Help us fight the
ObamaMedia

click title for home page
  
Be a subscribing
member

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media
Register Calendar Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 29      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #26 

Obama instructs journalists on how to report his positions

Real Clear Politics has a video of Obama lecturing reporters:

"This bears on your reporting," Obama said to journalists. "I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. And an equivalence is presented which I think reinforces peoples' cynicism about Washington in general. This is not one of those situations where there's an equivalency."
 
"As all of you are doing your reporting, I think it's important to remember that the positions that I am taking now on the budget and a host of other issues. if we had been having this discussion 20 years ago or even 15 years ago … would've been considered squarely centrist positions," Obama said a few moments later.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #27 

Associated Press chief offers lavish praise for Obama

Daniel Halper is reporting that Dean Singleton, chairman of the Associated Press board, introduced President Obama this afternoon at a speech to news editors in Washington. But Singleton didn’t just tell the audience the president was the next speaker—the supposed newsman offered lavish praise for the Democratic president.
   
“President Obama made history as the first minority to be elected president,” said Singleton. “Even many who opposed his election felt proud of our country as he took the oath of office.”

Singleton went on to detail the challenges Obama faced, much in the same way Obama himself details his own presidency (the transcript is rushed, there may be small errors):

As president, he inherited the headwinds of the worst economic recession since the great depression. He pushed through congress the biggest economic recovery plan history and what a government reorganization of two of the big three American automakers to save them from oblivion. He pursued domestic and foreign policy agendas that are controversial to many, highlighted by his signature into law of the most comprehensive health care legislation in history. The budget plan's proposed by the president on the one hand and republicans on the other hand are not even on the same planet. Many democrats believe his agenda doesn't go far enough and many republicans believe it goes way too far. While we fought be to doubt -- while we thought the 2008 white house race was rough and tumble, the 2012 race makes it look like bumper cars by comparison our country has become even more polarized. The 1 percent and the 99 percent are at each other's throats.  Campaigns are now funded by secretive, multimillion-dollar super PACs. The only thing anybody seems willing to compromise on is -- I can't think of anything. [laughter] really, who would want this job in the first place?”

“We are honored today to have the man currently holding the office and aspiring for another term,” said Singleton before finally announcing the president himself.

Indeed, it sounded like a campaign speech from AP chief himself.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #28 

Can you spell potato?

This is a transcript of Barack Obama's politically-charged remarks Tuesday afternoon at an Associated Press luncheon framing the general election campaign, as released by the White House.

During his speech he attacked the House Republican budget's -- doesn't have one of his own -- massive new cuts in annual domestic spending.

Obama was reading from a laundry-list of disasters that will befall America if the Republican plan were implemented, when he lamented -- "Hundreds of national parks would be forced to close for part or all of the year."

But there are only 58 national parks!

In a room full of news editors, not a single one noticed.

Can you spell potatoe?

 

Rush Limbaugh read the list:

 

"Two million mothers and young children would be cut from a program that gives them access to healthy food. There would be 4,500 fewer federal grants at the Department of Justice and the FBI to combat violent crime, financial crime, and help secure our borders. Hundreds of National Parks would be forced to close for part or all of the year. We wouldn’t have the capacity to enforce the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink or the food that we eat. Our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we wouldn’t be able to afford to launch new satellites."

 

Then added:  "Now, this is the worst of the worst that we’ve had from President Obama. This is shameful. It is sophomoric. It is sophistry. It is a blatant appeal to the dumbest Americans. It really is pathetic. It is beneath the office of the presidency. But it is an appeal to the stupidest of our people. Now, let me tell you about Ryan’s budget. This is what he’s talking about, is Paul Ryan’s budget. Paul Ryan’s budget doesn’t balance, what, ’til 2040? Paul Ryan’s budget is less than a trillion dollars smaller than Obama’s. Paul Ryan’s budget doesn’t cut anything. It takes a long time to balance. It shifts some things, but it’s not Draconian at all."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #29 

Obama wants a one-party media

Jeffrey T. Kuhner says Barack Obama is trying to impose ideological conformity on the press. He is demanding that the media more favorably report his positions and present him as a pragmatic centrist. During a recent speech to journalists, he denounced their supposed equivalence on the burning issues of the day. Instead, Obama insisted that they portray his leadership in a more glowing light. He brazenly violated media independence, putting government pressure on journalists akin to that in authoritarian socialist states.

"This bears on your reporting," Obama said to the Associated Press. "I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing then they’re equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. And an equivalence is presented which I think reinforces peoples’ cynicism about Washington in general. This is not one of those situations where there’s an equivalency."
 
In particular, Obama argued that on spending, the budget and cap-and-trade legislation the media is not correctly reflecting the administration’s central narrative: Extremist Republicans are blocking the sensible policies of a middle-of-the-road Democratic president. "As all of you are doing your reporting, I think it's important to remember that the positions that I am taking now on the budget and a host of other issues," he told journalists, "if we had been having this discussion 20 years ago or even 15 years ago … would’ve been considered squarely centrist positions."

 According to Obama, it is the GOP which has "moved its center" to the "far right." In other words, the president claims that Republicans are wedded to a radical agenda. For example, he said that in the early 1990s conservatives pushed for a health insurance individual mandate -- the centerpiece of Obamacare. He also stressed that, again, it was the right that championed market-based carbon credits to combat global warming. Hence, the press must not just report the facts and the raging debate inside the Beltway. It must go one step further: defend Obama as a besieged moderate, who is battling the crazed right-wingers that have supposedly hijacked the Republican Party. In short, he wants journalists to act as cheap propagandists.

