Media Blackout....Again! Robert Gibbs Refuses To Answer A Simple Question Regarding The SSN of the POTUS

Lester Kinsolving, a reporter for World Net Daily and now the second most senior member of the White House Press Corps asked a very simple question about President Obama's social security number on Thursday June 10,2010. Not only did Mr. Gibbs not answer the question -- but Gibbs dodged the question entirely by diverting, then ridiculing, then attacking. See below:




This is disturbing on so many levels that I hardly know where to begin...

The Correspondents

Did you notice the expressions on their faces when Mr. Kinsolving asked the questions? He asked two uncomplicated, straightforward, reasonable questions,"Why is the President using a social security number reserved for Connecticut applicants?" and "Do you know or have any record of the President ever having a mailing address in Connecticut?" Why would the Press Corps be annoyed by such  questions? I'm also wondering why the guy in the front row felt compelled to walk out just after the first  question?
Are these journalist too lazy to explore or at the very least seek to debunk the claim that President Obama is using a social security number of a deceased Connecticut man who would be 120 years old today? Are they under the mistaken impression that they are too intellectually and/or  politically astute to entertain such claims? If so, how shamefully arrogant they are! Or could it be that they have been ordered to ignore, reject, and keep their mouths shut or lose their jobs?  If so,  by whom? Whatever the reason, We The People are mislead, misguided and misinformed in the process. If the press is not free, then WE are not free. BTW, the video now on C-Span has been scrubbed and Mr. Kinsolving's question is curiously absent.

Robert "I, I, I, Um, Um, Um"Gibbs

Gibbs never answered the questions. Instead, knowing that the dumbed down American public have been systematically "conditioned" by the propaganda they have been "conditioned" to think is "news" to dismiss those identified as truthers as racist, right-wing, conspiracy kooks, he brings up the birth certificate issue (which is a legitimate yet demonized issue). He followed the typical tract of an individual who is hiding something....deflect, ridicule, and attack. So, although Mr. Kinsolving wasn't asking about the birth certificate, he conceded that it would be great if he could see it to which Gibbs told a bold-faced lie straight from the pit of hell. He claims that he not only saw Obama's real birth certificate, but he posted it online. Everyone within earshot of that lie should have been infuriated at how stupid this White House and it's inhabitants think we are! He posted a certificate of live birth not a birth certificate and even that was proven to be a forgery!

The level of corruption we are witnessing at this time is astounding, absolutely astounding. God help us.

If It Looks Like A Duck and Quacks Like A Duck Then Dammit It's A Duck!!!

I am re-posting an article I happened upon this afternoon for all of those who believe that Socialist Duck-In-Chief isn't a Socialist Duck!:

Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?

By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive)
October 8, 2008 - 16:15 ET

The mainstream media thought that the membership of Todd Palin, who is not a candidate for any office, in the Alaska Independence Party important enough to report in such outlets as the Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, and the New York Times, among others.

So now that Barack Obama's membership in the far left New Party has been unearthed, will they report his membership in that Socialist organization?

Proof of Obama's membership in the New Party was discovered by the Politically Drunk On Power blog:

In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist 'New Party' was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations "fusion" reform platform as unconstitutional.

After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.

On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.

From the October 1996 Update of the DSA 'New Party':
"New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races...

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."

You can find the above quote from the scubbed New Party web page at this Internet Archive Organization link. More confirmation of Obama's membership in the New Party can be found at an article in the November 1996 Progressive Populist magazine:

New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.

The Democratic Socialist Party of America also reported on Obama's New Party membership in its July/August 1996 edition:

The Chicago New Party is increasely becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base.

First, in relation to its infrastructure, the NP's membership has increased since January '95 from 225 to 440. National membership has increased from 5700 in December '95 to 7000. Currently the NP's fiscal balance is $7,000 and receives an average of $450/month is sustainer donations.

Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District. Although Delgado received 45% of the vote, he lost by only 800 votes. Delgado commented that it was due to the NP volunteers that he carried the 32nd Ward. Delgado emphasized that he will remain a visible community activist in Humbolt Park. He will conduct four Immigration workshops and encouraged NP activists to get involved.

