TightyRighty.net

In the last week or so the Obama administration has opened up a full scale barrage on Fox News.  First, WH Communications Director Anita Dunn threw out a few opening salvos:

“The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it is not ideological… what I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party.”

“Obviously [the President] will go on Fox because he engages with ideological opponents. He has done that before and he will do it again… when he goes on Fox he understands he is not going on it as a news network at this point. He is going on it to debate the opposition.”

“[Fox is] widely viewed as a part of the Republican Party: take their talking points and put them on the air, take their opposition research and put it on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news organization like CNN is.”

This is so wrong an a number of levels, but I will deal with that later.

Sunday morning, it was WH Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and WH Senior Advisor David Axelrod’s turn.   Emanual ripped Fox News claiming it “is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.”

Then WH Senior Advisor David Axelrod claimed about Fox News that “It’s really not news — it’s pushing a point of view.”

These would be hilarious if these guys were a couple of lefty bloggers on the Huffington Post.  But they are not.  Emanuel and Axelrod are the closest confidants of the President and other than the inept Robert Gibbs, Anita Dunn is the primary mouthpiece of the administration and its policies.

So where is this going?  Watch closely and you will see this rhetoric build to a crescendo about how Fox News is an extension of the Republican party, misrepresents the facts about the President’s policies, deceives the American people, etc.  Then someone will “notice” that Fox has the highest news ratings so there must be lots of people being misled by Fox News the deceiver.  This will then morph into a drumbeat for reimplementation of the fairness doctrine.  Since Fox is “not news”, Fox needs to present offsetting opinions to “balance” the RNC propaganda they are spewing.  Never mind that there are 500 other stations on the channel dial, including Obama handmaidens MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, etc.  Never mind that the print media is in the bag for the liberals or that there are a host of bloggers on the web presenting opposing views to Fox.  Fox has the numbers so they must present the opposing viewpoint.

Watch this and see if this plays out.   In my mind, the administration is just “laying the groundwork.”

ps.  Anita Dunn – what an idiot!  When is the President going to go on Fox?  Why has the White House refused to provide any administration officials to go on Fox News Sunday to be interviewed by Chris Wallace since August?  When the President made his 5 Sunday news show blitz a few weeks ago, why was Fox News omitted?

And she demonstrated she really understands what a real news organization is when she stated “let’s not pretend they’re a news organization like CNN is.”  Is she referring to the same CNN which fact checked a Saturday Night Live skit critical of the President but did not see fit to fact check inflammatory quotes they attributed to Rush Limaugh?  Then when they were called on their erroneous reporting, issued the correction via Twitter?  That is one top flight news organization – no doubt about it!

Written by my daughter Courtney on her Facebook page:

Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize: It’s unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. What has he actually accomplished? A bunch of Scandinavian socialists have given this award to another socialist.

Apparently it is true that the apple does not fall far from the tree.  I could not have said it better or any more succinctly.

This makes a father very proud.

As everyone is aware, the IOC awarded the 2016 Summer Olympics to Brazil and Rio de Janeiro in spite of the efforts of President and Mrs. Obama and Oprah Winfrey, among others.  While some are reveling in this “defeat” for the President and bemoaning the loss of prestige incurred by the Office of President, I have a slightly different take on this matter.

I am hopeful that the President looks at this matter as a “teachable moment” (to use a recently publicized term) and does a critical assessment of his role in this process.

It appears President Obama believed he could sweep in at the last moment, and by the sheer force of his personality and the strength of his eloquent speech, he could win the day for the Windy City.  Instead it seems that the IOC panned his performance and Chicago was first to be “voted off the island.”

Unfortunately, the President believes the strength of his personality and the eloquence of his words are just the ticket to deal with many of the world’s despots and dictators, including Iran, Korea, Venezuela, Russia, etc.  He has taken a very soft approach with this cabal of thugs by continually apologizing for America, tweaking our allies (such as Israel, Poland and Czechoslovakia) in order to curry the favor of these hoodlums and then offering them an olive branch.

President Obama had the perfect opportunity (twice) to call out Iran for its nuclear arms program at the U.N. when he made the first speech of significance to open the General Session and then when he chaired the Security Council the next day.  At the time, he was sitting on a figurative bombshell with the knowledge that Iran has developed at least one other nuclear site.  Did he use the bully pulpit and this knowledge to call for accountability and conformance with international standards and threaten consequences for non-conformance?  No – first he made a “Can’t we all get along?” mealy-mouthed speech to the General Session in which he threw Israel under the bus and abdicated the U.S. role as leader of the free world.  Then he made a plea for a nuclear free world to the Security Council without naming the 2 biggest violators of the nuclear development regime – Korea and Iran.  He even angered our allies – the British and French, who wanted to expose the double dealing of the Iranians at the high profile venue of the U.N. Security Council.

