Along with playing dumb on the rhetoric of Rep. Allen West in a recent speech (no one believes he was suggesting Democrats should actually leave America when he said they could take their message elsewhere), CNN’s Soledad O’Brien played fast and loose with food stamp usage increases under Bush versus Obama to put Rep. Allen West on the spot.

O’Brien falsely asserted that the number of food stamp recipients rose more under former President Bush than Obama. Not only are her numbers off, but according to The Daily Jobs update, she failed to acknowledge that the respective increases took place over eight years for Bush and only three years under Obama. That alone is hardly an accurate comparison. And it gets worse.

Yes, usage went up by 11 million in eight years of Bush, but O’Brien claims that under Obama, the number of recipients went up 13 million, from 33 to 46 million. That’s incorrect. Obama’s baseline was 28 million, and usage has risen by 18 million to 46 million in just 3 years. (more…)

In December a Federal District Judge, Marco Hernandez, ruled against blogger Crystal Cox who was being sued for defamation by attorney Kevin Padrick, whom Cox accused of corruption on her blog. The ruling declared that as a blogger, Cox was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news. I happen to agree with his decision, but the case raises the question about what actually defines a journalist. Considering what the mainstream media represents today, the line between genuine reportage and political advocacy has been completely blurred.

In the past, many famous and well-respected journalists had no formal training but honed their craft on the job, in many cases beginning their careers as copy boys/copy girls. Walter Cronkite, once cited as the most trusted man in America, was a college dropout who had a series of newspaper jobs reporting news and sports. Eric Sevareid, Chet Huntley, and David Brinkley started their careers as broadcast journalists but never had journalism degrees. Dan Rather did receive a degree in journalism, and we can see how well that turned out once he decided to switch to advocacy journalism instead of the traditional who, what, when, where and how protocol of traditional journalism.

Advocacy journalism intentionally and transparently adopts a non-objective viewpoint for either a political or social agenda and has morphed today into nothing less than media bias and propaganda. Today the mainstream media is predominantly composed of liberal democrats, and this bias has been quite evident since the 2008 presidential race. There is also a marked difference between opinion and reportage journalism.

I have a hard time claiming to be a member of the fourth estate, although I have been writing for newspapers since 1998 as an op-ed columnist. During that time, however, I have covered news events and press conferences and submitted non-opinion articles. I never attended Journalism College, nor have I even taken one writing course. I had to drop out of college to support my mother who had had a stroke. Mark Steyn, who is a brilliant writer, never attended college at all but can write reams around many inhabiting the elitist realm of the New York Times. (more…)

CNN Breaking News reported Newt Gingrich’s denial, during the CNN Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, of an alleged personal scandal–while repeating the original accusation:

What CNN failed to report (Update: until later, at least) was Gingrich’s absolute destruction–historic, on a “You’re No Jack Kennedy” scale–of the network’s attempt, through moderator John King, to make those accusations the focus of the debate:

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid:

Glenn Beck suggests that Newt Gingrich is so “progressive” that only racism could explain why the tea party would support him over President Obama. He is alluding to Gingrich’s praise of Theodore Roosevelt. But the “progressive” outlook of Republican Theodore Roosevelt (TR) was much different than the Progressive Party of Henry Wallace, who served as Democrat Franklin Roosevelt’s vice president. TR opposed socialism and communism.

During an appearance on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Fox Business Channel program, Beck said about Gingrich:

“This man is a progressive. He knows he’s a progressive. He doesn’t have a problem with being a progressive. So if you’ve got a big government progressive [in Gingrich] or a big government progressive in Obama, one in Newt Gingrich, one in Obama, ask yourself this tea party. Is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy, it must be about race.”

With this comment, Beck is claiming that the policies of Gingrich and Obama are the same or at least very similar. However, in his interview with Beck, Gingrich made the point that he believes government has a role in maintaining some “minimum regulatory standards of public health and safety.” He also said government programs have to be reformed to maximize individual choice and that some federal subsidies, such as those which bolster a domestic oil and gas industry, are defensible. None of this qualifies as Obama-style socialism.

Christopher Ruddy of Newsmax noted in his article, “Glenn Beck Should Revere Theodore Roosevelt,” that “The policies advocated by TR were not those of some social engineer who wanted to remake the United States based on a Saul Alinsky radical model.”

