Questions The Lapdog Media Should Ask President Obama But Don't Because They Are Too Busy Humping His Leg

The left blogosphere refers to Fox News as Faux News, and the Un-news channel. Here are some of the articles written about Fox and Fox viewers:

Uninformed Glen[n] Beck and Fox News viewers not courageous or smart enough to hold them accountable.

Beck Wants Americans To Stay Uniformed, Unengaged, Fat and Lazy

Considering how critical, cynical and self-aggrandized these people are, it defies all reason that after watching President Obama's media blitz on Sunday none of these highly informed individuals would give pause and ask -- Why did they all ask him the same questions? Why was he only slightly challenged in one interview? Did they learn anything that they didn't already know about healthcare reform. President Obama didn't bother to grant Fox an interview-- actually he said last Thursday that “I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it”. But aside for the pettiness, his decision to snub "Fox News Sunday", wasn't very wise considering that a Sept. 16th comparision of cable news viewership yielded this result:

FOX News – 1,548,000 viewers

CNN – 563,000 viewers

MSNBC –421,000 viewers

CNBC – 212,000 viewers

HLN – 336,000 viewers

(Source)

If President Obama's goal is to get the truth out about his healthcare reform plan, then why not contend for and defend the plan that you believe is best for all Americans. Perhaps he knows it's not best for all Americans and just the Americans he cares about, or perhaps he doesn't care who it's best for as long as he brings forth his agenda--dare I say hidden agenda.

On Glenn Beck's show yesterday, he asked the questions that the Lapdog media should have asked but didn't and then showed previous clips of President Obama telling us how he really feels in his own words.

President Obama are you a proponent of single payer universal healthcare plan? If so, are you slow walking it by using the public option? In other words Mr. President are merely laying the foundation for single payer universal healthcare in the future? Is the ultimate goal to do away with private insurance altogether?

Mr. President are you more concerned about the will of the American people, 46% of whom are happy with their insurance or is it more important to you to do the biddings of George Soros and the groups he funds like the Tide Alliance, ACORN,and SEIU? Mr. President what is the probability of the Democrats using the "Nuclear Option" to get this bill passed in the House? Do you support that? Mr. President why do you associate yourself with people who hold such radical points of view?

Mr. President you have been quite critical of former President Bush and not without reason, yet you have maintained and in some instances expanded the very policies you criticized -- Why? You have appointed radical, marxist, revolutionary and even criminal individuals to key positions in your administration -- Why? Do you know what these people have said and done in the past? Are you selecting these individuals because you are of one mind with them? What did you mean your first day in office when you said "We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America"? Did you mean Mr. President it is your intention to put in place the coalitions of power to bring about redistributive change?

Mr. President you have said in your own words that you have worked closely with ACORN and that they would play a key role in "shaping the agenda" for the United State of America, so are you being truthful when you say that you haven't been watching them very closely? To be blunt Mr. President, why are you playing dumb?

Mr. President, are you at all concerned about lower and middle class Americans who will be adversely affecting by rising energy costs as a result of Cap & Trade? You said yourself that electricity rates would "necessarily skyrocket", do you think utility companies will absorb that cost or pass it along to consumers?
Mr. President,is your idea of comprehensive immigration reform granting Amnesty to to 20 million illegal immigrants here currently? If so, then is that how you come to the conclusion that illegal aliens will not be covered in the healthcare reform bill?


So those are the questions that should be put to President Obama but unfortunately the Lapdog Media will not ask. Why? Those of you accusing Fox News and it's host of racism, are these not reasonable concerns especially in light of President Obama's very own words and deeds? Those of you who feel that Fox viewers are uniformed, do you know the answers to these questions? If so, then will you please address them instead of accusing reasonable people of racism, and self-hatred if said reasonable person asking happens to be black. Lastly because I'm really curious do you really give slightly a shade left of a damn who President Obama thinks will win the World Series?

Ignorance Isn't Inconsequential So Catch A Clue

I read the most interesting article today on the American Thinker. Randall Hoven asks and answers the question What Would A Communist Do? In order to answer that question he went straight to the source -- the Communist Party USA. He summarized articles listed on http://www.cpusa.org/ listed in reverse chronological order. The below listed only scratches the surface of what he discovered:

What would a communist do about health care? Support it. In an article written by Sam Webb, National Chair, 9/10/2009 entitled Resetting the Health Care Debate, Mr. Webb writes: "As for the supporters of health care reform, we have to be every bit as tenacious as right-wing reaction. Justice, morality, and truth are on our side, but they are not enough. Only when combined with persistence, united action, and struggle over the bill's content, including a public option, will real health care reform see the light of day."

