The Media Manipulation of the Petraeus Resignation

/1 Comment/in , /by

Photo credit: isafmediaWatching CNN’s weekend ‘coverage’ of the recent resignation of former CIA Director Petraeus, I noticed that not a single mention was made about the potential impact his testimony, or lack thereof, might have on the upcoming hearings on the horrific terrorist attack upon our consulate in Libya. In fact, no mention was made about any upcoming hearings at all.

I wonder how many of my fellow Americans are aware that an American ambassador and three other men were killed in the recent Benghazi massacre in Libya? How many know of the heroic acts that occurred there? The Obama administration’s inaction, colossal failure of leadership, and probable dereliction of duty likely led to the deaths of these American patriots. Key officials in the Obama administration, including the President, may be found to have blood on their hands.

Former CIA Director Petraeus resigned for reasons yet to be fully clarified, but the liberal mass media has buried the real story. If Petraeus was compelled to testify in an ”Official” capacity, I believe he’d have been forced to ‘take the 5th’ on the stand regarding the massacre in Benghazi. I don’t criticize Petraeus though, if enough pressure is applied, we all could be persuaded. He knows what happened, and only as a civilian would he be able to testify truthfully. Thus, his resignation.

If subpoenaed, I believe Petraeus will be compelled to redact his testimony, not for protection of classified information, but rather for protection of his family. I believe he will testify, but only part of the story will be revealed. Hopefully, sufficient information, facts and time lines will surface and lead reasonable people to connect the dots and realize the truth. Of course the liberal media will employ their signature ‘slight of hand” and apply their ‘spin’ to the parts of the story they’d have otherwise buried.

If truth is revealed, we will find that the Obama administration was operating in Libya, Hungary and Syria to accomplish exactly what? Time will tell, but I think their inaction regarding the massacre in Benghazi was directly related to their objectives in Syria.

What is known for sure by anyone getting news from unbiased sources, is that the Obama administration and the mass liberal media supporting it, intentionally misdirected the American people by blaming the incident on a ‘reaction to a video’. Most know by now that this claim was manufactured and is false.

Given the mass media’s intentional redaction, omission and mis-direction of news coverage, it’s no surprise that we find our great Country on the fast track to mediocrity or worse. America’s allies are shaking their heads while enemies quietly applaud.

The mass media is now more powerful than the three branches of government combined. They’ve been allowed and encouraged to intentionally manipulate the electorate. Hiding facts and spinning the truth is expected in countries who’ve succeeded in controlling their citizens. I’m very concerned that we may see civil disobedience or worse resulting from the combined efforts of a mass media ‘manipulation machine’ and this current administration’s objectives. What I see is a mutual disregard for the Constitution. The liberal media and the present administration continue to manipulate the very people that the US Constitution was created to protect.

Just as this ‘transparent’ administration buried the facts of the ‘Fast and Furious’ scandal, they have and will again attempt the same regarding the terrorist attacks on our consulate in Benghazi. Family members deserve answers as to why their hero kin, former Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed trying to save Ambassador Christopher Stevens and information officer Sean Smith in the Benghazi massacre. The same goes for the family members of Customs agent Terry who was killed in the line of duty defending America’s southern border. Truth though, is something Obama and his Chicago buddies have in short supply.

Perhaps I’m a bit naive, but I have faith in the vast majority of my fellow Americans. The problem we face is a voting block made up of increasing numbers of people who have little or no knowledge of history. Combine this with a manipulative mass media intent on hiding the truth and the problem becomes clear. Ignorance is not a reasonable excuse. It has been identified though and must be extinguished through education.

I’d not ask my family and friends to see things the way I do. I’d ask them to change the news channel often though. Spend a little time on the Internet, don’t take anything for granted, do a bit of research and compare what various news outlets are saying. Just take a little time to move around the dial for the sake of truth. I would not have written this article had I not seen the ‘lack’ of coverage that CNN had on the Petraeus story last weekend!

If Romney Supporters Don’t Vote in Record Numbers, Obama Will Win

/2 Comments/in , , /by

It’s all a matter of perspective.