Beck notes that Theodore Roosevelt started the Progressive Party, but this is not the same Progressive Party, dominated by the Communists, that nominated Henry Wallace for president in 1948 and which continues to influence the Democratic Party today. (more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Roger Aronoff:

One should always be careful, when criticizing and making fun of others, to not be guilty of the same offense. We try to be very careful, with a name like Accuracy in Media. It can come back to bite you. That is unless you’re some hotshot left-wing “news” person on MSNBC. Then it doesn’t matter. But let’s pretend it does.

Chris Matthews was on “The Tonight Show” earlier this month plugging his new book about John F. Kennedy. But he started out with a good laugh at Governor Rick Perry, who Matthews said was “gone” from the race. Perry had just the night before had his 53 second brain-freeze in the GOP presidential debate in which he forgot the third item on a list of three government agencies that he said he would work to eliminate if he becomes president.

A bit later in the conversation, Jay Leno asked Matthews if that was “the worst faux pas” he had seen “in modern debate history.” Matthews said it’s “a hell of list.” He then cited Dan Quayle for his spelling of the word potato. It’s true, Quayle did tell the boy in the classroom to add an “e” to his correct spelling of the word. It is also true that Quayle made the error when he relied on a list prepared for him by a teacher in the classroom. But, as Leno pointed out to Matthews, it didn’t take place during a presidential debate.

Any others? Matthews came up with another Quayle anecdote as “the best one.” Here is what Matthews said: “The best one, I guess, was Dan Quayle, comparing himself to Jack Kennedy. And Lloyd Bentsen said, ‘you’re no Jack Kennedy.’ That was a home run for that guy. He was never heard of again, by the way. I think he was teaching at Thunderbird University somewhere out in the desert.”

All Quayle had said was that he had as much experience in Congress as Jack Kennedy had when he won the presidency in 1960. Vice presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen, who was running with Walter Mondale in 1988, came back with his famous line. You can see that exchange here.

(more…)

It’s hard to believe but Frank Rich’s latest exercise in the fantasist’s art comparing JFK to Obama is a wonder to behold. It really is. One might think it satire if Rich had never been presented as a serious essayist by the New York intelligentsia. If this were to be his first public writing, one might think him the new Jonathan Swift for its central premise is simply amazing for its utter deviation from reality. Rich, it seems, thinks that Obama is just like John Kennedy because Kennedy was somehow killed by the “hate that ended his presidency,” or something.

The part that is so fantastic is that Rich devolves to a long ago discredited theory that Kennedy was killed that dark November day in 1963 somehow because of right-wing hate for him. What is so absurd about Rich’s fantastic claim is that he wholly discounts the fact that Kennedy’s killer was a communist. In fact, Rich never even mentions that Lee Harvey Oswald was an avowed communist. He hints at it obliquely but does so in a way that dismisses the ideology as in any way important.

It has been a long time since I’ve read a piece on a public figure that is one part hero worship, one part discounting of that same figure, one part pure fantasy, and one part baseless comparison to the life of a whole other public figure that is also worshiped as a hero without a legitimate reason. But Frank Rich has done it here in a way that brings to mind make J.R.R. Tolkein’s intricate and complicated plotting.

There’s so much wrong in this one piece that it’s hard to figure out where to start first, but Rich’s central premise is that JFK was killed because of a climate of “hate” engendered by the blindness of Kennedy’s detractors on the right. This, Rich seems to think, is somehow just like Obama. Well, except that Obama is still alive and no one has even made a single attempt to kill him, and all (God forbid).

Interestingly, Rich does seem to notice that John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s presidency did not live up to its hype. Rich notes that historians have basically rated JFK’s short tenure in the White House as a wash, neither good nor horribly bad. But even with that admission, Rich writes glowingly of Kennedy. It is still all “Camelots” and “brief shinning moments” with little justification for any other reason than mere hero worship. With that, though, Rich succumbs to the worship like so many starry-eyed members of his deluded generation.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid:

In a major blow to Al-Jazeera’s drive for acceptance and respectability in the West, the government of Israel says that one of the channel’s correspondents has confessed to acting as an agent of the terrorist group Hamas. The Israeli government also claims to have uncovered a network of Hamas operatives using Al-Jazeera as a cover.

