been getting his morning intelligence briefings and didn’t have time to meet with Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu.  But don’t worry.  Obama had time for the really important things like going to a campaign fundraiser hosted by entertainment celebrities Jay-Z and BeyoncĂ©, and time for an interview on late night television with David Letterman. 

Did the media highlight any of these shortcomings or failures?  No.  The media intentionally concealed them and instead tried to influence the public against Gov Romney’s by distorting facts and reporting Romney’s comments as inappropriate gaffes.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.”  ~ Thomas Jefferson