GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....

T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY...

Showing posts with label weakness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label weakness. Show all posts

Thursday, September 13, 2012

We Can No Longer Trust a Beclowned American Media…

Most everyone knows that the bulk of those in the mainstream media lean left but they now have become so blatantly partisan that it is embarrassing for them, but should also be frightening to every American and lover of freedom!  The media must be neutral or at least balanced in its coverage because it is their job to be the watchdog… a fair impartial watchdog.  We no longer have that in America.  M~

clip_image001

American Media

Ronald Reagan:  “Peace through strength!”

Barack Obama: “Turmoil through weakness and apologies”

And last night on the main news outlets 9-minutes were spent demonizing Mitt Romney over his Reaganesque type comments, after reporters colluded to ambush him at a press conference, for standing up and speaking out against our embassies being attacked in Egypt and Libya and 4-Americans being murdered including our Ambassador to Libya.  Only 25-seconds were spent on what was actually going on in the Middle East…  Are we being had? You be the judge.

Red State:

Yesterday, as the American consulate in Libya was smoking and the rioters were returning in Egypt, the President of the United States flew off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser while his spokesman was telling the American press corps that yesterday wasn’t really a normal political day. Had it been George W. Bush, the media would, right now, be marching on the White House with pitch forks and torches. Remember, on 9/11, as events were unfolding in Washington, the American media was crying for President Bush to return to Washington. They wanted Daddy at home in the White House where he could tuck them in bed, damn the security issues of getting him there.

I get that Chuck Todd is a former Democrat hill staffer. I get that the Politico is riddled with Democrats, some former activists and a former staffer for Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I get that Michael Scherer from Time magazine is a left wing reporter for Mother Jones and Salon.com turned respectable, “objective” journalist. I get that Ben Smith, leading up Buzz Feed, is a leftwing journalist paraded about as if he is some sort of objective reporter at a trendy site full of cat photos. [Editor's Note: Totally forgot to include Journolist and have updated to include it] I get that precious Ezra Klein started Journolist so reporters and political operatives could collaborate on the news and narrative and now he sits at the Washington Post and gets trotted out as a fact checker. What I really get is that the American media runs with a herd mentality, leans left, and yesterday collectively fell over their group think as they leaned so far left to focus on Mitt Romney and not President Obama. Yesterday, the American media beclowned itself in ways I didn’t really even think was possible, even knowing how in the tank for Barack Obama they are.

Yesterday, we learned that there were no Marines protecting our Ambassador to Libya despite State Department warnings about violence and kidnappings in the Benghazi. We already knew Al Qaeda was coming on strong there. But we relied on locals for support and now we know the locals betrayed us as they have in the past in Afghanistan and Iraq too.

But the media wanted to focus on Mitt Romney.

Night before last, the President condemned Mitt Romney in harsher tones than he condemned the rioters. It took him until sun up yesterday to condemn them.

But the media wanted to focus on Mitt Romney.

Yesterday, the media spent much time condemning the Coptic Christians for their movie, but we now know the movie had been out for months and we also know the riots were orchestrated in advance. We also know the attack on the American consulate in Libya used the riots as cover for the attack.

But the media wanted to focus on Mitt Romney.

Yesterday, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a man who swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, called an American civilian to ask him to stop exercising his first amendment rights.

But the media wanted to focus on Mitt Romney.

We also now know that the President, close to 60% of the time, has opted for printed intelligence briefings, which this White House thinks are as useful as an intelligence officer in the room who the President can probe, prod, challenge, and question.

But the media wanted to focus on Mitt Romney.

And in focusing on Mitt Romney, finally, of all the places, Slate and Dave Weigel finally point out that Mitt Romney’s gaffe was no gaffe, it was a consistent view of foreign policy foreign to the ears of the political press. He, I, and many others really do think Barack Obama is an apologist. We really do think his speech to Cairo after his entrance to the White House was part of a world apology tour. And we sure as hell think his actions in the past year to foster the Arab Spring were the actions of a naive fool.

But then the media has been playing the naive fool for him.