The U.S. State Department designates Hamas as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” and states that it “was formed in late 1987 as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Hamas does not recognize Israel and its founding charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. The group considers Israeli settlers and civilians legitimate military targets.

Samer Allawi, a Palestinian who ran Al-Jazeera’s Kabul, Afghanistan, bureau, was released, sentenced to time served, and agreed to pay a $1,400 fine. He was arrested on August 9 and held in an Israeli prison. Various press freedom groups had clamored for his release.

Some commentators are saying that the treatment of the Al-Jazeera correspondent is evidence of a tougher policy by Israel toward Qatar, an Arab dictatorship which completely finances Al-Jazeera and selects its news and editorial personnel. A classified report prepared by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and leaked to the Israeli media in August outlined Qatar’s more radical stance in the Arab and Muslim world and noted evidence of more frequent Hamas visits to Doha, the capital, and funding by Qatar of Hamas.

A story on the Israelnationalnews.com website about the report also indicated that Israel may start restricting the activities of Al-Jazeera correspondents inside Israel. It said, “Qatar is also the home of Arab satellite network Al-Jazeera, which the Foreign Ministry considers extremely anti-Israel. As a result, the Ministry has worked in recent months to prevent reporters from the network from operating in Israel, and has stopped giving them visas. Currently, the only way for an Al-Jazeera reporter to enter Israel is using a passport from a country that has full diplomatic relations with Jerusalem, but the Ministry is seeking ways to keep these individuals out of Israel as well.”

Although the emir of Qatar pours hundreds of millions of dollars into the channel, making it effectively a propaganda machine for the regime, he prohibits a free press and free elections at home. Bloggers critical of the royal family are simply taken away and tortured, while Al-Jazeera turns a blind eye and deaf ear to their fate.

But because the country hosts a U.S. military base, it enjoys a moderate and even pro-Western reputation. Qatar uses expensive public relations and lobbying firms like Barbour, Griffith & Rogers (BGR) and Brown Lloyd James.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid:

Charles Lane must be one of the loneliest people in the newsroom of The Washington Post. A member of the editorial page staff of the Post and occasional guest on the Fox News Channel, he dared to put his name on a column in the paper that carried the headline, “Troy Davis was guilty,” a reference to the convicted cop killer executed by the state of Georgia but who was declared innocent by the “progressive” community.

Davis, who had been convicted of the murder back in 1991, acknowledged he was at the scene of the crime but claimed that he didn’t pull the trigger.

But wait. Didn’t we read in the Post that “all but two eyewitnesses recanted” their testimony against him? That’s what Post reporter Sandhya Somashekhar put in her September 22nd story about how the case was expected to shape a debate over the use of capital punishment.

We should hope that the case helps shape a debate about the need for our media to reports facts and not the lies and myths of those trying to abolish the death penalty. Charles Lane has begun that debate.

Amnesty International used a variation of the claim, insisting that “all but two of the state’s non-police witnesses from the trial have recanted or contradicted their testimony.” So the Post distorted the matter even beyond what Davis’s apologists were saying.

(more…)

This week President Abbas made a disastrous application for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations. This bid, more than anything, was a result of Barack Obama’s disastrous Middle East policy, but not according to Bob Beckel. Beckel on Friday’s “The Five” suggested that Obama’s policies had nothing to do with the UN disaster, nothing to do with the fact that Abbas refuses to negotiate, and nothing to do with Palestinians’s refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish State. It’s all the fault of the settlements, the settlements, the settlements.

Honestly, I can’t remember if he repeated the words “the settlements” three or four times but Beckel certainly made his point. He also proved that he is either too partisan to admit the truth, or too lazy to research recent  history, but either way he is wrong.

Allow me to explain the facts and for brevity’s sake I will start with the Obama Administration.

While the Palestinians have never accepted Israeli settlements, secession of all settlement building has never been a precondition to talks. Israel had long ago agreed not to build new communities in Judea and Samaria but would continue to add housing units to existing communities.

During the government of PM Ehud Barak, there were direct talks and construction continued in existing communities.

