01/23/15

Mendacity is Still the State of the Union

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

Following last year’s State of the Union address by President Barack Obama, I titled my column “The State of the Union is Mendacity.” It is quite remarkable how little within it would need to be changed to have it apply to this week’s State of the Union. From the recovering economy, to negotiations with Iran, to the containment and defeat of “violent extremism,” to equal pay for women and the need to combat climate change, to a call for a minimum wage hike—there is little difference between the laundry lists presented by President Obama in 2014 and 2015.

But there is a major difference in the political climate.

“The most important omission [in the President’s State of the Union] was the fact that there were 83 fewer Democrats in the chamber this year than the first time he gave a State of the Union speech and dozens less than the number of his fellow party members that were there last year,” writes Jonathan S. Tobin for Commentary magazine. “The historic rejection of both the president’s party and his policies in last November’s midterm elections was treated in the speech as if it had never happened.”

Instead, America was treated to a laundry list of liberal agenda items, right after President Obama first said he would “focus less on a checklist of proposals, and focus more on the values at stake in the choices before us.”

“When we looked at what Obama actually proposed, all we found was a musty laundry list of liberal programs, most of which already got huge boosts in spending and failed to deliver on their promises,” comments Investors Business Daily.

Yet President Obama’s worn-out list was greeted with praise from the mainstream media. NBC Today Show co-host Savannah Guthrie cheered Obama as “displaying renewed swagger in his sixth address to the nation as he outlined a vision for the final two years of his presidency.”

The New York Times said that “It was hardly surprising that a president who expects so little from Congress devoted some of his speech to celebrating the things that he has accomplished against considerable odds.”

“In fact, he seemed so confident you would have thought he had just won another election,” asserted Jonathan Karl of ABC News.

President Obama’s comment that he has “no more campaigns to run” was greeted with applause and laughter, to which he retorted, “I know because I won both of them.”

Rather than pointing to how the 2014 election could be seen as a referendum on President Obama’s failed policies, Matt Lauer, co-host of NBC’s Today Show, asked Vice President Joe Biden whether he saw “that as a moment of disrespect? Was it a symptom of the very pettiness that the President was referring to?” He also salivated over a potential 2016 Biden presidential bid, asking, “You’re known as a guy who can work a room. Boy, are you good at that. Do you think you could work that room, Vice President Biden?” Lauer didn’t ask a single question challenging any of Obama’s claims or assertions from the night before.

While the mainstream media cheer, others have a more critical view of what Tobin calls Obama’s credibility gap “that is as wide as the Grand Canyon.”

“What Obama has delivered is not an address, but a black hole of lies in which each lie clusters next to a dozen more until it is impossible to see the light,” writes Daniel Greenfield. For example, “Obama insists on taking credit for an energy revolution that he battled every step of the way and continues to fight with his Keystone veto threat,” writes Greenfield. “Instead of admitting that fracking and cheap Saudi oil made the difference, he went on touting his solar and wind boondoggles that have cost a fortune.”

President Obama also touted such green energy “successes” in his 2014 address.

“Obama also claims to have beaten Putin,” writes Greenfield. “There’s only one minor problem with that. In the real world, Russia still controls Crimea. While in the unreal world, Obama controls CNN.”

And The Washington Post editorial board concluded the day after President Obama’s State of the Union, that there is a “pervasive disconnect in Western thinking about the regime of Vladimir Putin”—and that “Russian forces, after several weeks of relative calm” had just “launched a new offensive in eastern Ukraine.”

President Obama also asserted in his speech that “we’ve halted the progress of the nuclear program” in Iran and “reduced its stockpile of nuclear material.” He then threatened to veto any sanctions bill “that threatens to undo this progress.” He is referring to a likely bipartisan bill calling for additional sanctions if negotiations with Iran fall apart. The idea is to incentivize Iran to make a deal wherein it agrees to end its nuclear weapons capability, but President Obama says that if Congress were to pass such a bill, “the risks and likelihood this ends up at some point a military confrontation is heightened.”

“The more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran,” said Democratic Senator Robert Menendez (NJ) the day after the President’s speech.