——————————

UPDATE: A friend points out that what the news media is doing here is roughly what they did after Trayvon Martin’s killing. They rushed to judgment, got basic facts wrong, and then sensationalized it with audio experts and what not only to have to beat a path to retreat later.

Comments:

Christine: 

Romney did what we hoped he would do - showed some spine and spoke up rather than just sit there or spout pleasantries to the President. We should strongly support that and encourage EVERY Republican to do the same. Speak up. Talk about this, don't just hide in a corner or let the LSM walk on them.

One "journolist" said on Twitter yesterday that Romney's election chances are in trouble because he's somehow offended "the press". These things also should be put out in the daylight for as many as possible to see.

sayoung80913:

lol, they are pulling out the Palin playbook with Romney- it worked then, but apparently unbeknownst to those in the media- their time came and went with The Daily Caller publishing little Ezra Klein's emails regarding Journolist.  Not familiar?  See: Journolists: The Truth of Media Fraud Confirmed and Politico Palin Alert: Vast Left Wing Conspiracy’s Mission: Sarah Palin Must Be Destroyed Uncovered!

FNC's Democrat Kirsten Powers Slams 'Utterly Insane' Media 'Obsession' With Attacking Romney

Video: Open mic shows press pool coordinating question if Romney regretted criticizing Obama on Egypt

NewsBusters:

Appearing on Fox News's America Live on Thursday, Daily Beast columnist and Democratic pundit Kirsten Powers ripped the liberal media for expressing more outrage over Mitt Romney's reaction to Tuesday's embassy attacks, than toward the attackers themselves: "I mean, it is just absolutely utterly insane the way that they have elevated this." [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

Powers worried that the blatant bias had "overshadowed any kind of outrage that you would see over the fact that you have Islamic flags being hoisted over American embassies, the fact that an American ambassador is dead."

Acknowledging the Democratic perspective, Powers explained: "...let's just stipulate that, for the sake of argument, that Romney shouldn't have done it [criticized Obama] – I don't agree with that – it still would not explain the obsession with Romney's statement over these horrific events that are unfolding in front of us."
Later in the discussion, host Megyn Kelly asked Powers: "You always have to look back at, you know, when detecting media – you know, potential media bias, you look back at what would the media have done if this had happened on George Bush's watch?"
Powers denounced the double standard:

Yeah. It would have been completely radically different. Look, like I said, even if you agree that Mitt Romney did something wrong, okay, look at that, but let's also look at the Obama administration. It was just radio silence....why didn't they know that these attacks were coming? Was Obama getting his intelligence briefings? I mean these are the issues that should be being asked and would be being asked if this had happened on George Bush's watch.

Here are portions of the September 13 discussion:

2:36PM ET
(...)
MEGYN KELLY: And just so our viewers know, what happened was the U.S. embassy, just to refresh you, in Cairo, came out with a statement condemning "the misguided individuals who tried to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims." Then they got attacked and they doubled down on that statement. Mitt Romney came out and criticized the statement, saying, "that's disgraceful that the administration's first response was not to condemn the attacks on the diplomatic mission, but to sympathize with those waging them." Later, Washington pulled back the embassy statement and said we didn't authorize it either. So Kirsten, you wound up having the Obama administration and Mitt Romney agreeing that the embassy statement was not appropriate. And yet, the whole media narrative yesterday was how awful Governor Romney was for pointing it out.

Video:  How the Media is Handling the MidEast Crisis, Gov. Romney and the President

