Suicide of the Western Media
That the mainstream media leans overwhelmingly to the Left has long been known; that it shares the hard Left’s taste for authoritarian controls on the freedom of speech has not been so widely noted, but is becoming increasingly clear. Last week both the British Guardian and the New York Daily News published pieces equating truthful and accurate reporting about jihad violence and Islamic supremacism with “hate speech,” and calling for such reporting to be placed beyond the bounds of acceptable public discourse. That restrictions on free speech might come to harm their own profession is apparently something they haven’t considered.
After dismissing concerns about jihad and Islamization as “fearmongering,” Nathan Lean in the Daily News offered a strikingly statist remedy: “Society has a responsibility to counter these individuals with overwhelming overtures of pluralism — and to systematically push the fearmongers out of public discourse. … Judicial systems must absorb the true scope of the Islamophobia industry’s rhetoric and rage.” How “society” was to go about identifying “fearmongers” accurately and then “systematically” driving them out of the “public discourse” Lean did not explain, but since he envisioned “judicial systems” being involved, he seems to be calling for the arrest and prosecution of those whose opinions about Islam he dislikes.
Just as disquieting was Jonathan Freedland’s Guardian piece, in which he decried hateful speech against Muslims, describing it as “racism, of the crudest kind,” and then added: “but the subtler ones are not much better.” For Freedland these “subtler” forms of racism include attempts to “dress up in progressive, Guardian-friendly garb – slamming Islam as oppressive of gay and women’s rights, for example – but the thick layer of bigotry is visible all the same.”
Brendan O’Neill in the Telegraph rightly described this as an “explicit conflation of racial prejudice and political opinion, a mashing together of what we can all agree is irrational hatred of Muslims with what is surely just criticism of Islam. Now, you may agree or disagree with the idea that Islam is repressive of women and gays, but it is an idea nonetheless, a view some individuals have arrived at after thinking about various issues. To lump such an outlook together with abusive terms like ‘goatf**ker’, as if they both come from the same spectrum of racial hatred, is a see-through attempt to demonise certain political ideas by branding them racist.”
Significantly, Lean’s call for the silencing of dissenting voices and Freedland’s “see-through attempt to demonise certain political ideas” coincide perfectly with the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation’s ongoing campaign to compel Western states to criminalize criticism of Islam, including discussion of Islamic violence and supremacism. The objective of this campaign, of course, is to render Western countries mute and hence defenseless against the advancing jihad.
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC’s secretary general, has for years made no secret of this campaign. The OIC has long been dedicated to getting the United Nations to approve a “legal instrument” that would criminalize “Islamophobia.”
This campaign has achieved remarkable success, even short of such a “legal instrument.” Last week, Canadian journalist Brian Lilley lamented that even law enforcement authorities are reluctant to call things by their right names: “Police bust an Islamic terror cell, people that plan to blow up a building or shoot others in the name of Islam, and yet police will not say the words Muslim, Islam or any variant thereof. Even when the people arrested have clearly stated their goal is to carry out an attack in the name of Islam, police will not use the M word or the I word.”
While this self-censorship is presented as a manifestation of “tolerance,” in reality it is a deliberate erosion of core Western concepts of free expression, which is an indispensable foundation of the American Revolution and of republican government in general. And we are surrendering it, gradually and voluntarily, to those who seek to impose on us a value system that elevates the sanctity of Islam over freedom.
In July 2011, the UN passed Resolution 16/18, calling on member states to adopt legal restrictions on speech that fostered “defamation of religions.” Secretary of State Clinton and Ihsanoglu issued a statement urging member states of the United Nations “to take effective measures, as set forth in Resolution 16/18, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat intolerance, discrimination, and violence based on religion or belief.”
That sounds high-minded and impervious to opposition; after all, no one is in favor of “intolerance, discrimination, and violence based on religion or belief.” However, when state authority is given the authority to define what constitutes “intolerance,” and would-be totalitarians like Nathan Lean define as intolerant any honest discussion of how the texts and teachings of Islam are used to justify violence and recruit terrorists, this becomes a call for authoritarian restrictions on the freedom of speech.
It was to prevent such totalitarian coercion that the Founding Fathers formulated the First Amendment guarantee that Congress would make no law infringing upon the freedom of speech. That freedom stands as our fundamental bulwark against tyranny, preventing a ruler from stifling dissenting voices that call his rule to account. Without the freedom of speech all other freedoms could be taken away, and not a word could be raised in protest.