Additionally, a few weeks ago he threw a massive bone the the Russians when he canceled a missile defense system for the Poles and Czechs.  The Russian President Medvedev indicated some flexibility regarding sanctions on Iran for its nuke program, but it is Russian Prime Minister Putin who wields all the power.  It is in Russia’s best interest for the Iranians to continue their nuke program so do not expect any sanctions requiring approval of the Russians.

So the pattern which has emerged is our President, fueled by his massive ego in which he believes he can reason with and negotiate peace, nuclear disarmament, (insert additional pipe dreams here) with anyone, no matter how evil, supplicating before and schmoozing and sweet talking the worst people in the world.  And what does he get for it?  These guys all tell the world how great he is (Qaddafi wants him to be president for life!) but none of them are forthcoming with any concessions which would make the world or the U.S. safer.  After the great American apology tour, how many countries said they would take any Gitmo detainees?  What concession of any significance has come from Iran, Korea, Venezuela, Russia, etc as a result of President Obama being “not President Bush?”  NONE!

So the President’s Olympic experience is a microcosm of the the way the world works.  He can be gracious and eloquent and likeable until the cows come home, but he is perceived by the world as a weakling and as a result, he gets nothing of significance, other than having his ego stroked and told how much better he is than the last U.S. president.

So perhaps President Obama will learn from this teachable moment with the Olympics.  The strongest horse wins the race, not the best liked. He needs to stand up and accept the mantle of leadership of the free world and begin to impose the U.S. will upon some of these bad guys and show them he means business.  He could start by calling for an embargo of gasoline into Iran by any oil company which wants to do business in the U.S. and tell the millions of Iranian protesters that he supports their cause.  He could rethink his position on the Eastern Europe missle defense system.  He could quickly agree to General McChrystal’s request for more troops to defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan.  He could stand behind the legally installed government in the Honduras and tell Chavez to foment his unrest elsewhere.

Is any of this likely to happen?  Depends whether the President wants to be a successful leader or or a well liked patsy.  Unfortunately, the national security ramifications of this answer are staggering.  Let’s hope the President can learn from this teachable moment.

Isn’t it amazing that at a time when so many critial things are happening:

We are in the midst of the biggest economic crisis we have seen since the depression  and unemployment is hovering just under 10%,

The General he appointed to assess the situation in Afghanistan and provide recommendations has requested more troops and his request has been shelved,

Iran continues its inexorable march toward obtaining nuclear capabilities (undoubtedly to be shared with its terrorist buddies like Hamas and Hezbollah),

That our President can find the time to flit over to Denmark so he can put the final schmooze on Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 Olympics?  Were Michelle and Oprah not strong enough to carry this banner?

And this comes just days after President Obama, when pressed about the continued government funding of Acorn with tax dollars which come from our pockets, (apparently so Acorn can assist entrepreneurial pimps),  stated “George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country.  It’s not something I’m paying a lot of attention to.”

Given the trip to Denmark, it would appear that the Chicago Olympic bid is the biggest issue facing the country.

Perhaps Mr. President, you should pay more attention to issues which matter to the citizens of this country, such as jobs, National Security and being a good steward of the public’s tax dollars, rather than feeding your ego by making a grand appearance in Denmark on behalf of your Chicago cronies.

Yesterday the Senate Finance Committee was working its way thru some 500+ amendments to Senator Baucus’ health care bill (not actually a bill, but rather, a conceptual framework).  Senator Jim Bunning (R-Ky) proposed that the final text of the bill be posted on-line for 72 hours and the final cost of the bill (as scored by the CBO) be available before the bill was voted on by the Committee.

This proposal was voted down 12-11 with Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) the only Democrat siding with the Republicans.  Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mt) said it would take too long to obtain the CBO report and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) apparently thinks the American people are too stupid to understand the legalese of the bill.

This is infuriating.  I can not tell you how angry this makes me.

I can somewhat understand not posting the bill before they vote on it.  After all, this is just a committee and the bill will likely be amended significantly once it hits the actual Senate floor and they want it too the floor ASAP so the real discussion can begin.  However, for committee members to vote on a bill without any idea of what it will actually cost the taxpayers, in an era where we are we are incurring TRILLION dollar deficits, is an unfathomable dereliction of  their fiduciary duty to the United States taxpayers.  After all, this is the Finance Committee!  If this was a corporation, they would be sued (rightfully so) by their shareholders with the SEC and Justice Dept in lockstep.

