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.

 

Democrats' platform embraces abortion, wealth redistribution; Tries to ditch God

“We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.” Those are nice words from the Democratic Party's platform. Unfortunately, they're from the 2008 platform - or were until controversy caused Democrats to make it part of this year's platform too.

This year's platform removed references to God at first. Perhaps it was because the present-day Democrat platform worships at the altar of abortion, same-sex marriage and socialist wealth-redistribution ideology, so, to them, there isn't much room left on the altar for God. However, due to backlash, they have now added God back into their platform. How sad that they had to be convinced to do so, rather than want God a part of their platform to begin with (and if you listen to the audio of the vote on the matter, the "No's" against having God - and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel - in the platform were very loud, but the amendment passed anyway). Does anyone really believe anything these people do or say? It's all about their radical, God-less agenda, until they get challenged. Then it's all about appearances.

The platform does refer to the fact that our nation was founded on the principle of religious freedom and the ability of people to worship as they please. That sounds nice, except for the fact that Democrats hold up their hands and say, "stop!" as soon as an American citizen tries to live his faith outside the walls of a church.

This was made crystal clear when ObamaCare dictated that anyone opposed to abortion on moral and religious grounds would be forced to pay for it anyway. Our rights to live our faith were further stifled when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius pronounced that Catholic employers would be forced to provide insurance that covers birth control, including sterilization and abortifacients. "Worship as they please" are meaningless words when Catholics and people of other faiths are forced to partake in actions that violate sacred tenets of their religious beliefs.

In her speech at yesterday's convention, Sebelius went out of her way to praise ObamaCare. Why did she have to do that when it's already the law? Simple. Because she realizes that as more Americans learn just how horrible and damaging this gross legislation is, that voters will be more likely to vote for the candidate promising to repeal it - Mitt Romney.

Democrats act as though ObamaCare will magically erase all the "inequality" supposedly rampant in our healthcare system, especially regarding women, who Democrats will have you believe are victims of some built-in hatred of a male-dominated world. Here's an interesting look at what ObamaCare could really do to women, as outlined by one of those "hateful men", Congressman Mike Rogers: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc.

What stands out so much when Democrats speak, especially women, is their almost desperate clinging to abortion. They say they don't want to be sex objects, but when all they talk about is sexual activity, the need for contraception and the outcome of sex - pregnancy - they paint their own picture. What a shame they fail to realize that women are more than just biology and have so much more to offer as human beings. Instead they're allowing themselves to be used as political tools based on nothing more than their sexuality. And it's stunning how they say they want the government to keep its hands off their bodies, and yet they want government to force the rest of us to take part in their bodies by paying for the contraception and abortions they choose to undergo.

The new platform also celebrates same-sex marriage. Obama acted unlawfully when he declared he would no longer uphold the Defense of Marriage Act. Since Obama swore to uphold the Constitution and all our laws when he was inaugurated, his refusal to uphold any law because of his personal views makes him unlawful. And considering how in every state that put same-sex marriage before the voters chose to uphold traditional marriage, he is setting himself apart from huge portions of the population, especially the black population who, while they tend to vote Democrat, are very socially conservative and strongly opposed to same-sex marriage. But Obama puts his radical views first.

On another topic, in 2008, the Democrats also referred to those "willing to work hard". Now, with Obama's recent unlawful roll-back of welfare reform, he made it clear that you don't even have to try to find a job and can still receive welfare off working taxpayers' backs. The new platform also drills in the idea that people who do work should pay more in taxes, apparently to support those who no longer feel like working. They want us to call that "patriotism" instead of what it really is: socialism.

It'd be nice if any of these people took a basic course in Economics 101. They'd realize you can't make someone wealthy by making the rest of the nation poor. Eventually the money runs out, and as the well runs dry, so does the human drive to be productive. At that point, the government would basically have to force people to work in order to keep the revenues coming in. That is slavery.

So while you'll hear a lot at the Convention about sexual activity, the "war on women", the desire to take more money from taxpayers, and the misrepresentation of Romney and Paul Ryan, you won't hear much about God, except in a begrudgingly obligated way, and you probably won't hear much about just how bad this economy is - except in abstract ways to justify wealth redistribution. That's because the wretched economy and unemployment situation are the very things the Democrats can't explain. Therefore, be prepared for continued tactics of distraction. It's all the Democrats have.

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

Who's racist? Liberals refuse to air speeches from minorities at Republican Convention

The liberals and the mainstream media (redundant, I know) are doing everything they can to convince the public that the Republican Party is a racist, exclusionary, hateful party that hates black people, Hispanics and women. Of course, the charge is completely untrue. But no matter, the left will do anything to keep the false image alive.