The New York Daily News and the Guardian, and all other journalists, no matter how far to the Left, should know that, and be prepared to fight the destruction of the freedom of speech. Instead, they’re abetting it. It is the suicide of the Western media.
That the problem exists has now been clearly stated…
So what do we do about it?
Even if Romney wins the White House and the Republican win both houses of Congress, even if John Roberts steps down immediately and Romney puts a truly conservative justice on to the Supreme Court in Robert’s place… What Then??
Romney can’t/won’t demand newspapers printing the stuff. He’s not going to order the Muslims out of the country or even demand a loyalty test from them. I have serious, serious doubts he’ll even quit the UN and kick them out of New York. After four years of a Romney presidency, we are going to STILL have this problem!!! And we still, won’t have a working solution!
Bill O’Reilly was right when he said on “The View” that “We have Muslim Problem!” He should never have apologized for it.
What do we do about it? The same thing we, consumers, do whenever we buy a pig in a poke from manufacturers who sell the products.
If, because of First Amendment protections of the press, we are unable to sue for false advertising or damaged goods, we do what we do. Very often very effective to get their attention. Hit them where it counts. In the pocketbooks. Stop buying their rags print and TV. To some extent this is already happening thus the sudden interest in their bottom line from the eminences of the MSM. Who says CNN, MSNBC, NPR/NPB are the best and most reliable, i.e truthful? TV news and comment etc?
But we must in addition let it be known, e-mails can do if enough are sent in a blizzard to any advertisers who underwrite their propaganda that NONE of their products are any longer welcome in your house.
Such actions concentrate the minds of the managers, controllers/comptrollers AND the people who count the stockholders of the product manufacturers.
STOP watching and tell all your freinds and family- Join MRC and get your “I DONT TRUST THE LIBERAL MEDIA” bumper sticker- yes i have one.
If Obama gets re-elected which i doubt the first ammendment he will destroy is 2nd then the first 1st
I am reminded of a scene from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged:
And no doubt Cuffy Meigs was pleased that it should be so. Similarly, were we to forbid discussion of Islam’s ideological role and its exhortations to jihad, any attempt to fight back against Islamic militant expansionism would be made impossible. Now just who would favor such a development, hmmm?
Fox News has just reported that Microsoft is pulling out of MSNBC. Rats. Ship?
Sounds like certain journalists are jockeying to get invited to live in the chic new Islamic financed, Sharia compliant skyscraper in London.
I guess we’ll find out in a few days if the terrorists have accepted Britain’s surrender. You might have read Olympic Security Called ‘Fiasco’, where Rick Moran concludes “About the best the British government can apparently hope for is that any terrorists who have a mind to kill people will be as ill trained and incompetent as the people who have been hired to stop them.”
Unfortunately, the terrorists, especially the suicidal types, don’t need to be competent. They just need to be delusional, and they are. They don’t need to plan escape routes. Any detonations, even away from the Olympic Village strike terrors, e.g. on an overcrowded bus, in the subway, … There will never be enough law enforcement to keep the Village and the greater London area safe.
Since my religion—a Lucretian form of Epicureanism—insists on my denouncing all religions which threaten civilisation as a duty, repressing my righteous and obligatory denunciation of Mahometism as an evil blight on mankind would be highly and offensively intolerant of my religion.
The partnership between the “progressives” and radical Islam becomes clearer every day. The attacks on free speech and anyone who questions the role of Islamic jihad in terrorism are replete with these very talking points. The legacy media serves this up daily to their sheep and anyone daring to step out of line is beaten over the the head with them. I was just recently called a hate monger for even attempting to discuss this on a forum that I frequent. By Americans! Incredible.
“The partnership between the “progressives” and radical Islam becomes clearer every day.” Clearly true, but why? I’ve yet to see anyone try to explain this. So-called “progressives” would be the first to die under sharia. Don’t tell me they are merely “useful idiots.” Even idiots want to live.
The “progressives”, apparently, sincerely believe that if they just sit down for a chat with Salafists over a coffee and donuts they’ll be able to solve all their problems.
As I have said before, the progressive elites do not give a fig about muslims and their religion. They use them as a battering ram against the only real obstacle on the path to their global utopia.