Obama is selling snake oil. He is not a centrist, but a supranational socialist bent on transforming America into a European nanny state. In fact, during the 1990s then-President Bill Clinton sought to pass government-run universal health care. Hillarycare was the precursor to Obamacare. It was opposed by conservatives, and became deeply unpopular with voters. This is the major reason it was defeated. Hillarycare was rightly seen as being outside the American mainstream -- a direct assault on free-market capitalism. Obamacare is plagued by the same problems, which explains the public’s intense opposition. Conservatives haven’t changed their dislike of nationalized health care. It’s the president and his congressional allies who have rammed it down the voters’ throats. They are seeking to push the country to the left.

The same applies to man-made global warming. Contrary to liberals’ claims, it has not been scientifically proven. The evidence points in the other direction: The earth is cooling. Moreover, throughout history global temperatures have fluctuated, leading at times to an Ice Age or a significant warming trend such as the Middle Ages -- centuries before fossil fuels were used. Radical environmentalists are using the hoax of global warming as a Trojan horse to dismantle industrial society. Cap-and-trade legislation is green socialism, an attempt to subordinate the private economy to massive government control. This is not centrism; it is statism fueled by hysteria.

It is remarkable Obama even feels the need to lecture the mainstream media. They are already on his side. CNN, MSNBC, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Associated Press -- all of them have been acting as the communications wing of the Democratic Party. They routinely mouth the administration line. They demonize the Tea Party. They portray man-made global warming as an accepted scientific consensus. They cheer Obamacare. They defend his anti-business, class warfare policies. They downplay the historic deficits and skyrocketing debt racked up by his administration. They paint a false picture of the anemic economy, pretending it is rebounding vigorously when it is stagnant. They attack Republicans for being heartless right-wing nut jobs who wish to push granny off a cliff. And they slander any substantive criticism of Obama’s inept leadership as a sign of subliminal racism.

This is the same media that has covered up many of the administration’s scandals and egregious abuses of power -- the botched Fast and Furious operation, billions of taxpayer dollars given away to green-energy cronies, the failed nearly $1 trillion stimulus that was used primarily to bribe political constituencies, a racist Justice Department that will not prosecute civil rights violations against whites, and the illegal war in Libya that has empowered radical Islamists. All of this (and so much more) has been swept under the rug.

Still, Obama wants the press corps to do more. In other words, he wants the media to become an American version of Pravda -- state-sanctioned mouthpieces for the ruling regime. It should be the very opposite: The press is supposed to hold political leaders of all persuasions accountable. It must act like a watchdog, determined to investigate and report the truth. Instead, most journalists have abandoned their mission, preferring perks, influence and to serve as vehicles for the Democratic establishment. Even so, Obama should mind his own business and leave the press alone: He has enough trouble doing his job, let alone telling others how to do theirs.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
freedomstands

Registered:
Posts: 72
Reply with quote  #30 

You mean trillions of dollars to green energy companys......

Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #31 

Fox News smacks anchor for tweeting WND video

Responding to  to criticism from the left-wing watchdog site Media Matters, Fox News Channel management says it “addressed” a “mistake” by a news anchor who asked her Twitter followers to weigh in on a claim by an insider in Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign that the Obama camp threatened Chelsea Clinton’s life if her parents exposed what they knew about Obama’s presidential eligibility.

Weekend and early morning anchor Heather Childers distributed the message with a link to a blog that picked up on a WND story that featured a video interview.

    

In a statement to the website Mediaite, Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said: “The tweets have been addressed with Heather and she understands there was a mistake.”

Childers has not replied to a WND request for comment.

The WND story cited Hollywood producer Bettina Viviano, who claims that it was a common belief inside Hillary Clinton’s campaign that Obama was not eligible to be president. The charges of Viviano and others connected to the 2008 campaign are now being investigated by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse, which is probing Obama’s eligibility for Arizona’s 2012 ballot.

The controversial tweet by Childers, who anchors the weekend program “America’s News Headquarters” and co-hosts “Fox & Friends,” read: “Thoughts? Did Obama campaign threaten Chelsea Clinton’s Life 2 Keep Parents Silent?”

Media Matters, which has ridiculed any challenge to Obama’s eligibility, announced last year a campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against Fox News. The network has rarely covered the eligibility issue, however.

When Media Matters Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt confronted Childers with a critical tweet Tuesday, the Fox News anchor responded: “I know MM strives 2b FACTUALLY correct so attach the article plz. I was asking 4 opinion.”

 

According to Media Matters, after the publication of its initial post on Childers, she tweeted that Fox News anchors “present both sides but people see what they want.” She concluded: “Here’s the thing folks… that ONE topic sure got alot [sic] of you tweeting. Why? I apologize if the article offended anyone. Very interesting.”

Politico reported Media Matters’ shift one year ago “from media critic to a new species of political animal” when it “declared war on Fox News.”

The George Soros-funded organization decided to narrow its focus to the network and a small number of conservative websites that it regarded as the “nerve center” of the conservative movement.

In WND’s story, Viviano cited a campaign staffer who was close to Hillary Clinton, whose name she requested be withheld for security reasons. Viviano had an insider’s view of the campaign through her production of a documentary on alleged voter fraud by the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
ozlander

Registered:
Posts: 15
Reply with quote  #32 
Claudia..the book is available on AMAZON

Hope Is Not A Strategy: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency [Paperback]

John L. Mariotti (Author), D. M. Lukas (Author)
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #79,151 in Books

http://www.amazon.com/Hope-Not-Strategy-Leadership-Presidency/dp/1469931044/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332434418&sr=1-5

It may have been scrubbed by the author from Internet cuz 'why buy his book if you can get it free on internet/'....just a thought

It will be interesting to read the comments on the AMAZON site though as people review the book.


Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #33 

Spinning the polls for Obama

Hugh Hewitt says news organizations that commission polls on the presidential election and that then have their reporters write stories about the results of those polls ought to at least give some thought to the old injunction "Primum non nocere."
 
