Socialist Liberal Democrats Will Destroy America and Sadly the Left Wing Media Will Gladly Help

Today is Halloween, a day of spooks, goblins and weirdos.  No it is not election day, that’s not for six more days on November 06, 2012; but it will have more than its fair share of Halloween type characters.  Both major political parties will present their versions of the trickery ogres among whom are downright dastardly persons who seek to destroy the United States and all the good things it has brought to the world in the 236 years of its existence.

But this year of 2012 has seen a period of divisiveness in our grand republic that borders on the great separation that occurred in 1861 when eleven southern states seceded from the Union.  This year the issue that is the divider is Socialism, and instead of a geographical set of states for and against the issue, two political parties encompassing citizens from all fifty states are the opponents.

The current President of the United States is engaged in a plan to abolish our tried and true Constitution and install a communist-like program of redistribution of the wealth.  In other words take from the “haves” and give it to the “have-nots” which files In the face of the standards of governance that has allowed America to climb to the highest level of civilized nations in just over 200 years of existence.

Obama is a student and follower of the Socialist - Communist theory and practices of punishing the productive while rewarding the unproductive and incapable.  What was once a dream of success and riches after applying oneself to an ethic of hard work and study is long gone and any just rewards for that hard work will be taken from them and given to those who show no attitudes to succeed.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading...

What If Crowley and Her Accomplices Succeed?

Such an outcome would be worse than a scandal, it would be downright dangerous.

Shortly after Obamacare was passed and signed by the President, Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute noted a sudden plethora of articles that had begun to appear in a wide variety of MSM outlets about the probable ill-effects of "reform." This prompted him to ask, "Where were these reporters before the passage of the health care bill?" The answer to this question is now pretty obvious. They were colluding, via Journo List and other such forums that we don't know about, to make sure that no one screwed up and told the truth before that morass of taxes and regulations became the law of the land. To the nation's cost, their self-censorship succeeded.

Today, we face a similar but much more dangerous situation. The "reporters" of the establishment news media are engaged in a concerted campaign of misinformation to get Barack Obama re-elected. This has been evident for some time, but the breathtaking mendacity of this effort was writ large by Candy Crowley during last Tuesday's presidential debate. Everyone has by now seen the video clip: the President made the preposterous claim that he had identified the attack on our Benghazi consulate as an act of terrorism as early as September 12. Then, when Romney called him on this egregious whopper, Crowley repeated the lie.

This was no misbegotten attempt at instant "fact checking." It was a deliberately disingenuous attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the debate's 65 million viewers. Crowley herself admitted that she had reviewed the transcript of Obama's September 12 Rose Garden remarks in advance of the debate, and she is not dumb enough to believe Obama's characterization of his boilerplate comment about "acts of terror" in general. This tag-team prevarication may well backfire. Jeffrey Lord suggests, in Thursday's American Spectator, that it may turn out to be the "tipping point that makes Mitt Romney the 45th President of the United States."

That would certainly constitute a splendid example of poetic justice. But what if Lord is wrong? What if Obama's MSM pimps succeed in getting him re-elected? As we saw with Obamacare, these people wield a great deal of power and they are obviously willing to abuse it. Moreover, despite the increasing distrust with which the public regards the effusions of the Fourth Estate, nearly half of the nation's adults still believe what they see and hear in the media. Gallup released a survey last month showing that 40 percent of the electorate still has some measure of confidence that the MSM reports the news "fairly, accurately and fully."

Via: American Spectator

Continue Reading...

Sounding and Acting Like Reagan, Romney Has Them Terrified

I knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine. And Mitt Romney is reminding me an awful lot of Ronald Reagan.

The comments for which Romney is being so relentlessly and viciously scorned by Barack Obama and his merry band of media puppets sounds to me exactly like comments Ronald Reagan would have made.

It is indeed "disgraceful" for the US government to respond to the threat of an attack against an American embassy by issuing a statement condemning "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims" and denouncing hurting their feelings as an "abuse" of free speech - and then as the embassy was being overrun and our flag burned issuing another statement saying they stand by that.

"It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

Mitt Romney was simply but forcefully expressing, as Ronald Reagan so often did, what most Americans think and how they feel. And you can bet the Obama campaign realized this and found it frightening.

They said that they were "shocked" that Romney "would choose to launch a political attack" -- the usual and expected sort of political statement gibberish -- but isn't it revealing what they did?  The Obama White House asked its media allies to report that the statement that Romney took such exception to "doesn't reflect the views of the U.S. government."

What? Isn't a U.S. Embassy an important part of the U.S. government, and all the more so when that embassy happens to be located in a country of great consequence to U.S. national interests? Isn't the U.S. Ambassador who leads that embassy - as anyone who is or ever has been one loves to remind people - the personal representative of the President of the United States?  Wasn't the Obama Administration claiming that the U.S. government does not reflect the views of the U.S. government?

No matter. The media fell in line and trumpeted the charade.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading...