Posts Tagged ‘Chris Matthews’

Why Is West Point The ‘Enemy Camp’ For Barack Obama?

December 2, 2009

MSNBC‘s Chris Matthews put it into crystal-clear perspective.  When Barack Obama gave his Afghanistan speech at West Point, he was entering “the enemy camp.”

That is a shocking admission, coming from the Obama-approved media.

You can understand it being “enemy territory” if Obama were to go to Afghanistan and address a Taliban training camp.  But West Point?  A U.S. military academy?  Just what kind of president is this man that his own military must be regarded as “the enemy”?

How is this not profoundly wrong?

Now, you might argue that Chris Matthews is just using a metaphor.  But it is simply a fact that Matthews is pretty clear that the West Point cadets did not positively respond to what Obama said to them.  They didn’t receive him well.  They don’t like his agenda.  And maybe they don’t even like him.

Liberals might regard that as a positive point about this president.  A liberal high school LATIN teacher asked a 17-year old future West Point cadet, “Why would you want to become a mindless killing machine?”

I have to share the young man’s answer to that despicable teacher, in the words of his proud father:

But our son looked at this guy in the eye and said, “Sir, there are people out there who want to kill us and I feel like I’m called to keep that from happening,” and I’d like to add that it only took them about two seconds to identify the mission, not three months, and he’s only 17.  You can imagine how much pride I feel in him for making such a statement and how outraged I was his teacher would even ask him that.

Like I said: liberals might regard it as a wonderful thing that the President of the United States would have a hostile relationship with the United States military.  I regard it as an damning indictment against a less-than-pathetic commander-in-chief that the guardians of our freedom who sacrifice themselves so that others might live free neither like him nor respect him.

Obama-approved mouthpiece Chris Matthews is correct in asserting that the United States military is like an enemy camp to Barack Obama.

Obama gave his speech at West Point in order to use the venue as a photo-op, and in fact to co-opt the cadets into appearing to support his policies.

It didn’t exactly work, as Der Speigel pointed out:

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.

Let us put aside that this order, or “suggestion,” is yet another example of the same sort of “politically-correct” postmodernist multiculturalism that the Obama-warped military establishment accorded to a Muslim officer who was promoted even though he had been in contact with al-Qaeda some thirty times, and had an acronym for “soldier of Allah” emblazoned on his business cards.  (Not to mention the fact that the military has now so degenerated into political correctness that it is now treating terrorists like citizens, and Navy SEALs like terrorists).

What is wrong with this president that our future Army officers have to literally be told to be “enthusiastic” toward him?  And even then refuse to do so?

The following two paragraphs provide an answer why our future military officers feel as they do:

One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war — and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

I would argue that what Chris Matthews statement about West Point being an “enemy camp” for Obama means is that Barack Obama is openly hostile to the United States military and everything it stands for.  Barack Obama has said he wants to “fundamentally transform America,” and has vowed to “remake America.”  You can understand why people who love our countries’ traditions wouldn’t appreciate a man who hates those very same traditions.  These young future officers did not sign up to fight and die for Obama’s “remade” America.  They love the America of their forefathers, rather than the America of Barack Hussein’s Marxist visions.

It’s not just the U.S. Army that has quiet contempt for Barack Obama.  The U.S. Marines don’t care much for him either, judging by the “polite” response they gave him versus the wild cheering for their last real commander-in-chief:

When the men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us are quietly disgusted by their commander-in-chief, you should seriously contemplate these valiant warriors’ judgment.

Advertisements

The Obama ‘Crisis In Confidence: Welcome Back, Carter’

July 15, 2009

Welcome Back, Carter

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Milestone: Thirty years after Jimmy Carter’s malaise speech, we return to the days of rising joblessness, an unresponsive economy, deference to dictators, gutting the military and an energy policy tilting at windmills.

On July 15, 1979, President James Earl Carter gave what has become known as the malaise speech. He didn’t actually use that term. Instead, he spoke of “a crisis in confidence” . . . that struck at the spirit of our national will.

He spoke of an energy crisis that was “the moral equivalent of war” but advocated an energy policy that was the practical equivalent of doing nothing. He spoke of our “intolerable dependence on foreign oil” and of “the crucial goal of 20% of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.”

Carter and cardigan, managing malaise in ‘77.Carter and cardigan, managing malaise in ‘77.