Kudos to Politically Drunk On Power for digging up this information about Obama's membership in the socialist New Party. The question now is if the MSM will deem his party membership important enough to report on. They sure didn't hesitate to report on Todd Palin's membership in the Alaska Independence Party.

UPDATE: Yet more proof of Obama's close involvement in the socialist New Party from NewsBusters' Hermano who provided this link to the Chicago Democratic Socialists of American September-October 1995 New Ground 42 edition:

About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties. Locally it has been successful both fiscally and in building a grassroots base. Nationwide it has resulted in 1000 people committed to monthly contributions. The NP's political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to "win". This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.

The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat.

So Obama signed a contract with the New Party? Verrrry interesting.

—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog. (source)


I don't know why I bothered......most of the "government educated/indoctrinated" Obama supporters don't have a problem with Socialism. Hell, some of them even theorize that Socialism is biblical!

Fake Rush Limbaugh Quotes & Other Stuff

I really like this guy Lee Doren. I think he used to run a blog called Copious Dissenter but I can no longer find it on my reader. Anyway, enjoy his video, consider subscribing to his page.



Here are his sidebar links:

Fake Quotes #1: http://tinyurl.com/yhwuh7w

Fake Quotes #2: http://tinyurl.com/ykx6o3z

Fake Quotes #3: http://tinyurl.com/nbsd22

Fake Quotes #4: http://tinyurl.com/ygrnnlp

Fake Quotes #5: http://tinyurl.com/yl6fxr2

Fake Quotes #6: http://tinyurl.com/ykxjntc

Fake Quotes #7: http://tinyurl.com/ykd6jol

Fake Quotes #8: http://tinyurl.com/yfdy5ar

Rick Sanchez DUI: http://tinyurl.com/ylepayx

Rush Threatens to Sue: http://tinyurl.com/yh5cr37

Non-CNN Retraction: http://tinyurl.com/yhazr4r

Non-ABC Retraction: http://tinyurl.com/yky639w

Robert Reich: http://tinyurl.com/yzforvs

Cuba: http://tinyurl.com/yjuqd96

Update: Part II

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?

Never In American History Has A President Had As Many Death Threats

Those are the words of one of my bff's....I suspected that she was just repeating something she'd heard on Urban radio in the morning because that's the kind of incidendiary misinformation disseminated these days. Then I ran across the most interesting article this evening by John Perazzo at Newsrealblog.com:


"Ever since the Tea Party phenomenon exploded onto the political scene a few months back, the Left has been up in arms over the inflammatory and offensive rhetoric featured on some of the signs and placards displayed by those in attendance. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow, among others, have fumed repeatedly about the bad taste exhibited by many of those expressing their displeasure with the President and his policies.

The Huffington Post ran a feature on this subject, titled “10 Most Offensive Tea Party Signs,” which singled out, among others, the following winners — or perhaps “losers” is a more apt term:

“Obama’s Plan: White Slavery”
“The American taxpayers are the Jews for Obama’s ovens”
“Our tax $ given to Hamas to Kill Christians, Jews, & Americans”
“Obama: What you talking about Willis? Spend my money?”
“Obama loves taxes, bankrupt USA, loves baby killing”
“Barack Hussein Obama: The new face of Hitler”
“Barack Obama supports abortion, sodomy, socialism, and the New World Order”
“Obama was not bowing [to the Saudi king]. He was sucking Saudi jewels.”
That’s pretty salty stuff. Reasonable people must concede that rhetoric like this is crude and offensive.