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column took a look at the claims by the President of having “halted the progress of the nuclear program” and of having “reduced its stockpile of nuclear material,” and gave those claims three Pinocchios, meaning, “Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”

Regarding the President’s refusal to refer to “Islamic” terrorism or extremism, another Democrat took exception. She is Rep. Tulsi Gabbard who is and has been in the Army National Guard for more than a decade. She served a one-year combat tour of duty in Iraq starting in 2004, and a second tour in the Middle East a few years later. Gabbard is the first American Samoan and the first Hindu to serve in the U.S. Congress—now in her second term—representing a district in Hawaii. Gabbard was on Neil Cavuto’s show on the Fox News Channel, and told Cavuto:

Terminology in the use of this specific term is important…last night the President came and talked to Congress about coming to request an authorization to use military force. By his not using this term, Islamic extremism, and clearly identifying our enemy, it raised a whole host of questions in exactly what congress will be authorizing. Who will we be targeting? Who is our enemy? And unless you understand who your enemy is, unless you clearly identify your enemy, then you cannot come up with a very effective strategy to defeat that enemy. So this is what’s giving me great concern as we look specifically at this authorization, but also as we look at this overall issue of how do we defeat this threat of Islamic extremism that’s not just occurring in the Middle East, that isn’t just about this one group called ISIS, or another group called al Qaeda. It’s a much larger war, really, that is as much an ideological war as it is a military war.

Amidst the dangerously conciliatory stance that the President has adopted toward Iran, and the weak military effort to “degrade and defeat ISIL,” the media should praise Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) for inviting Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress about the growing Iranian threat. Instead, Politico criticizes that “the Speaker didn’t consult with the administration before inviting Netanyahu to address Congress,” and the Speaker is “setting up his most dramatic foreign policy confrontation with President Barack Obama to date.” The speech is scheduled for March 3rd.

Not only is Congress a co-equal branch of government, with the ability to invite whomever they want, but President Obama made the highlight of his last State of the Union executive action—and going around Congress when they won’t comply with his agenda.

“He expects us to stand idly by and do nothing while he cuts a bad deal with Iran. Two words: ‘Hell no!’ … We’re going to do no such thing,” said Speaker Boehner.

The Speaker’s move is a show of support for Israel, and the Western leader who, more than any other, faces the daily threat of Islamic jihadist terrorism, and the very real threat of an Iranian regime that has explicitly stated on numerous occasions their plans to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

The White House has already announced that the President won’t be meeting with Netanyahu on that trip, saying that it’s too close to Israel’s election, also slated for March. It will be interesting to see what, if any, pressure the Obama administration puts on Netanyahu to cancel his planned address. Speaker Boehner is betting that Netanyahu has more credibility in this country on Iran and Islamic jihadi terrorism than President Obama does. And there is probably no one who can better speak to these matters with such authority and eloquence.

It should certainly make for a better speech than this year’s policy prescriptions recycled from last year, even if the media were determined to shower President Obama with undeserved, fawning praise for simply showing up.

01/14/15

Ignore Shoemaker: Frazier’s appointment a win for Maryland

By: James Simpson
DC Independent Examiner

Well, Maryland delegate Haven Shoemaker has treated us to yet another demonstration of his incisive wit, engaging personality and stunning political wisdom with his measured, wise and gracious remarks about Robin Frazier’s appointment to Joe Getty’s Maryland state senate seat.

Not.

Shoemaker called the Carroll County GOP “nuttier than outhouse rats,” for choosing her, adding, “To make this decision represents a nullification of the will of the people.” (Robin Bartlett Frazier nominated to State Senate seat, Carroll County Times, January 10, 2015). Shoemaker’s disrespectful remarks reflect Shoemaker’s poor character and lack of integrity more than anything else.

In fact, Shoemaker has it exactly backwards. When union sanctioned, pro-government, pro-spending candidates took over the Republican primary elections across the county last year, they truly did nullify the peoples’ will. All Marylanders should be concerned by this development. You can read more about that institutional vote fraud disgrace, here. To suggest the “will of the people” had anything to do with it, reveals a profound, perhaps willful ignorance.

Democrats switched sides en masse in the primary; then switched right back after voting. Meanwhile government unions provided money, muscle and materiel to defeat conservatives. Remember all those yard signs saturating the County? Your tax dollars – through the government unions – paid for that. It was the most unethical election in recent history, and for Maryland, that is quite an accomplishment. Robin Frazier was an unfortunate casualty.

But for Haven it was all good. Moral compass swinging like a windsock in a tornado, Mr. Shoemaker now deigns to enlighten us all with his gratuitous smearing of the Carroll County Republican Central Committee. If you need further proof of Shoemaker’s true loyalties, look no further.

Haven said Frazier can’t “reach across the aisle.” Be confident that as a newly-minted delegate, Mr. Shoemaker will reach across, risking your hard-earned tax dollars in the process. In fact, he proves yet again that he is already there. And there he will stay, because as a pandering, big government statist in Republican clothing, Mr. Shoemaker is much more comfortable retreating to safe, go-along-to-get-along politics than standing on principle.

Robin Frazier stood on principle every single day as commissioner. I saw that firsthand during my time working for the commissioners. That is why Carroll County’s RINOs conspired with the state’s Democrats and unions to defeat her in last year’s election. They are not interested in saving taxpayer dollars, lifting onerous regulations, or reducing the size and scope of government. These are the things she did.

Instead, RINOs like Haven find common cause with tax and spend Democrats to explode government, smother us with regulation, and spend money when they don’t even have to. I challenge Haven to name even one thing he did as commissioner that reduced spending or regulation – which he himself, rather than Frazier or Rothschild thought of. He did, however, vote their ideas many times.

Robin would be the first legislator to reach across the aisle if she believed it would genuinely serve Maryland citizens’ best interests. And she would do so from a position of strength, knowing full well the principles she stands on. Unlike Shoemaker, she is willing to go to jail to defend them. Robin will fight. Haven is content to manage the decline. For a long time, RINOs have been compromising whatever principles they have just to claim “bipartisanship.” The disastrous results are self-evident.

And about that lawsuit over prayer? The Carroll County Times somehow forgot that the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Robin (see Greece v Galloway). They also forgot to mention that a non-profit law firm dedicated to protecting First Amendment rights donated all their legal services on behalf of the County. That battle is mostly over; won by Frazier and like-minded patriots, even if the Humanist Association and the Times can’t admit it. Haven voted with Frazier on that one too.

The Carroll County GOP Central Committee based its decision on Frazier’s extensive experience in both public life and private industry. This included her four years service in the Ehrlich Administration as the Intergovernmental Affairs Coordinator for the Governor’s Office on Service and Volunteerism and Community Initiatives, and her appointment by Governor O’Malley to the Board of the Maryland Association of Counties. The Committee noted: “In this position she worked closely with legislators and other county leadership to improve, modify or eliminate legislation of concern to the counties and consistently lobbied for smaller government.”

Following are some of the things Frazier advocated and voted for as Carroll County Commissioner over the past four years:

  • for tax cuts every year she was in office;
  • for smaller county government with more efficient use of tax dollars;
  • for controlled spending on education in correlation with the continuing decline in enrollments;
  • for less regulations in both county government and from the state;
  • to educate county residents on the problems with common core and to return control to teachers and parents;
  • to stop palm scanning of Carroll County public school students;
  • to protect Carroll County residents’ 2nd Amendment rights;
  • to prevent the rain tax from being mandated in Carroll County;
  • to provide resources for the 20-25% of the student aged population in the county who aren’t in the public school system;
  • to get out of the incinerator contract that promised to bankrupt the county;
  • to increase the CATS bus system efficiency and reduce its costs to taxpayers;
  • to keep mass transit out of the county;
  • to protect the Commissioners’ right to pray before open session if they want to, as guaranteed in Article 36 of the Maryland State Constitution.

Pity there aren’t more people like Robin in public office. Never mind his gratuitous insults, Haven Shoemaker’s assertions are entirely off base. Haven is the kind of person who hangs on his every word. It’s a good thing that others don’t. The Carroll County GOP made a great choice in appointing Frazier. It will at least partially rectify the results of the election that was stolen from her, and assuredly blunt some of the idiocy Haven is sure to bring to the Maryland legislature – which already has more than enough.