The obstacle is white european, christian, predominantly male, tradition.
Once we’re done or become a spent force, they will have no hesitation in extracting compliance by force from any other competing group. They could and would destroy islam in a matter of days. That can be done very effectively and with minimal loss of life.
When you think that they have nearly gained control of the biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction on the planet!…
Agreed. Except for the fact that most progs are white. Ergo after they destroy the only thing protecting them from a head slice what will they do?
At some point we must all agree that white progs are insane but function enough to hurt us all. We must rid ourselves and our nation of them.
No talk. We need to get them all out or at least cloistered in the NE, upper mid-west and CA. And we must take away their money. I say tax the hell out of them.
It does seem strange, doesn’t it. But it’s a deliberate tactic and here’s how it works. Progressives (soft-core communists) want to install Marxism. In order to do this, they need to destroy traditional western, Christian, republican society. They do that, among other ways, with “multiculturalism,” which is the practice of opening the borders and importing as many culturally-incompatible peoples as possible in order to destroy the established culture. (“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”). The cultures don’t matter, just that they are different – the more the better. White Christian schoolchildren learn that their culture is evil and oppressive, that other cultures, especially the most backward and barbaric (i.e. Islam), are just as valuable if not more so. This weakens their faith in their own culture, thus their inclination to defend it, and prepares them for communism.
Indeed a great many progressives ARE useful idiots, but the ones at high levels know what they are doing. It’s the dialectic, three steps forward, two steps back, communism in increments. It doesn’t happen overnight. When the time is right, all of the Muslims will be sent off to labor camps and/or executed, alongside all the other enemies of the regime (including us).
By the way: people usually think of communism as “that old dysfunctional political system that died when that nice guy Gorbachev opened up the USSR and we won the Cold War. It couldn’t possibly come back, especially not in the U.S.” You might want to read this: https://sites.google.com/site/heavenlybanner/mlhw
That’s the Baha’i plan for a New World Order using Unity in Diversity.
Socialism and Islamism are two insane ideologies and they use each other as useful idiots to reach their goal: World-Socialism respectively World-Caliphate. Whoever will reach his goal first (and each of them hope, that his ideology will win) will kick the other’s butt. Until that time, they work hand in hand. If the end-result (i.e. either one of the these ideologies rules the world) wouldn’t hit all of us, it would be funny to sit back and watch them, but -as said- we are all in this game and will lose…
Suggest you read Davidd Horowitz’ Unholy Alliance. The Left and Islam share a fundamental goal – the destruction of Western Civilization in general and America in particular. The Left’s inability – no, their refusal – to understand that they are not exempt from the consequences of their actions is what blinds them to the reality of the true ambitions of their supposed Islamic ‘allies’.
I often say that myself: the Left and Islam are teaming up to wipe Western Civilization off the map, then they’ll turn on each other.
Funny, though… everyone (including me) always says “The Left doesn’t realize what they’re doing.” That sort of says that when the Left and Islam finally get to their conflict, we all know who’s going to win.
Thanks all, many good responses, and some homework to do!
Not only Islam but any so called “group of people who assimilate and identify with a religious body” are impervious to answer the single most important question: prove the existence of this Creator you and your confederates are suppose to be so intimate and knowledgable of? No religious authority can bring convincing proof of Its existence much less lay claim to knowing and understanding Its demeanor or intentions for us, Its human creation.
The jugular of the Islamist dinosaur is the belief of a link between the the Creator and the words and the thoughts generated by a reading of the Qur’an. Sever this link and you are one happy hunter.
“Last week both the British Guardian and the New York Daily News published pieces equating truthful and accurate reporting about jihad violence and Islamic supremacism with “hate speech,” and calling for such reporting to be placed beyond the bounds of acceptable public discourse.”
And who decides what speech is “placed beyond the bounds of acceptable public discourse?” We all know that is. It’s the far-left and the socialists who can tolerate anything BUT people who disagree with them. They are a menace to not only this country, but to the world. Just like the “Fairness Doctrine” was designed to kill free speech on the radio and in the media, the far left is always devising new and creative ways to shut people up. They do this because they know they can’t win on the battlefield of ideas, so they have to intimidate you and try to throw you in jail if you don’t parrot what they say. There is a crisis in this country, the same type of crisis that gave birth to the Revolutionary War.
