Read the previous article. I am now going to go beyoond the AP MISREPRESENTATION of what Obama said, although what Obama said justifies everything said about him in the previious article, and explain to yuo what happpened.
First, you need to recognize that the Tea Party was motivated by FISCAL issues: spending, debt and the size of the Federal Government. That is why this blog keeps telling you how much of a BETRAYAL it will be if "Tea Party" politicians LET John Boehner and establishment Republicans BETRAY us (the country, Tea Party rank and file, and conservatives like me) on debt, deficits and spending. The fact is that so far Tea Party politicians have NOT stood up against the SHAM deals of Boehner, and have accomplished NO (zilch, none, nada, a big fat 0) "reductions"in Federal spending for the only years that matter (the year just finished, and the year just started). However, the connection of Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin to the Tea Party tends to confuse matters, giiven a DISHONEST media that WANTS to confuse matters and a President/Democratic Party that wants to DEMONIZE the Tea Party based on their own obsesson with "social issues" like "gay rights". You do understand, do you not, how the failure to give gays SPECIAL STATUS is keeping you from getting a job, don't you? I thought you did (sarcasm disease recurring).
Thus, you have the last Repubican debate--labeled the "Tea Party debate". A "gay soldier" (not much vetting on the people asking these questins, but probably authenic, if obviously with a political agenda) asked the Republican candidates (with the aid of the unfair and unbalanced network, which did not explain what this had to do with the Tea Party) why they wanted to undo the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" when it was so important to gay soldiers like the questioner (or words amounting to this question). Well there were a few BOOS from the crwod. You will remember that one of the mainstream media/leftist Democrat mantras is that Republicans are responsible for EVERY instance of rude, uncouth, or offensive conduct by ANY Tea Party person (while Muslims, for example, are not resonsible for the terroristic, intolerant actions of a MAJOR SECTION of the Muslim religioni). It is no accident that the mainstream media, and leftist Democrats, have EARNED the designation as the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or fur. This "insult" to a "soldier" has become a major leftist "talking point" (hypocrites that they are). How do I know this. Juarn Williams, a walking package of leftist talking points on the unfair and unbalanced network insists on bringing it up in connection with almost every topic.
Now is lthe unfair and unbalanced network interested in the fACTS of this incident. Not on your life. There is, obviously, a reason I have suggested you BOYCOTT the unfair and unbalanced network. The unfifair and unbalanced network is only intterested int he CONTROVERSY--only interesteed in "ratingss" and the APPROVAl of the mainstream media it often denigrates. Of coure, the mainstrea m media in general never was intereseted in the acdtual facts of the incident. As stated, the actual fact was that only a FEW peole booed, and those people were quickly silenced by the disapproval of the peoiple around them. The "incident' was blown out of all proportion for POLITICAL reasons: to again villify the Tea Party and try to tie Republicans to EVERY sindgle thing ANY Tea Party "ffiliated" person has ever said (a test which, if applied to leftist politicians and their supporters, would mean NONE of them would everf be elected to anything).
Doubt me? Never do that. Remember moveon.org--the big lefitst orgaization which supplied major support for President Obama and other Democrats? Remember when moveon.org ran that ad labeling General Petraeus (when being appointed head of or effort in Iraq) as "General Betray Us"? Yes, this is the SAME General Petraeus who is ow head of the OBAMA CIA, and was appointed by Obama to lead our effort in Afghanistan. Well, Obama was asked at the time, along with Hillary Clinton, to CONDMEN moveon.org. Guess what? Obama and Clinton REFUSED to do that in direct terms, even though this was an OFFICIAL ad from the group (and not a few booes from a crowd). As stated, these (leftist Democrats and the mainstream media) are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four.
Now I am going to get personal. I was in the United States Army at the height of the Vietnam War. (1968-1971) Leftists SPAT on returning soldiers. Leftist politicians refused to condemn that sort of thig, as they refused to condemn the violent protests, and the terroristic activities of such peole as Obama friend William Ayers (part of the terrorist group, the Weather Underground). Oh, leftist politicians would make pro forma disapprovals of violence, but would not really support the soldiers or truly condemn the lawlesss nature of many of the anti-war activists. Nope. The soldiers were not responsible for the war. That was LYNDON JOHNSON. I lived through it, and it is fair to say that the left VILLIFIED Vietnam soldiers BECAUSE THEY WERE SOLDIERS fighitng in a war those leftists disapproved of. Now leftists have (mainly) LEANRED since then. John Kerry--part of the villification lthen--actually ran for President based mainly on his (honorable, even heroic, if you don't consider his betrayal afterward) combat sservice in Vietnam .But these crocodite tears shed by the left over supposed "insults" to soldiers leave me cold. I have nothing but contempt for these people--not merely politically, but as human beings. I am referring to the radical left and the amainstream edia here, but it is getting harder and harder to tell the difference between the far let and the ordinary left these days.