01/7/15

TV Show on Obama’s Use of the Marxist Dialectic

America’s Survival

Dear Friend of America’s Survival, Inc.:

Republicans like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell talk “compromise,” while Obama is on the attack. He has threatened to veto the Keystone XL bill backed by 63 Senators. At the same time, the White House is threatening to veto an Obamacare reform bill defining the full-time work week as 40 hours. As the Daily Caller noted, “That would decrease the number of workers caught by Obamacare’s employer mandate, which the administration is just beginning to implement this year.” Meanwhile, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee had scheduled a hearing on the Keystone bill for Wednesday morning, and a markup of the bill for Thursday morning. But Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) objected to the hearing and postponed it. All of a sudden, obstruction is a good thing – when Democrats do it.

Do the Republicans understand who they’re dealing with? Do they understand Obama is a Marxist who can’t be reasoned with?

Our guest on America’s Survival TV tonight is Alexander G. Markovsky, a Russian émigré who holds degrees in economics and political science from the University of Marxism-Leninism and an MS in structural engineering from Moscow University. He now lives in Houston, Texas, and is a contributor to FamilySecurityMatters.org, and his essays have appeared on RedState.com, WorldNetDaily and Family Security Matters. His recent article “From Lenin to Obama,” argues that Obama is acting like Lenin who declared, “Our task, is to utilize every manifestation of discontent, and to collect and utilize every grain of rudimentary protest.” Markovsky is the author of “Anatomy of a Bolshevik” and his forthcoming book is titled “Liberal Bolshevism,” with the subtitle, “America Did not Defeat Bolshevism, She Adopted It.”

Watch on Roku tonight at 9:00 pm Eastern or click here to watch over the Internet at that time.

For America’s Survival,
Cliff Kincaid, President

12/29/14

None Dare Call It Treason 50 Years Later

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

I recently asked John A. Stormer, author of the 1964 bestseller, None Dare Call It Treason, if he thought President Barack Obama was a Marxist. “He’s two things,” Stormer told me. “Is he a Marxist or is he a Muslim? He is really involved in both of these things. He’s anti-American.”

Obama’s policies have benefited enemies of the U.S. across the spectrum, from Muslim to Marxist. All of these anti-American forces have made dramatic gains under Obama. This means that the situation is far worse for America than when Stormer wrote his seven-million-copy bestseller.

Stormer’s book was described at the time as an exposé of how the U.S. government was ostensibly “fighting” communism with its right hand, while actually aiding, supporting, and promoting communism with its left. The book was self-published at a time when the U.S. was opposing communism in Vietnam and Southeast Asia, but doing business with countries like the Soviet Union, which were supplying the enemy that was killing American soldiers on the battlefield.

The difference now, as we have seen with Obama’s recognition and bailout of the Castro regime in Cuba, is that the U.S. government doesn’t even pretend to be anti-communist anymore. Obama has made the U.S. into a facilitator of international communism.

Our troubles are compounded by the spectacle of “conservatives” who pretend not to grasp what is going on. Columnist George Will writes at National Review that Cuba is a “geopolitical irrelevancy.” He says, “Cuba’s regime, although totalitarian, no longer matters in international politics.”

Will must have missed Vladimir Putin’s visit to Cuba in July, when he had meetings with brothers Raul and Fidel Castro and participated in a ceremony at the Memorial to the Soviet Internationalist Soldier. It is a tribute to Soviet soldiers who were stationed in Cuba in the early 1960s and died there. Putin forgave most of Cuba’s debt to the former Soviet Union.

Before that, in May, investigative reporter Bill Gertz noted that Cuba and Russia “concluded a security deal” aimed at bolstering “intelligence and military ties” between the two countries.

Will must have missed that dispatch.

But Russia isn’t the only U.S adversary that considers Cuba geopolitically relevant.

Toby Westerman, editor of International News Analysis Today, wrote a 2012 column noting that Communist China regards the island of Cuba as “strategically located for the interception of U.S. military and civilian satellite communications,” and that “China’s spy service also cooperates closely with Havana’s own world-class intelligence services.”