KIRSTEN POWERS: Oh yeah, it's still the media narrative. And the thing is, the outrage that has been expressed over the fact that Mitt Romney put out this statement has even overshadowed any kind of outrage that you would see over the fact that you have Islamic flags being hoisted over American embassies, the fact that an American ambassador is dead. I mean you just are not seeing the same level of outrage over just the process of what time he put the statement out. I mean, it is just absolutely utterly insane the way that they have elevated this. And even if we stipulated, Megyn, let's just stipulate that, for the sake of argument, that Romney shouldn't have done it – I don't agree with that – it still would not explain the obsession with Romney's statement over these horrific events that are unfolding in front of us.
(...)
KELLY: And Kirsten, you always have to look back at, you know, when detecting media – you know, potential media bias, you look back at what would the media have done if this had happened on George Bush's watch?
POWERS: Oh, yeah.
KELLY: If we had had these attacks on the embassies and the consulates.
POWERS: Yeah. It would have been completely radically different. Look, like I said, even if you agree that Mitt Romney did something wrong, okay, look at that, but let's also look at the Obama administration. It was just radio silence. You know, they allowed that statement to stay up on an embassy web site, which is taken as the official position of the U.S. government. This person was, someone was tweeting from the official account and they didn't – they didn't come out and say a word. So what's that about? And did they know – why didn't they know that these attacks were coming? Was Obama getting his intelligence briefings? I mean these are the issues that should be being asked and would be being asked if this had happened on George Bush's watch.
(...)
POWERS: One of the things that a lot of liberals are complaining about is they're saying that Mitt Romney attacked Obama, basically saying this was his statement, which of course, we all thought it was the Obama administration's statement because it was on the embassy web site. But even if it wasn't, what has he said that's any different than that? You know, I mean he hasn't used that exact phrasing, but we could not have had a weaker response to this if we just sat around and tried to think of like, what's the weakest thing we could do? And that initial statement was weak, and now we have a continued – the administration coming out and condemning this movie as if the movie caused this attack. The fanatics attacked the embassy. They're going to attack us whether there's a movie or there's not a movie. And they are continuing to do – the sentiment in that original statement continues to be the sentiment of the Obama administration.

Brent Bozell's picture

Barack Obama has morphed into Jimmy Carter before our eyes, said Brent Bozzel the founder and president of the Media Research Center
but the liberal media have refused to report on the Obama Administration’s failed foreign policy of apologies and appeasement. Terrified to hurt Obama’s chances of re-election, they are shamelessly seizing on this horrific attack on Americans abroad to push their go-to narrative that Mitt Romney is tone deaf.

Romney rightly criticized the Obama Administration for its spineless apology to thugs whose idea of ‘diplomacy’ is intimidation, violence and murder. As the façade of the ‘Arab Spring’ continues to fracture and crumble away, the media have shifted to a strategy of distraction and omission.

These are the same media that hailed Obama’s Libya policy as ‘deft’ and proclaimed that his ‘victories’ in the Middle East would ‘burnish his credentials as a world leader.’ NBC’s David Gregory said Obama would ‘use [that] experience as a club against Republicans.’ Instead of letting Obama club the Republicans, the media administered a beating on Romney.

There were two political stories to report yesterday, and the liberal media deliberately chose to amplify the insignificant one because it damaged Romney and helped Obama’s chances to win re-election.  The hope is that the American people are a lot smarter than the leftist media gives them credit for.

Another common sense journalist, Diana West, the author of "The Death of the Grown-Up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization”, blasts Obama and Clinton for their concern over hurting Muslims 'feelings': Islamic law does not nullify 1st Amendment!

For anyone who is not up on the events that led to Romney’s comments and the open mic incident highlighting the media’s favoritism, media collusion and the left’s disdain for the true purpose of their careers and responsibility as watchdogs as well as for the American people see:  U.S. Embassy Attacked: CNN Breaking News @ 14:06 EDST on 9/11, From Egypt… Then Libya, No Comments From Obama – Updated and  Day Late… Dollar Short… Spinner in Chief

This is the same slight of hand that goes on with the polls and the reporting of polls:  IN BED WITH OBAMA: CNN Uses Heavily Weighted Polling Sample to Pretend Obama is Leading

Related:

U.S. identifies anti-Muslim filmmaker -  Really… Our government is now identifying film makers, like they did our seal team, to terrorists?  And instead of focusing on the problems with our government’s actions, the MSM is deriding Romney’s quick and presidential response and show of strength against the actions, including the murder of our Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, by Muslim terrorists against American Embassies in Egypt and Libya. 

