A Prime Example of Media Manipulation

Is Beck To Blame for Threats?

As Leftist protesters fight with police, and Tea Party attendees hold patriotic signs - and then clean up after themselves - the media warns us of the "dangerous rhetoric" coming from the Right. With the vast multitudes of fence-sitters in this country, aka "moderates", it's small wonder that the consumers of traditional media sources are, well...misinformed.

They can't truly be faulted, perhaps by virtue of their innate propensity to cling to that with which they feel most comfortable, but someone must splash some cold water in their faces to make them understand that they have been duped, and that they continue to be so.

Today, NPR.org - paid for by the people - published a piece in which they basically accused Glenn Beck of being a danger to society. His crime lies in his insistent exposure of a pair of sociologists and political activists who have been blamed by some for the current economic woes in the United States. Frances Fox Piven is currently a professor at the City College of New York. Her husband, Richard Cloward, is no longer with us.

The couple were advocates for the "poor" back in the sixties, and their principle solution to alleviate the suffering of those poor was to collapse the economy of the United States in order that everyone would share the same plight. Not a very uplifting program, but one that received Liberal support nonetheless. They developed the Cloward-Piven Strategy which they promoted in a 1966 article in The Nation titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" (PDF).  The goal, unfortunately, wasn't to actually end poverty, but to make it universal so that none would recognize it.

Glenn Beck has been relentlessly hammering the pair and their philosophy for a year, and apparently he's garnered some notice, since NPR has seen fit to alert the masses to what they perceive to be the real danger; Glenn Beck. The tactic employed by both NPR and their defendant, Ms. Piven, are nothing if not predictable.

Eagerly quoting the senior citizen responsible for a great deal of our current misery, NPR writes:

"I'm about 5-foot-6," Frances Fox Piven tells Weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz. "I'm 78 years old. My hair is partly grey. I'm quite thin." 

The piece goes on to say that Ms. Piven has received death threats because of Beck, although she acknowledges that he has not called for them directly. She - and NPR - fret that his mere exposure of her past damage is food enough for thought for the deranged who would see her demise. Interesting.

Conspicuously absent in the NPR tome is the fact that Cloward-Piven may be responsible for more actual suffering in this country than any anticipated repercussions of Beck's exposé. Cleverly facilitating Ms. Piven's portrayal of herself as an elderly, frail victim casts her more as the victim than the perpetrator. But the mention of her own acknowledgement of Beck's unintended consequences speaks volumes.

NPR leads the reader to believe that someone such as Beck bears not only responsibility for actions alleged due to his words, but the duty to frame the discussion in a prescribed manner as a result, in order that no one is harmed. What of the theory - and the catastrophic result - of Piven and her dearly departed? Is there no culpability to be assigned there?

Remember the trials, decades after World War II, and how no one cared much for the age of the defendants nor the condition of their health. They were bad people who deserved punishment. Evil is quite adept at playing on the sympathies of the good, however, and when it finds an effective medium to aid in that regard, it will exploit it for all it's worth.

NPR has proven to be that useful tool. Beck has been vilified ad nauseam by its like-minded outlets, yet no one utters a gasp when he is threatened. Perhaps that's because we don't hear Beck whining about threats or, if he has, no media outlet bothers to report it.

Sphere: Related Content

By King's Decree, No DOMA

Barack Obama's Cap

The debate over the definition of marriage will never end as long as there are people of differing opinions willing to argue the point. It is no different than any other hotly contested issue, which is why this nation was founded upon the rule of law. And it is more precisely why our presidents and representatives are required to swear an oath to uphold our founding document.

For a man who claims to be a Constitutional scholar, President Obama certainly seems to frequently misunderstand - and run afoul - of it. When he rammed through his Holy Grail program "universal health care" into law, with the help of a friendly Congress, one of the mandates was for citizens to purchase a product (insurance) whether they wanted to or not. Some argued that this constituted a new tax, something Obama campaigned against in his run to Pennsylvania Avenue, and which he vehemently denied when the charge arose.

When challenges to the new law pointed out that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to force its citizens to purchase goods, Obama switched gears and attempted to use the Commerce Clause. When that was challenged, Obama had to admit that the mandate was indeed a new tax in order to fall under the umbrella of the Commerce Clause.

Painted into a corner, Obama ultimately decided that it would be better to break a promise than to break a law. But the incident underscored either Obama's ignorance of, or his contempt for, the Constitution.