That must explain why MSNBC's coverage of the Republican Convention in Tampa has repeatedly cut away its cameras just about every time a black person or Hispanic has spoken at the Convention.

When former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis spoke, MSNBC aired a commercial. Davis, who championed Barack Obama in 2008, recently became a Republican, and happens to be black. No coverage of his speech was allowed by this leftist network. 

When Ted Cruz, the GOP nominee for Senate and an active Tea Party member took the stage, MSNBC cut away from the Republican National Convention and the Hispanic Republican's speech. 

Nikki Haley, the Indian-American governor of South Carolina, was overshadowed in MSNBC's coverage as well. Then, Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno’s wife Luce’ Vela Fortuño took the stage. MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews, who love to levy charges of racism against Republicans anytime they can, completely talked over the First Lady’s speech. Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and Mia Love, the mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, who happens to be black and a candidate for Congress in Utah, were also ignored by MSNBC.

The left claims they are the ones who support minorities, but when minorities accomplish great things for the "wrong" side, the left's support swiftly disappears. It's easier just to continue maligning Republicans falsely in hopes that the blind followers of the mainstream media will swallow the lie whole. How desperate the left must be to resort to such shameless tactics. Of course, when their candidate has zero accomplishments they can strongly point to, what else do they have left but to deceive and destroy? It's a standard play out of a very worn out book.

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

Republicans shouldn't abandon moral issues because of Akin's gaffe

Missouri Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin has been viciously maligned for his interview gaffe about a woman's ability to conceive during a "legitimate" rape. Though he was merely repeating what he's heard from doctors, and has since apologized for his remark, the way he's been vilified you'd think he himself was guilty of something as heinous as rape.

It was a stupid comment. But Republicans are making a mistake in trying to distance themselves from the abortion issue because of it - especially when Democrats are using abortion - a heinous thing in itself - as a moral high ground against Republicans. The truth is, if anyone is on the very bottom of the moral totem pole, it's the Democrats for supporting the murder of innocent human life - and Republicans should be exposing that with all their might.

Instead, we've heard for months now that Republicans are waging a war on women because they believe nobody should be forced to pay for a woman's birth control. We hear that Republicans are extremists because they believe that abortion is harmful to both the unborn baby and the mother. And in the most twisted perversion of reality, we hear Democrats are the party for women because it embraces abortion, artificial contraception, and the forcing of taxpaying citizens to pay for these things against their will. But if anyone is extreme, it is those who think killing babies - and forcing every citizen to pay for it - is something good.

The leader of the Democratic party - Barack Obama - is the most extreme of them all. In 2007, he expressed his opposition to the Supreme Court's ban on partial birth abortion. In case it's not clear, partial birth abortion is when a fully formed, perfectly viable baby on the verge of birth is killed. During the Supreme Court case, a nurse described the procedure by saying, “The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head …”

Our own sitting President of the United States is okay with this pure evil - and the Democrats, especially in the wake of Akin's comments, will use the issue of abortion against Republicans. But instead of fighting back and standing against such immoral acts as abortion or forcing citizens to pay for such things, Republicans are distancing themselves from the issue out of fear of appearing in alignment with Akin, and focusing only on the economy.

Ironically though, the economy could possibly be in such a shambles not only because of reckless spending and debt, but because abortion has reduced the workforce in our country substantially. Over 50 million Americans have been killed since Roe v Wade became the law of the land. This has to have some impact somewhere, right? Since our elderly rely on workers' tax dollars to fund programs like Social Security and Medicare, think how a shrinking population - from abortion and even contraception - will mean fewer workers supporting a larger population of elderly citizens.

Taking an in-depth look at the issue, John Mueller of the Ethics and Public Policy Center has written about the impact of abortion on the economy. Mueller estimates that, as of 2000, legal abortion reduced the U.S. population by about 11 percent. Economists say that a reduced population results in reduced economic output. According to Mueller, abortion has cut today’s $15 trillion economy by at least $1.7 trillion.

The Republicans can still focus on the economy - and they should - but given the grossly immoral nature of abortion and its possible impact on the economy - they would be making a huge mistake by ignoring the issue in their efforts to distance themselves from Akin. The Democrats will be only too happy to use the whole gaffe and the issue of abortion in general to paint Republicans as evil extremists who hate women. What a shame to allow the party who supports the murder of children to come off as the ones concerned about morals, while Republicans remain silent out of fear.

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

President's amnesty experiment goes into effect for thousands of illegal immigrants

In a twist of irony that even Hollywood couldn't make up, on the first day of President Obama's new immigration program, a Dream Act workshop in Chicago was so popular that organizers had to turn away thousands of illegal immigrants. Thousands more stood in lines in other Dream Act workshops across America, which allowed people covered under Obama’s immigration executive order to be safe from deportation for at least two years.