It was the Obama administration’s naiveté that made the settlements an issue. Hillary Clinton first demanded the freeze in 2009 and was quickly backed up by Obama. What the President and his advisers perceived as a minor concession (a settlement freeze including no new housing units in existing communities) was for Israel a grave sacrifice. From their point of view Obama was telling adult Israelis that their children could no longer live near their parents. He was also saying that a policy not accepted in the United States (allowing people of a certain faith to live anywhere they want) was OK as long as it appeased the Arab world.

It is interesting that the man who pushed for Muslims to build a mosque on Ground Zero, and for illegal immigrants to live in Arizona, believes that Jews should be banned from living on the West Bank of the Jordan River.

Making the settlement a cornerstone of the new administration’s Middle East policy was a major naivete-driven error by the Obama administration. It was further compounded by their inclusion of Jerusalem in the mix and their constant public berating of the Jewish State. This turned the Israeli population against Obama, especially the Israeli left who would be more inclined to support a settlement freeze demand. A May 2011 Smith Poll conducted for the Jerusalem Post showed that only 12% of Israelis believe Obama is pro-Israel while 40% believe he is pro-Palestinian.

Obama’s demand for a freeze of natural community growth broke a US/Israel agreement made during the Bush administration.

(more…)

In this weekend’s featured interview in the Wall Street Journal, Juan Rangel, the leader of United Neighborhood Organization (UNO), attempts to sanitize the history of what was once one of the most notorious Alinskyite “community organizing” groups in Chicago.

Rangel paints his group as the moderate, patriotic alternative to the victim-mongerers at the National Council of La Raza and other Hispanic groups.

WSJ: Juan Rangel of UNO

The truth is more complex.

UNO is the Mexican-American ACORN, founded in 1980 by radicals who were tied to the left-wing academic/activist Chicago clique that would later produce Barack Obama. (more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Michael Watson and Val Jensen II:

Richard Stengel’s take on the U.S. Constitution tries to dispel the tea party movement’s claims that certain recent policies under the Obama administration are unconstitutional. The main argument is set out when Stengel, the managing editor of TIME, states:

“Originalists contend that the Constitution has a clear, fixed meaning. But the framers argued vehemently about its meaning. For them, it was a set of principles, not a code of laws. A code of laws says you have to stop at the red light; a constitution has broad principles that are unchanging but that must accommodate each new generation and circumstance.”

With this premise, Stengel tries to show that some of President Obama’s controversial initiatives are actually in line with the “spirit of liberty,” and since the Constitution should mainly be a “promissory note, one in which ‘We the People’ in each generation try to create that more perfect union,” then these initiatives align perfectly well with the Constitution. Do they, or is this just his spin?

Stengel first spins for President Obama’s “military action” against Libya. Claiming that “No President wants to have his powers as Commander in Chief curtailed,” Stengel dismisses then-Senator Obama’s argument that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Stengel also conflates general Congressional authorization for war-making with the technical declaration of war. Stengel is correct that Congress has not declared war since 1941 even as the United States has engaged in many military conflicts. However, as Charles Krauthammer notes, there is clearly intent in the Constitution for Congress to be consulted and the disappearance of the declaration of war from international law should not excuse the President from consulting Congress before making a war of choice.

Stengel asks, “Do Americans really want to let Congress have the sole power to commit U.S. forces to action?” This is the wrong question, and the Framers knew it. Congress is not the Commander-in-chief, but rather must be consulted to ensure that wars are nationally supported and in the national interest.

(more…)

We’re all aware that Sarah Palin is a lightning rod for non-controversy and faux-criticism from those actively looking to destroy her.  Whenever she misuses a phrase or gets minor facts wrong about something inconsequential, the media gets out their tweezers to nitpick away at it, whether they’re trying to simply make her look dumb, or accuse her of murder.  You know, whatever works.  The latest non-story served up for our distraction from the real issues facing this country stems from Palin’s Friday visit to Boston’s historic Old North Church.   In some off-the-cuff remarks, Palin made a statement regarding Paul Revere’s famous “Midnight Ride.”  See the video below, which aired on a local Boston news channel:

Here is what Palin said:

“[Revere] warned the British that they weren’t gonna be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells, and making sure, as he’s riding his horse through town, to send those warning shots and bells that we were gonna be secure, and we were gonna be free.”