This week, on February 23rd, the Obama administration once again split the balance beam of constitutionality with a thud, announcing that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the courts. DOMA, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 after passing in both houses of Congress by large majorities, essentially prevents the federal government from recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages.

I am not here to argue the merits of the law, but rather to point out that it is...the law. Laws are made and repealed on a fluid basis, and citizens are not permitted to follow only those with which they agree. Try telling the highway patrol officer handing you a ticket that you think 55MPH is a stupid law, and tell me how that worked out.

The President of the United States is not only not above the law, but bound by oath to enforce and defend it. Yet in the case of DOMA, and Wednesday's announcement that the Obama Justice Department will no longer defend a law with which they disagree, the president has broken his vow to "preserve and protect" the laws of the United States. In other words, he has become the final arbiter of which laws he will uphold and defend. That, in and of itself, is unconstitutional. As Newt Gingrich recently said:

“First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people.
Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody. 
The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act."

 Again, on whatever side of gay marriage one falls in the ideological spectrum is secondary at this point. What is paramount is how Obama will defend his indefensible actions. The question of his Constitutional acumen also raises its head again. Maybe he can backtrack and say that his oath on the Bible is invalid because his Holy Book is the Qur'an?

Just a hunch. After all, he has a past propensity to break promises in lieu of breaking the law. He may have made a worthy courtroom attorney, but Constitutional scholar remains doubtful. 

Sphere: Related Content

What If Islam Used Stick Figures?

Iran's Plans

In Colorado, an 11-year-old boy with attention deficit disorder (ADD) was hauled away from his home at night by police. He was arrested, cuffed, photographed and fingerprinted, booked and charged with a third degree misdemeanor, interfering with staff and students at an educational facility. The police wouldn't even let the boy's mother accompany him to the station.

What "Tim" (his family preferred to remain anonymous) did was to draw a stick figure of himself holding a gun pointed at four other stick figures with the words, "teacher must die". It sounds like a very disturbing incident, but Tim was merely following the advice of his therapist, who told his young patient that the drawings would release anxiety in lieu of disrupting the class.

Tim sketched the drawing, felt better after having done so, and was throwing the drawing away when the teacher spotted it. The school evaluated the boy, determined he posed no threat and ultimately returned him to class. Later that night, the police showed up and took him away. The family, of course, is weighing  its further responses.

After Columbine and subsequent tragedies, I understand the need for caution, but at what point do the citizens become alarmed by the prospect of being arrested for thoughts, or worse, perceived threats? Growing up in the sixties, I can't count the number of times I shouted to enemies, and friends with whom I was momentarily angry, "you're dead!" Obviously, it was an empty threat back then, one designed to let the object of my ire know that there would be a fight.

Today we live in a society where formerly tolerated speech is viewed as a crime, a serious threat no matter how innocuously intended. Yet on the world stage, we dismiss more direct rhetoric as meaningless. Case in point: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his repeated and boisterous threats to rid the world of the Jews.

Despite arguments by scholars over the translations of a speech Ahmadinejad delivered in 2005, in which it's been reported that the Iranian leader called for Israel to be "wiped off the map", it remains clear that the intent is to remove the Israelis from existence. (The ridiculous claim by defenders of Iran is that there are no Persian words meaning "wiped off the map").

Seeking to qualify the remarks, Arash Norouzi, who translated the Persian to English, claims that the speech merely intended that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". And to add further ludicrousness to this madness is Iran's Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki,  who said at a news conference in February of 2006, "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."

Whew! So the Iranians really don't want to wipe Israel off the map, they just want to eradicate the Jews. What a relief. A professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia also dispelled the notion that Ahmadinejad uttered the phrase, "wipe Israel off the map". Shiraz Dossa put the fears to bed by assuring us, "There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can 'wipe out' U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous".

OK, but that was five years ago. Since Ahmadinejad has been working feverishly since then to acquire nuclear weapons, one must wonder the odds today of such a confrontation with Israel.

I'm more curious about what may have happened if Professor Dossa had had Ahmadinejad in his class, and caught him with a stick figure drawing of the annihilation of the Jews?

Sphere: Related Content

Wisconsin Like Egypt? Not at All

Scott Walker Targeted?

There are several glaring ironies at play in Wisconsin these days, as union members flood the streets in protest against Governor Scott Walker's plans to fiscally stabilize that state's economy. Some in the media have attempted to compare those protests to the recent ones in Egypt, as people there took to the streets demanding the ouster of dictator Hosni Mubarek, and democratic freedoms.