The greatest example of how out-of-control this crisis is was the way ObamaCare was “passed” in Congress(some would say illegally rammed through using reconcilliation). Never has the American people made it so plainly known to Congress that it did not want this law, either through town meetings, phone calls, e-mails, or letters, and even in the 2010 mid-term elections. Yet the Democrats in Congress ignored the will of the people and passed it anyway. It was a shameful display of outright socialism forced upon the American public by a far-left Congress. Now I truly understand why gun owners are so afraid of losing their guns even though the Second Amendment says we have a right to bear arms. Rights seem to mean very little these days if you have a socialist Congress that is determined to enforce whatever it wants and NOT what you want. This is blunt tyranny in its worst form and it’s how revolutions are started. I think Romney would be foolish to let the ObamaCare issue go because it represents just how tyrannical Obama really is. Not only do we have to make a change in November, but we also have to make sure this never, ever, happens again.
Just look how the tryant in Obama has emerged as he has grown desperated not to lose his reelection bid. He has violated the Constitution over and over again. Why haven’t any of the progressive complained? They pretend to care about the Constitution and the law. In reality their ideology is the ends justify the means. Hope the means doesn’t include putting people in concentration camps like their fellow statists the USSR and Nazis.
Yes,you can recognize the presence of lefties,progressives,et al,by their methods. The alternative progressive version replaces reality, and the invented words and leftist double-speak language are sure signs the progressives are active and fomenting. Makes you wonder why,if they are the best things ever,why do they fear truth so much.
When Bill and Hill got Hate Crimes legislation through,anyone with any sense knew it was part of the PC attack on free speech. The progressives are using the same methods worldwide.
Liberals are taking the position of Indians who welcome the new European colonists because they see the colonists as being an aid to them in the constant struggle with other Indians.
Absolutely. Their has been entirely too much Islamophobic rhetoric and hate speech. If they wish to treat their women as cattle, that is their business. Honor killings are acceptable as a means of strenghtening self-esteem. Martyrdom and self immolation builds a strong commitment to venerable religious customs. And so what if Mohammed got it on with a thirteen year old, so did Polanski. The MSM has much more important things to investigate such as the corrupt Mormon church and Romney’s record of criminal enterpises.
9-year-old. Not 13. Nine.
Honest mistake. You know thos Arab nymphettes mature early and look older than there chronologic age.
take note of your use of both “their” and “there” — they’re both wrong.
“That freedom [of speech and press] stands as our fundamental bulwark against tyranny, preventing a ruler from stifling dissenting voices that call his rule to account. Without the freedom of speech all other freedoms could be taken away, and not a word could be raised in protest.”
“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington
RON AND RAND PAUL LAUNCH A CRUSADE FOR INTERNET FREEDOM
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/15/ron-and-rand-paul-launch-a-crusade-for-internet-freedom/
This article is well-timed, perhaps prescient.
Today it was announced that Microsoft is cutting ties with MSNBC, because of their slanted reporting:
“Microsoft, in particular, had grown frustrated by contract terms requiring it to exclusively feature MSNBC.com content on its own websites. That exasperation was exacerbated by the MSNBC cable channel’s strategy to counter Fox News Channel’s appeal to conservative viewers by tailoring its programming for an audience with a liberal viewpoint.
The strategy fed a perception that material from MSNBC’s website was politically slanted, too.
“Being limited to MSNBC.com content was problematic to us because we couldn’t have the multiple news sources and the multiple perspectives that our users were telling us that they wanted,” said Bob Visse, general manager of MSN.com.”
I know Bill Gates isn’t conservative, but he knows how to make a buck and seems to be a fairly rational and decent individual. The death of the MSM cannot come a moment too soon- perhaps something good will rise from the ashes.
According to my sources in intelligence, the UK is the key terrorist nest in the West.
The Labour Party uses Muslims as it militant wing to win political points. This policy has created real problems for UK intelligence.
Why don’t we just see it as it is: raw political activity?
Europe has always been big on suppressing speech from the individual to the group level, in the name of social harmony. Many though not all or our ancestors can to the US with the conscious goal of leaving the Dreck behind them.
The exchange is: support us and you can be as nasty as you want to other people.