Obama was at a fundraiser in Nevada, missing his Intel briefing, instead of dealing with the emergency and virtually simultaneously announced he would be appearing on Letterman in New York on the same day that he said he could not work a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu if Israel into his schedule.  But now the White House is bad-mouthing Governor Romney and the media is covering Obama’s inept back. Hello? What am I missing? Americans get attacked, Barack Hussein Obama apologizes, Romney calls Obama on it and the media says Romney made a gaffe?  And want him to apologize… What?

Again… Ronald Reagan said “Peace through strength!”  Mitt Romney is following suit!  Obama and Hillary are still apologizing… the last time we had very similar circumstances was when the last appeasement president, Jimmy Carter, was in the White House and Iranian terrorists took over the American Embassy in Iran.  The American people elected Ronald Reagan soon thereafter and all the prisoners were quickly released… something that weak Carter could not negotiate.  Hmmm… sounding familiar?

If you are interested in the truth or at least both sides of an argument make sure that you add Fox News, The Blaze now on Dish 212 and a variety of perspectives from online blogs to your news intake… If you are watching and getting all your news from  CNN, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC or MSNBC you are only seeing the news from a left-wing perspective and from what you can see from above… a lot is missing or skewed.

REPORT: Obama administration was warned about attacks, did nothing

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Cheney’s Speech – The Top 10 Lines

Former Vice President Dick Cheney spoke Thursday on national security at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C. think tank. Here are the top ten lines in the speech, as compiled by the editors of FOX Nation:

No. 10:  The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security.

No. 9:   In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.

No. 8:  If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

No. 7: Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.

No. 6:  To completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

No. 5: This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on ourselves.” It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.

No. 4: Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance.

No. 3: To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.

No. 2: In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy.

No. 1: Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Cheney Says: Obama Endangers the Nation

Cheney_CBS_Live_r350x200

Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday continued his verbal attack against President Obama, saying that the country is more vulnerable to a potential terrorist attack since the Obama administration took power.

Mr. Cheney said that administration's dismantling of many of the policies and protections instituted by President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks — including the planned closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba and halting controversial prisoner interrogation techniques — have made the country more vulnerable to future attacks.

"That's my belief," Mr. Cheney said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "I think to the extent that those [Bush-era] policies were responsible for saving lives, that the administration is now trying to cancel those policies … means in the future we're not going to have the same safeguards we've had for the last eight years."

The former vice president defended controversial interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, saying that it had been an effective tool in extracting useful information from suspected terrorists such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is accused of helping carry out the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks Washington and New York.

"He did not cooperate fully in terms of interrogations until after waterboarding," Mr. Cheney said. "Once we went through that process, he produced vast quantities of invaluable information about al Qaida."

Mr. Obama in January banned the practice on prisoners by U.S. interrogators.

Mr. Cheney said he believes it's his duty to speak out against the Obama administration "because I think the issues that are at stake here are so important."

Mr. Cheney also took a shot at former Bush administration Secretary of State Colin Powell, saying that the conservative broadcaster Rush Limbaugh is a more loyal Republican than the former Army commander.

"If I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I'd go with Rush Limbaugh," Mr. Cheney said.

Mr. Powell recently said that Republicans need to more move to the center politically and that Mr. Limbaugh's polarizing far-right rhetoric hurts the party's image.

Mr. Limbaugh retaliated by accusing Mr. Powell of being "just another liberal" and that he should become a Democrat.

"I think my take on it was Colin had already left the party," Mr. Cheney said. "I didn't know he was still a Republican."

Source:  Washington Times/Photo Courtesy of CNBC

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

Related Articles:

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Obamanomics: Naive, Or Intentionally Destructive?

According to such law, a company in bankruptcy must pay its debts to its “secured creditors” before it pays its unsecured creditors. Not only that, in most cases, secured creditors can demand to be paid in full.

In the case of Chrysler, several of the institutions to which it owes money are banks that accepted government bail-out funds last year and earlier this year. Those banks are now enslaved to whatever President Obama and the U.S. Treasury Department tell them to do. So when Obama tells, say, “bank X” to “accept twenty-eight cents on the dollar as payment of the debt Chrysler owes you,” well, those banks are obliged to obey Obama, whether or not it makes financial sense to do so, and whether or not bankruptcy law allows that bank to demand more.