The comparison doesn't hold water, however, since Mubarek wasn't elected by the people in the first place. Walker, on the other hand, won that state's election with a five point margin and over fifty percent of the vote, giving him a clear mandate to do the very things he promised in the campaign. Perhaps the losers never believed Walker would be true to his word once in office, as is often the case with politicians.

While the Egyptian protests were about democracy and the will of the people, the Wisconsin union thuggery is more about ignoring the will of the people in favor of their own demands. Since Wisconsin was the first state to approve collective bargaining rights in municipal jobs in 1959, the irony here is rich in that the detrimental effects of union greed have necessitated such a move there. The willingness of the unions, in this case, to further exacerbate the budget woes by calling in sick to protest should speak volumes to their priorities.

Then there are the duly elected Democratic legislators who, in clear violation of their sworn duties, mirrored the antics of the unions. In order to have a quorum for a vote, the Wisconsin legislature needs 20 of its members to participate. The Republicans hold the edge in that body, 19-14. Curiously, all 14 Democratic members hid out in another state to avoid their responsibilities to the people of Wisconsin. Is that what some would call "democracy"?

There were signs in the Wisconsin protest crowds calling for the impeachment of Governor Walker. Someone should remind these folks that impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors and clear dereliction of duty. Scott Walker is not guilty - much less accused - of any of those. He merely bucked the trend and did exactly what he said he would once elected.

Wisconsin Union Protest Sign

But the signs were worse than that, and herein lies yet another irony. In the wake of the Tucson shootings, in which Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was seriously wounded, the media and the Left (redundant, I know) were all over the rhetoric and the tone of the right, demanding that people like Sarah Palin "explain herself". They complained about rare or non-existent Nazi signs at Tea Party rallies, complained about imaginary racial epithets allegedly hurled at black Congressman, and called for a "change in the tone".

How quickly that has all changed, with signs bearing cross hairs over Governor Walker's face and others comparing him to Hitler. And these signs are much more prevalent in Wisconsin than they ever were at any Tea Party rally. Suddenly it is alright by the media and the Democrats who support the unions because this is viewed by them as a "people's movement". Perhaps if unions respected the wishes of those who did not want to join a union, that assessment might have some merit, but that is not the case. Often, resistors to membership are ostracized, terrorized and sometimes beaten by union bosses and "consiglieres".

The unions knew full well what Scott Walker had planned. He told them in his campaign. They lost and now have four years to properly challenge his actions through the democratic process, as is our wont in America. Is Wisconsin the same as Egypt? No, it is not, unless Egypt falls into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. Then, if the unions succeed in their overturning of a fair election in Wisconsin, there may be an accurate similarity.

Sphere: Related Content

87 Tea Bags Make a Powerful Brew

Hard to Dilute This Tea

We've seen it too many times. A savvy politician emerges with strong principles and stronger rhetoric, vowing to go to Washington and make a difference, only to be swallowed whole by the establishment after a month or two. Ultimately, the only difference he makes is in his own commitment. It is precisely for that reason that I have long advocated the need for an army of new representatives who could form a caucus and stand strong to what they promised.

2010 was the year that finally happened, with an impressive number of Tea Party-backed people being elected and beginning their freshman year in 2011. There were 138 candidates with Tea Party support running in 2010, 129 of them for the House of Representatives and all as Republicans. 87 were elected, and they immediately set about making their presence felt.

In the budget debate that ended on Thursday night, the freshman class forced the hands of established Republican leaders in the final number for budget cuts, securing a figure roughly triple that which was being sought by appropriators and the committee. In the end, the House settled on cuts of $100 billion to the resolution that will fund the government through this fiscal year, ending September 30th. And the old guard got a taste of what the Tea Party actually represents, not to mention that of a little humble pie. 

Spending Is No Longer Popular

People are now much more receptive to the Conservative message simply because they have personally witnessed the effects of attempted Socialist practices. They are tired of the reckless spending habits of this administration and the mounting debt, and are hungry for constraint in Washington. Now they are beginning to see it.

With the number of freshman sharing the same goals of fiscal and social Conservatism, they are a formidable group, and not prone to the absorption typical of a single person or even a small group by the established members. Further, they are helping to embolden some existing members who may have quietly shared the same philosophies but were formerly too timid to express them.