A question does come to mind, however: Exactly how did the Huffington Post go about selecting these particular signs for recognition? A simple Internet search turns up a whole host of protesters’ signs that were considerably more offensive, and more graphic, than these. Many of them, in fact, issued explicit calls for violence against the President. Among the uglier, more reprehensible examples were the following:

1.One sign exhorted Americans to “kill” the President and “bomb his f—in White House.”
2.Another said, “I’m here to kill” the President.
3.Another said to “hang” the President.
4.Another said the President “is the disease, death is the cure.”
5.Another said the President is “the only dope worth shooting.”
6.Another showed a likeness of the President’s face with a bullet hole in the forehead, oozing red blood.
7.Another called explicitly for the “death” of the “pig” in the White House.
8.Another displayed a caricature of the President’s disembodied, bleeding head.
9.Others featured the President’s face accompanied by such captions as: “Wanted: dead or alive,” and “Death to the dictator.”
10.Another showed the President’s neck being fitted with a noose.
11.Still another showed the image of a noose accompanied by a caption urging us to “support” the President (i.e., with the noose).
Perhaps examples 10 and 11 above, evoking images of lynchings, lend some credence to the claims of Jimmy Carter, who has told conservatives that, however much they may wish to deny it, their criticisms of President Obama are, in the final analysis, motivated chiefly by a subconscious racism that simply cannot accept a black man as President.

Oh, but wait. Actually, none of the signs in the numbered list above were displayed at Tea Party rallies protesting President Obama and his policies. They were displayed during the previous administration, at rallies protesting President George W. Bush and his policies.

Oops. Never mind."(Source)


Check out these pictures courtesy of Zombietime.com:
















I wonder why all of these death threats against Bush were not reported? Double standard perhaps? Kathie Shaidle at zombietime.com says the following: "I contend that the media is aggressively reporting on, highlighting and pursuing any and all possible threats to President Obama — and even hints of threats — but they purposely glossed over, ignored or failed to report similar threats to President Bush. Why? I believe it is part of an ideological bias: most mainstream networks and newspapers tried their best during the Bush administration to portray the anti-war movement as mainstream and moderate; whereas now they are trying to portray the anti-tax and anti-health-care-bill protesters as extremists and as fringe kooks. To achieve these goals, they essentially suppressed any mentions of the violent signage (including threats to Bush) at anti-war rallies, but have highlighted anything that could even conceivably be construed as a threat at anti-Obama events."

I supposed I wouldn't care so much about the drones who haven't a clue, who are routinely deceived the Obama's lapdogs media except that almost everyone I care about is damn Obama drone.

Since The Real God Is Not Welcome In America, It's Only Natural That He Would Be Replaced

The pathology of liberalism becomes more apparent daily. They despise anyone would professes deep and abiding love the the Lord Jesus Christ and regard people of faith as stupid, nonthinking, anti-intellectuals. Yet they abject themselves before an adulation seeker and bestow all manner of wisdom, experience, compassion and superhuman abilities upon him. Equally infuriating to liberals are men who aren't seeking adulation as these liberals want someone to adulate. It is very sick.

Evan Thomas says:
"Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial."

Then Thomas elaborates on Obama as God, as he patronizingly says:

"He's going to bring all different sides together...Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn't even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He's all about let us reason together...He's the teacher. He is going to say, ‘now, children, stop fighting and quarreling with each other.’ And he has a kind of a moral authority that he – he can – he can do that.

HE HAS THE MORAL AUTHORITY? What???!!!! Authority given by whom? Well, Rush Limbaugh now calls the media "State-Run Media" and he couldn't be more correct. I guess the state run media along with Obama sycophants and various other Liberal-types have bestowed said authority upon The counterfeit One.

Further, what an arrogant airhead Evan Thomas is -- Who's he referring to when he says "children?" Oh, yes how could I have forgotten to the Modern Liberal Americans are children and so following their pathological logic the leaders of the world must be children as well and Obama the leader of the World not just America is the benevolent "Father" aka counterfeit "god the father" (can't bring myself to capitalize it but you get my point). Well, If Barack Obama is god then I AM AN ATHEIST!

I am reminded of a very scary book I read by C.S Lewis several years ago called The Heinous Strength. I can't help but think about the spiritual apostasy which abounds in this age and how the the spirit of anti-Christ can appear as light to those who are not spiritually discerning. I'm not saying that President Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ but if those who are called to be salt and light have no concerns about following and supporting this man, its going to be a veritable cake walk when the real Anti-Christ comes.