All along most of my fellow conservative pundits have been framing the 2012 election as a replay of 1980, with a former Republican governor earning a landslide mandate from an American people languishing under the failures of an unprepared liberal incumbent. While my ideology may put the fun in fundamentalist, all along I have disagreed with that narrative.

While Obama’s amateurish escapades may resemble Carter’s futility, Romney is not another Reagan. In fact, until the first debate in Denver when he routed Obama, Romney was on pace to be the most disliked major party challenger for president in the history of modern polling.

In addition, an entire generation that still believed in rugged individualism and Judeo-Christian morality has left us since Reagan’s era. They have been replaced by a generation far more conditioned to see government as the solution to our problems rather than an impediment to them.

For example, my home state of Iowa is a socially conservative state but since Reagan it’s only gone Republican in a presidential election once, and that was by fewer than 10,000 votes. Why? Because my home state is one of the oldest in the country (which means lots of folks on entitlement programs), and its biggest industry is agriculture (which is essentially a complete subsidy of the welfare state). Thus, Iowa has been voting Democrat out of personal financial vested interest for decades.

Furthermore, the nation is far more Balkanized culturally than it was in 1980. No Republican presidential candidate – let alone a conservative – could still win California. Now the Electoral College is essentially down to just a handful of states every four years, with most of the country entrenched as red or blue no matter whom the nominee of each party is or where the country is at. That makes obtaining the kind of national mandate Reagan twice received more difficult. Nowadays a Democrat has 200 Electoral College votes in the bank just by showing up on the ballot come Election Day, and that wasn’t true in Reagan’s time.

Because of this, since January I have been analyzing this election with 2004 as its predecessor for three reasons:

1. Obama’s approval ratings are roughly where Bush’s were then. Though the Obama economy is worse than Bush’s (and not as bad as Carter’s), Bush was also saddled with an unpopular war in Iraq that makes that a wash.

2. As a challenger Romney was saddled with many of the same negatives as Kerry. He didn’t excite his base, which is why Kerry and Romney each set the record for earliest to name a running mate, and each selected a younger more charismatic vice presidential nominee. Also the attempt by Obama to make the election a referendum on Romney instead of himself, by characterizing Romney as a wealthy socialite elitist out-of-touch with mainstream values, is exactly what Karl Rove successfully did to Kerry for Bush in 2004. And do you remember the flip-flops on display at the 2004 Republican Convention to remind voters of Kerry’s penchant for taking each side of each issue? Apparently there’s something in the water in Massachusetts because that has been a problem for Romney as well. Romney’s own campaign confidant perpetuated the label with his infamous “etch-a-sketch” remarks.

3. The framework of the Electoral College is virtually the same as it was in 2004, except for GOP states Indiana and North Carolina that were surprise pick-ups for Obama in 2008.

The metric of this race, with Obama getting a big post-convention bounce just like Bush did, Romney then getting a big post-debate bounce just like Kerry did, and the election essentially coming down to Ohio, is eerily similar to 2004 as well.

Polling

For the purpose of my analysis, I’m going to rely on the Real Clear Politics polling average for my polling information because it’s been proven to be the most accurate tool for public consumption out there. The final RCP polling average flat out nailed the last two presidential elections (and I urge you to go back and read this link to find out why it did so).

That doesn’t mean RCP is right this time. In fact, we won’t know who is right until after the people (or the lawyers) have their ultimate say. But in the past two election cycles no one has been more accurate than RCP.

Read more from this story HERE.

Tuesday: Don’t Vote for Revenge, Vote for Love of Country

/0 Comments/in , /by

Speaking in Springfield Ohio, Barack Obama mentioned Mitt Romney. As soon as he mentioned Romney’s name, the crowd began to boo. Obama told the crowd:

“No, no, no. Don’t boo, vote. Voting is the best revenge.”

Speaking in New Hampshire, Romney told supporters how Obama had said that voting would be their “best revenge” against Romney:

“Vote for revenge? Let me tell you what I’d like to tell you: Vote for love of country. It is time we lead America to a better place.”

This is but one snapshot highlighting the difference between Americans and “progressives”.

The choices Americans have on Tuesday November 6, 2012 fall into two distinct categories. The difference between these two philosophies is so clearly defined that it should be easy for Americans to decide where their sentiments lie.