Last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the tone was decidedly more intense than in previous years, with speakers unabashedly more vociferous in their opposition to the Democrat's agenda. The popular theme throughout the conference was an insistent repudiation of Liberal social and economic policies, a mantra that is a much easier sell these days because the listener doesn't have to believe it in theory alone. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

Rep. Allen West (R-FL) 22nd CD

The crowd at the CPAC was enthusiastic, but one man was clearly the star, receiving the most energetic applause. Allen West, who was recently elected to Florida's 22nd Congressional District, closed out the conference with a rousing speech that offered plenty of red meat to supporters. West promised "a new dawn in America", bringing the crowd to its feet, and not for the first time.

West was not meek in his speech, assailing programs considered "Holy Grails" by Liberals, and harshly criticizing Obama. He specifically targeted the tax code, capital gains taxes, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and defended the institution of the American family as crucial to liberty.

"I say we start looking at every government agency and program that's been created in the last ten years, and let's start making some hard choices."
"If you break down the American family, that leads to government dependency."

With Allen West and the other 86 "tea bags" steeping in the House of Representatives, it will make for a very potent brew. And for those on the left who insisted that the Tea Party is little more than a fad, I would suggest that they reconsider, even as I hope that they remain as cocky as always. Keep believing that your agenda is secure, Liberals, and we'll just be over here making things right again.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's Selective Diplomacy

Manuel Zelaya and Hosni Mubarak



This dictator must stay, that dictator must go. How does one sort through the confounding wishes of the current administration? Here, we'll examine the possible thought processes of Barack Hussein Obama in an attempt to figure out why Manuel Zelaya - in the mind of Obama - was wrongly removed from power while Hosni Mubarak must leave immediately.

Considering the current news emanating from Egypt, it is highly doubtful that anyone reading here will need an acquaintance with Mubarak. Manuel Zelaya, on the other hand, might understandably be a forgotten man, so it might be prudent to recap his influence on the news cycle and why I make the comparison I'm about to make.



In June of 2009, Manuel Zelaya, then president of Honduras, was removed from power at the hands of that countries military, and at the behest of the Honduran Congress, and rather unceremoniously to boot. On a Sunday morning, soldiers entered Zelaya's residence and brusquely escorted him - in his pajamas - out of the country. The reason was that Zelaya had sought to subvert the Honduran Constitution, and the Congress reacted.



Perhaps emboldened by the strides of his Venezuelan counterpart, Zelaya was, in effect, trying to become the Honduran version of Hugo Chavez, but the people's representatives would have none of it. The reactions from the region were predictable, with socialists from Venezuela and Nicaragua - Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega - demanding that the usurper be reinstated immediately. What was astounding was the fact that Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined in that chorus, refusing to acknowledge Speaker Roberto Micheletti as the interim leader of Honduras.

To be fair, Zelaya was not yet a dictator, but was positioning himself to become one, and a United States administration should have had as its policy nothing but solid support for the wishes of the people of Honduras as represented by its Constitution in correcting a wrong in progress. It didn't, instead demanding that Zelaya be reinstated. Why?



Perhaps because Zelaya shared the philosophy of our own current regime, one of Socialism and its alleged benefit to the common man. So the rules of Honduras were by default invalid in the judgement of our current administration. Socialism's advance would be protected as best it could.

So when the people of Egypt began protesting the Mubarak regime, one would have expected our own to back him, but that didn't happen. Again, we must ask why. Here's where things get dicey.


Mubarak is not what Americans would consider our type of leader; a dictator with a parliament, but no independent judiciary. It's antithetical to our system. But we made the relationship between our nations work because, under Mubarak, Egypt has ironically been an agent of Middle East peace for three decades, upholding the agreements of his predecessor, Anwar Sadat.



One of the primary reasons for this is that Mubarak's reign has been a secular one, a rule that has prevented the spread of radical Islam from infecting a fragile partnership with Israel and the West. The protests that began there were not even about religion, but were the manifestation of the peoples dissatisfaction with absolute power. But when the Muslim Brotherhood attempted to capitalize on the opportunity, it became complex. And that's when Obama became interested.



Suddenly, our long time ally became an impediment to "peace" in the eyes of Obama, who bluntly called

for Mubarak to step aside quickly, even foolishly and prematurely announcing that he would in mere hours yesterday. The announcement was made to Congress by CIA Director Leon Panetta, but it only exposes the lack of experience in leadership of this administration.