"First, do no harm" is a pretty good rule for everyone in all circumstances, but it is especially appropriate for those allegedly committed to the old standards of journalism. Certainly no Pulitzer judge would honor a manufactured story, especially one that misled news consumers about the real facts of any situation.
 
Almost all "national" polls about the presidential race are at best entertainment, however, and some are downright disingenuous and a few intentionally misleading.
 
"[H]ere's my bottom line," The Weekly Standard's Jay Cost wrote last week in the conclusion of his analysis of the most recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, which found Barack Obama to have a significant lead over Mitt Romney among all adults, and a huge lead on key measures such as likability.
 
"ABC News/WaPo has again offered up a pro-Democratic sample that helps Team Obama spin the day's news," Cost concluded.
 
Cost reached this "bottom line" because of the "hugely Democratic tilt" of the poll's sample, which put questions to a population of respondents 11 percentage points higher in Democrat makeup than in GOP participants, "an unjustifiable number," Cost concluded (his emphasis, not mine).
 
These are the equivalent of dueling words among the statistically inclined like Cost and the alchemists at the Post/ABC poll. Along with the New York Times' Nate Silver and RealClearPolitics' Sean Trende, Cost is the best of the new generation of Michael Barones, and his searing takedown of the Post/ABC poll should trigger some internal intervention by those concerned that the pollsters are going to hurt the brands peddling the results.
 
Many observers questioned the motivation of the pollsters, but almost all fair observers also credit the Washington Post's Dan Balz as among the country's best political reporters, and he defended the poll in a fairly long interview on my radio program that spread over two days (the transcript of which is available at my website). Judge for yourself whether Cost or Balz has the better argument, but the real question is, why is a news organization spending any money at all on such an obviously useless data set, no matter how fair or unbalanced the sample?
 
All serious observers of the looming Obama-Romney contest admit it will come down to the results in between 10 and 15 states.
 
Those states depart significantly from the national electorate in makeup and turnout history, and key data such as the unemployment rate and gas prices vary significantly among them.

Polls of likely voters in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, and perhaps one or two more, would be worth reading right now.

Modeling turnout in these states is hard, defenders of the status quo assert, but if the battleground states cannot be polled in any way that can produce valuable results, why then do even less predictive polls of national electorates that matter not at all to November's results.
 
Either meaningful polling can be done, or it can't. If it can be done, it should be done in a way that tells people which way the election really is heading.
 
In fact, such polling can be done, and is routinely conducted by campaigns.
 
"News organizations," however, choose to spend their resources on absurdly tilted samples and nearly meaningless questions.
 
Why? Cost suggests the obvious answer, and given the absence of any equally plausible alternative explanation, old-school journalists would have to conclude that Cost is correct.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #34 

The Lying King -- ha, ha, ha!

This shocking video, taken from the White House Correspondents' Dinner, is posted in the media malfeasance thread because of the reaction from the assmbled "journalists."

All of them, they're all in on the joke.

They think it's funny that the guy at the podium has usurped the Office with a collection of forged and counterfeit documents and is driving the country into bankruptcy and civil strife.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #35 

A Legitimate issue video


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #36 

It's cool to be in the tank for Obama

Investor's Business Daily says reporters normally cast a jaundiced eye at a political campaign's PR strategy. Yet they are eagerly parroting the Obama campaign's talking point about how "cool" the president is.
 
In early February, Politico reported that the Obama campaign, hoping to rekindle enthusiasm among young voters, was "looking to revive the cool appeal." Then, suddenly, news stories started popping up about Obama's alleged coolness, in contrast to that drip Romney. A sampling:

• President Obama: The cool factor

• "Cool" Obama Returns GOP Fire on Gas Prices

• Obama: The new King of Cool

• Barack Obama is cool. Mitt Romney is not. What does it mean for 2012?

• Campaigning for the "Cool" Vote

• The Obama-Romney "Cool Gap"

• The Ned Flanders of Politics: Romney Isn't Cool

• Obama On Late Night Too Cool For Cool?

• Obama, Jimmy Fallon and the race for cool
 

Now, keep in mind that before the Obama campaign decided to push this "cool" PR talking point, news reports rarely mentioned it. And if they did, it was often in a negative way, as in "Should Cool Obama Warm Up?" or "Why Obama's Cool Comes Off as Cold."
 
Back then, the press could afford to gently chastise Obama for coming across as too aloof, particularly when the country was hurting economically while he was vacationing in Hawaii.
 
Now, when the stakes are higher, the mainstream press seems willing, if not eager, to focus on the real task at hand -- helping Obama get re-elected. Nowhere was that more evident than in the coverage of Obama's idiotic appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show.
 
It's not that there aren't genuine angles that a truly independent press corps could pursue about Obama's latest PR gambit.
 
They might, for example, focus how this "cool" campaign seems to smack of desperation. As columnist Michael Barone notes on the next page, the president spends a lot of time trying to shore up his youth base. A confident Obama would be chasing swing voters.
 
Nor did the press bother to mention how the left-wing Fallon was last seen sandbagging Michele Bachmann when he had his band play "Lyin' Ass Bitch" as she walked on stage. Civility police, anyone?
 
There's also the more important question of whether Obama's Fallon appearance crossed the line on campaign finance laws. As Ben Shapiro notes on Breitbart's "Big Hollywood" site, letting Obama read a campaign speech on that show, without offering equal time to his political opponents, appears to violate the federal equal-time rule.
 
Ah, but who has time to worry about such trivialities when you're busy looking for new ways to advance Obama's I'm-cool-and-Romney's-not story line?
 

Related:  Cedric the Entertainer got the memo:  "He's kinda cool, so it's really hard to do like a lot of jokes on him" (video)

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #37 

Looks like everybody got the memo

 

And they say JournoList is dead, says Doug Ross.  Gee, Bucky, this doesn't appear orchestrated or anything.

Via Investors Business Daily ("It's Cool To Be In The Tank For Obama"), let's explore the latest legacy media talking points, straight from the desk of David "Red Diaper Baby" Axelrod:

The Washington Post, 25 April 2012: "The battle for Cool in this election seems unfairly tilted in President Obama’s favor"

The Daily Beast, 25 April 2012: "Obama’s 11 Most Badass Moments"

• ABC News' George Stephanapoulous, 26 April 2012: "Campaigning for the ‘Cool’ Vote"

ContactMusic, 26 April 2012: "Jimmy Fallon - Obama On Late Night Too Cool For Cool?"

Christian Science Monitor, 27 April 2012: "Obama's cool factor: what Romney can do to counter it (+video)"

Washington Post, 27 April 2012: "President Obama is cool. Mitt Romney isn’t."

• Kathleen Parker, 27 April 2012: "Obama's cool factor carries the day"

• ABC News, 27 April 2012: "Republicans Look to Undermine the President’s Coolness and Likeability"

• MSNBC, 27 April 2012: "Will Obama's 'coolness' factor work against him?"

Alaska Dispatch, 27 April 2012: "What Romney can do to counter Obama's 'cool factor'"

• CBS News, 27 April 2012: "Can Mitt Romney Make Boring Sexy?"

• Paul Cunningham, 27 April 2012: "Stuck with a socially awkward nominee, Republicans hate it that Obama is so cool"

The Nation, 28 April 2012: "The GOP’s Fear of a Cool Obama"

We Americans don't want a "cool" president. We want a competent one. One who believes in individual sovereignty, personal liberty, free enterprise, a growing and productive private sector, the Declaration and the Constitution. We want a competent president who respects America's laws, its founding, morals and traditions.

And Barack Obama has proven himself, over and over again, to be woefully lacking in each and every one of these areas.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #38 

Twitterverse mocks NPR over shameless, Obama boot-licking headlines

Andrea Ryan is reporting that NPR has no shame.  None.  But, apparently, they have embarrassment.

The headline "Is Slow Growth Actually Good for the Economy?" topped NPR’s brazen spin that a stagnant U.S. economy floundering in the tank is actually “good for us.”   Gabriel Malor and Michelle Malkin Tweeted the asinine headline, starting a humorous campaign of NPR ridicule… "Let the NPR headline games begin."  After funny headlines, like "Was the Titanic sinking actually good for swimming skills?", hit Twitter NPR was embarrassed into changing their own absurd one.

Tim Groseclose at Ricochet has more,

“Is Slow Growth Actually Good for the Economy?”  That, I’m not joking, was an actual headline at NPR.

The headline not only exposes the Obama-water-carrying attitudes at NPR, it also exposes the fact that NPR is filled with what I call "insular progressives."  …

This time, however, the NPR progressives seem to have realized their insular nature, and it seems they became embarrassed by the headline. They changed it to "Is Moderate [my emphasis] Growth Actually Good for the Economy?"

What brought on the embarrassment?   How’d the progressives at NPR come to realize how ridiculous their headline was?

It appears that two people, Gabriel Malor and Michelle Malkin, and one institution, Twitter, are most responsible.   Malor wrote a link to the headline along with the the following tweet: "Unbelievable. Actual NPR headline."  He wrote another tweet making fun of NPR’s headline:  "Is high blood pressure actually good for your health?"

Malkin retweeted Malor’s tweet, and she urged her twitter followers to "let the NPR headlines games begin."  Here are some of the faux NPR headlines.   They include "Is cancer actually good for the body?" and  "Was Seal Team Six good for bin Laden?"

Only Liberals can take a pile of trash, put a bow on it, and believe we’ll think it’s pretty.   Obama’s failed Keynesian economics of "tax and spend" would spread Detroit’s plight to the rest of the country.   And NPR would redefine it as "good for us."

Keynes is dead. Get over it.

   


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,124
Reply with quote  #39 

If GDP growth is less than inflation, the economy is shrinking, DUMMY!

Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #40 

Vanity Fair produces beards for Obama

With the news of the release of Maraniss' book, the Internet is coming alive with talk of Obama's "girlfriends,"  Genevieve Cook and Alex McNear.

So I did a Google search of "Alex McNear" from January 1st, 2007 through December 31st, 2009 to see what she had to say.  Google returns NO articles linking her to Obama.  Alex McNear never came forward during the campaign, the election or Obama's first year in office.

So I did the same search on "Genevieve Cook."

Several items pop up with a 2007 date, but they all link to a Vanity Fair article, published today, May 2 , 2012, and dated June, 2012.

Since the very, very liberal Vanity Fair's article popped up to calm the waters after the Maraniss, the Internet is alive with Obama's long-ago girlfriends -- all dated today.

 

In the period from January 1, 2007 through December 31st, 2009, neither of these woman had a thing to say about Barack Obama.

 

You really have to admire the dedication of Obama's friends in the ObamaMedia.

 

My guess is this chapter of the Days of Obama's Lives is just beginning.

 

Update:  As the buzz about "Obama's girlfriends" increases, so do the items returned in the above Google searches, but they are all in relationship to the Vanity Fair article. 

 

These two women effectively didn't exist until Maraniss -- followed by Vanity Fair -- wrote about them -- this month!

 

See how it works?  This fantasy will now be accepted as fact.

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #41 

ABC News' Roberts "gets chills" for Obama

Remarking on an interview earlier this week about Barack Obama's gay marriage announcement, ABC News' Robin Roberts gushes over the experience on Good Morning America.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #42 

Obama's media-contrived courage

Jed Babbin says if you want to gauge how the presidential campaign is going, all you need to do is strap sphygmomanometers to the arms of a few New York Times editorial writers, Washington Post reporters, and MSNBC hosts. The higher their average blood pressure, the lower Obama has sunk in the polls.
 