The Declaration of Independence was a radical document because for millennia mankind had been ruled by monarchs, Caesars, Czars, or similar forms of dynastic oligarchies determined by bloodline.
The universally accepted school of thought was that Kings, Queens, Emperors or Caesars were anointed by God, or were even gods themselves. Only monarchs or nobilities appointed by monarchs owned anything. They “allowed” the “common people” to work the land as serfs, indentured servants or as slaves. But “common people” were never “allowed” to own property. All they produced belonged to the monarch and was the monarch’s for the taking.

America’s Founding Fathers disavowed this view of society.

They declared that all men are created equal, that in effect, all men are kings. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They declared that people could govern themselves without a monarch or an oligarchy ruling over them.

This was a radical departure from centuries old norms. They envisioned a system which allowed “common people” to own property without first obtaining permission from a “divine” ruler. Anyone could come to America, work hard, earn money, save it and buy property.

Those who rebelled against the Royal British Crown knew that if they failed in their endeavor, they would all hang. Yet, “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence” they pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor.

The Declaration of Independence was the mission statement for the United States Constitution.

Yes, the Constitution established an imperfect government, which among other flaws still allowed slavery. Yet at that point in history, the original 13 colonies could not have formed one nation capable of maintaining a semblance of unity had they not reached the 3/5ths compromise. But the Founding Fathers were wise when they wrote the Constitution. They ensured that the Constitution could be amended, so that in time slavery and other injustices could be altered through an orderly process which provided change that enjoyed overwhelming bi-partisan support.

The Marxist school of thought is in direct opposition to the uniquely American concept that everyone has the right to own private property. How would Americans react if, after years of struggle, they finally owned their own home, then government “informed” them that it did not belong to them, that it belonged to “all the people” and Americans had to let strangers live on their property whether they liked it or not?

If an all-powerful, big government oligarchy is allowed to seize private property in this manner, as in the concept of “social justice” or “economic justice”, America is dead.

The real philosophical divide in the United States lies between the intent of America’s Founding Fathers and the intent of “progressives”, who favor the Marxist view.

The American idea, the shot heard round the world, is that We the People can govern ourselves. By the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God we are entitled, by virtue of our humanity, to the maximum amount of Individual Liberties consistent with law and order, and to the Right of private ownership, not the least of which is the Right to own and decide for ourselves. These Liberties and Rights are to be equally protected by a constitutionally limited, representative government that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

This is a distinctly exceptional American idea.

The “progressive” idea is that an all-powerful centrally planned government, with extreme hostility towards private ownership, forces redistribution of wealth in the name of social or economic “justice”. In order to ensure “fairness”, an oligarchy of self-imagined, self-appointed “intellectual elites” will control businesses, industries and people who are incapable of governing themselves. This was the position of a fringe minority who called themselves “progressives” until early twentieth century Americans saw for themselves exactly how bad “progressive” ideas were.

The “progressive” idea came to America from Britain’s Fabian Socialists, who advocate socialistic democracy, and from Germany’s Frankfurt School, who came to America after fleeing Adolph Hitler because they knew Hitler would kill them for being Communists.

These ideas are European, not American.

The settlers who founded America rejected European ideas in fleeing Europe searching for a better future. America has been a success and a beacon to freedom seeking people for over two centuries because the American idea is the better idea.

Among Americans unpolluted by “progressive” ideas, there is little debate that the United States of America is the most inventive, productive, prosperous and charitable nation in the history of the planet. There has yet to be put forth one rational, logical argument to support abandoning the highly successful American idea in favor of a European idea that is currently failing in Europe itself.

Before voting on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, decide which fate America deserves.

Then vote not for revenge, but for love of country.