Muslim Brotherhood Founder
Hassan al-Banna and Nazi Troops

 

Another similar miscommunication came from National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who astonishingly claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood was "in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam." Almost immediately, Clapper's PR person, Jamie Smith, was out trying to protect the boss, claiming that Clapper was merely misunderstood.

But I digress...the issue is the choices the president makes in taking sides in foreign disputes. In the case of Zelaya, he clearly favored a would-be dictator over the choice of the people. In the case of Mubarak - who has been in place for the first half of Obama's term with no incident - Obama suddenly declares a desire for the Egyptian people to be heeded. Curiously, this stance came only after the intrusion of the Muslim Brotherhood.

It strongly suggests a pattern by Obama. The real question remains, though, is it a pattern of incompetence or cunning?

Sphere: Related Content

Just In Time, Our Salvation Bakkens

Shale Oil Drilling in the Bakkens

How many will be dismayed to distraction over the latest developments in U.S. energy independence? Certainly there are those who giddily believed  - through our dependence on Arab oil - that finally the haughty United States would be brought to her knees.

And then there are the purveyors of the poppycock that crude oil is a finite resource, who will cringe at the vast amounts not only recently discovered right here in the good old USA, but which is recoverable in a relatively brief amount of time.

And there is also the group that represents the "green industry", the Al Gore's whose cottage industry may just well take a hit if we Americans are suddenly awash in "Black Tea", a prospect that will most likely make our fuel more easily affordable. Not to mention the relief on the collective consciences of consumers here who feel that their habit aids terrorism.

The latest development is that there is a new drilling technique that is opening previously out of reach oil fields in the mid and south west, including such states as North Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming and California. Analysts and oil executives are saying that by as early as 2015, the yields from these areas could approach as much 2 million barrels of oil per day. That can't be good news to environmentalists or their enablers.

It was reported in 2007 that the Bakken formation under Montana and North Dakota held an enormous amount of oil shale, perhaps more than the Saudi reserves. In the Spring of 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted on a bill that would have ended a one-year moratorium on enacting rules for oil shale development on federal lands, but the moratorium earned a stay on a 15-14 vote, primarily because Mary Landrieu (D-LA) voted nay, despite her open opposition to the moratorium. She stated at the time that she cast her vote at the behest of the Democrat Senator from Colorado, who asked that she vote to uphold the moratorium.

*Special side note: Shortly after the vote, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said in an interview with Jon Birger of CNNMoney.com:

It's pathetic. Environmentalists are very happy having us dependent on foreign oil. They're unhappy with us developing our own. What they forget to say is that shipping fuel all the way from the middle east has a big greenhouse gas footprint too.

That Senator was none other than Ken Salazar, who just happens to be the Obama administration's Secretary of the Interior. Salazar is no friend of the oil industry, heavily favoring "renewable energy" policies like wind, solar and geothermal instead. Combine that stance with the fact that - as Secretary of the Interior - Salazar controls most federal lands and natural resources, and there could be severe obstacles to the success of the new oil discoveries.

An Angry Opposition to Oil?

Al Gore and his lobby will certainly pressure the Interior to act to prohibit the development and refining of that oil, and one can wager confidently that the mainstream media will pile on to keep the facts from getting out. But the Associated Press may have made such future endeavors at obfuscation moot with this article released today.

While political opponents to the notion of America's long last energy independence will play on the fears of the eco-masses, you must remember this excerpt from the aforementioned article (emphasis mine):

Environmentalists fear that fluids or wastewater from the process, called hydraulic fracturing, could pollute drinking water supplies. The Environmental Protection Agency is now studying its safety in shale drilling. The agency studied use of the process in shallower drilling operations in 2004 and found that it was safe.

Combine this with the economic figures, which include record low unemployment numbers in North Dakota at 3.8%, and the prominence of talk radio and the Tea Party movement, and it stands to reason that the American public will welcome this news and clamor for the continuation of the Bakken conquest.

Add in the newer finds of Eagle Ford in southern Texas, the Niobrara that lays beneath portions of Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas, the Leonard, in New Mexico and Texas; and the Monterey, in California, and hope seems assured of victory over fear in the battle that will surely be waged in the coming months and years.

Sphere: Related Content

An Empire in Peril

Destiny Once Unimaginable In America

The rumblings surround us, yet we glance not at the sound. The foundation trembles, and we continue in our myopic pursuits. The walls crumble around us while we continue, unperturbed, in our daily quests. It seems that our sense of casual observation of the obvious has betrayed us, dulled by our reliance on the television bobble heads who tell us of what to beware.