Yes, they're at it again. Or I should say, "still." The ObamaMedia -- the Gatekeeper Media who try to control what people know based on what fits their narrative -- are proving almost daily that they're not in the news business. They are in the business of political activism, aimed solely at getting their guy another four years in the White House.
 
Obama's admission of the obvious fact he'd previously denied -- his support for same-sex marriage -- is now being ballyhooed as proof of his great political courage. Really? As Brit Hume pointed out yesterday on "Fox News Sunday," Obama's position on gay marriage didn't evolve: it revolved. In 1996, Obama said he was for it. In the 2008 campaign, he said he opposed it but also opposed the California referendum banning it. In office, his Department of Justice has refused to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage -- as Obama did in 2008 -- as a union of a man and a woman. Now he says he supports gay marriage.
 
Instantly, that became the biggest media story of the week, second only to the story about Mitt Romney bullying a presumed homosexual who attended the same exclusive prep school Romney did in the 1960s. The two stories are entirely instructive, as is the media's timing.
 
In fact, Obama had no choice in announcing his position. Good Ol' Joe Biden, who has never had an unexpressed thought, said on "Meet the Press" eight days ago that he was "comfortable" with gay marriage. Cornered, and under intense pressure by the homosexual lobby to motivate the (insignificant) homosexual voting block that was already with him, Obama endorsed same-sex marriage five days later. To the media, that's proof of his political heroism.
 
Jay Leno got it right. Obama said his position on same-sex marriage had "evolved." What a coincidence, said Leno, that he had completed his evolution just in time for a multi-million dollar fundraiser in Hollywood. That, to the media, is heroism. We eagerly await the announcements from endangered Senate Democrats such as Missouri's Claire McCaskill supporting their president's position. That would be akin to the heroism of Japanese samurai who committed ritual seppuku.
 
The media would have us believe that it was another coincidence that in the five-day gap between the Biden and Obama statements, the Washington Post published a story about Romney cutting the hair of a possibly homosexual fellow high school student while others held him down. The incident occurred in 1965 and, we are to believe, is proof of Romney's homophobia and a demonstration of his mean-spirited character.
 
Romney apologized. "I don't remember that incident," he said. "And I'll tell you I certainly don't believe that I ... thought the fellow was homosexual. That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s, so that was not the case."
 
Romney's nervously delivered apology could have been a moment of political courage eclipsing Obama's. He could have said that he supports both the Defense of Marriage Act and, more importantly, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. He could have said that his position was much like Obama's 2008 position, and that he was sticking to it. But he didn't. His lack of confidence will goad the media to attack his weakness when, in truth, he isn't weak (at least on that issue).
 
Two weeks ago, there was a one-day story about what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said was Obama's "compression" of people in his first campaign autobiography, "Dreams from My Father." The New York girlfriend Obama wrote about in that book didn't exist. As Obama wrote in the introduction, "For the sake of compression, some of the characters that appear are composites of people I've known, and some events appear out of precise chronology." In short, the book is a work of fiction that intentionally conceals Obama's actions, choice of friends, and beliefs.
 
The Romney high school incident happened 47 years ago. Like everything a presidential candidate has done, whenever he did it, it's fair game for reporters. But where are the stories of Obama's high school and college years? Where are the media investigating Obama's statements in his books?
 
The people who voted for Obama in 2008 knew virtually nothing about him, and know little more now. Where are his college transcripts, his friends and girlfriends, and whatever he wrote for the Harvard Law Review? No one has seen the transcripts or the writing, no one has sought out and interviewed his high school and college friends and girlfriends. We know almost nothing about Obama's early years except what Obama himself has written. Even his later years -- sitting in Jeremiah Wright's church, listening to the anti-American racist nutcase -- remain uninvestigated and unreported. What did Obama think, listening to Wright for two decades? Why didn't he leave that church for another if he strongly disagreed with Wright?
 
In the minds of the Gatekeeper Media, we aren't entitled to know about Obama's character, what he said or believed, or what he did before he began his 2008 campaign. The Gatekeepers -- ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and many other newspapers -- don't want to investigate for fear of what they might find. They're intent on re-electing Obama and will, as they have in the past, simply decline to report on those stories.
 
When Newt Gingrich railed against the Gatekeeper Media in two primary debates, he struck a deep chord with Americans. According to a Rasmussen Poll released on June 15, 2010, "Sixty-six percent (66%) of U.S. voters describe themselves as at least somewhat angry at the media, including 33% who are Very Angry." Romney needs to reach deep down and find the courage to take on the Gatekeeper Media. They're going to do everything in their power to defeat him, so there's no reason to play their game.
 
Romney should begin at the long-promised event in which Gingrich will enthusiastically endorse him. Gingrich will say nothing new, but Romney should take the opportunity to praise Gingrich's courage in taking on the media. Romney should say that the media's bias is a matter of culture, not conspiracy.

He should quote the statement about five years ago by Washington Post editor Marie Arana who said, "The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness.... If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings at the Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democratic candidates." And he should challenge them to report the stories they now bury, especially about Obama's past.
 
It's an opportunity for Romney to make the media a campaign issue. If he did, he could significantly boost his chances, and those of other Republicans, in November. It would take a courage that no Republican other than Gingrich has had. The anger at the press measured by that old Rasmussen poll hasn't diminished; it's grown and will continue to grow in the coming months as the Gatekeeper Media splash every real or imagined Romney misstep across the airwaves and front pages, ignoring whatever could hurt their candidate.
 
Make no mistake, Gov. Romney: Obama is their guy and you are their enemy. They will act accordingly. Will you?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #43 

The propaganda of the "photo-journalist"

Go ahead, you tell me that this AP photo isn't a setup:

Just like these hundreds of others showing Obama with various halos.  A Google Image search of -- Obama halo --  returns 3,650,000 images.