____________________________________________________________________

Michael Fell is a former MCA recording artist from the seminal punk rock era who toured America from coast to coast. Today, he’s a leading voice in the L.A. Tea Party movement, active since the February 2009 inception. Mr. Fell currently chairs the Westwood Tea Party, is a founding member of the L.A. Metro Tea Party Coalition, serves as the Vice Chairman of the Westside Republicans Club in L.A. CA, and is an elected Republican delegate to the L.A. 47th AD Central Committee. He’s been Campaign Manager for a primary winning Congressional candidate, as well as Santa Monica and L.A. City Council candidates. Mr. Fell is a contributing writer for https://conservativedailynews.com/, https://rightwingnews.com/, https://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/, https://beforeitsnews.com, https://www.redcounty.com/, https://www.uspatriotpac.com and, https://westsiderepublicans.com/. His opinions on today’s news events and political climate can be found on his blog: https://mjfellright.wordpress.com/

Mayberry No More: The US is “Coming Apart”

/1 Comment/in , /by

Photo Credit: Javier Rojas/Zuma PressAs we anticipate Mitt Romney’s (hopefully delicious) victory next Tuesday, we shouldn’t be fooled to think that all will be right in America if he wins. His victory, which is in no way assured, would only give us a bit of breathing room to buckle down for the long haul, because a Romney victory will only make the left mad (well, madder than they are already. Remember, they have been berserk since Bush “stole” the 2000 election).

Charles Murray, of the American Enterprise Institute, writes in “Coming Apart” that today’s leaders lack bravery and perspective. While many readers can hang on to the memories of the Greatest Generation and of Chuck Yeager in “The Right Stuff”, what exemplifies America to a large extent is 56,000 square foot houses such as Aaron Spelling’s 123 room villa. I would have been happy to have raised my family with four bedrooms. Ok, five, to be honest.

“Unseemly” is how Murray puts this decadence, which in large part describes contemporary American government, with “Washington [being] in a new gilded age of influence peddling that dwarfs anything that has come before.”

Can the U.S. recover from this unseemliness? In Marvin Olasky’s book review, he points out the courage and perseverance of one man, William Wilberforce, who led England to abolish slavery in the early 1800’s. Olasky reminds us too that the American Revolution was fueled in part by the patriot’s aversion to the decadence of London.

Murray, like all of us, hopes for “a civic Great Awakening among the new upper class” where the wealthy can lead a more balanced and rewarding life as they focus more on society and less on their Maseratis.

With Mayberry RFD (and Leave it to Beaver) long gone, America has reached a point of “Coming Apart”. But we are not finished by any stretch of the imagination, as we shall see next Tuesday.

__________________________________________
Bill Peck is a software developer, Christian, conservative, West Point grad ’81, and part-time blogger. He is also a graduate of Johns Hopkins University with a masters degree in administrative science, with a concentration in Information Technology. He helped Joe Miller become the Republican nominee for Senate in Alaska in 2010, fell in love with the Alaska people and the grandeur of the 49th state, and is now Joe Miller’s spokesman.

Video: Jay Leno Nails Obama on Libya, Sex-Themed Ad

/6 Comments/in , , /by

We’ve posted two videos from Jay Leno’s program last night. The first is a short clip where Leno takes President Obama to task for his new “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

It’s quite funny and Leno doesn’t cut Obama any slack:

The second video repeats the clip from above but then continues into a critique of Obama’s sexually-themed “First Time” ad that a number of comedians have poked fun at. [We’ve included both videos as some readers have reported problems with the player below; unfortunately, it is the only player that we could locate that includes Leno’s critique of Obama’s “First Time” ad]:

Video: MoveOn.org, Michael Moore Make Profane Obama Ad With 97 Year Old – “We’ll Burn This Motherf**ker Down”

/68 Comments/in , , /by

Soros-funded MoveOn.org, along with Michael Moore, have produced one of the most over-the-top ads we’ve ever seen. It is supposedly a “Message from the Greatest Generation.”

In it, a group of elderly people from “Rosebud Nursing Home,” some over ninety years old, voice their displeasure over Romney. One 97 year old lady says — quite ominously — that if the Republicans’ “voter suppression throughout this beautiful country” result in Romney’s victory, “we will burn this motherf**ker down.” An Hispanic elderly man affirms this threat with, “Yes we can.”

Then a 75 year old woman says that if the GOP steals the election she’s going to “track down Mitt Romney and give him the worlds biggest c**k punch . . . right in the nut sack.”

And finally, a World War II vet gets into the act.

It’s pathetically sad and not a bit funny. The fact that the leadership of MoveOn.org and Michael Moore think there’s any value to such an ad shows the depth of their depravity:

Video: A Somber Obama Grilled in Interview About His Failure to Defend Libyan Consulate & His Bullshi**er Comment

/20 Comments/in , , /by

In an aggressive interview with a local Colorado reporter, a somber — almost defeated looking — Obama was faced with something he’s not accustomed to: questions from a real reporter rather than a main stream media sycophant.