The Obama Deception

I'm not sure how I feel about Alex Jones who produced this video. But this is quite compelling. In the words of Hank Haanegraff I would admonish you to "eat the fish and spit out the bones"


"Imperialism and Facism needs a facelift and that facelift has to be black" - Professor Griff (Founder of Public Enemy)

I take exception to the Imperialist part..but, I concur that Facism needed a facelift and masking it with a Black face was strategic.

"Forgit Dim Republikins, Pass The Bill...."

(Correction Tom Joyner's guest was not Roland Martin as his engineer informed me but Melody Barnes Director of White House Domestic Policy Council--h/t to anonymous)
The spousal unit forced me to listen to The Tom Joyner Morning Show this morning on the drive in to work. Now I understand why too many black folks are mired in ignorance (notice I didn't say all or most I said TOO MANY). Roland Martin was the guest for the 5 minute segment and they were discussing the stimulus bill. Roland Martin said the stimulus bill is a great bill that will stimulate the economy and will immediately provide jobs for 3 million people and added that 2 million people are out of work. He said that the house and congress spoke with leading economist to ensure that the bill was balanced -- a balance between tax cuts and "programs that will stimulate the economy and help the poor" but he continued the Republicans are trying to block the bill . Tom Joyner replied "well there are enough democrats so forgit dim republikins and pass the bill." He repeated this some 5 to 7 times throughout the rest of the segment. Joyner, questioned how tax cuts stimulate the economy to which Roland Martin replied that "they don't" and then proceeded to talk about how much the stimulus bill would be used for education. They painted the Republicans as rich, white bigots who want to keep the "little guy" down. Needless to say, I was yelling at the radio which irritated the spousal unit and we fought (but, I digress).

I wonder how many people who heard that exchange really believe that the stimulus bill is a good thing? I wonder how many people who heard that exchange really believe that republicans just don't care about the poor? I submit that too many will believe it. Not because they are dumb but because they are busy and they don't have time to peruse the nytimes, wsj, and washpo op-eds. They are busy dressing their children for school, making lunches, making dinner, cleanup after dinner, and they depend on the TV and the radio for information. There is no wonder that the liberal left wants to institute the fairness doctrine because they want to control information. They already have the MSM and the black media doing their bidding. I see why they feel the need to silence talk radio hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity -- they can't have people getting the whole story can they?

Black Quasi-Socialist Progressive Fundamentalist Racism Chaser Jill Nelson is Angry with The MSM Coverage Of Barack Obama

When I first read the title of Ms. Nelson's article, The Audacity Of Whiteness Framing Barack Obama.I wanted to vomit. I thought what the hell is she thinking? The MSM is publicly fellating Barack Obama, has she lost her damn mind? After reading her article her point is that there are not enough black journalist covering him....blah, blah, blah. My thought is that the white journalist are eating enough of PSBO's bile and NOT doing their jobs. I can only imagine how bad it would be if there were more black journalist in the White House press corp. I mean, if white journalist can't remain unbiased then how could we expect black journalist to so. PSBO is so "inspirational" that professional acumen is no longer a job requirement. Just ask Chris Matthews about all of the "thrills" shooting down his leg when he hears PSBO speak.

That being said, I am sorry that journalist are losing jobs(although I am seething with disdain for them for betraying public confidence). But, journalism is died in 2008. They need to embrace the "change" and find another line of work. Politics perhaps....PSBO is hiring.

Rush Limbaugh & Ann Coulter Deconstruct Liberal MSM Victimology

I caught the tail end of this at work yesterday and after reading the entire transcript decided that I would share the videos. (Before ya'll start screaming that Rush is a racist!!! -- I have been listening to this guy religiously for the last 4 years and I don't think he is however, I have no way of knowing what lies deep in the recesses of his heart but it isn't my business what's in his heart and besides he is less offensive to me than rappers,comedians and commentators who assault my intelligence and womanhood on BET and black radio stations.) That being said both Rush and Ann are "provocateurs" who profit from their superlative reasoning skills and political analysis. I don't begrudge them as someone has to be brave enough to tell the truth.