How would a communist support President Obama? Advocate for change. A posted speech given by Sam Webb on 7/30/2009 entitled The Communist Party - A Work in Progress says the following:"President Obama and progressive Congress people can't be the only change agents and will be change agents only up to a point. Our responsibility is to support them, prod them, and constructively take issue with them when we have differing views." But here is the kicker...."But more importantly -- and this is the heart of the matter -- we have to reach, activate, unite, educate, and turn millions of Americans into ‘change agents' who can make the political difference in upcoming struggles."

It isn't at all surprising that communist party would overwhelming support President Obama as they share some of the same core beliefs. Nor is it surprising to me that Americans with even a cursory understanding of political science and/or economics would be slightly concerned about that alone. Couple that with President Obama's affinity for Saul Alinsky, affiliation with Bill Ayers, and eerie similarities to totalitarian leaders like Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin and it is telling that more people aren't concerned. How can one be concerned about something you know nothing about? Therein lies the problem. Americans by and large are not only uninformed, but so uninformed that they don't know that they are uniformed. One blogger snarkily expressed it like this:"You don’t have a clue. You’ve been living in the Matrix and don’t know what true Socialism/Communism is. You’ve never been taught Stalin or Mao. You think you want Socialism/Communism because you’ve been taught how unfair Capitalism and the free market are....The useful idiots that put Stalin and Mao in power thought the same." - Fox

To the clueless,there is fairness, justice and equality in spreading the wealth that was rewarded to the wealthy via capitalism. They can not fathom how the inherent unfairness of capitalism (which I consider health competition) drives the desire to improve, accomplish and achieve.
Social and Economic Justice are merely palatable synonyms for Socialism promulgated by the socialist elite and their minions.

So here is the problem --the Socialist elite have money and enough of it to place their operatives throughout the offices of Capitol and White House. The clueless become increasingly clueless and beget clueless children and that is exactly what the socialist elite want. Their goal is to ensure that the clueless remain dumb and indoctrinated by the public school systems, colleges and universities without any real knowledge of who is leading them and why.

So I will leave it to the reader to catch a clue.

Hint: Start with the George Soros/Barack Obama connection.

Is Marriage A Civil Right?

It occurred to me this weekend as I hosted a debate on gay marriage that I don't believe marriage is a civil right. Let me just say, I believe that gay people should have the same legal and financial rights as any unmarried couple in a de facto relationship. However, I am opposed to the "redefinition" of marriage.

I don't think marriage is a civil right. When I was single and dyyyyying to be married (yes, I hated being single) were my "civil" rights violated by boyfriend because he didn't want to marry me ? I mean can I go back and sue him because he violated my RIGHT to be a married lady? What about the 70% of black women who are single? Can they sue all the brothers who want to be "ballers" for keeping them single....no, I know they can sue liberal white men for not "crossing over" and marrying them. If marriage is a civil rights, then the liberals have a new set of victims -- single people who want to be married but are not, right? Yes, I am aware that this is ridiculous just as ridiculous as gay people saying that marriage is a civil right.

Some heterosexual people who want to be married will never marry for a myriad of reasons and they just have to live with it. So, I believe that rather than redefining marriage, gay people should just live with it. Just like the 70% of black women who want to be married but AREN'T. Since the beginning of time, I am sure they have been gay people and they didn't cause a stink about not being married -- or they just married the opposite sex (yikes!). What's next? Are their descendants going to ask for reparations for civil rights violations?

This is really JUST about the radical left wing agenda to cleanse our society of religious dogma and what they consider to be antiquated traditions like marriage.

