Sunday, December 21, 2014

Obama Responsible for Anti-Police Climate

Before Obama was elected, was there anything resembling an anti-police climate in the country?


Has Obama done enough to curb anti-police sentiment and support law enforcement?


Overly-restrained language is the hallmark of Obama's comments whenever "supporting" police and "condemning" violent behavior. Clearly, no one in the entire country has listened to his ineffectual words. Is that the intent?

Obama's anti-police attitude began soon after he was elected by claiming Massachusetts police "acted stupidly" when arresting a black Harvard professor. That phrase has followed Obama through the entire length of his administration and here we are today with marches around the nation supporting thugs and threatening police. Obama, having said "A," the marchers now say "B."

If Obama has any problem with those marches and the sentiment behind them, no one is aware of it. He met with demonstrators in Missouri to urge them on, not quiet them down.

Congressman Peter King (R-NY) has called on Obama and the news media to stop the "cop bashing."

Does Obama feel any need to go to greater lengths to support the police? No. He is currently in Hawaii saying he "condemns" the killing of the New York police. And what effect is that supposed to have on those who are learning it's okay to hate the police in a very public way?

The "bad guys" are winning in today's world because that's what the leaders of prominent nations are, including our own.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Hollywood Already Bans Anti-Obama Movies

One of the biggest news stories this week (there were many) was Sony deciding to cancel the movie "The Interview" after a terrorist threat from the hacker group "Guardians of Peace" that leaked a vast cache of Sony's data.

The US has now blamed North Korea for the hack, perhaps with a little help from their friends the Chinese.

The movie mocks North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and he is assassinated at the end.

Actors such as George Clooney were outraged that a dictator decided if the public could or couldn't watch a movie.

Fears of a "chilling effect" on the freedom of the movie industry are already being voices. Supposedly another movie in the work has been canned as a result of the hacker threat.

But the odd part of all this is the longstanding and unstated ban on movies mocking and criticizing US President Barack Obama. Before the Sony hack, it was easy to make a movie attacking Kim, but where are the movies making fun of Obama? Rush Limbaugh recently pointed out the improbability of actors such as Clooney defending an anti-Obama film but would instead demand that it be cancelled just like the Kim film. Actors demand that the anti-Kim film be seen, but it's likely they would demand an anti-Obama movie be shelved and hidden from view.

Will there be any attempt from Hollywood to "push back" from the Sony debacle and make some movies that mock world leaders including Obama? The fears of hacking, terror, and political incorrectness shout a resounding No.

Obama's Solution to Maintaining Relevancy: Go Rogue

Obama has solved the problem of a second-term president struggling to remain relevant in the last two years of his presidency.

The answer: Go Rogue!

No one ever saw the issue on a ballot, but immigrant numbers have doubled since 1990. And Obama's heavy-handedness in increasing that flow have shocked even some on his side of the political aisle. Obama is deliberately tearing apart the social fabric of the US and causing social chaos. No one will ever call him "The Great Uniter."

  • Bringing in illegal teenagers and depositing them all around the country
  • DHS aiding illegals in entering the country
  • Dramatically cutting back on illegals deported
It was never on a ballot, but Obama decided if something "isn't working" then it need change:
  • Trade deal with repressive rogue regime Cuba
  • Exchanging spies with Cuba to the outrage of survivor families
It was never on a ballot, but who are the good guys, the CIA or Al Qaeda terrorists?
  • Obama approved the Feinstein/Democrats' CIA 'Torture Report' with the expected result that the bad guys around the world can portray the US as torturers and the heat is off them.
It was never on a ballot, but who are the good guys, the police or criminal thugs?
  • Obama did little to stop riots and protests resulting from the death of thug Michael Brown at the hands of a policeman he assaulted. He never said what he knew he needed to say to stop the protests because he never wanted them stopped and always desired a mid-level of street chaos. The Commander in Chief is now hated by most police and military.
Two years remain on Obama's term as president. He has the power to keep the fires burning and even start newer, bigger conflagrations. Anybody care to see the issue on a flash ballot vote and check the results?

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Democrats Are Now the Party of the Bad Guys

With the release of the Senate Anti-CIA Report, The long-term political strategy of the Democratic Party has emerged.

After their drubbing at the polls in November, the Democrats have doubled-down on their strategy of amassing voter blocks from the edges of society.

A rundown of some of the groups Democrats court:

1. Anti-CIA and therefore Pro-Terrorist
2. Anti-Police, Anti-Military, Pro Rioter
3. Anti-Citizen, Pro-Illegal Alien
4. Anti-Christian, Pro-Atheist, Pagan, etc.

President Obama and the Democrats, bizarrely, has been publicly wringing their hands over the "torture" of al Qaeda terrorists responsible for 9/11 and who desire to destroy the United States and everything it stands for. The CIA's interrogation methods were "unconscionable." But are Americans joining Obama in shedding tears over the treatment of terrorists?

The release of the Senate Democrats' Anti-CIA Report comes on the heels of a massive Republican victory at the polls in November. The CIA report is the Democrats' attempt to get their mojo back by blaming Bush for "torture." But does the "Bush's Fault" narrative still play? Is it a wise political strategy?

Americans feels increasingly alienated by the Democratic Party because it no longer serves their interests but those of others that are at odds with traditional American values.