Now let us consider those fEW people who decided to BOO this "gay soldier". No, there ws not any reason for them to do that. But cosider what would happen if a HETEROSEXUAL soldier were to ask President Obama whether he understood that it made him UNCOMFORTABLE to serve with openly gay comrades? You would not only expect people in the audience (if it were a leftist audience) to BOO. You would expect the mainstream media to DESTROY the poor soldier's life. He might well face military disciipline. Indeed, it is questionalbe whether soldiers should be openly engaged in politics. And, if they decide to exercise their free speech and enter the political al arena, should they really expect to be immune from criticism because they happen to be GAY? This is the RACISM "defense" to every criticism of President Obama. Thos people who decided to boo this gay soldier's question: Were they booing him bECAUSE he is a soldier (as the left did in the Vietnam War, and willl still do today, as exhibited by the "General Betray Us" ad of moveon.org)? Not a chance. They were booing him because he was a GAY ACTIVIST willing to put that (arguably) ahead of the interest of his country. No, I do not endorse the "booes", because it just does not make any sense to "boo" a question. It is rude. Boo an ANSWER, if you want, but don't boo a question. However, I reject the idea that a person is IMMUNE from criticism because he is gay . If a gay person could not stand the former policy that he was supposed to keep his sexual "preferences" to himself, then perhaps he should not have been in the military. But the main pont is that the LEFT, including the mainstream media, want to make this about booing a SOLDIER, when it is about a person exposing a political agenda.
What does all of this have to do with President Obama? Well, Obama--continuing his obsession with social issues as more important than jobs--gave yet another speech to a "gay activist" event. Obama spends mroe time talking to gay activists than he does taliking to military/veteran's groups. It is part of this inexplicable OBSESSION that Obama, the mainstream media, and other leftists have with social issues being more imp9ortant than th3e economy: something for which voters should be willing to sell their country down the river.
Thus, Obama used this speech before a gay activist group to again DEMONIZE the Tea Party, and take a shot at Republicans, by saying that the Republican candidates on t the stage, if they wanted to be "Commander-in-Chief", needed to STAND uP for a soldier and CONDEMN THE AUDIENCE. This is a standard, unfair leftist TACTIC of suggesting that Republicans should spend all of their time criticizing INDIVIDUALS who may act rudely, or otherwise say things that are somewhat questionable. Nope. DEMORATS DO NOT DO THIS. But these are the worst hypocrites who ever walked the Earth, on two legs or fur. And they have the support of the mainstream media, and always get their point of view accepted as somewhat valid. It is, of course, STUPID . It is absurd to suggest that a Republican candidate on stage make a huge point out of what a FEW people in the audience may do or say. No candidate is that dumb--even a Democrat. Well, I sort of take it back. ONe candidate wAS that dum: John McCain. It did him no good. The mainstream media jumped on him anyway.
Remember the headlie from the desicable AP: "Obama: Commander-in-Chief must support gay troops". Does that headline really bear much relationship to the SPECIFIC "troop" Obama was referencing? Not a chance (not even if Obama himself may have suggested a broadening of his very specific point, which I have no reason to believe he did). If I were Obama, I would wonder whether this is yet another example of RACISM in the despicable AP . Does Obama really need the AP out there suggesting that Obama is making a special ponit of "supporting" "gay troops"? What about the OTHER troops?
Obama, himself, is bad enough distracting us with thiese "divisive" social issues, when the country is at stake. However, this mainstream media OBSESSION with momosexual "rights' goes well beyond the point of reason, and is at least neurotic (if not clinicaly insane). The media is doing Obama no faovrs trying to turn this into an electin on "gay rights". I really doubt that the average African-American, Hispanic, or Cuacasian without a job really thinks this is the burning issue of our time.
And what about Dishonest Jack (Cafferty)? Well, he is DISHONEST .Otherwise, he would question this OBSESSION by his netowrk, Obama, and other leftists with homosexual "rights". Yep. Even Obama is not willing to yet take the plunge and say he is for gay marriage , even though this blog correctly called Obama a LIAR on his as early as 2008. Even Obama recognizes--although not nearly as clearly as he should--that you really can't win an election in these times by running on HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS. Tak abut desperation!!!!!!!!
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment