When President Obama jokingly referred to himself as a former “Muslim socialist” at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on April 27, several publications later quoting him scrubbed the word “Muslim” from the text. Why? Did editors perceive something imprudent with respect to their agenda in advertising that tidbit? Would there have been something offensive in representing Obama’s utterance of Moosleem in those characteristic, dulcet tones?
It’s not like his affected accent would have translate into print…
All kidding aside: The House Oversight Committee hearings this week on the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya were extremely revealing on three levels. One, of course, was the information finally revealed as the whistleblowers were identified and Americans were able to hear their riveting accounts of the events on the ground that night.
Two: Though it has been established that perhaps a majority of Republican lawmakers are treasonous, progressive whores, it appears that there are at least a few who are serious about preserving the republic and who grasp the gravity of the Obama administration’s crimes. This is not only gratifying, but certainly could be integral to extricating this obscene cabal.
Three is the absolute treason of the press. This may not be surprising to the reader, given their comportment in recent years, but their level of abject propaganda and obsequious toadying during the hearings was unparalleled. Few of the alphabet television networks touched on the hearings at all, and those that did relegated much of their coverage to hidden nooks and crannies on their websites.
Powered by Facebook Comments