He warned against going down “the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others.” He decried our tendency “to worship self-indulgence and consumption.” Sacrifice would save us while we shared the wealth.

If this sounds familiar, it should.

Barack Obama said during his presidential run: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

The Obama administration’s policies constitute a promise kept.

Carter asked us “to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit and to set your thermostats to save fuel.” And don’t forget your cardigan sweater as you huddle in front of your fireplace.

With the help of solar energy and alternative energy sources like his ill-fated Synthetic Fuels Corp., Carter said, “the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny.” Yes, we can.

Except we didn’t. We didn’t exploit our abundant domestic resources to increase supply, and the economy suffered. At the end of Carter’s only term, the numbers told the sad story of his presidency: interest rate, 21%; inflation, 13.5%; unemployment, 7%.

Then there was the misery index, the combination of the unemployment and inflation rates that Carter used to great effect in his 1976 campaign to win election. Four years later it stood at 20.5%.

The stimulus package has failed to stimulate as trillions of dollars of debt are being laid upon our children and grandchildren as we build turtle tunnels and try to save marsh miceThe Obama administration is trying to get money into the economy instead of leaving it where it was in the first place through tax cuts. As we near double-digit unemployment, it is failing as Carter failed, and the cry goes up: Where are the jobs?

On energy, we leave hundreds of billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas trapped in the ground and offshore places like bankrupt California while we pursue alternative energy like wind and, once again, solar.

When Reagan replaced Carter, he found planes that couldn’t fly and ships that couldn’t sail for want of parts and maintenance. Defense is again being gutted with programs like the F-22 Raptor being tossed aside and Reagan’s SDI missile shield being gutted.

Carter’s belief in diplomacy gave us Ayatollah Khomeini. It was a regime that held American hostages for 444 days. The Obama administration shares Carter’s fondness for thugs like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose nation goes nuclear while we make nice.

As history repeats itself on the anniversary of the speech MSNBC’s Chris Matthews wrote, we wonder if the “Hardball” host, who has worked for four Democratic politicians, is still getting tingles up his legs.

The Democratic Party apparently has learned nothing in the past three decades.

Will we see a return of the misery index?

The only thing that’s different is the sweater.

Schumer Compares Conservative Speech To Porn In Fairness Doctrine Ploy

November 9, 2008

I came across this from an email and said, “No way.”

I fact checked it, both because I always try to be honest and because I don’t like looking like an idiot.

It sounded too preposterous, too disturbingly fascist, to possibly be true.  No way Senator Chuck Schumer said that, right?

Wrong.  (and at this point I’d do a Sarah Palin impression and ask, “You don’t mind if I call you ‘Schmuck,’ do you?

In an interview that occurred on November 4 – you know, election day, when people ostensibly get to celebrate one of their precious rights to free speech in the form of voting for whom they choose – Sen. Schmuck Schumer (D-NY) had this little bit to say:

As The Hill reported:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

Schumer’s comments echo other Democrats’ views on reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal ones.Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so significantly that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the FCC.

They also note that conservative radio shows has been far more successful than liberal ones.

Let’s try to take this fascist idiocy in order, shall we?

1) Sen. Schumer defended the Fairness Doctrine  saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

Well, yes I do, Schmuck.  That’s why I demand that every television program likewise be forced to embrace the fairness doctrine.  That means that conservatives have a voice during the broadcasts of ABC‘s Charles Gibson, CBS‘ Katie Couric, and NBC‘s Brian Williams.  Remember how all three anchors accompanied Barack Obama on his foreign trip, but refused to accompany John McCain on any of his three foreign trips?  That sort of “unfairness” will be ended by law.  “Fairness” means equal time for both candidates.

It also means equal POSITIVE and NEGATIVE time for both candidates, doesn’t it?  DOESN’T IT???

The Center for Media and Public Affairs demonstrated that the “Big 3 networks [are] still fixated on ‘first love’ Obama“:

The “big three” broadcast networks – NBC, ABC and CBS – remain captivated with Sen. Barack Obama, according to a study of campaign coverage released Tuesday by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University.

Numbers tell all: 61 percent of the stories that appeared on the networks between Aug. 23 and Sept. 30 were positive toward the Democratic Party. In contrast, just 39 percent of the stories covering Republicans were favorable.

