Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Media collude against Romney, ignore dire problem in Middle East and Obama's weak foreign policy

Yesterday, as America somberly noted the eleventh anniversary of the deadly attacks on our soil, other attacks on American citizens took place on sovereign soil in Lybia and Egypt. The attacks were ostensibly to protest an American's online film considered offensive to Islam.

The situation started when members of a radical Islamist group called Ansar al-Sharia protested near the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Lybia. The Islamist group then clashed with security forces in the city and blocked roads leading to the consulate.

Meanwhile in Cairo, several men scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tore down our American flag, and replaced it with a black flag with white characters that read, "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger."

In response to the protests, before the compound was breached, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo issued a statement saying it "condemns efforts to offend believers of all religions." In other words, a U.S. embassy under the authority of the Obama Administration's first reaction was to apologize for the actions of the American citizen whose film - an expression of his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression - supposedly sparked the protests.

As violence eventually erupted, J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Sean Smith, a Foreign Service information management officer, and two other U.S. personnel were killed. Graphic news footage shows Stevens' lifeless body being carried through the crowds.

Not surprisingly, but inexcusably, the mainstream media are barely noting the connection between the 9/11 anniversary and the attacks on Americans on U.S. sovereign soil. It's especially bad considering that reports are now surfacing that the protest was a ruse, and that the attacks were planned specifically to coincide with the September 11 anniversary.

Newt Gingrich commented on a connection between the Libya and Egypt uprisings and attacks, saying, “This is not just about Libya. You don’t get, simultaneously, attacks in Benghazi and Cairo, in Libya and Egypt on a purely local basis. And you don’t get them on 9/11, a day we’re already honoring terrorist attacks against the United States, without a fair amount of collusion and a fair amount of planning. I think you have to look at this in a larger context…. There’s a substantial faction, particularly in Benghazi, which was sending people to Iraq to kill Americans. There’s a substantial faction in Egypt which wants to defeat the United States and destroy Israel. That faction looks for opportunities to do things to hurt the United States and yesterday was the example of an attack that’s part of a very long war that we’re going to be at for a very long time.”

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) also took on the Obama administration’s dealings with the Middle East, calling out what he defined as a “lack of leadership” that is “leading to uncertainty and doubt" on all fronts. “This administration has no concept of the Arab spring; they’re disengaging on all fronts,” he said. “The lack of leadership is about to lead to an explosion in the Middle East, and I hope people will start to focus on foreign policy, because it really does matter.”

Either way you look at it, this is a serious foreign policy and national security crisis. But what is President Obama doing (besides recently giving over a billion dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood, the pro-Islam faction now in control of Egypt)? He's carrying out his plans to fly to Las Vegas today for a campaign fundraiser while two embassies are under attack.

The media, of course, excuse the president's refusal to answer any of the tough questions about the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Middle East, including how the embassies were invaded considering they're heavily guarded. Did someone let them in?

Instead of demanding answers to these questions, while Obama high tails it to Vegas, the media are obsessing over Mitt Romney's responses to the questions he was asked. He is being crucified for saying he condemns the apology for the the American film before all the details of the murders were brought to light.

What the media won't report is that prior to the Romney press conference, a tape reveals the assembled "journalists" colluding with one another to attack Romney, agreeing to zero in on "gotcha" questions that focused on things like, "do you regret your comments" and "did you jump the gun" -- anything that would put Romney on the hot seat and create an issue that is drastically opposite from the real one we're facing in the real world. Our country is in an extremely serious situation in the Middle East, but the media are more interested in accusing Romney of politicizing the murders because he answered their trumped-up questions.

Who's politicizing this? Romney was asked fake questions, and then the media used his truthful and very pro-America answers against him in the most political of ways. Had he refused to answer the questions, the media would have accused him of dodging an important issue of foreign policy. If anyone is playing politics, it's the media, pure and simple.

At the same time, our president gave money to the same enemy regimes now acting against us, allowed one of our embassies to apologize for America, skipped intelligence briefings about the lead-up to the attacks, refused to answer meaningful questions after Americans were murdered on sovereign soil in the Middle East, and then jetted out of town for a campaign appearance. And he gets a pass.

The situation in the Middle East is dire - and it didn't just begin with the events in Libya and Egypt. The U.N. atomic agency recently received significant intelligence that Iran has moved further toward the ability to build a nuclear weapon. They say the intelligence shows that Iran has advanced its work on calculating the destructive power of an atomic warhead through a series of computer models that it ran sometime within the past three years.

A hostile regime whose leaders openly and repeatedly threaten the very existence of Israel has made significant clandestine progress toward illegal nuclear armament. In other words, our key ally Israel is in dire danger yet Obama refused a recent meeting request by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss things. Instead, Obama backed the Democratic Party's attempted plan to omit reference to Israel in its platform.

And as radical Islamists rapidly advance their menacing agenda in the Middle East, as evidenced by yesterday's slaughters of American citizens, Obama gives nothing more than bland platitudes about how he feels over what happened and heads for Vegas. This is the man the media want us to see as a hero.

Romney, on the other hand, had the fortitude to answer the questions posed to him, defend America, and speak in a strong and authentic way, only to be accused of politicizing the deaths of our citizens on sovereign soil. Rather than recognize the leadership Romney showed, the media are scapegoating him while shielding Obama once again. They're accusing Romney of trying to be the president "when we already have one."