For these 12 Democrats to put politics so far ahead of the needs of the American taxpayer is criminal.  These people should be thrown out of office for this one vote alone!

OK – my first post by this title dealt with executive compensation, which is probably not something most people will be afraid of.  However, this post deals with national security, which should must concern all of us.

I have been home sick the last few days with the flu which is going around.  Between reading emails from work, fading in and out of consciousness since I am so worn out, running to the men’s room, etc., I have watched a fair amount of Fox News, particularly a number of the speeches at the UN by the leaders of nations.  Three things have come together to really concern me about the current state of our national security:

We live in a bad, bad world.  There is evil in the world and if we do not call it such and confront it, we will be the victims of it.  Moammar(?) Qaddafi and Mahmoud Ahmedinijad are two prime examples of very bad, bad, evil men leading bad, bad, evil countries.

We are not safe because we have not learned the lessons of 9/11.  We were supposed to have all of our law enforcement (Federal, State, City, etc) working together on terrorism matters, but it appears that is still not the case, 8 years (and 13 days later) later.  Fox News has reported:

“Police acting without the FBI’s knowledge may have inadvertently helped blow the surveillance of a terrorism suspect (Najibullah Zazi) and compromised a bomb plot investigation at a sensitive stage by questioning an imam about him, a criminal complaint suggests.

“They came to ask me about your characters,” the Muslim religious leader, Ahmad Wais Afzali, told Najibullah Zazi in a secretly recorded Sept. 11 telephone conversation. “They asked me about you guys.””

Finally, our President continues to demonstrate that he is far, far beyond naive in his understanding of foreign policy.  He has demonstrated that naivete very well is the last few weeks:

A couple of weeks ago, he threw our very strong allies, Czechoslovakia and Poland under the (Russian) bus by canceling a missile defense system the Bush administration negotiated with these countries.  Supposedly, the new defense system will be stronger, smarter and swifter, etc.  But why give in on a source of Russian irritation without getting something in return?  The Russkies have indicated some flexibility this week regarding sanctions on Iran for its nuke program, but I will believe it when I see it.  It is never better to negotiate from a position of weakness.

In his speech yesterday at the U.N.  He began with the obligatory apology, although this was generally done in a positive way – look what I have done – stopped torture, issued orders to close Gitmo, we’re ending the war in Iraq, unilaterally disarming our nukes, we have thrown the Israelis under the bus in the Palestinian conflict, etc.  He did of course remind us about “Those wealthy nations that did so much to damage the environment in the 20th century”.  (Perhaps he should compare the environment of the wealthy capitalist nations like the U.S., U.K., Germany, etc. with the wealthy communist nations like China and Russia and see that capitalism is much better for the environment).  The thing he did not do is take responsibility for American exceptionalism and the undisputed fact that our leadership position is very good for the world.  It was very much that we are just another country just like every other country and we will do our share but only for stuff we all agree on.  Far be it from us to unilaterally impose our will on any other country.

But now we get to the crux of my concern.  When General Stanley McChrystal was appointed to lead our troops in Afghanistan, he was tasked with completing a 60 day review of our strategy and tactics.  He has completed his review and he is calling for a new strategy which will require more troops.  However, the President appears to be balking at the thought of more troops and there is word on the street that General McChrystal has been told not to request more troops (denied by the White House, of course).  The Washington Post is reporting the assessment states “more forces” or “mission failure.”

It seems that the White House is considering a strategy developed by the great military strategist Joe Biden, who wants to utilize less troops and more drones to root out the Taliban.  Is the same Joe Biden who opposed the surge, called it a failure and conceived a plan to divide Iraq into 3 separate autonomous regions?  Is this the same Joe Biden who has been consistently wrong on foreign policy matters for over 30 years?  The same Joe “gaffe-o-matic” Biden who has webpage dedicated to tracking his misspoken words?  Why would we think this guy who never served in the military would know better than a 33 year veteran West Point graduate?

I can not stress how important it is that we win in Afghanistan.  However, the great orator has also described the need to win in Afghanistan very elequently.   I could not agree with him more.  If we lose in Afghanistan, the terrorists have their old training ground back and they have a friendly government to issue them passports.  They also have unfettered access to wreak havoc on Pakistan.  While this Pakistan is no beacon of democracy in a dictator led region, they are somewhat sympathetic to our cause and, most importantly, they do have nukes.  If Pakistan’s government collapses, it doesn’t matter if  Iran develops nukes because this will make Deal of the Century actually look funny.

