Today’s Democrat Party views the United States military as nothing more than a political tool to further their agenda. And after Benghazi we see that our troops and intelligence operators are expendable if Democrats think sacrificing them is in their best political interests.
But don’t take it from me; just look at what they do.
Instead of preserving the world’s most effective combat force, the Democrat Party views the U.S. military as a massive source of funding (defense budget cuts), an opportunity to shore up political support through social engineering (allowing openly gay service members), and a means to further their liberal internationalist agenda (so-called “Responsibility to Protect” operations like Libya).
They know that the military community tends to vote strongly Republican, which partly explains their open contempt of the men and women that serve in the Armed Forces – whether falsely labeling them cold-blooded murderers (Rep. John Murtha), comparing them to Nazis, KGB, and the Khmer Rouge (Sen. Dick Durbin), joking about their intelligence (Sec. John Kerry)… the examples of the Democrat Party’s distaste for the military could easily fill an entire article.
But throughout American history, our troops knew at least if they were wounded, in danger of being overrun, or even killed, our military will do everything in its power to get rescue or recover you.
No one gets left behind. At least that’s how it used to be.
That is, until Benghazi, which has become one of the most dishonorable events in American history. When our consulate was attacked and overran, President Obama left Americans to die. Any rescue attempt was cut off – not by our enemies, but by the Obama administration.
Even worse than the tragic and preventable deaths of four Americans, Washington’s reaction over the last eight months shows the utter disregard the Democrat Party and media have for not only the fallen, but for all of our troops and operators.
I am not saying that each and every Democrat politician wanted those men to die. But can you name any Democrat politician that has said we need to get to the bottom of Benghazi? Has any Democrat even so much as distanced themself from their party’s callous disregard for the fallen? Washington can say they support the troops all day, it’s time they show us how they support our troops.
Since day one, the Democrat Party – primarily the Obama administration – and their media allies have sought to make the story go away. Since that didn’t work, they have resorted to distracting the American people and redirecting the focus by claiming Republicans are only making this an issue for political gain.
Just imagine if your son or daughter was killed in the attack and politicians reacted by saying that anyone trying to find out answers was only using the tragedy for political leverage. That really says something about our nation when the majority party can shamelessly stoop so low – and get away with it.
While in line to attend a fundraiser for President Obama, the president of CBS reportedly said that “partisanship is very much a part of journalism now.” Considering the definitions of journalism and partisanship, we see that Les Moonves has openly admitted that his industry has abandoned its true mission and instead is pushing an agenda.
According to Merriam Webster, a partisan is “one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning alliance” to a “party, faction, cause, or person.”
Journalism is “a direct presentation of facts or description of events without interpretation.”
Obviously, the two cannot coexist.
All humans are biased to a degree, but professional journalists are supposed to set aside their biases and simply present facts. Facts aren’t liberal or conservative – they are just facts. But when you have blind allegiance to an agenda, then you twist the facts to fit your agenda.
On Thursday, the Associated (with Terrorists) Press published an article on a military jury finding Navy SEAL Petty Officer Julio Huertas not guilty of covering up an alleged detainee beating.
But the AP just couldn’t help but turn a story where justice prevailed into a propaganda piece attacking the U.S. military. Kay Day at The US Report writes:
Things were going pretty good until I got to this part: “The case has drawn fire from at least 20 members of Congress and other Americans who see it as coddling terrorists to overcompensate for the notorious Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Thursday’s verdict was met by anger and sad shrugs from Iraqis who said they no longer expect to see U.S. troops held accountable for atrocities or other abuses.”
At least 20 members of Congress? Try at least 40 members, and just for fun, add in the fact they are Republicans who supported the SEALs based on evidence compiled by Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.). I know that puts a small grimace on most wire service writers’ faces, but it’s a fact and journalists love facts, right?
Day continues (emphasis mine):
And naturally this social justice loving AP writer had to bring up Abu Ghraib—the word ‘notorious’ does seem a bit ‘overkillish’ to me, however. The very name of the place connotes ‘notorious.’ But to compare [Abu Ghraib with] an alleged punch to a detainee who suffered no real injury and whose story … changed with the wind is akin to comparing a firm handshake to a punch thrown by the great Muhammad Ali.
The AP writes, “In his closing argument, [the prosecutor, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jason Grover] pleaded with the jury to hold Huertas responsible as an example of ‘why we’re better than the terrorists.'”
To hell with justice – let’s show the Iraqis that we will do whatever it takes to please them! The trouble with that logic is the Obama administration has turned placating other nations and our enemies into our foreign policy platform, and it clearly doesn’t work.