This reporter, Kyle Clark, got straight to the point with questions about Obama’s massive Libyan failure. First he asked, “Were the Americans under attack at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya denied requests for help during that attack…?” After Obama avoided that question in his answer, Clark asked again, “Were they denied requests for help during the attack?” Again, Obama danced around the question, not answering it.

Kyle then asked the President about his funding of “green” companies that subsequently went bankrupt in Colorado, including a company connected to an Obama fundraiser. He also grilled the President on his bullshi**er comment and asked how that leads to the more cooperative dialog that Obama has talked so frequently about:

Video: Romney’s Support Among Independents Skyrocketing

/2 Comments/in , , /by

In a Washington Post-ABC News Poll, Republican Party Presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s support among independents is skyrocketing from just a three point margin to nineteen points in just four days.

Currently, independent voters support Romney by 57% to President Barrack Obama’s 38%.

If this spread sticks – or grows – it could be sharpest independent voter shift since President Ronald Reagan’s 1984 49-state landslide in his second-term election.

Additionally, national polling among all likely voters is showing Romney leading, although some electoral projections still predict an Obama win:

Rasmussen: Mitt Romney 50% nationwide, Obama 47%.

Gallup: Romney 50%, Obama 47%.

ABC News/Washington Post: 49% Romney, 48% Obama.

Reuters/Ipsos: Romney 47%, Obama 46%.

AP-GfK: Romney 47%, Obama 45%.

Here’s the video breakdown of the independent voter shift:

Video: Pathetic Ted Turner Says It’s a “Good” Thing That US Troops Are Committing Suicide

/16 Comments/in , , /by

CNN Founder Ted Turner was on Piers Morgan when he made a shocking and despicable statement regarding the record number of suicides among US soldiers.

Piers Morgan observed that suicides in uniform have actually surpassed combat deaths. Turner said that he thought that was good. The failure of Piers Morgan to condemn Turner’s reaction was equally inexcusable.

The globalist, who gave $1 billion to the United Nations several years ago, then advocated for the use of the UN as the world’s policeman.

Gloria Allred’s Court Case: Romney Attorney Says, “Have At It”

/25 Comments/in , , /by

As we posted yesterday, Gloria Allred is involved in a Massachusetts court case seeking to unseal testimony Romney allegedly gave to help his friend, founder of Staples, Tom Stemberg.

The court hearing that was supposed to occur yesterday was rescheduled for this morning. According to the Examiner, Romney’s attorney, Robert Jones, isn’t fighting Allred’s application. In fact, he apparently told Judge Jennifer Ulwick that, although he wanted to review the testimony, he “didn’t anticipate objections to its release. Jones also requested the case proceed quickly, to avoid speculation.”

In an interview with Time Magazine, Romney’s attorney went even further stating, “This is a decades-old divorce case in which Mitt Romney provided testimony as to the value of a company. He has no objection to letting the public see that testimony.”

Romney’s friend, however, wants to keep the gag order in place.

TMZ suggests that what Allred is trying to get is evidence that Romney testified falsely about the value of his friend’s company so that his ex-wife would receive less in the divorce:

Multiple sources connected with the divorce tell TMZ … during Tom’s uber nasty divorce case with ex-wife Maureen, Mitt Romney gave a deposition and testified during the trial that Staples was worth virtually nothing. Romney testified that the company was worth very little and Tom was a dreamer and “the dream continues.”

Romney characterized the Staples stock as “overvalued,” adding, “I didn’t place a great deal of credibility in the forecast of the company’s future.”

Partly as a result of Romney’s testimony, Maureen got relatively little in the divorce, but we’re told just weeks after the divorce ended, Romney and Tom went to Goldman Sachs and cashed in THEIR stock for a fortune.

Even if Allred and TMZ’s sources are correct and the court releases the testimony, a decades old case compared to the expanding firestorm over Obama’s lies about Benghazi and his utter incompetency in failing to respond to the American defenders’ pleas for help is likely to offset any damage to Romney.