If you see either General McChrystal or General David Patraeus (architect of the successful surge strategy in Iraq and who has endorsed McChrystal’s assessment) resign in the next few weeks, you can be fairly sure that President Obama has selected the Biden strategy over the military’s strategy and you should be Afraid, be VERY, VERY Afraid!

A couple of statements from President Obama’s U.N. speech jumped out at me yesterday:

The changes that I have spoken about today will not be easy to make. And they will not be realized simply by leaders like us coming together in forums like this. For as in any assembly of members, real change can only come through the people we represent. That is why we must do the hard work to lay the groundwork for progress in our own capitals.

…..True leadership will not be measured by the ability to muzzle dissent, or to intimidate and harass political opponents at home.

Why then is the President doing exactly the opposite of this in the health care debate?  Why must the President convene a joint session of Congress to say the same thing (including several lies detailed here, here and here) he has said for the last 6 months?  If real change only comes through the people he represents and true leadership is not measured by the ability to muzzle dissent or intimidate or harass opponents at home, why do he and his minions demonize insurance companies and doctors and disparage millions of citizens who disagree with them on this debate and why does he need a flag@whitehouse.gov email address where you can rat out your neighbor?

Secondly, did you notice that he believes that groundwork is laid in our own capitals?  It seems to me that in this country, where President Obama hails from, most people do not live in their capital, only their representatives do.  Accordingly, laying the groundwork should start at the grassroots level with the people (like at townhalls).  But if you are an elitist like Barack Obama, you believe that your country’s ruler lives in the capital, so you could  and would make a statement like that.

In his bid to remain relevant after being one of this Country’s worst presidents ever, former President Jimmy Carter is now claiming that the opposition to Barack Obama’s policies is because the U.S. is a racist nation.  In an interview with NBC, Carter stated:

“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African American…”

Unfortunately, the left and their minions in the MSM have picked up this line and the drumbeat of racism as the basis of opposition to Obama’s policies is now being heard loud and clear.  This is a typical ploy by the left.  If they can not win their argument, they begin to attack their opponent.  They don’t usually go directly to the race trump card, but I believe the left is becoming very desperate about the health care bill.

What happened to “speaking truth to power” or “dissent is the highest form of patriotism?”  I heard Mark Steyn on Bill Bennett this morning and he said the new saying is that “dissent is the highest form of racism.”  I think he nailed it.

I would ask Mr. Carter to look back through my posts, at such topics as the socialization of our health care, the anti-life position this Administration has taken on abortion and stem cell research, reducing our national security by releasing interrogation memos, going after CIA personnel who obtained information which has saved U.S. lives, closing Gitmo, the wreckless wasting of taxpayer dollars via the Stimulus bill, the negative impact of the Cap and Trade bill on national security and its potential impact on our economy, etc., and find racism in these posts.  Just because we do not agree with President Obama’s vision of a Euro-style society with government as the solution to all our problems does not mean we are racist.  Your statement means Mr. Carter, that you are a jackass.

Has anyone else noted this disturbing trend of events which I have commented on here:

Attorney General Eric Holder’s is investigating CIA personnel who utilized enhanced interrogation techniques to obtain information which saved lives;

Scotland released the convicted murderer of 270 innocents in the Pan Am 103 bombing;

We are Mirandizing high value detainees in Afghanistan;

The Obama Administration provided a detailed guide to enhanced interrogation techniques utilized by the CIA (and thus, a road map to overcoming these techniques);

Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cohort must be laughing their buttocks off at us.

Why is it that whenever things start going badly for the Obama administration, they pull out the old “pile on Bush” tactic to obfuscate and misdirect the focus of the public?  With the proposed health care legislation meeting strong resistance from the American people, it is time to redirect our focus so Attorney General has announced he is opening an investigation into CIA interrogation abuses.  Of course this was accompanied by the obligatory statement from the President that we “look forward and not backward when it comes to issues such as these” and that “ultimately, the decisions on who is investigated and who is prosecuted are up to the attorney general.”

Interestingly enough, this announcement came on the same day that documents requested by Dick Cheney confirming the effectiveness of the enhanced interrogation techniques were released.  These documents apparently paint a picture that these techniques directly saved lives.

So help me understand.  Eric Holder wants to go after CIA personnel who used these techniques to obtain information which did save lives, yet he is willing to drop charges against some New Black Panthers who engaged in voter intimidation in the November election on camera?

Seems like a case of very misplaced priorities.