The precedent of all this muzzling are the Holocaust laws in Europe. Conservatives should be honest about this. The Holocaust works far more in favor of Multi-Culturalism, than in the favor of Zionism. Therefore, Conservatives should frankly declare that abortion is worse than the Holocaust. More Jewish lives are lost to abortion in Israel and the USA, than to the genocide of WWII.
The Guardian is losing money — circulation falling.
http://order-order.com/2012/07/16/guardian-comes-out-for-cuts-rusbridger-to-beg-staff-to-quit/
The UN is hot to fight defamation of religion? Judaism must not be a religion, then.
The saddest thing is the self censorship we all find ourselves engaging in. When you are telling a story and you want to say, “policeman” a little bell goes off in your head reminding you that you can no longer do so. You pause for just a second as your mind dredges up the word, “police officer”. You know you are completely enslaved when telling someone about your recent fishing trip you describe the fisherman in the next boat as an angler!
At the height of this linguistic battle decades ago, I was a lowly “gopher” for a local politician. Part of my job was to attend to constituent requests and complaints and then draft a letter for the politician’s review and signature. In some of the sample letters on file, the salutation to a group recipient was no longer “Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:” It was “Dear Gentlepersons:”! (I vaguely recall the Monty Python troupe skewering the he/she–s/he craziness, but cannot quite place it among YouTube clips. Perhaps someone else can.)
The other example I have found to be most curious is the transition over several decades away from “colored” to “African-Americans” to “Blacks” and then sometimes, now, back in a great circle, but not quite a return to the original, to “people of color.” My point is not to return to any sort of racist labels, but, rather, that the linguistic sands upon which we stand are constantly shifting. If you are one label change behind the language police**, you are deemed to be some sort of Nazi or Neanderthal. I keep thinking in these instances, “But I didn’t get the memo!”
**There is a book on this subject of the same name: “The Language Police” by Diane Ravitch. http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-Police-Pressure-Restrict/dp/0375414827
Our political elites, and the press, their watch dogs, have made a hash over enemy identification since 9/11/01. Everyone can agree “they” want us dead. Our chronic problem was to identify “them” They may control a nation, but are not true nationalists. They use wholesale torture and murder of innocents as tactics. Our military is hamstrung due to weird rules of engagement, essentially because no one can identify the enemy unless he kills us while we are documenting this event.
There are several billion Muslims, and most of them live under monstrous dictators. A small percentage, only tens of thousands, want to kill us, Christians, Jews, and Westerners. Most killers live in Europe, which is in a worst mess than we are. But we have made very little effort to ally ourselves with the peaceful, modern, segments of a deeply divided Muslim society, or societies.
It should be obvious to the blind, after our debacle in ‘Nam, that if a society’s leader does not have support, even tacit support, of his people, our military might can not keep him in power. It should be obvious that we must deal with monsters and thieves. Some claim to be religious. Some seek our aid, contract with us, as they fund killers who seek our death, and will seek it as long as we permit our people to die at their hands.
Our society is fractured. The media’s reaction to a racial lynching is far different from religious murder by IED. There is enormous outrage at the killing of a Florida black teen, but total disinterest why Chicago has become a racial slaughter house, or a number of teens, in uniform, were murdered at Fort Hood, by a demonic army doctor. There is a reason why people kill, but some of media care less about some murder victims. They simply do not report events.
It is crab season in Maryland, which provides the primary reason to buy a major eastern newspaper. These news papers provide all the news that is fit for back fin picking.
I hate islam because I hate crimes and the criminals who commit them. It’s NOT un-Christian to hate crimes!
‘Hate’ is only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing INjistices (like islam)! Without ‘hate,’ no one would bother to accuse any criminals of their crimes, and by doing so, end them.
In fact, when one tries to make laws against ‘HATE-CRIMES’ one is really only making it “illegal” to HATE CRIMES!
This notion that we aren’t allowed to hate anything, ever, is the same as the other evil nannystate assumption: that all “attacking” is always bad, even in defense of one’s self and or of innocent others (the notion that only the state is allowed to defend us). This vile stance of course only ever blames the victim while encouraging the aggressors, as an aid to the self-indulgent lazy corruption of the self-proclaimed authority’s alleged right to be irresponsible: “*I* don’t care who started it, *I* only want it all to stop! Whee!” If they contunue to have their way, it will soon be “illegal” to accuse criminals of their crimes, because doing so might hurt their feelings!