Sidenote to Grover and the AP: There’s a thing called justice. That’s one key asset that makes us better than the terrorists.
Then there’s this thing called a jury trial which should never have happened in the first place.
Then there’s another thing called a head. The so-called detainee still has his on top of his body. I’d say that’s the biggest thing making us better than the terrorists.
And why does this lawyer – who happens to be in the Navy – think we need to prove to the Iraqis that we are better than the terrorists? Justice aside – who dethroned their tyrannical government, allowing a democracy to take its place – al Qaeda or the United States? Who destroys infrastructure and terrorizes the population, and who repairs and builds infrastructure and protects the population? Perhaps Lt. Cmdr. Grover should refresh his memory. Or perhaps he is just following orders. Who knows any more?
While trying to paint the alleged crime as revenge for the 2004 grisly massacre of four Blackwater security contractors- of which the alleged victim is believed to have been the mastermind – the AP mistakenly claimed that at least two of the slain Americans were SEALs. In fact, three of the four were former Army. Only one was a SEAL. It’s pretty bad when a blog has more accurate reporting than the AP.
But the real kicker is what the news service wrote next: “‘These trials are just propaganda for their justice and democracy,’ sneered Abdul-Rahman Najim al-Mashhadani, head of the Iraqi human rights group Hammurabi.'”
Time magazine reported that Hammurabi was linked to the (George Soros-linked) Human Rights Watch. When Time used Hammurabi statements during a story on Haditha, they issued a retraction. In closing, here’s what Day had to say:
I’d like to congratulate the AP for continuing a level of reportage I’ve come to expect from an organization that runs content from partisan non-profit organizations without disclosing it to the reader. You did the usual sorry job on informing the reader and you managed to once again slap the very men and women that keep this country free enough for you to write your garbage.
If you would like to let the AP what you think of what they consider “journalism,” their phone number is 212-621-1500, and their email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
Which does the mainstream media hold in higher regard: the Constitution or Democratic party interests? After reading Jerome Corsi’s latest article exposing the media’s double standard on presidential eligibility, it would appear to be the latter.
The same media outlets that sounded the alarm in 2008 over McCain’s eligibility are now marginalizing the growing concerns whether our current president is constitutionally qualified to hold office.
When McCain became the Republican nominee, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, FactCheck.org, Snopes.com, the Times of London, and many other media outlets questioned his eligibility to serve, as he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states that “No person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the office of President.” But according to U.S. law, McCain was in fact eligible to serve, as he was born on a Navy base to American parents.
McCain appeared before Congress with his actual birth certificate (not a “Certification of Live Birth,”, which Obama and the media wrongly portray as a birth certificate), thereby averting a possible Constitutional crisis. However, FactCheck.org still maintains that “If McCain wins the presidency, the constitutionality of these congressional statutes could be challenged in the courts.”
Why didn’t Congress also bring in Obama, who has sealed nearly all of his records, to testify as McCain did? Obama’s refusal to release the very documents that would resolve the matter has cost an incredible $1.7 million in order to fight requests to release the information according to World Net Daily. If our president has nothing to hide, then why doesn’t he release his actual birth certificate as McCain did? After all, there aren’t separate versions of the Constitution for Republicans and Democrats.
My view is that the media was right to investigate McCain’s eligibility. But they should have given candidate Obama the same scrutiny. While the media – and these supposed “fact-checking” websites – wrote piece after piece questioning the validity of the Republican candidate, those who questioned the Democratic candidate were – and continue to be – attacked and smeared by the same. Their efforts to label concerned citizens “birthers” and “racists” is nothing more than a diversionary tactic to shift the focus from where it belongs.
Whether you think the so-called “birther” movement is nuts or not, what is truly ridiculous is that our president has allowed this controversy to continue for nearly two years. Government officials swear an oath to “support the Constitution,” not to selectively apply the law when it is politically expedient for them.
Dennis Prager thoroughly annihilates Conservative turncoat Charles Johnson in this open letter. I am not very familiar with Johnson, but I have come across a lot of his former supporters expressing their disappointment with his decision to apparently abandon all that he stood for.
But if I had to guess, the man is just looking for – and will likely find – a paycheck (didn’t MSNBC host Ed Schultz do the same thing?). There is little to no money on the conservative side of the media, while he will have a lucrative future ahead of him on CNN, MSNBC, or any number of liberal-leaning print publications. Unless that is what has already happened – I don’t follow the politics of the blogosphere.