Sarah Palin Finally Speaks: Media Malpractice

She said it all.....

Post Journalism: Lessons Learned As Told by Victor Davis Hansen

I have had long discussions with friends who were news junkies long before I awoke from my apathetic stupor who are appalled with what masquerades as journalism these days. Today I read the article below on http://www.illusionorreality.com/ by Victor Davis Hansen and I couldn't agree more with his assessment:

We have seen it all the last two years: Weeping journalists on election night; a
journalist openly promising to help make Obama successful (”Yeah, it is my
job.”); film takes of journalists cheering an Obama speech; the savaging of
Sarah Palin and the hands-off treatment of Biden; soft-ball interviews and long
puff-pieces on Obama as the young cool crusader;comparisons to JFK’s Camelot,
and on and on.

In the 3rd book of his history, Thucydides has some insightful thoughts about destroying institutions in times of zealotry—and then regretting their absence when there is a need for refuge for them. The mainstream press should have learned that lesson, once they blew up their credibility in the past election by morphing into the Team Obama press agency. There will come a time in the year ahead when either Obama’s unexamined past will come back to haunt him, or his inexperience and tentativeness in foreign affairs will be embarrassingly apparent, or his European-socialist agenda for domestic programs simply won’t work. And as public opinion falls, what will MSNBC, the New York Times, the editors of Newsweek, a Chris Matthews or the anchors at the major networks say?
Not much—since they will have one of two non-choices: (1) either they will begin scrambling to offer supposed disinterested criticism, which will be met with the public’s, “Why should we begin believing you now?” or “Why didn’t you tell this before?”, or (2), They can continue as state-sanctioned megaphones of the Obama administration in the manner that they did during the campaign. They will lose either way and remain without credibility. In short, we live now in the Age of Post-Journalism. All that was before is now over, as this generation of journalists voluntarily destroyed the hallowed notion of objectivity and they will have no idea quite how to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.

This article has quite a prophetic tone so it will be interesting to see how the media responds when there is egg on it's face.

The Black Sphere on The Bush Legacy II

My compatriot Kevin Jackson at the Black Sphere posted an amazing article on his blog today. I mentioned to a friend just yesterday that I thought that perhaps Bush was not given his just desserts for his work in Africa and that I was going to start compiling research in this area because she insisted that I give her proof positive that this assertion is factual. But Kevin has done the hard work for me and I squealed in delight this morning as I read this you will find my commentary written in Scarlet:

"The mainstream media will never tell you this, and I was shocked to hear Fox News today make a short reference to what you are about to read.

So I am asked often by Liberals, "What good has George Bush accomplished? I began this series with the blog Terrorism…Post Election, regarding the fact that since 9/11 there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil. The second part of a multi-part series, i.e. this blog will tell you yet another thing that Bush has done right, with focus on Bush's policies for Africa.

You see, many people are quick to say that the US shouldn't be fighting wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. They are obvious mediabots, spewing nothing but 'talking points'. Because when pressed, all they say is we are spending $10B a month in Iraq, blah blah blah, droning on like Stepford Wives. Forget the fact that the war received bi-partisan support, and was not just George W Bush's Excellent Adventure. I chalk this up to a combination of Liberal ignorance, combined with heavy media hypnosis. But what interests me more is the Black perspective on this.
Blacks are much more interested in domestic affairs for the most part, as opposed to Jews for example who base many of their decisions on how Israel will be treated. But today Blacks act as if they have suddenly become experts in world affairs, yet there is little to no discussion of Africa…the Motherland? Perhaps like Obama, Blacks have thrown Africa under the bus? (Please Kevin Don't Hurt them...lol)

Because if Blacks and other Liberals did look at Bush's policies in Africa, one major policy initiative being PEPFAR, "The President's Emergency Plan For Aids Relief", they could come to but one conclusion. Bush has done more for Africa, than any other US president in history.