One Dream, One Secret, One Choice..... Do The Right Thing

The correlation between abortion and racism is rarely if ever discussed but volumes of historical evidence exist to support the fact that Pro-Choice is legalized genocide cleverly disguised as a woman’s right to choose. Consider this, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than three times as likely as white women to have an abortion. The Family Research Council says that African Americans represent 12 percent of the population but suffer 36 percent of the abortions in America and 78% of abortuaries are in black communities. The Culture of Life Foundation & Institute adds that more than 1,452 black children are aborted every day. Since Roe v. Wade, that makes about 15 million African Americans removed from the population who can never make any contribution to their race or their country. We are the only minority that is shrinking!!! Don’t believe me check out: (Countdown to Extinction) or this:(Abortion VS. Historical Genocide) Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood and leader of the early 20th century eugenics movement in the United States. Eugenics is the study of heredity improvement by genetic control. Sanger devoted much of her life to the development of a white master race of human beings. She routinely referred to those who didn't fit her dream, specifically “Negroes”, as "unfit", "irresponsible" and "reckless. Sanger also sponsored the “Negro Project” which advocated abortion, forced sterilization and even killing babies after birth for persons of color this is what she had to say: "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." – Margaret Sanger (Source)
Sanger's approach, using mass murder as a tool to address social ills including poverty or lack of education, was so cleverly disguised, that in 1966 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. accepted Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger Award. Personally, I am completely turned off by conspiracy theories but numbers don’t lie. Even if there is no “masterplan” to get rid of black folks the de facto result is that our population is not replenishing itself. But even beyond that abortion is murder (Need Proof -- Warning Graphic Material) or this (Partial Birth Abortion- Demo) The fallacy that a woman should have a right to choose murder is a contention straight from the bowels of hell. With that flawed line of thinking one could say I have a right to choose to do any multitude of heinous acts and you have no right to impose your beliefs on me!!! Anyway, I am questioning why Barack Obama voted four times against protection for infants that survive late term abortion on a state level when Congress unanimously supported such protection?(Check this out). Basically, not only does he support abortion he supports infanticide-- and we are so hungry for "change" that we will look the other way. Well, I leave you with this:

African American....Why did we let Jesse do this to us?

When I was in my sophomore year of college circa 1983 I went to bed one night black and woke up African-American, well at least that's what Jesse told me to call myself....NOT!!!!

Below is an article by my favorite scholar Thomas Sowell:

Did anyone ever call Franklin D. Roosevelt a "Dutch American" or Dwight Eisenhower a "German
American"? It would have been resented, not only by them and their supporters, but by Americans in general. These men were Americans -- not hyphenated Americans or half Americans. Most black families in the United States today have been here longer than most white families. No one except the American Indians can claim to have been on American soil longer. Why then call blacks in the United States "African Americans," when not even their great-great great-grandparents ever laid eyes on Africa? It is certainly understandable that activists, politicians and others who wish to divide Americans for their own purposes would push the notion of "African Americans." They also push such things as the "African" holiday Kwanzaa -- which originated in Los Angeles -- and "black English" or "ebonics," which originated centuries ago in particular localities in Britain, and is wholly unknown in Africa. Names are just part of the process of creating wholesale frauds about the past, in order to advance special agendas in the present. Personal names are also part of that fraud. The vogue of repudiating black family names that supposedly were given by slaveowners in times past is another reflection of the widespread ignorance of history among Americans in general, as a result of our dumbed-down education. Slaves were not only not given family names, they were forbidden to have family names. In many parts of the world, family names began with the elites, and only over the centuries moved down the social scale until ordinary people were allowed to have them. In England, common people began to have family names only after the Middle Ages, and in Japan it was the late 19th century before commoners could use family names. It was the 20th century before ordinary people in Iran were allowed -- and directed -- to have family names. Slaveowners in the American antebellum South were especially opposed to slaves having family names because such names emphasized family ties -- and the only legally recognized tie of a slave was to his owner, who could sell him miles away from his kin. The slaves themselves, however, used family names to create a sense of family, though they were careful not to use these names around whites. Even after Emancipation, blacks who had been raised in slavery often hesitated when some white person asked them their family name. The so-called "slave names" that so many blacks began repudiating in the 1960s, were neither given to them by slaveowners nor were they usually the slaveowners' family names. They were names chosen despite prohibitions, in order to symbolize family ties that were often stronger than those in today's ghettoes. The late Herbert Gutman -- a tough-minded historian -- was once on the verge of tears as he described the desperate efforts of blacks in the years after Emancipation to try to find family members who had been sold, sometimes hundreds of miles away. These poor and illiterate people would find somebody who could read and write, who would write what were called "inquiring letters" to black churches in the South. In these churches, someone would then read these letters aloud to the congregations, asking if anybody who knew anything about the person being sought would speak up, so that this family could be reunited again. Those who try to claim that the shattered families in today's ghettoes are "a legacy of slavery" ignore the fact that, a hundred years ago, a slightly higherpercentage of blacks than of whites were married and most black children were raised in two-parent families, even during the era of slavery. As late as 1950, a higher percentage of black women than of white women were married. The broken families of today are a legacy of our own times and our own ill-advised notions and policies. Of all the reactions against the supposed "slave names" among blacks, the most painfully ironic has been the taking of Arab names instead. The Arabs engaged in massive enslavement of Africans before the Europeans began to -- and continued long after the Europeans stopped. One of the many reasons for studying history is to prevent history from being misused for current hidden agendas. Names are just one of the things being misused in this way.

Painfully provocative,uh...........When will we stop falling for the liberal left-wing rhetoric of our time and start thinking for ourselves???