But the private sector economy got in the way of Obama’s plans to save the world, because some of Chrysler’s secured creditors are hedge funds, that, unlike the “bailed-out banks,“ are NOT under Obama’s control. Several of the hedge fund managers involved in the situation did what they are permitted to do under bankruptcy law, and demanded more than the meager “pennies on the dollar” loan repayment that President Obama was ordering them to accept.

And this is when dear leader Obama moved in to “tirade mode.” Lashing out at the hedge fund “hold outs,” he succumbed to name-calling and insults, claiming that the “greedy” hedge fund managers were standing in the way of saving Chrysler.

Was it his naivety that prevented him from seeing the obvious - - that the hedge funds, and those Americans who had invested their personal money in those funds - - were the very thing that has kept Chrysler afloat in the first place? And is he so naïve to think that he will, to use his terms, “get credit flowing in America again,” while using his office to ruthlessly steamroll over the top of contracts, accounting rules, legal precedents, and law itself? Does he really think that he will “save” the U.S. economy and get banks lending again and get people with money to invest in new businesses and begin producing new employment opportunities, by denying legal rights to investors?

President Obama has now demonstrated to the world’s investors that rules and laws don’t matter - - his personal and political preferences are what matter, and he will get his way, even if investors are denied their rights and damaged in the process.

If Obama’s objective is to weaken the U.S., so as to make a “more fair world,” he’s well on his way to achieving that goal. Yet if Obama actually wants something other than a weaker U.S., then his naivety is something America cannot afford.

According to such law, a company in bankruptcy must pay its debts to its “secured creditors” before it pays its unsecured creditors. Not only that, in most cases, secured creditors can demand to be paid in full.

In the case of Chrysler, several of the institutions to which it owes money are banks that accepted government bail-out funds last year and earlier this year. Those banks are now enslaved to whatever President Obama and the U.S. Treasury Department tell them to do. So when Obama tells, say, “bank X” to “accept twenty-eight cents on the dollar as payment of the debt Chrysler owes you,” well, those banks are obliged to obey Obama, whether or not it makes financial sense to do so, and whether or not bankruptcy law allows that bank to demand more.

But the private sector economy got in the way of Obama’s plans to save the world, because some of Chrysler’s secured creditors are hedge funds, that, unlike the “bailed-out banks,“ are NOT under Obama’s control. Several of the hedge fund managers involved in the situation did what they are permitted to do under bankruptcy law, and demanded more than the meager “pennies on the dollar” loan repayment that President Obama was ordering them to accept.

And this is when dear leader Obama moved in to “tirade mode.” Lashing out at the hedge fund “hold outs,” he succumbed to name-calling and insults, claiming that the “greedy” hedge fund managers were standing in the way of saving Chrysler.

Was it his naivety that prevented him from seeing the obvious - - that the hedge funds, and those Americans who had invested their personal money in those funds - - were the very thing that has kept Chrysler afloat in the first place? And is he so naïve to think that he will, to use his terms, “get credit flowing in America again,” while using his office to ruthlessly steamroll over the top of contracts, accounting rules, legal precedents, and law itself? Does he really think that he will “save” the U.S. economy and get banks lending again and get people with money to invest in new businesses and begin producing new employment opportunities, by denying legal rights to investors?

President Obama has now demonstrated to the world’s investors that rules and laws don’t matter - - his personal and political preferences are what matter, and he will get his way, even if investors are denied their rights and damaged in the process.

If Obama’s objective is to weaken the U.S., so as to make a “more fair world,” he’s well on his way to achieving that goal. Yet if Obama actually wants something other than a weaker U.S., then his naivety is something America cannot afford.

Austin Hill :: Townhall.com Columnist by Austin Hill

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Muslims: 'We Do That On First Dates'

Coulter sm Without any pretense of an argument, which liberals are neurologically incapable of, the mainstream media are now asserting that our wussy interrogation techniques at Guantanamo constituted "torture" and have irreparably harmed America's image abroad.

Only the second of those alleged facts is true: The president's release of the Department of Justice interrogation memos undoubtedly hurt America's image abroad, as we are snickered at in capitals around the world, where they know what real torture is. The Arabs surely view these memos as a pack of lies. What about the pills Americans have to turn us gay?

The techniques used against the most stalwart al-Qaida members, such as Abu Zubaydah, included one terrifying procedure referred to as "the attention grasp." As described in horrifying detail in the Justice Department memo, the "attention grasp" consisted of:

"(G)rasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator."

The end.

There are rumors that Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney wanted to take away the interrogators' Altoids before they administered "the grasp," but Department of Justice lawyers deemed this too cruel.

And that's not all! As the torments were gradually increased, next up the interrogation ladder came "walling." This involves pushing the terrorist against a flexible wall, during which his "head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a C-collar effect to prevent whiplash."

People pay to have a lot rougher stuff done to them at Six Flags Great Adventure. Indeed, with plastic walls and soft neck collars, "walling" may be the world's first method of "torture" in which all the implements were made by Fisher-Price.

As the memo darkly notes, walling doesn't cause any pain, but is supposed to induce terror by making a "loud noise": "(T)he false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock and surprise." (!!!)
If you need a few minutes to compose yourself after being subjected to that horror, feel free to take a break from reading now. Sometimes a cold compress on the forehead is helpful, but don't let it drip or you might end up waterboarding yourself.
The CIA's interrogation techniques couldn't be more ridiculous if they were out of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch:

Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions! ...

Hmm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch ... THE COMFY CHAIR!
So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! ...

Now -- you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunchtime, with only a cup of coffee at 11.

Further up the torture ladder -- from Guantanamo, not Monty Python -- comes the "insult slap," which is designed to be virtually painless, but involves the interrogator invading "the individual's personal space."

If that doesn't work, the interrogator shows up the next day wearing the same outfit as the terrorist. (Awkward.)

I will spare you the gruesome details of the CIA's other comical interrogation techniques and leap directly to the penultimate "torture" in their arsenal: the caterpillar.

In this unspeakable brutality, a harmless caterpillar is placed in the terrorist's cell. Justice Department lawyers expressly denied the interrogators' request to trick the terrorist into believing the caterpillar was a "stinging insect."

Human rights groups have variously described being trapped in a cell with a live caterpillar as "brutal," "soul-wrenching" and, of course, "adorable."

If the terrorist manages to survive the non-stinging caterpillar maneuver -- the most fiendish method of torture ever devised by the human mind that didn't involve being forced to watch "The View" -- CIA interrogators had another sadistic trick up their sleeves.

I am not at liberty to divulge the details, except to mention the procedure's terror-inducing name: "the ladybug."

Finally, the most savage interrogation technique at Guantanamo was "waterboarding," which is only slightly rougher than the Comfy Chair.

Tens of thousands of our troops were waterboarded over the past three decades as part of their training, but not until it was done to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- mastermind of the 9/11 attack on America -- were liberal consciences shocked.
I think they were mostly shocked because they couldn't figure out how Joey Buttafuoco ended up in Guantanamo.

As non-uniformed combatants, all of the detainees at Guantanamo could have been summarily shot on the battlefield under the Laws of War.

Instead, we gave them comfy chairs, free lawyers, better food than is served in Afghani caves, prayer rugs, recreational activities and top-flight medical care -- including one terrorist who was released, whereupon he rejoined the jihad against America, after being fitted for an expensive artificial leg at Guantanamo, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

Only three terrorists -- who could have been shot -- were waterboarded. This is not nearly as bad as "snowboarding," which is known to cause massive buttocks pain and results in approximately 10 deaths per year.

Normal human beings -- especially those who grew up with my older brother, Jimmy -- can't read the interrogation memos without laughing.

At Al-Jazeera, they don't believe these interrogation memos are for real. Muslims look at them and say: THIS IS ALL THEY'RE DOING? We do that for practice. We do that to our friends.