Well, the real Golden Rule of Law which defines all situational morality and so enables trust, progress, and Civilization, is simply: “Do Not Attack First!”
Even little kids instinctively all know this as the “But Mom! THEY STARTED IT!” rule.
After all, when you choose to attack first, then by definition you are the predatory, criminal aggressor, and they are your innocent victims; there’s no two ways about it!
Islam is based on the opposite: on the brazen rule of chaos, which defines criminal immorality and so inflicts distrust, stagnation, and Barbarism, as: “Our god says it’s our duty to always attack all ‘The Others’ first!”
I hate islam and it’s moslems in EXACTLY the same way I hate crime and criminals – because they ARE all criminals. Nazis were only ‘white’ moslems.
All moslems are criminals because, by their own rules, they must endorse in public every word in the Qur’an.
And the Qur’an tells them that they are so “superior” to all non-moslem humans, that it’s not only their right, but also their holy duty to their god, to extort, enslave, and murder all the non-moslems in the world, simply for the “crime” of not being moslems.
So the Qur’an is a written hate-crime book expressing a permanent death-threat.
Here’s islam’s “holy Message from god” as exemplified by the collective words and deeds of it’s Founder:
“I will save humanity by lying to, extorting, torturing, robbing, burning out of their homes, kidnapping and ransoming, enslaving, raping and murdering everyone who even only verbally disagrees with me – and you can, too!”
-Muhammad-
So obviously, islam is ONLY an ancient, ongoing extortion-racket CRIME-syndicate, and the only “religious” part in it, is where they say:
“God told us to commit these crimes!”
(Capisce?)!
Any reasonable person can see that the Qur’an says Abraham, Moses and Jesus were prophets, but the Qur’an, having been written 600 years after Jesus, does not contain their teaching. Mohammad just summarized their lives. It is also apparent in haddiths that Mohammad deferred to the scriptures possessed by the Jews and Christians of his day. Mohammad also used Gnostic and Apocryphal (basically novels written from legends centuries later) gospels and pagan stories and characters of his time. Mohammad was not a scholar and was obviously not even very familiar with the teachings of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Any reasonable person can read the Bible and the Qur’an and see the disconnect.
It is my right to be critical of any country, religion, man, movie, book or verbalization, for whatever reason, whenever I like, as often as I like. That right is basic to being a human, it is inalienable. That right is seconded by the greatest political document ever written; the US Constitution. It is my right to be wrong in my criticism and if I am a gentleman I must bend to substantives and apologize.
This is a right that has only been on the “radar screen” for a miniscule amount of time considering human history. It has always been under attack by one group of good folk or other since inception. It protects the sublime and the disgusting. It shelters both the Mona Lisa and the “Piss Christ”. Without it you have nothing, you can’t claim to be fully human.
Take a close look, we are “the last man standing” with this freedom.
If this right is not protected jealously things will evolve as they always have. When the people are sufficiently desperate someone will come forward and promise to right all wrongs by whatever means necessary… his name will be “The Leader” or some such… and the pip on the radar screen disappears.
It’s very old biblical(pre-islam) problem,and it would never end,until they win or would be beaten but finally.Plus all this BS which came with Koran/Mohamed.
Can’ t see a light.
In 1932 the Communists and the Socialists outnumbered the Nazis. Had they united Nazism would have been defeated. The Communists said “after Hitler, Us.”
They were mostly murdered in concentration camps.When they ally with Islamists they think the’ll win after the West is beaten. I’ll bet on the jihadists. Of course I won’t live to collect.
Barack Obama, should know all about not earning what he has:
He receives the royalties for “his” books, but, someone else wrote them for him. The money is, in essence, given to Obama for another’s work.
Obama was GIVEN the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing. It’s for damn sure he did nothing to earn it. We all notice that he was willing to accept it and the money that came with it.
Barack Obama did not do anything to become President except get on the ballot. It was given to him because of the color of his skin. He did nothing to earn it.
The sole thing Barack Obama has earned through his efforts is the title of hypocrite.
Barack Obama must go to bed every night and awake every morning just amazed that he has been allowed, by 320,000,000 Americans, to run roughshod over them, insult them and make their lives miserable and no one has stopped him. Just imagine what he will do in the next four years.