For anyone in need of a reminder, the executive order signed by Obama ignores the constitutional separation of powers. Obama used the executive order to get around Congress’ rejection of the immigration reform plan called the Dream Act - essentially ramming it down our throats via executive fiat.

The program is supposed to be open to illegal immigrants between the ages of 15 and 31 who entered the country before they were 16 and who have lived here for at least five years. Estimates of the number of illegals who will be affected by the program have varied from 1.7 million to more than 3 million nationwide. CBS referred to the program as “a major immigration policy change.”

To those of us who believe the Constitution matters, it's particularly frustrating that Congress has done nothing to overturn Obama's actions, which basically gives amnesty to millions of people here illegally. Since the executive order was signed, some Border Patrol agents report they are no longer allowed to arrest or even detain anybody crossing the border who claims to be eligible to be here under Obama's self-imposed immigration policy.

In addition, some televised news reports have said Dream Act workshop participants in Los Angeles were told that the amnesty would be revoked if Republicans win the November election.

Just another nice tactic by Obama supporters to win support at any costs. How this might affect America and the rule of law is of no concern.

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

Huge turn-out for Chick-fil-A coincides with today's end of conscience rights

Two noteworthy occasions are taking place today: the official start of the end of religious freedom in the United States, and a nationwide demonstration to fight for such freedoms.

By authorities granted to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) through Obamacare, the HHS has mandated -- effective today -- that employers must provide health insurance to their employees that includes free contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs -- or face huge fines and penalties.

Starting today, private employers with religious and moral objections must make an unimaginable and wholly un-American choice: comply with the government and deny their faith, or deny the government and be subject to crippling fines.

Religious institutions, including churches, charities, and universities, have been given a one-year reprieve, but as of now the government can renege and force these institutions to comply at anytime. Many of these institutions - which help millions upon millions of Catholic and non-Catholic poor and other people in desperate need of services -- will simply close rather than go against their deeply held beliefs.

Never has there been such a heavy hand slammed down on religious freedom in the history of the United States. As of today, the federal government is forcing people of faith to violate their beliefs or be punished. It is a vile thing we would expect from the Stalin regime, not a modern-day American administration.

Coincidentally or not, today has also been set aside as the day to buy a meal at your local Chick-fil-A restaurant in support of the restaurant's owner, Dan Cathy, who is being excoriated for the unforgivable crime of saying in a media interview that he believes in the Bible's teaching on traditional marriage. In no way did Cathy say his restaurant chain denies service to anyone who holds different views nor did he denounce homosexuals in any way. He expressed a religious belief about the definition of marriage. That's it.

In response to his crime of exercising his Constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech and religious freedom, liberal/mainstream media outlets and many others across America are calling for boycotts of the restaurant (these are same people who preach against intolerance). But as demonstrative of intolerance as this is, it is the right of any American to boycott an establishment with which they disagree.

But what's really frightening is that some government officials - like the mayors of Boston and Chicago - are threatening to deny building or operating permits to the restaurant because of its stance on values. It's bad enough that a lot of potential jobs will disappear because of this. But to use the power of a government office to shut down a private business - not for violating any law or regulation, but simply because of its owner's personal opinion on something, is fascist, pure and simple.

In response to all of this, Americans who believe in real freedom and tolerance are going to the restaurant today in droves for a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day to show support for the restaurant. The support is not necessarily for traditional marriage, but the more fundamental issue of whether a company owner has the right to speak his mind freely and answer questions in an interview honestly. As of the writing of this post, some reports are saying the lines are out the door at several Chick-fil-A locations. The fight for freedom lives on.

Sadly though, when Americans are forced by our own government to violate personal beliefs, and private American businesses are being threatened out of existence for expressing those beliefs, it is no longer the America represented by the Constitution. It is a new America run by a government that has boldly put into practice its Chicago-style tactics of bullying, intimidating and blatantly demanding behavior that it knows cannot be demanded under our Constitution. So instead, it has simply tossed out the Constitution for all intents and purposes in favor of rule by an iron fist.

Of all of President Obama's broken promises about reducing the deficit, increasing jobs and protecting conscience rights, unfortunately the only one he has kept is his promise to "fundamentally transform America". And transform it he has. When we citizens are forced to violate our beliefs and cannot even safely express those beliefs, it is indeed an America transformed, and clearly not for the better.

Like the demonstrations being held today for Chick-fil-A, hopefully in November the lines at every polling place will be out the door in demonstration of a resounding "America Appreciation Day" for the great country we want to preserve, not transform.

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