After the "shock" value of the CIA report wears thin, questions will emerge demanding answers. Why was the report a strictly Democratic partisan effort with no input from Republicans on the committee? Why didn't they complain when briefed numerous times? Why didn't their investigators interview past CIA directors? Why endanger American lives for no reason? And how are Obama's drones that kill from afar any more ethical than interrogating terrorists?

The Democrats see the CIA report as a means of righting their ship, but is it the event that will capsize it in due time? Can the Democrats continue to spit on those who protect us from terrorists? Can they continue to support illegals over citizens? Rioters over police? 

Where does the Party of the Bad Guys go when the good people revolt?

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Would Obama Riot If He Weren't President?

Ever since Obama kicked off his presidency by stating his opinion that police acted "stupidly" by arresting a black Harvard professor, his relations with law enforcement can be defined as closer to adversarial rather than collaborative.

Obama's speeches on the Ferguson riots seem designed more toward implicating police rather than what he described as a "handful" of protesters breaking the law.

His words of advice to avoid committing violence seem overly lukewarm and half-hearted, as if he doesn't want the riots and law-breaking to stop, he merely wants a level of rioting somewhere between the polar opposites of no riots and the entire country burning down.

If Obama weren't president, would he be out there in Ferguson rioting, throwing stones and whatnot at the police?

His sympathies are never far from protesters no matter who is to blame and for what, and he can never resist getting in his little digs at law enforcement who are tasked with protecting law-abiding citizens; in other words, non-rioters.

Obama plays a role akin to a "conquering general" who leads an invading force against the indigenous population. Often he takes this role when talking about illegal immigrants, favoring them over citizens, but in this case he is the "leader" of the rioters.

Race relations, if anything, are worse than when Obama took office, and he was supposed to usher in a post-racial society. Yet many have the feeling that civil unrest is a linchpin of Obama's underlying domestic agenda, with no lack of evidence to back that up.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

The Photo That Defines the Obama Presidency

If there is one photo that can define a presidency, it is this one. A split-screen TV screenshot. Obama is pontificating on one side while the Ferguson riots are on the other.

Several media outlets noted that Obama tried to "calm" the situation, yet his words seemed half-hearted as he continued to suggest the police were at fault, just as he has always faulted the police since he was elected.

Earlier, he had told the Ferguson protesters to "stay the course." He has no real problem with the protests. His hatred is reserved for the police. What needs to change in the future? According to Obama, the police, not violence against police.

Obama's election was supposed to dispel racial issues yet now we see that he presides over them and refuses to use his influence to stop racial violence in its tracks.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Kids Revolt Over Michelle Obama's Revolting School Lunches

School kids are on twitter posting pictures of their revolting school lunches with the hashtag #ThanksMichelleObama.

The kids are doing the job the mainstream media refuses to do: truthtelling to power. It's a good lesson for the kids to see that those in power love to control others despite their own ignorance of both problems and remedies.

No one elected Michelle Obama as the nation's food czar, yet there she is, dumping her lack of wisdom on other people's children. Meanwhile, the Obamas' own kids eat cheesesteaks at their DC school. Rules are for other people.

The kids have learned a lesson not to silently accept mandates served on their plates accompanied by dishonest reasoning that it's for their own good.

Those in power, like Barack and Michelle Obama, have no clue about problems and solutions.

President Obama has been serving "school lunches" to the country for six years, and now we are all revolted at his ignorance and misguided ideas. And just like the kids, we shouldn't just silently accept what he serves us when we know he's a lousy chef.

Friday, November 14, 2014

CNN's Small Captive Audience

Recent TV audience numbers reveal CNN with about one-third the audience of Fox News. My only recent experience with CNN is as an unwilling, captive viewer.

When I go to an airport, CNN is on all the TVs in the passenger waiting areas. You can't change the channel to Fox News, or anything else, sadly. If you want TV, you are held captive to the CNN channel, and some of their shows can be painful to watch, even for a short while.

My other CNN experience is on the way to work in the morning at Crystal City in Arlington, VA. In the underground shopping mall, a few large-screen TVs are set up in two common areas. In the first, there is one TV and it is turned to CNN, and, as usual, you can't change the channel. In the other area, there are 3 TVs screens roughly 5 feet apart from each other. Two of them are turned to CNN while, amazingly, the one on the far end is tuned to ESPN. No, you can't change the channels. 

How much of CNN's small audience is due to their captive audiences in airports and malls that force customers to watch?

I think the continued leftward drift of CNN contributes to a smaller audience as well. Over the years, it has shifted from somewhere near the middle of the political spectrum to somewhere closer to the fringe. And the fringe enjoys many players, MSNBC among them. And when you move to the fringe, you lose a lot of people who notice you're no longer in the realm of the political center and its environs.

Without question, Fox News speaks to many more Americans than CNN or MSNBC combined. I think Fox News gives viewres a sense that they are somewhere in that middle area--on the right side of it, but still within the environs of the political Middle. CNN isn't. And it needs hardly be said MSNBC isn't either.

Expectations of CNN are different from expectations of radical leftist websites, such as Daily Kos. CNN, in the minds of Americans, isn't supposed to be a radical news and opinion outlet, yet it seems more like it all the time. 

As for airports and shopping malls, I wish they'd turn the channel to something like the Food Network or A&E. Or maybe even America's news choice, Fox News.