The purpose of Revere’s ride was warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that the British army were moving in an effort to arrest them, as well as seize Sam’s kick ass beer recipe their weapons stores.  They communicated via lantern signals from the top of the church, the origin of the old “one if by land, two if by sea” line, as a method of communicating the manner in which the British army was going to move.  But anyway, that’s the Cliff’s Notes version.  Despite what you’ve heard or may think, there really isn’t anything incorrect about what Palin said. (more…)

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria was on Charlie Rose recently and made the claim that America has become “antiquated” and the system our founding documents created is “dysfunctional.”

Zakaria begins by adopting the epic straw man of an arrogant American who thinks America is 100% perfect. Using the pronoun “we think” repeatedly he asserts:

Whenever we have a problem, we tend to think that our Constitution is the best ever created in the history of the world. The people who wrote the Constitution were demi-gods, it never needs to be changed. Our political system is the best in the world. The truth is we have a pretty complicated, antiquated system that’s grown pretty dysfunctional.

Wow, when you put it like that Mr. Zakaria, it’s a wonder we even made it out of the 19th century. Let’s go point by point.

First, the reason Americans revere the Constitution was that it, along with the Declaration of Independence, represented the first time people threw off the chains of a tyrannical government and truly put power in the hands of ordinary people. It was an intellectual revolution more than a physical one. From 1776 and 1789 on, numerous countries have taken our system and used it as a template for change in their countries. We have good reason to be proud. (more…)

I keep thinking/hoping, eventually journalists are going to wake up.

I’ve spent 30 years in the business, always cynical about its mission (the business is supposed to attract cynics,) and waiting and wondering if good sense and logic will finally win out over the obvious politics.

A ray of hope.

Veteran journalists (many now retired) are starting to speak out about what they are seeing with todays “journalists.”

“If you watch an Obama news conference, and watched a Bush news conference previous to that, where correspondents sit in their seats with their hands folded on their laps, [it's] as if they are in the room with a monarch and they have to wait to be recognized by the president,” says Sid Davis, the former NBC Washington bureau chief who covered nine presidents. “It looks like they are watching a funeral service at [Washington funeral firm] Joseph Gawler’s and it shouldn’t be that way.”

Gawler draws no distinction between Obama and Bush as far as news conferences go, but we’ll leave that one alone for now. At least Bush held news conferences. JFK held one every 16.4 days, and I’m talking about the wide open, “anything goes” news conferences where any question can be asked, not the quickies where 2 people are hand-picked for their ability to fire fluff balls. “Excuse me, you, in the back, from Better Homes and Leftist Gardens.”

(more…)

—–

Rachel Maddow’s closing remarks in this segment are nothing short of obscene:

“We asked [Huckabee's production company] today who had done the animation on these DVDs. They would not tell us. If you know who brought this amazing animated sauce to life, please get in touch with us. We would like to know.”

Maddow might couch her unholy request in that chirpy, kindergarten teacher voice, but the venom is 100% pure. The hypocrisy, however, is 150%.

Read the quote again closely. Maddow already knows the name of the production company, but right after decrying the Hollywood blacklist of the 1950s, she demands the production company — wait for it, wait for it — name names. And because they refuse to name names, Maddow then weaponizes her own audience to witchunt up those names on her behalf.

Why?

(more…)

Richard Cohen is what passes for an opinion editorialist in the Washington Post — not a learned one, just a bloviating one. Cohen’s latest, “The Myth of American Exceptionalism,” is at the same time as self-loathing as it is historically stupid. Not only does this nonsense Cohen ladled out upon us all serve an example that you don’t have to actually know anything to be in our modern Old Media establishment, but it is evidence that the profession of editor is long dead.

In his ten paragraphs Cohen indulges every left-wing trope that one can find. Whites are all racist, we don’t do enough for “the poor” in America, Christianity is the root of all evil, and it all started in the 1850s when the Republican Party was born. Most ridiculously, Cohen a-historically seems to think that the art of compromise died in American politics when the GOP was born. This last bit alone is guffaw worthy to say the least.