Conversely, Clinton, the real first Black president had one of the worst policies in Africa. He actually made Jesse Jackson ambassador to Africa, which was a dismal failure. Recall this assignment was given to Jackson during "The Blue Dress" incident, so Slick was a bit distracted. The 300,000 African deaths for which the Clinton/Jackson team was responsible rates pretty low, when you are dealing the larger issue of "getting rid of a protein-stained dress?" Needless to say, Blacks love of Clinton and disdain for Bush definitely qualifies for a submission to Bizarro World. (CBW, co-signs that)

The media is quick to showcase Darfur, Zimbabwe, the Sudan, or Somalia, when mentioning the Bush administration. In other words, pick your African country failure, then blame Bush, as if he himself is there creating civil wars or captaining Somali hijackers' vessels. But like most Liberals, even when it's proven that a Conservative has done the right thing, they can't give credit without an 'escape clause'. (That's because Liberals are emotionally disturbed)

Said Melvin Foote, president and CEO of Constituency for Africa, a coalition of groups that work to improve conditions on the continent:

"The Bush administration has broadened and deepened U.S. policy towards Africa...I don't know if it got involved for all the right reasons, but once it got involved it realized this was a good thing to do."

What Foote is referring to is the Bush administration's efforts to stabilize Africa's fledgling democracies and combat its daunting health problems, specifically HIV/AIDS and malaria. Since 2003, the Bush administration has provided funding to increase the number of Africans receiving anti-retroviral drugs from 50,000 to 1.4 million, according to Jendayi Frazer, the assistant secretary of the Bureau of African Affairs. The actual number now exceeds 2M. (Kudos W.)

And for you pro-life Conservatives that felt as though Bush has done nothing for the cause, here's a morsel for you:

"It's probably true that the Bush administration has directed more resources to the African AIDS problem than did the Clinton administration," said Nicole Lee in a grudging offer of support. But Bush's African AIDS program has been "a double-edge sword," said Lee, executive director of TransAfrica Forum, a Washington-based advocacy organization for Caribbean and African policy. It has been undermined, she said, by the "Gag Rule," a Bush administration policy that forbids foreign non-governmental organizations from receiving U.S financial support if they offer abortion or abortion counseling."

What Ms. Lee is saying is that Bush tied strings to this money. The strings were that the US would not fund the programs, if the funding was used to promote abortion throughout the world. Yes, Conservatives, abortion is not just a US issue. You should note that one of Obama's first acts as president will be to rescind this order.

The other thing you should note about Ms. Lee's comment is how she casually mentions that Bush spent more money than Clinton in Africa. It was not that Bush just outspent Clinton, but that Bush's policies were effective in Africa, and not just a needed distraction...like bombing an African aspirin factory.

So how has The Bush Doctrine that has been so disparaged by the mainstream media benefitted Africa? Let's look at the statistics.

In 1989, there were only three countries in sub-Saharan Africa that were considered democracies by the international measures of democracy: Botswana, Mauritius, and Senegal. Today there are over twenty. These are measured by Freedom House and several other independent groups.

Ask any Liberal knowledgeable about this topic [if you can even find one], and they will quietly admit that Bush's Africa policies are an overwhelming success. Why doesn't the media report this?

The media can't have African-Americans rallying behind Bush or the Republican party in any way. So just like the Liberals have swept the racist policies of Democrats under the rug, and they are doing the same with the phenomenal work done by the Bush administration in Africa. Keep those "slaves" stupid and hungry. (Boy, you are preaching now!!!)

Most of the world has done nothing but take from Africa, a continent teeming in natural resources. However unlike most of the world, the US, specifically George Bush has shown his compassion for helping Africa, taking nothing. The Liberal hypocrites in America with all their causes, just aren't that interested in telling the truth about the Bush policies in Africa. There's just not enough money in it."(Source) (Kevin & I are screaming throughout the blogsphere-- WAKE UP PEOPLE)

Kevin doesn't have any cut cards he just gives you the unadulterated truth straight up without any chasers and I so appreciated this sort of direct, honest, thoughtful commentary and analysis in this time because you surely can't find it in MSM.