That doesn’t seem “fair,” does it, Schmuck?  The Media Research Center adds to that sad state of affairs for the mainstream media:

A comprehensive analysis of every evening news report by the NBC, ABC and CBS television networks on Barack Obama since he came to national prominence concludes coverage of the Illinois senator has “bordered on giddy celebration of a political ‘rock star’ rather than objective newsgathering.”

The new study by the Media Research Center, which tracks bias in the media, is summarized on the organization’s website, where the full report also has been published. It reveals that positive stories about Obama over that time outnumbered negative stories 7-1, and significant controversies such as Obama’s relationship with a convicted Chicago man have been largely ignored.

And the most recent survey from the Project for Excellence in Journalism,  “Winning the Media Campaign: How the Press Reported the 2008 Presidential General Election” – Sep 6 – Oct 16, tells us that:

In short, Obama got nearly 3 times more positive coverage than McCain, while McCain got nearly twice as much negative coverage as Obama.  Does that sound “fair” to you?  How was McCain supposed to run against that kind of media onslaught?

Why not take a look at the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, Schmuck?  “Winning the Media Campaign: How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election.” That study found that in the media overall—a sample of 43 outlets studied in the six weeks following the conventions through the last debate—Barack Obama’s coverage was somewhat more positive than negative (36% vs. 29%), while John McCain’s, in contrast, was substantially negative (57% vs. 14% positive). The report concluded that this, in significant part, reflected and magnified the horse race and direction of the polls.

And there was outright deception going on.  Remember that reporter who literally invented “hate speech” allegedly by a McCain supporter against Barack Obama?  It took a Secret Service investigation to prove that the reporter was lying.  And the media consistently portrayed the McCain campaign as being “more negative” than the Obama campaign, when a study revealed that the exact opposite was the case.  Does THAT seem “fair” to you, Schmuck?

And did ABC journalist Michael Malone’s damning description of a dangerous liberal bias that literally threatens the Constitution serve to prove to you that the “Fairness Doctrine” needs to be applied to liberal media, or was it just one more expression of formerly-free speech that you’d like to stamp out, Schmuck?

If none of that sunk in, just let me say two more words: Chris Matthews.

Nothing would be better for conservatives if a “Fairness Doctrine” were actually applied consistently across the media spectrum.  But that isn’t what you want, is it, Schmuck?  No – you want to stifle the ONE media outlet of radio that has a larger conservative presence while utterly ignoring the vastly larger television media presence that totally caters to liberals?

It’s too bad we don’t force the Fairness Doctrine on you, Schmuck.  Because you’d be gone.

2) Then we come to Schmuck Schumer’s simply staggeringly fascist statement: “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

Let us consider the man’s progression of thought.  Schmuck is in favor of limiting pornography on the air.  And conservative thought is analogous to pornography.  Therefore he is in favor of limiting conservative thought on the air.

So we have a moral equivalence between pornography and conservative viewpoints.  Cover your child’s ears, because I’m going to say the word “Republican!”

This is the kind of reasoning the Taliban and the most fanatic totalitarian Muslim thugs use to kill and imprison Christians for making mention of their Christianity.  They simply declare it evil, and ban it.  This is a totalitarian tactic.  It is a giant step toward the ugliest political philosophies that the human mind has ever envisioned.

Schmuck is something of a fascist, plain and simple.  He wants to crush his opposition by declaring anything that opposes his political ideology as “pornography” and “limiting” it right off the airwaves.

I’ve had a couple people upset that I use the word “Nazi.”  Let me tell you something: if liberals would only stop acting like Nazis, I’d gladly quit using the term.

When Republicans were in charge, do you remember them using their political power to attempt to crush their opposition?  Do you remember a “Fairness Doctrine” that was geared to pin ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, and other mainstream media outlets like bugs to the wall, while simultarnously protecting racio advocates such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham?  Republicans would never even conceive of something so fundamentally unconstitutional, undemocratic, or so blatantly totalitarian.  So why are so many Democrats doing it?

There is something terribly wrong, here.

I remember encountering a crazy person on the sidewalk.  She just went off on me and started ranting in my face.  I immediately realized that she was mentally unhinged, and that there was no point attempting to reason with her.  I simply stood there and waited for her to finish her tirade and move off.

That’s what it’s like trying to reason with too many liberals nowadays.

Anyone who thinks like Schmuck Schumer is morally insane, pure and simple.