Westerman added, “The value Beijing places upon the information acquired via Havana can be seen in the October 2011 visit to the island by General Guo Boxiong, Vice Chairman of China’s Central Military Commission. Guo’s presence in Cuba underscored that China has a special military commitment in addition to a sizable economic investment in Cuba.”

Considering the damage that is being done to the United States, and the failure of “conservative” columnists such as George Will to recognize it, we are reminded that the title of Stormer’s book came from the famous John Harington quotation: “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

But it gets worse.

Just two days after Obama announced his new Cuba policy, Raul Castro received the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, Dmitry Rogozin, during an official visit to Cuba on the occasion of the 12th Session of the Cuba-Russia Intergovernmental Commission.

Will should be advised that all of this is being covered in the English-language version of the official Cuban Communist Party paper Granma. The information is not a national security secret.

The Cuba-Russia Intergovernmental Commission on economic-trade and scientific-technical collaboration held a meeting designed to “advance tasks and objectives established during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Cuba in July…” The objective, according to Granma, is “to realize agreements in order to increase exchanges in diverse spheres” and “address key areas of interest to both countries.”

While Raul Castro’s talk of a “new economic model” in Cuba has been trumpeted far and wide by the U.S. media, his December 20 speech to the “National Assembly of People’s Power” said this does not mean that capitalism will be tolerated. He said the “guidelines” for the new economy make it clear that “The economic system which will prevail in Cuba will continue to be based on the people’s socialist ownership of the fundamental means of production, governed by the socialist principle of distribution, from each according to his/her capacity to each according to his/her contribution.”

He referred to “the irreversibility of socialism in Cuba.”

To understand the strategic significance of Obama’s change in policy toward the dictatorship in Cuba, Castro said he will be participating in the Seventh Summit of the Americas in Panama City, Panama on April 10-11, 2015. The event is managed by the Organization of American States (OAS), a group that used to be dedicated to promoting democracy in the hemisphere.

How things change.

In January 1962, the OAS was an anti-Communist organization, having established a “Special Consultative Committee on Security Against the Subversive Action of International Communism.” The group declared, “The principles of communism are incompatible with the principles of the inter-American system.”

It passed a resolution declaring, “The present Government of Cuba has identified itself with the principles of Marxist-Leninist ideology, has established a political, economic, and social system based on that doctrine, and accepts military assistance from extra-continental communist powers, including even the threat of military intervention in America on the part of the Soviet Union…”

Nothing has changed over the years, except that Russia has replaced the Soviet Union and international communism has made dramatic gains in the hemisphere.

Another big change, of course, is that the U.S. President is either a Marxist or a Muslim. Take your pick. Perhaps, as Stormer says, anti-American is the best description.

Referring to Republican Senators Rand Paul (KY) and Marco Rubio (FL), Will writes, “As they brawl about Cuba, a geopolitical irrelevancy, neither seems presidential.” But this is the kind of debate that we desperately need to have. It will determine if the U.S. is a force for good or evil in the world. Senator Paul has sided with Obama and Castro. Senator Rubio has come down on the side of freedom.

This debate will not only determine if the Republican Party remains pro-freedom and anti-communist, but whether the United States will stay true to Ronald Reagan’s vision of a world free from communism.

It is troubling, 50 years after the publication of None Dare Call It Treason, that we have to go through this debate all over again—this time with the stakes even higher.

One thing is clear at this point: we need a new generation of conservatives in the media willing to take a stand for freedom, and to conduct a review of the “death of communism.”

12/24/14

“Red Bill” de Blasio: We Warned You

By: Cliff Kincaid
America’s Survival

These are videos we produced before Red Bill was elected Mayor of New York City. Click on links to watch videos.


Cliff Kincaid and Pamela Geller

Joe Connor’s father was killed by FALN Puerto Rican terrorists: “The Clintons were using our father’s life and death for cheap political gain. They thought releasing Puerto Rican terrorists would help secure the Hispanic vote for Hillary Clinton’s run for New York senator.  Bill de Blasio ran Hillary Clinton’s campaign. What did de Blasio know about the clemencies and when did he know it?”