"Journalism" is a joke and the Fourth Estate has morphed into the cult of Obama!

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #44 

Since day one, he has been making himself into the second coming of the most important figure in everyones' world, whether it be Christ, Mohammed, or the Devil, (kind of like a shape-shifter -- the ONE-ALL to BE ALL) he has been using hyptnotherapy in his inflections of words, pictures and phrases in every single speech, interview, written story or photo op that has come out.  It is all designed and planned by those that are handling him and have taken great pains to teach him how to put a point across to all of us who are vulnerable.  He is a hypnotic wonder using brain manipulation to the highest degree upon all of those of us who are vulnerable to his soft little catch words like that, means, giviing, soft, underscored words that drive home in our minds that he really cares about us as a people, when he really doesn't give a crap, and is only using those words because he has been taught, carefully taught, to put them across and make the message complete and more heart-felt.  When he speaks Off-Cuff, he comes across as bitter, angry, cold, crass, unforginving, and unthinking with all the uhms, uhs, ahs, and other less than confident words that flow to his brain......... and those times are the REAL Obama......

Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #45 

There's a lot about him we don't know

Rush:  This is October 31st, 2008.  This is less than a week before the election of 2008.  Who's Tom Brokaw?  Tom Brokaw, NBC Nightly News.  He's the anchor.  He was the anchor of the NBC Nightly News for, I don't know, years, decades.  He's in the Dan Rather, Peter Jennings era.  He's covered conventions left and right.  He's been everywhere.  He's sat down, broken bread with Gorbachev over at the Kremlin. He's been everywhere. He is a journalist.  What do journalists do?  They tell us what we don't know.  They're out there and they're looking at things and they see stuff and then they tell us, they report whatever they see that we don't see, they tell us.  Journalists, by definition, are supposed to be incurably curious.  That's what's supposed to drive journalists, their curiosity, their insatiable desire for information and news and their desire to be first with it when they learn it.

Who is Charlie Rose?  Well, Charlie Rose used to work at CBS News.  Now he's back at CBS News, the morning show.  He used to do an overnight CBS show or something on network television.  He's been at PBS doing the Charlie Rose Show at 11 o'clock at night interviewing everybody that's alive for the last 20 years.  Charlie Rose knows everybody, talks to everybody, reads the New York Times every day.  So does Brokaw.  And they got together on Charlie's show, the 11 p.m. show on PBS, less than a week before the 2008 elections.  Less than a week.  Both of them staunch, unalterably supporting Obama.  Listen to this sound bite, less than a week, one of the premiere, elite journalists in our country talking to one of our premiere, elite interviewers in our country.

ROSE: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.

BROKAW: No, I don't, either.

ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: Yeah, it's an interesting question.

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them! I don't know what books he's read.

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.

RUSH:  Less than a week before the election, and these two guys are two of the biggest Obama supporters there can be.  They're journalists, they have to be, there's no other candidate they would support.  Certainly not George W. Bush.  They're in the tank for Obama, and they don't know him, and they are journalists, and they're the guys that have a constitutional duty to tell us who he is.  They are supposed to hold people who have power or who seek power, they are to hold those people accountable.  When I first heard that sound bite, I was incredulous.  That's grounds for being fired.

If I'm the CEO at NBC and I'm listening to my number one anchor say, "I don't know who the Democrat presidential nominee is," a week before the election, why am I paying you a dime?  You're not even doing your job.  You don't know who he is?  And likewise, if I'm at PBS and I listen to my number one interview guy, 11 o'clock at night, "I don't know, I don't know what books he's read, I don't know." I have to be asking myself, why am I paying these guys?  They are at the top of the ladder in journalism, and they admit they don't know who he is.  And that's why you've never heard until this year that Obama did cocaine or bullied a girl or whatever 'cause these guys who were supposed to tell you didn't know.  Now, the question is did they really not know, or did they know who Obama is, just didn't want to tell anybody?  I tell you, there are none so blind as a journalist who does not want to see.

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #46 

What Americans really should know about Barack Obama

 

...and why they don't know it!

Sean Hannity sat down with a panel of contributors and experts to discuss the real Barack Obama and what his own autobiography reveals about his controversial political decisions.

The Fox News Insider caught up with a few of Hannity"s guests in the green room to find out what they think the average American really knows about Barack Obama and what they think we should know. Check out what they had to say, and tune in to Hannity tonight at 9p/12a ET for more.

Question:  How informed do you think the average American is about Barack Obama"s past?

Erik Rush, WorldNetDaily Columnist: "Extraordinarily uninformed -- The establishment press for the most part, what a lot of folks call the mainstream media, has been, for whatever their reason, they did not do their due diligence, whether it"s because they"re complicit or whether it"s because they"re just incompetent. They like Obama. They"re ideologically aligned with him and they let a lot of things go that folks should have known. As far as his upbringing and associations, his vision for America, it"s not the vision that he speaks to wanting to have for America. It"s basically a very hard-line Socialist vision that he has for the United States, and that has been well concealed because he doesn"t want people to know … It"s been a very, sort of, perfect storm of confluence and events that have allowed him to get as far as he"s gotten without people knowing these things."

Jedediah Bila, author and conservative political commentator: "Americans know very little about President Obama. In terms of his background, probably almost nothing. I think if you went out there and listed all of the things he"d done and asked them "Do you know that he increased the debt by X amount" or did this, I think you would get a stunned face. I think if they can give us his name, that"s a lot."

David Bossie, president of Citizens United: "I think most Americans believe that they know about Barack Obama, but when they are informed of the facts, they really begin to understand, especially Democrats and Independents who were sold a bill of good that were not understood."