But since Obama has shown no foreign policy other than to give money to enemy nations and support anti-American regimes like the Muslim Brotherhood (look where that's getting us) maybe we should be grateful to have someone willing to stand up for America, even if he's currently only a candidate. Somebody has to stand up for us.

We need someone to stand for our interests around the world, particularly our ally in Israel.  Strength and symbolism matters around the world and especially in the Middle East. We must show that America will not tolerate an ideology and a threat that oppresses women and minorities, opposes freedom of conscience and religion, and aggressively promotes violent Jihadism to spread its power.  

We need to stand for policies that properly defend Americans and their principles abroad. President Obama's approach of apologizing to our enemies, turning our backs on our allies, and leading from behind weakens America and empowers our enemies.  If American ideals are to remain prosperous here and abroad, the appeasement policies of this president must stop. 

The world is rapidly becoming too dangerous a place for America to stand on the sidelines waiting to see what will happen, while allowing anyone to apologize for us. We need a president who recognizes the dangers - not one who sends money to our enemies - and who will stand up to the dangers we face, boldly and proudly. Obama is not that president.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.


  1. what do you think should be done, such as with Iran? i understand that you don't like obama, but what is your suggested alternative?

    1. Madam or Sir...Obama received word that our own U.S. embassies were under assault....and he went to bed without doing anything! Then, the next day it was learned that FOUR Americans were killed - and Stevens was SODOMIZED in the streets before his brutal murder, and what did Obama do? He flew to Las Vegas for a fundraiser party, complete with music and dancing. Regardless of what anyone of us private citizens would do in the Middle East, if you are okay with the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES doing what he did here, then it is hopeless that you will ever understand how serious the whole issue is. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but good Lord, wake up.

    2. Well, Anonymous, one alternative is to stop giving billions of dollars to the radical Muslims like Obama is doing. That'd be a good place to start. Unequivocally supporting Israel is another. This has nothing to do with liking Obama or not. This man is a disaster as a president. Period.

  2. I don't intend to respond for Julie since she appears very knowledgeable and capable of handling her own responses. However she might agree that what should be done depends on information received from the military combined with data submitted by our intelligence agencies.
    It is however obvious that what we should not do is subsidize our enemies with funds or bow to our adversaries or apologize for our actions. Those are all positions of weakness and our enemies are emboldened by such actions and will continue to cause grief to larger and larger extents as long those weaknesses are displayed by Obama. Obama's entire approach to foreign policy is naive and sophomoric.

    1. You're exactly right, Arjay. I might feel a little more confident in the President if he hadn't said he doesn't even see Iran as a threat and that he is not concerned by Iran's ties with Venezuela, for instance. There are too many examples of naivete and/or weakness, and I believe that is what has brought this current dangerous situation upon us. Rick, you sound as outraged as I am about the President's flippant, weak behavior in the wake of this attack on our citizens. It's horrible. Thanks, everyone, for reading my blog. Have a great day.


    I don't agree with Obama's foreign policy but recycling overused taken-out-of-context political ads from 2008 ain't going to convince anyone who isn't already on our side, and yelling "YOU NEED TO WAKE UP" isn't going to help, either.

    Kepp up the good work, though I would like to hear some more ideas from our side other than "Obama sux!" :)

    1. I reviewed the comments above, and nobody said, "Obama su..." Sometimes the obvious needs to be repeated when it is so obvious the obvious is not being grasped.

    2. David - the President has often downplayed Iran, I don't think anyone is referring to that particular conversation you cited. Just look at what he is doing - or not doing with what's going on now. There is a huge Muslim uprising against America going on and he is only issuing warnings and sending the feds after the filmmaker instead. His overall actions regarding Iran suggest he is not taking it seriously. His refusal to meet Netanyahu about Iran's nuclear arsenal, is huge and needs to be spotlighted. He also did acknowledge that Iran's ties with Hugo Chavez are no big deal. These things matter and should be made public. What ideas do you suggest? Didn't see any from you:-)

  4. I would just like to comment that I enjoy reading your articles in "The Source," but I am amazed at the stupid people who attack you in their responses in support of the worst president we have ever had. You, of course, very deliberately and painstakingly point out the truth. However, the blithering idiots refuse to use their common sense to understand what you are saying and instead trust and believe what the media has been putting into their heads.

    Hope you make it to the top one day in your journalistic career. Maybe we'll be seeing you as an anchor on national news TV. I am also appreciative of the fact that you use your Polish surname. Obviously you are highly intelligent and have been brought up well. Having had been in the field of education, I can attest to the fact that a lot of the problems in our society today is due to the lack of parental guidance.

    1. Hi Anonymous. Thank you for your kind words and support. I try my best to get the truth out there, though it is not often received so well. That's why encouragement like yours really means a lot. Dziekuje!

  5. This was a terrorist attack. Why isn't Obama doing a d*&#n thing?? He calls it a "bump in the road." We need leadership!!! Where is it?? It's not Obama - it is his policies that helped lead to this and I am convinced it is what he wants. Please, America, get rid of Obama in November while we have the chance. Please, it's not a democrat/republican issue. This man is dangerous to America.