But The New York Times is populated with people who can't believe they live in a country where people would put a caterpillar in a terrorist's cell.


by Ann Coulter - Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and Author including:  High Crimes and Misdemeanors

100 Days of Devastatingly Swift Success

Newt Gingrich

April 29, 2009  |  Vol. 4, No. 17

by Newt Gingrich

To mark President Obama's 100th day in office, I'm going to say something you might find unexpected, even shocking:  

President Obama's first 100 days have been spectacularly successful.
President Obama is the strongest domestic Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson. His ability to get Democrats in Congress to give him things that undermine their own power is impressive.  

In just 100 days, President Obama has been devastatingly effective in moving forward swiftly the most radical, government-expanding agenda in American history.

Successfully Moving to a European Model of Government Control

At home, in everything from his economic policy to his energy policy to his just-announced science policy, President Obama has successfully moved the country from a traditional American model of entrepreneurship and private initiative to a European model of regulation and government control.  

Abroad, he has succeeded in his apparent goal to be the un-George W. Bush; replacing aggressive, if sometimes flawed, American leadership with a humbled, weakened America on the world stage. 

Judged by these standards, President Obama's first 100 days have been a remarkable success.

Getting Congress to Give Him Things That Undermine Their Own Power

The Obama record in the first 100 days includes three instances of spectacular political impunity:
  • Under the guise of "economic stimulus" he was able to pass a $787 billion gift for his liberal special interest base. And he did it so quickly that no member of Congress was able to read it before they voted.
  • After campaigning on a pledge to end earmarks, he signed an appropriations bill loaded with 8,000 earmarks - and paid no political penalty.
  • President Obama has kept congressional Democrats marching with him in lockstep. House Democrats tow the party line an amazing 94 percent of the time and Senate Democrats vote Democratic 91 percent of the time.

Two Historic Bureaucratic Power Grabs

In these first 100 days, the Obama Administration has achieved two historic bureaucratic power grabs:
  • President Obama has transformed the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) into giant engines of unsupervised spending. Together, they've spent the equivalent of the entire federal budget for 2007, without having to disclose where the money went.
  • Just two weeks ago, the President presided over an unprecedented bureaucratic power grab when his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ruled that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health. This seemingly innocuous decision opens the door to wholesale regulation of American life by government. The threat is so great that politicians and activists are using the specter of an out-of-control EPA to force Congress to pass a $1 trillion to $2 trillion energy tax in the form of cap-and-trade legislation.

In Foreign Policy, Weakness and Self-Delusion

The Obama 100 days record also includes remarkable weakness and self-delusion overseas:
  • In an attempt to overcome anti-Americanism abroad by agreeing with it, President Obama has gone on a global apology tour, labeling America as "arrogant, dismissive and derisive" in front of foreign audiences.
  • President Obama has unleashed a domestic war over the meaning of guilt by caving in to the anti-American left and leaving the door open to prosecuting Bush Administration officials over the interrogation of terrorists who plotted to kill Americans.

All Other Obama "Accomplishments" Are Only a
Prelude to His $3.5 Trillion Budget

But all these successful expansions of government at home and retractions of American leadership abroad are merely a prelude to President Obama's looming crowning achievement: His 2010 budget which remakes our health care system, remakes our energy system, raises taxes and forecasts an amazing $9 trillion increase in the national debt.  

As I write this, Democrats in Congress are fashioning a deal to pass the budget's provisions on health care by preventing Republicans and moderate Democrats from having a voice in the debate.  

Think about that. The Obama-Reid-Pelosi political machine is going to pass legislation that fundamentally affects every single American - as well as 17 percent of our economy - by cutting the elected representatives of half of all Americans out of the process.  

If they succeed, the budget will be President Obama's most enduring - and devastating - accomplishment.

Will the Future Bring Change We Can Believe In?
Or a Change in What we Believe?

One thing is clear at this point in President Obama's presidency: His control of Washington Democrats has been so masterful, and his policies so successful, that he has officially claimed ownership of the American economy.  

Going forward, it won't be possible to continue to place blame on former President Bush and the Republicans. If President Obama fails, it will be his failure and his alone.  