Deneen Borelli, political commentator: "I really think if people had done some basic research, they would"ve known that a) the man is a radical, and b) that he has a problem with the Constitution. He doesn"t think the Constitution goes far enough for government to redistribute wealth and I have a problem with that. So, these are big things really that people really could"ve found out on their own. They would"ve known where his policies were -- that he"s a big government redistribution kind of guy and those policies are not helping our country."

Jim Geraghty, conservative blogger and National Review contributor: "They know a lot about his presidency because they"ve been living under it. They know a lot about who he is from about 2007 on. They may remember Obama"s Democratic National Convention speech in 2004, when he popped up on their radar. Newsweek put him on their cover before he even entered the US Senate, so he was a celebrity from about that first Senate bit and on. What they do know comes from "Dreams From My Father," a little bit of investigative reporting about that, but I think that there are very large gaps in that knowledge. Periodically, people will reencounter something that"s in his autobiography, the composite girlfriends for example and people react with "oh my goodness.""

Sol Stern, contributing editor to City Journal: "I think they"re somewhat informed but they don"t understand, because partly it"s been obfuscated by the media. In other words, they know about Reverend Wright but it"s been explained away by the media, so they don"t understand it. They know it but they don"t understand it. They don"t understand the significance of it; they think it"s all just a trifle. So they"ve heard about Bill Ayers and they accept the explanation there that was given at the time four years ago by Obama, "He"s just an English professor," and they accepted that. But he"s not just an English professor -- first of all, he"s not an English professor so he was lying about that -- and they don"t understand that apart from the issue of Ayers" own past as terrorist there was what he was doing at the time with Obama, which was so-called education reform that really in reality was radical indoctrination of students."

Pamela Geller, American blogger, author, political activist, and commentator: "The American people are the object of a campaign of disinformation and there"s a war in the information battle space, in the war of ideas. They"re painfully and abysmally unaware. My book "The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration"s War on America," honestly the majority of that book was written late 2007/ 2008. It was all out there and here we are four years later, the warnings were all there and we"re witnessing the poisonous fruit of his egregious both domestic and foreign policy and there"s a reason. So we have to give major kudos to Sean Hannity because really he"s been singular in this in exposing the subversive and dangerous allegiances and alliances Obama has. And it"s breaking every day."

David Freddoso, journalist and author: "I"m always surprised at how little the American people know despite all that Obama wrote about himself and all that"s out there. There are several very well-publicized things, just as an example at the beginning of my book "The Case Against Barack Obama," I wrote about how he had won his first election by throwing all of his opponents off the ballot. I"m surprised at how many people I run into who had never heard that before. It"s true of an awful lot of things, many of them that Obama himself wrote and many of them that have been widely covered in the media about him."

Question:  What do you think is the most important takeaway from President Obama"s book?
 
Erik Rush, WorldNetDaily Columnist: "It"s synthetic; it"s a promotion not an autobiography. It"s all marketing. There"s very little of it that I personally believe is true."

Jedediah Bila, author and conservative political commentator: "I think people have to look at Barack Obama for who he actually is, meaning if you associated with people all of your life, then that had an impact on you. If you chose to sit in a church with someone for 20 years, there"s an impact there. There are a lot of people who, like it or not, shaped his ideology and his thoughts. So, people may read this and they may think the same about him and vote for him anyway, they may read and uncover something -- but I think if you"re going to be a media that we can respect and we"re going to vet our candidates fully, then let"s find out. Republican, Democrat, Independent – let"s find out who they are and what they represent, and then we can make an informed decision after that."

David Bossie, president of Citizens United: "To be honest, I would urge people not to read his book; I would urge people to read other books about him by independent authors, no matter who it is."

Deneen Borelli, political commentator: "How credible is it? There"s been so much controversy and so many questions about it; so really, there"s a question of trust as far as I"m concerned from America"s view point. How can we trust him? He"s been in office for four years now, already, and it"s a little too late now."

Jim Geraghty, conservative blogger and National Review contributor: "We always knew this was an edited version of his life, a self-selected narrative that he wanted to tell of his life, not made up, but clearly certain things were empathized, certain things deemphasized. This was a very key part of his election strategy of introducing himself to the country. His campaign was very clear, if you want to know more about his life, go read the book. Well the book is not quite fiction, but it"s not pure nonfiction either."

David Freddoso, journalist and author: "That story of Obama, of someone who comes from a very … I guess you could say a sort of hybrid political ideological heritage is kind of the great untold story of Obama, as opposed to the one everyone knows where he comes from literally a sort of hybrid lineage. But his political background, where he formed his sense of what"s right and justand then where he formed his sense of how to get ahead in politics, they come together to form a man that I think is kind of a mystery to all of us and maybe even a little bit to himself."

Question:  Why do you think it"s important right now for Americans to take a closer look at the revelations in the book?

Erik Rush, WorldNetDaily columnist: "I think people would be a lot better served to investigate him on their own. You know the sort of kicking back and watching the big three or the big four news isn"t going to do it. The information is out there, it"s just that people have to be proactive in looking for it, rather than reading the book."

Jedediah Bila, author and conservative political commentator: "I think listening to Obama in his own words is important because then that really is unfiltered. That"s him telling us what he wants us to know about himself and his life and his growth and his experiences. I think, as someone who wrote a book in first person, I can tell you I put that out there because it was honest. So, let"s have people read his book, but also let"s have people look at his record, look at the money that he spent, look at what the stimulus did, look at the facts. Look at the facts of his presidency and I think that what"s tricky about this president is that he"s a very likable guy and people treat that as a separate issue from whether or not he"s a good president. We need to combine those two things."

David Bossie, president of Citizens United: "It does matter, but it should"ve mattered before he was in office. I find it very concerning that it really wasn"t a true vetting process from voters and especially from the media. It"s been four years already and this is what we"ve been up against."

Sol Stern, contributing editor to City Journal: "The mainstream media is again distorting it and again is covering up. The media is on the Obama team, the mainstream media, so they"re of course going to continue to deny the reality of the past and who he was and who he is now."

Pamela Geller, American blogger, author, political activist, and commentator: "Because we"re losing the greatest nation that ever was in the history of mankind. The first moral government, the very first government in human history based on individual rights and everything noble and magnificent that we achieved was a logical fidelity to that principle. We have a collectivist in the White House, we have a statist in the White House … people are throwing away with both hands the greatest gift in the history of man. That"s why people should care."

The above comments are an indictment of the aptly-named "ObamaMedia."

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #47 

 

Investor's Business Daily says now that the media have fully covered a 150-year old Mormon massacre and Ann Romney's pet horse, maybe they can start looking into charges the man in the White House may have tried to bribe a critic into silence.

If you're worried about Mitt Romney being fully vetted, don't be. The Los Angeles Times is all over it. Just look at Tuesday's edition. On page one, above the fold, the august West Coast daily ran a weirdly irrelevant story about a lawsuit involving Ann Romney and a horse she once owned.

But that was nothing compared to the Washington Post, which as part of its vetting of candidate Romney — remember, he hasn't won the nomination yet — investigated a 150-year old Mormon massacre in Arkansas.

Not to be outdone, the New York Times sent reporter Jodi Kantor to sit in on Mitt's Mormon church to kind of soak up the vibe and see if she could find any dirt.

As far as we can tell, this kind of intense, almost anthropological interest in the Romneys isn't unusual. Everything about Romney -- his prep school hijinks, his career at Bain Capital, his wife's horse, his car elevator and of course his religion -- has been scrutinized. But President Obama, almost finished with his first term, has gotten nothing close to the same attention.

We say this because, while the media appear to have a fascination with the arcana of Mitt's life and religion, they show little interest in Obama's own background and religious history -- and how he's tried to hide them.

 

Continue reading here . . .

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #48 

Eligibility issue and media hysteria

Joseph Farrah asks, who is it that is more obsessed and hysterical about the eligibility issue -- the so-called "birthers" or the media?
 
What is it that about a different viewpoint on constitutional requirements for president that turns normally mild-mannered TV journalists like Wolf Blitzer into angry, vein-bulging, red-faced zealots in defense of conventional wisdom?

What is it that prompts establishment news people to ridicule, demean and castigate anyone who dares to connect the dots of Barack Obama’s history of telling different stories about his past, hiding documents and, under pressure, offering up fraudulent records to bolster a crumbling narrative?
 
I’d say it’s a desperate bid for survival in an era when gatekeepers can no longer control what Americans think.
 
Most of these people are not dumb enough to believe Obama isn’t concealing some deep, dark secrets about his background. Some are, but not most.
 
That’s a fact just too obvious for any rational, halfway-informed person to accept.
 
No, there’s something very threatening to the media establishment about the eligibility story. It’s simply this: Should the real story ever be told of how Obama hoodwinked Americans into making him president when he wasn’t constitutionally eligible for the job, the finger-pointing and blame-making isn’t going to be limited to the community organizer and his supporters. It’s going to come back to haunt -- and, quite possibly, destroy -- the careers of those who enabled it all.
 
CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, the Associated Press and all the personalities who make their livings at those news agencies could quite possibly be finished, kaput, looking for new lines of work.
 
That’s what I see as the reason for the OBSESSION, and I use that word advisedly, with trashing and/or censoring any intelligent discussion of Obama’s eligibility and shadowy background.
 
Is it just me? I thought the role of the press was to seek the truth, ferret our secret documents, question everything politicians claimed.
 
Why is it that we’re supposed to accept on faith what Barack Obama says -- even when his story changes over the years?
 
It makes no sense. It is irrational. And that’s why I strongly suspect there’s an element of self-preservation and self-interest at work here when people like Greta and Wolf are so determined to toe the media establishment party line by either blacklisting anyone who raises these issues or attempt to verbally crucify and humiliate them.
 
Aren’t they at all embarrassed by what they are doing?
 
It’s a disgrace to the profession of journalism.
 
It’s a dishonor to the watchdog role of the press.
 
It’s a discredit to the protection these people get from the First Amendment and all the sacrifices that were made to create a free press for a free people.
 
Why are the media acting like a cabal?
 
Do you have any other explanations besides their complicit guilt in covering up the truth for so long? Is there any going back? How do you tell your audience, your constituents, the people who pay your salary that you let them down -- big time?
 
Understand what I am telling you and who I am: I am a media insider. I’ve spent a long and productive and rewarding career in journalism. I’ve run daily newspapers in major markets. I’ve taught journalism in major universities. I’ve done everything you can do in this business. So I think my insight has some merit.
 
The facts are becoming clearer every day: Obama misrepresented his own origins for at least 17 years. He refused to produce a long-form birth certificate until last year -- and then offered up one that is unverifiable and an apparent fraud. He refuses to release any student records that would set the record straight about how he was admitted and what kind of grades he received.

Yet, the press acts like those with doubts about him are crazy conspiracy nuts.
 
The only conspiracy I see is a conspiracy of neglect and malfeasance by the media.
 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Yephora

Registered:
Posts: 190
Reply with quote  #49 
The yellow stream media traded in their lanterns for kneepads in 2007 and never looked back. 
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #50 

Farah has got it RIGHT although he left out one major portion of the equation, which is, the Major News Media may also have taken LARGE BRIBES or endured major threats to themselves and their families, like our too long silent friend Leo had to undergo....... after he tried to stand up for the Constitution and those at Chrysler who lost their livelihoods and dealerships because they were not donating to the Democrap in charge.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscribing
member

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2016
All rights reserved