Perhaps worse is the fact that we do have sentries that sound the alarm daily, but are heeded by only a few; those who have not yet been seduced by the siren song of the complicit media personalities. Most of the rest, it seems, are oblivious to the creaking timbers warning that the house is about to collapse. And then there is the small percentage who hear the creaks but loudly and deliberately mask the sound, privately and jubilantly awaiting the resultant rubble.

For the past two centuries, the world has unquestionably benefited from a strong and benevolent United States of America, a nation that could have greedily consumed land and ruled in a most cruel fashion. It did not, instead expending fortunes and blood across the globe in order that people could remain free from tyranny. Yet still, there have been bad players across that span of time who viewed this nation as a serious impediment to their nefarious intentions, the roadblock to their own conquests.

They were never able, however, to match our military might and to mount any serious challenge to our supremacy. So they stewed in their hatred and fomented the loathing of their own subjects. In the late 1970's, they had an unsuspecting ally in Jimmy Carter, whose ineptitude and obsequiousness was nearly our undoing. Thankfully, Carter was replaced by a real leader after only one nearly tragic term.

The Beast on the Wing

Now, however, the enemies of freedom have a new ally in the White House, one who is not nearly the innocent pawn that Carter was. In 2009, I wrote The Beast on the Wing, in which I laid out the damage Barack Obama was inflicting on America. In the subsequent year and a half, it has not only gotten worse, it has gotten much more flagrant. It seems that everything the man does is designed to further weaken our position of strength, and to dim the hope on which he ran. The change is still coming at dizzying speeds, however.

Our unemployment remains absurdly high and our economy teeters on the brink of collapse, yet Obama continues to ramp up the spending on credit. The deficits are spiraling out of control and still he borrows ever faster. Our dependence on foreign oil has not diminished one iota due to his Environmental Protection Agency agenda which prohibits the drilling of our own oil resources while OPEC prices continue to rise. His health care reform, which he touts as better for the people, is apparently not so great for his friends, who keep getting waivers from participation in such a great system.

Travel within our country has gotten so restrictive through the TSA that many choose not to fly. Rather than use profiling and risk "offending" some groups, Obama and the DHS prefer to offend everyone. And while trying to get to Grandma's house a few states away has become a hindrance to many, getting here illegally from Mexico is a breeze. Our southern border is becoming a nightmare.

Obama has also blocked the construction of new power plants across the country, so now we have rolling blackouts amid record cold conditions. When the United States has to "borrow" energy from Mexico, something is seriously wrong.

Obama's foreign policy is one seemingly designed to dismantle everything his predecessors have built. He treats long time allies such as Israel and Great Britain like enemies and embraces Socialist and Muslim dictators. Hugo Chavez is considered a "friend" to this administration while Benjamin Netanyahu is not only snubbed but scolded. I assert that part of the unrest in Egypt is a result of Obama's past words and deeds.

The recent Wikileaks report should be enough evidence that this Administration is cozy with adversaries and dangerous to friends. The report claims that the Obama administration has agreed to tell Russia the nuclear secrets of the UK in order to secure an agreement on START. It seems that we spied on a staunch ally to curry favor with a former enemy.

Through all of this, our alleged watchdog media has remained silent on the transgressions of Obama and his administration, reporting on inane celebrity stories while ignoring the travesty happening to our country. When the DHS is trumpeting the shutdown of sports betting websites while citizens die at the Southern border at the hands of another country, we have a problem, Houston.

It is a testament to the strength of our Union that it has not already come crumbling down. It has never been asked to withstand such an assault before, and I am proud of its endurance, even as I fear the question of how much more it can take. I pray that we can hang on for another two years.

Sphere: Related Content

Get the Story Straight!

AGW Now Means More Snow?

As we all struggle to keep our heads above snow, we're being warned not to question global warming. Why? Because we're also being told that we've been told repeatedly how global warming  climate change causes more snow.

Every time an Al Gore AGW (anthropogenic global warming) gets snowed out, a little more of the issue's credibility wanes. What to do? Simple, just reverse course and blame the object of your endeavors for making you look foolish.

In other words, when people mockingly laugh at such events being cancelled due to snow, look them right in the eye and say, "Of course! This is exactly what the scientists have been warning us about!" It's tragically amusing that people like Gore still don't get the whole "audio and video record" thing...

Sphere: Related Content