(more…)

This is a big week in American history. 150 years ago Tuesday the first shots were fired in the Civil War. The media has been covering the commemorations of the historic battle of Ft. Sumpter that really wasn’t much of a battle at all, the Confederate soldiers from the south took less than two days to defeat the Union soldiers from the north.

I talked about this historic week with a media friend of mine and mentioned how difficult the sacrifices were in this nation at the time. I said, “Republican President Abraham Lincoln was nearly defeated by the Democrat who ran the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis.” First my friend questioned the political party of Davis, then he said, “Why do you always have to enter politics into this?” Hmm, the Civil War was rather political—so I took the occasion to point out how the media likes to ignore the politics when it doesn’t work to their favor, but love to enter politics when it suits their needs. I mentioned the tragedy in Tucson where the media made up its own politics to fit its template.

(more…)

In between watching March Madness and NASCAR I try to spend  half hour on Sunday with my favorite lefty talk show host, Chris Matthews. The gymnastics he performs as he tries to protect Dear Leader always makes for great sport.

This weekend on his syndicated show, The Chris Matthews Show, he was especially entertaining. Before he accused Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour of being racist because he wants to say he’s from the south to draw contrast to President Obama in a possible Presidential runoff (seriously—you’ve got to see it to believe it,) he worked overtime to try to make it look like Obama was a victim in the war in Libya. Twice Matthews brought out the point that Obama “doesn’t use force lightly.” Amazing there, Chris—which President does take the use of US military force lightly?  Maybe you think James Madison was flippant in fighting the War of 1812? How about Lincoln in 1860? Of course, we know you believe Bush went to war with Iraq because he wanted to settle a little family feud between Saddam and his dad. Dubbya must be the President you think just goes to war on a whim, certainly your Dear Leader would not—in fact, he was pushed into this war in Libya when he really didn’t want to go, or so we heard times on your Sunday show.

“He didn’t wanna go,” Chris said to Howard Fineman, one of the parade of libs who regularaly appear on the show. Fineman gave more cover for POTUS when he called Obama’s reluctance to go to war as, “Marxist—as in Groucho Marx,” meaning that Obama just really wasn’t sure what to do here, so he just went along with the flow and followed the mood of the moment in Washington.

(more…)

Mr. Nobel Peace Prize has launched hundreds of Cruise Missiles into Libya inflicting major damage and killing civilians. He has also kept two wars going while ramping up the battle in Afghanistan.

Sounds like a warmonger.

Now, I’m not here to judge the merits, or lack thereof, of Obama’s war policy, just to point out the inconsistencies in the media’s reporting on the issue of Obama and his wars. Did I mention this is a Nobel Peace Prize winner launching these attacks? In getting that award he was honored for, “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” I could make a joke out of that statement, but this is serious stuff.

First, notice how carefully the media works to not peg the invasion of Libya (yes, sending missiles is an invasion) on their Dear Leader. The international coalition is doing this, not Obama, is what they are telling us. Put that in the context of what the media told us with George W. Bush and Iraq.

Bush had 40 nations join the efforts in Iraq; do you think the media ever considered that war anything other than “Evil Bush’s War?” They still mention the Mission Accomplished banner in derision, long after the mission was actually successfully accomplished. Also, the media will rarely point out that this attack on Libya would not have happened without US backing. Had Obama said no, there would’ve been no “international coalition,” yes, it is that simple.

(more…)

The media told us during the 2008 election that the world would love us if we elected Barack Hussein Obama to the White House. Certainly the Muslin world would adore us after we got rid of Evil Bush.

We were shown fabricated videos like these as proof that all we had to do was elect Dear Leader and we would have everything we wanted as Americans, we would have true value because others would love us.

Forget the fact here that it’s dysfunctional as a nation, or as an individual to always seek justification from others, this is just about the Promise of 2008.

Democrats and the Obama administration often like to say the media set unrealistic expectations on the young World Emperor, certainly the media continues its slobbering love for Dear Leader, but Obama also made this promise of global unity. He did it during his first speech in Cairo as President and during the campaign in Berlin at the Brandenburg Gate.  Obama declared himself a “citizen of the world” (whatever that means) and promised he would “remake the world.” Politico called it a “manifesto for the planet” and that he would “unite Christians, Muslims and Jews in a safer, more united world.”

Whoops.

(more…)