As for us, the "success" of the first 100 days of the Obama presidency raises a threatening possibility.  

As my daughter and columnist Jackie Cushman put it, if we're not careful, instead of change we can believe in, we're going to have change in what we believe.  

It's something to ponder for the next 1,361 days.

  Your friend,
Newt Gingrich
   Newt Gingrich

Related Articles: 

Special from Newsmax.com

Check out Newsmax's Special Slide Shows, You Won't Find These Anywhere Else:

Obama's Gaffes and Gimmicks Exposed: The First 100 Days

The First 100 Days: The Story the Media Won't Tell You

Check back throughout the day for more on President Obama’s First 100 Days

Monday, April 20, 2009

Glenn Beck: Obama used as propaganda tool


GLENN: So Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama, they're pals, and President Obama's given a book in Spanish which Barack Obama doesn't speak, which is kind of like the, you know, the gift the President Obama gave to Gordon Brown, DVDs that he couldn't use. Some would say that this was just propaganda because here's a book about how bad America has been as a partner for Latin America, how horrible we have been, the destruction that we and the Europeans have brought onto Latin America. Got it? Some would say this was just a propaganda piece, seeing that Chavez walked right over to him in these meetings with no preconditions and just walked over it with all the press and just handed him a book, holding it so you could see the cover of the book and then Obama just takes it and holds the book cover up like, "This is what he gave me." Some would say that our president has been used for anti American propaganda purposes, but I'm not saying that. Who is? Listen to this. 

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think that it is not that you promise a meeting with that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse, but I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration, and I will pursue very vigorous diplomacy and I will use a lot of high level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be. 

GLENN: Yeah. Well, hang on just a second, will you? It's 4:20. So I was just going to help me understand the world a little bit better, you know? So anyway, we were talking about oh, yeah. Hillary Clinton said that she certainly doesn't think that we should be, you know, used for propaganda. What was I saying? Do we have anything from Joe Biden on this one because I'm sure Joe Biden has a statement here. 

SENATOR McCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approved this message. 

GLENN: No, not John McCain. Are you smoking something here, Dan? 

VOICE: What does Barack Obama's running mate say about Barack Obama? 

BIDEN: You asked is he ready? You said, I think he can be ready but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job training. I think that I stand by the statement. 

VOICE: And what does he say about John McCain? 

BIDEN: I would be honored to run with or against John McCain. I think the country would be better off.

Quote: I am so glad you weren't trying to blame me for things that happened when I was a child... said Obama when the U.S. was attacked at the latest conference where our President worried about being liked instead of defending his Country... our Country... 

Debate: Would You Meet with Iran/Syria/North Korea?

GLENN: Stop just a second. I'm just looking at a picture of Los Amigos, our president Barack Obama holding that book with Hugo Chavez and Hugo Chavez knows exactly what he's doing. So, so sweet. How did we get in this situation again? I'm trying to remember. What did 


VOICE: In 1982 Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately without precondition during the first year of your administration in Washington or anywhere else with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries? 

VOICE: I should also point out that Steven is in the crowd tonight, Senator Obama. 

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I want and the reason is this: That the notion of somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration is ridiculous. 

GLENN: Hang on. Just a second. Wow. Wow. I mean, why punish these people, you know? Sure, they are going to use you for propaganda purposes, which literally just happened. Okay, so what? I mean, who's reading it. You know what I mean? Okay, it's number 2 on Amazon.com right now but who cares? I mean, it's not like we're punishing him, you know? Why punish him, you know? Okay, sure, you might have your standards or whatever but I mean, why hang on just a second. Sorry, man, I just I mean, what difference does it make, you know? I mean, okay, so we meet with him. We're having some cocktails or talking about stuff, you know? Getting stuff done. That's what it's all about. 

By the way, did you read, did you read the Times today? You know, I was reading you know, because I'm thinking we should totally toke up with Hugo, maybe play some Wii, and I'm reading the Times about that and stuff and I'm like, it's 4:20. I got to smoke some dope.

Related Articles: