Benghazi: The False 60 Minutes Report

#Benghazi #60minutes #benghaziscandal #foxnews #CBS #republicans #Obama #embassyattack

A terrible thing happened last year, the Benghazi Embassy in Libya was attacked by anti-American extremists and the American Ambassador to Benghazi was killed along with others placed to guard the embassy. After this occurred the conservatives went on a offensive, saying that the attack happened and was successful because the Obama Administration ignored warnings that tensions were rising and ignored requests to send more protection to the embassy. They turned this horrible attack into a media shit storm and attempted to place all the blame on Obama and his administration. To make them seem even worse conservatives spread rumors around and begged the question, “Why does Obama hate Americans?”

Of course anyone with a brain can see that this was a republican attempt to discredit the president and make him seem like an anti-American Islamic socialist that wants to see Americans die and wants to turn the country on its head. In order to do this they had to prove that Obama refused to send backup to the Benghazi Embassy even after multiple requests to the White House for additional assistance. Of course, the only news network that was trying to discredit the White House was Fox News. They wanted the American people to believe this crock about the president not caring about Americans enough to send out reinforcements. Unfortunately for Fox they had all the answers and knew exactly why the president did this, they just couldn’t prove anything.

Recently though on the CBS program 60 Minutes they covered the Benghazi story, as one man was brave enough to step up to the plate and tell the truth about what really happened in Benghazi, and how he tried to warn the White House many times and that his voice fell on deaf ears. This man is Morgan Jones and he was a security officer sent to protect the Benghazi mission.

60 Minutes did this report based on everything Jones had told them. He told them that he warned the Obama Administration that more backup was needed, and that he was there during the September 11^th 2012 attack on the Benghazi embassy.

When this was aired on television Fox News jumped on it, almost as if they were relieved. Fox News personalities were talking about how the story has to be true because 60 Minutes wouldn’t cover the story if it wasn’t. They were also touting themselves for breaking the “scandal” story saying “60 Minutes reported on things that Fox uncovered months ago.”

Fox was generally happy now that another news network corroborated their insinuations about the Benghazi attack. They’ve been so hell bent on finding out exactly what happened and trying to get the American people to see if as a huge act or corruption and cover-ups designed to kill US citizens and protect our anti-American president. So this was exactly what Fox needed, someone who was there who can backup everything they have said about this incident, and now they’ve got him. Only problem is that the story that Morgan Jones gave CBS was entirely false.

CBS discovered that the incident report Jones filed with his employer was completely different from what he told 60 Minutes. The New York Times discovered that he told the FBI that he was no where near the compound during the attack, a claim which Jones says is a smear attack against him and not true despite the fact that the report he gave the FBI are consistent with statements he gave to Blue Mountain, a British-based contractor hired by the state department to secure the perimeter around the compound.

After this was all discovered 60 Minutes had this to say:

60 Minutes has learned of new information that undercuts the account told to us by Morgan Jones of his actions on the night of the attack on the Benghazi compound.
We are currently looking into this serious matter to determine if he misled us, and if so, we will make a correction.

Fox News had nothing to do with releasing this story, as all they did was talk about the 60 Minutes report and brag about how this was all stuff that they had uncovered months ago…they just never had any proof. And now that this guy Morgan Jones comes up and says he has proof they are all super excited to tout themselves as great investigative journalists. But much to their chagrin the story turned out to be false and Morgan, whose REAL NAME is actually Dylan Davies lied to 60 Minutes about being there during the attack. Fox has a really bad reputation for saying things with no proof to back them up. They can’t even find someone to lie for them; they have to wait until another news organization covers it. And even though it turned out to be lies, Fox will only use this situation to make other news networks out to be untrustworthy.

You see, Fox plays semantics and so they can never be held responsible for the things the say. Just like Bill O told Jon Stewart on his show, “I’m an opinion man” even though Jon told him that he may see himself as an opinion man but he consistently delivers his opinions as fact and leaves little to the imagination otherwise. Of course Bill firmly denies this, but it’s true. Bill even likes to call his show the “No Spin Zone” yet he wants to say he is an opinion man who doesn’t present his information as factual. Jesus H. Christ if that’s not spin I don’t know what is.









So this is just a case of Fox jumping on any lie they can propagate and spread. Lucky for them the majority of their viewers are not very smart and much like Fox News itself the viewers never bother to check facts. So unfortunately I can see people talking about this all like it is real and wasn’t debunked. So just remember folks, when someone tries to tell you that Fox News was right on the money about Benghazi because of this misleading 60 Minutes report make sure you correct them and tell them to check their facts. Because this is the type of bullshit that will be spread around the streets and of course social media sites like it already has been. You just need to remember one simple thing about Benghazi: Republicans cut spending on protecting embassies, which is exactly why the Benghazi embassy was under protected.  

FROM THE ARTICLE:

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

The Obama Administration had nothing to do with cutting the funds, and because of the republican led cut back the Benghazi Embassy was left under protected and the White House had it’s hands tied and couldn’t send out extra help. And now they want to turn around and blame it all on the president and Hilary Clinton? What a waste of time…



SOURCES:
Republicans Admit Cutting Funds for Embassies
60 Minutes Apologizes for Misleading Benghazi Report
 

Obama’s Big Bad Benghazi Cover-up

On September 11^th 2012 an armed group of militants attacked a US Diplomatic consulate in Libya which killed four Americans and injured three Americans and seven Libyans. The next day President Obama addressed the people calling it an “outrageous attack.” And then the story was over with and everyone went back on with their lives. Well, not exactly.

Leave it up to the Republicans. John McCain came out blasting President Obama after comments he made at his Rose Garden address. McCain is blaming the Obama Administration of a cover-up in this incident in Benghazi, and rightfully so since Obama never actually told the American people that a diplomatic mission to Libya was attacked.

Wait a second…yes, he did tell the American people that a diplomatic mission in Benghazi was attacked. So wait, I’m confused about this now. What exactly was the cover-up? I’m looking as hard as I can to see it, reading between each line I can, but it is no where to be found. The more I think of it the more it boggles my mind. There was an attack on a US diplomatic mission to Benghazi…four Americans were killed…the next day President Obama spoke about it openly…what did he say?

TRANSCRIPT OF OBAMA SPEECH:

“Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  Among those killed were our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.”

…

“It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save.  At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.  When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.  He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.”

…

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

OK yeah so he openly spoke about it, but where the hell is the cover-up part? What are John McCain and the GOP saying about the Obama Administration? As I searched for this answer I found a lovely piece at www.breitbart.com which features quotes from Bret Baier of the Fox News Network. “Oh boy,” I thought.

So it turns out that this cover-up the GOP and right-winged talking heads are going on about is that the attack was actually a terrorist attack and that the President is trying to cover it up. But wait a second…did Obama say “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”? Is it not clear that he is saying in this very sentence that the attack against US diplomats in Benghazi was in fact a terrorist attack? Not according to Bret Baier of Fox News, no.

As I said, I found this little piece from an article Bret wrote and posted on his own website. If you’re familiar with Faux News you can smell the BS spin job they use to try to say that President Obama is covering up the fact that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

FROM THE ARTICLE:

These are two crucial answers in the big picture.  Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.

Can you smell it? It smells like ‘Pure Grade A 100% Faux News Bullshit’. The spin tactic being used here is so out in the open and overt that a five year old could point it out.

First off, let’s go into this article that I found. It’s actually about Faux News man Bret Baier who says that he has proof that Obama is covering up the fact that the Benghazi attack was actually a terrorist attack. He states that a CBS interview with the President was recorded in October in which this was said:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.  And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.


He then goes on to say that the recording wasn’t aired for more than six weeks and that they still failed to air the interview even when questions about the incident were being raised during the second presidential debate. As I read, the author states that when asked if the Benghazi attack was in fact a terrorist attack the moderator, Candy Crowley, stepped in and spoke for Obama falsely stating that Obama in fact called it an act of terror on September 12^th 2012 at his Rose Garden interview.

Falsely stated? How did the moderator falsely state that Obama called the act an act of terror when he did in fact say it was an act of terror? The author goes on to make the argument that if this didn’t happen and the moderator didn’t step in and lie for Obama that Romney would have won the debate, and that CBS withheld this interview to assist President Obama cover-up any dishonesty about the attacks and assist him in his reelection campaign.   

So here is the spin. Obama says in his Rose Garden interview that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,” essential labeling the attack as a terror attack. It’s not so much because he said it was an act of terror but because he can’t prove it’s an act of terror, and the GOP is using this as an excuse to call into question the credibility of the Obama Administration. Merely because there are different people with different opinions on what actually happened in Benghazi the right-wing political machine is using the incident to call the Obama Administration into question about an alleged cover-up on whether or not the attack was terrorist in nature or not. If Obama says in a speech that terror will never shake our resolve than isn’t it clear he is just covering his ass on both sides of the spectrum? Can’t he think to himself, “Well we don’t know if this is a terror attack yet, but either way terror will not shake us”? I am wouldn’t that be a very poignant thing to say to keep our spirits up? No, instead the GOP wants to try to call Obama a liar because there were conflicting reports on whether or not it was a terrorist attack and because he didn’t have to answer his question at the debate.

But the truth is simple, if Obama had come out during the debate and said, “Yes, terrorists did in fact attack a US Diplomatic mission to Benghazi” the Romney campaign would have turned right around and said, “See? There was a terrorist attack on Americans in Benghazi and Obama never saved them. He is weak against terror.” This is just another use of political spin and word play and they know it.

Word play and semantics are being used here heavily and lets face it they are simple tactics to use and they work for any argument you are in. You just have to change a word or the meaning or a word to make your argument. It’s not ‘Gun Control’ it’s ‘Preventative measures against violent crimes’, it’s not a ‘job’ it’s a ‘career’, don’t say the word ‘compromise’, don’t say ‘capitalism’ say ‘free economic market’, don’t say ‘taxes the rich’ say ‘takes from the rich’, they are not ‘middle class’ they are ‘hardworking tax payers’, ‘government spending’ is ‘waste’, ‘entrepreneur’ is ‘job creator’. And in this case we can also define what these are based on who is currently in office, Republican or Democrat.

And in this case of the Benghazi Terror Attack Cover-up the word terrorism is now redefined. You see if Bush were in office this case would be easy, it would be an act of terror, plain and simple, no need for investigation. Why? Because it happened to Americans in a foreign country, the attackers were Muslim (or possibly Muslim) and it happened AFTER 9/11/01. See that? Those are the ingredients for terror under Bush's watch. But the Republicans are willing to change their view when it's a Democrat in office. Now the definition has changed and we should investigate this to see if it was a terror attack, because terror attacks are so deeply thought out and largely complex and don't require just a few Americans to die by the hands of foreigners in a land where maybe there are terrorists. You see now for a terror attack to be considered a terror attack one needs to form a terror group and intentionally attack American interests.

So as you can see, he Republicans have a back up plan for just in case not all of their criterion are met for a terrorist attack. See if there is no terror group that comes out and takes responsibility the right-wingers can say, “Oh see this doesn't fit the bill of what we know as a terror attack. This Benghazi thing was just some protest that went violent and unfortunately some Americans got caught up in it and were killed.” And BOOM, just like that Obama’s image is changed. He isn’t a guy who is weak on terror, he’s a liar who called a protest riot a terrorist attack. And how can the American people trust a president who can't tell the difference between a protest riot and a terrorist attack?

As usual I had a hard time wondering what the right-wingers are trying to get at. Are they trying to say that Obama is covering up the fact the the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, or are they are calling him a liar for calling it an attack. They can go either way with this issue and like all politics it is bunk. We shouldn't be worrying about whether or not it's a terrorist act by a politicians definition or not
  Let’s take time to step away from the TV for a moment and make our own decision without some talking head political pundit or politician. Lets think about the word terror and what it means, because in my view any act of violence is an act or terror. Violence is terrible, terrifying, and for lack of a better word, terror. Terror has no exact definition unless the word is being used for political gain. War is terror, being mugged is terror, flying a plane into a building is terror, and getting caught up in a violent riot is terror. It’s not that complicated folks, all of these things are terror so don't let the right-wing media change your view on what terror actually is. 


SOURCES: 

www.breitbart.com Proof Obama Refused to Call Benghazi Terror CBS Covered-Up

President Obama's Rose Garden Speech (VIDEO)

President Obama's Rose Garden Speech (TRANSCRIPT)

Glenn Beck’s Gold Interest

Glenn Beck is a misleading, liar who can’t prove half the things he says? No way! That can’t be! Oh wait, hold on. It is!

What’s going on in this man’s mind, or lack thereof? The most recent news about conservative commentator Glenn Beck is just adding a little more icing to the cake he has been building upon himself for the past year. Beck is being accused this time of a huge conflict of interests regarding one of his business relationships, in this case the relationship between he and the precious metals company called Goldline International.

Critics are saying that Beck, who has shows both on TV and on the radio, is guilty of misleading his audience by advising them to buy gold in advance because of the potential threat of the US dollar losing value on the world market. But the thing that’s so bad about this is that Beck isn’t an economist, nor does he know anything about where this economy is going and how much better we are doing, but it has to do with the fact that he is a paid spokesman for Goldline International.

This has been going on for a while though, in fact ever since Beck was on CNN. His on air promotions for buying gold include advising people to build “fruit cellars” and follow the “three G system” which is “God, Gold, and Guns.” Beck has even had the CEO of Goldline International on his radio show to talk about the future of America after an apocalypse of epic proportion which will leave the economy in ruins, and the only ones who will be able to survive are those who bought gold. Here is a quote from Beck’s show:

When the system eventually collapses, and the government comes with guns and confiscates, you know, everything in your home and all your possessions, and then you fight off the raving mad cannibalistic crowds that Ted Turner talked about, don't come crying to me. I told you: get gold.

Wow, scare tactics much? I like how he says the government is going to come and take away everything you own. Sounds like a Bush administration to me and the destruction of the middle class. Beck is not just guilty of being an ignorant TV personality who is a paid spokesman for gold, but he should also be guilty for trying to spread panic throughout the USA.

But what’s more is the fact that Fox News strictly prohibits on air personalities from making paid product endorsements. But when Fox was contacted about this issue a strange answer was given…

FROM THE ARTICLE:

…the network "makes an exception for its commentators who are also radio hosts," adding that they knew upfront that hiring Beck came with the understanding that he was also a radio host and that they "had to be accepting of certain elements of that." Nevertheless, a Fox spokeswoman said that the company is addressing the matter with Beck's agent, George Hiltzik.

Beck actually responded to this issue though saying, “So I shouldn’t make money?”

Beck is shown in a video clip that was made by Air America saying that the value of the dollar is slipping (hello FED anyone?) and that the two ways you can stop this are by purchasing gold and joining…a tea party. He’s just jumping on the “Obama is a bad socialist guy” routine, like every other Republican who wants you to believe that Obama will be the cause of New World Order and the rise of a new currency.

Come on America, are we all that blind? We all know it was Bush, who signed the North American Union pact that will usher in a new world order. But it’s not just Republicans or Democrats who are behind this; it’s the Federal Reserve Bank. Beck is no smarter than any other Republican commentator on Fox.

Rather, he and Hannity, and O’Reilly and the rest of the conservative commentators on Fox are all just puppets. They will say anything they have to in order to make you scared so they can earn crazy amounts of money. I mean, do you really think that Beck is going to be hurting if the economy does fall? Of course not, he’s got all the money he will need because he sold his soul to the devil of Fox News.

Check out the video made by Air America, and keep in mind that you’re real masters are not in the government, but rather they are in the Federal Reserve. I’m not saying that gold is a bad investment; I’m just upset that no one knows anything about our economy or how money is made. By all means go out and buy some gold and stash it. Don’t do it because you think you can trust Glenn Beck…

Murdoch’s In Deep

The Fox Noise Network is still at it, proliferating lies about President Obama. And now their owner Rupert Murdoch is jumping into the ring to protect his network’s commentators with absolute nonsense.

Murdoch must be going senile, or he’s just stupid enough to say that Fox commentators never drew comparisons between President Obama and Stalin. I did a big scoop on Glenn Beck a while back where he’s trying to proof that Obama is a socialist for one, and for two Fox news commentators take the chance to call Obama Stalin-like or Hitler-like every chance they can find.

So why try and lie about it Murdoch? Why say that none of your commentators have ever called Obama Stalin? There is a few videos at the bottom I would like people to watch to proof my point.

Murdoch is also in very deep with his statement defending Glenn Beck. Back in the summer Beck called Obama a racist, and said that he believes Obama has a problem with white people. Such a stupid comment seeing as how Obama is half black half white…

So wait, I really need to know what makes Obama a racist in these people’s heads. What was it that he said? Can anyone remember what he said or did to make a news organization think he is a racist?

In the video, Murdoch is being asked about Glenn Beck and how he called Obama a racist and Murdoch agrees with Glenn Beck. Murdoch says that Obama “did make a very racist comment…about blacks and whites and so on.” He goes on to say that it was a comment that probably shouldn’t have been used against the President, but if you assess what Beck was saying you’d realize he was right.

Unfortunately there was more to the video that Media Matters for America cut out for some reason. But they showed the same interview on MSNBC and the interviewer asks Murdoch what the racist comment was that Obama used and when it was used. Murdoch couldn’t answer either of those questions.

Now a spokesperson for Fox is spreading the word that Murdoch does not believe that Obama is a racist.

FROM THE ARTICLE:

News Corp. chief Rupert Murdoch has drawn criticism following an interview with Sky News Australia, where his comments were interpreted by some as being in agreement with Glenn Beck's view that President Obama's "a racist."


But News Corp. spokesperson Gary Ginsberg tells POLITICO that Murdoch did not intend to suggest that he had the same opinion as Beck.

"He does not at all, for a minute, think the president is a racist," Ginsberg said.

Murdoch, in the interview, said that the president "did make a very racist comment" and seemed to indicate he thought Beck was right in making the controversial claim. Media Matters, and others, quickly seized upon the interview as evidence that Murdoch shared the same view as the Fox News host.


“Seemed to indicated?” Murdoch’s own words were, “And, you know, that was something which perhaps shouldn't have been said about the president, but if you actually assess what he was talking about, he [Beck] was right.”

So Glenn Beck was right in calling Obama a racist, and Murdoch agrees that if you assess what Glenn Beck said you would realize he is right. And yet Murdoch does not think the president is a racist?

Is Murdoch trying to promote Beck from the football team’s water boy position to Sean Hannity’s cheerleading position? Or does he want to make him quarterback in place of Bill O’Reilly?

Lets get back into reality can we please? There is no proof, NONE WHAT SO EVER, that Obama ever made a racist comment against white people. There is also no proof that he is a socialist or a Nazi (which are too different things…funny how people have no idea what either of those words means these days).

Glenn Beck goes on TV and lies about the president and loses sponsors. Until this man can come up with any proof to back up his claim he is a lame duck. And Murdoch is even lamer for going one step further than Beck by saying that Obama made a racist statement which no one can seem to remember.

If he did make a racist statement then why isn’t Fox covering that and presenting proof? If Obama did slip up during a speech why isn’t there any video/audio for it? Why is it that no other media source, not even Fox has the proof of this claim? A better question, why are these people calling themselves journalists when they concocted lies and stories? People like to say that MSNBC and other networks do the same which is untrue. And if any of those commentators on MSNBC did in fact say something that wasn’t true they always apologize the next day and correct the error. I have NEVER seen Fox make a correction based on a story they broadcasted that wasn’t factual.

Get Glenn Beck off the air and make Rupert Murdoch air a correction on behalf of his entire “news” organization. Fox is not news, it’s a 24/7 political operation.

Obama-nator II: Indoctrination Day

The time has come, just one day to go until Obama’s positive pep talk for schools. Challenging children to set goals for themselves and to stay in school and get an education. It should be one momentous day for our country’s children, but there are still people out there who are trying to say that this is no pep talk, but the President indoctrinating our children.

Seriously, a lot of people in America believe that when Obama speaks to our children that he is going to be indoctrinating them with socialist attitudes and ideas. So I’m challenging anyone out there who agrees with this theory of Obama indoctrination to tel me why you think that and show some proof that this is actually what Obama is planning on doing.

I already have done my research…and then some over the past weekend. I’ve been getting ready for this one, because this one is going to be big. So I challenge you to prove that Obama’s address to America’s children will have anything to do with healthcare, banks, automobile companies, or taxes. Well…anyone?

FROM THE HUFFPOST:

A spokesman said the party was particularly concerned about the study questions the department had provided. "The goal of these materials is to tell students why they should support President Obama in his overall agenda," said Katie Gordon.
"If the former administration had done something like this, the media would be handling this a lot differently," she added.

We reviewed the study materials but didn't see any mention of controversial issues, let alone any attempt to indoctrinate students in socialism. The pre-K through 6th grade materials said the main ideas of the speech would be "citizenship, personal responsibility, civic duty." The materials for high schoolers mention "personal responsibility, goals, persistence."

If you were to ask me I would say without a doubt that the President’s speech is rather innocuous. And what’s also very true about this issue is that if the previous administration was to do this and speak to our children in school it would be greeted with open arms.

Seriously (and I got this from the HuffPost) this pep talk caused so much anger and craziness you’d think that Obama was going on national TV to show our kids how to slip a condom onto a banana. It’s just not going to happen!

FROM FOX NEWS:

Gordon, of Tampa, Fla., is among a growing number of parents across the country who are troubled by the president's plan to address elementary, middle and high school students in an online and televised speech Tuesday.

"It's a form of indoctrination, and I think, really, it's indicative of the culture that the Obama administration is trying to create," Gordon told FOXNews.com on Thursday. "It's very socialistic."

How the hell is talking to kids about work ethics and setting goals socialistic? Unless you have any proof that what Obama is going to be talking about deals with socialism then present it! Unless Obama starts to talk about business, healthcare, taxes etc then it’s not a socialist indoctrination. It’s not an attempt to make kids believe that they should support President Obama, it’s an attempt to make kids have their own ideas about an issue and to get active with the community. Last I checked you could be a member of any political party and still be active in the community.

If you don’t want your child to watch Obama give schools an inspirational pep talk on the value of education then tell your school. I’m sure they’ll find some ridicules alternative activity for your child to do. But whatever you do don’t tell the schools not to show this address, because I’m sure they are some parents who would like they’re child to watch the speech, so don’t ruin it for them because of your misplaced fears and your uneducated beliefs of what socialism is.

Don’t forget to call the local school districts and tell them you want the Obama address to be shown in schools!

NMUSD- 714-424-5000

FVSD- 714-843-3200

HBUHSD- 714-903-7000

These numbers are just the districts by me, you district can be found just as easily on the internet.

UPDATE!

This article was found just as I was finishing up this new blog! The Obama speech has been released (or at least a few parts) to show to America that it is not an indoctrination!

FROM THE ARTICLE:

WASHINGTON – In a speech that drew fire even before he delivered it, President Barack Obama is telling the nation's schoolchildren he "expects great things from each of you."

"At the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world," Obama said. "And none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities."
The White House posted Obama's remarks on its Web site at midday Monday. He's scheduled to deliver the talk from Wakefield High School in suburban Arlington, Va., Tuesday. It will be broadcast live on C-SPAN and on the White House Web site.

Obama's planned talk has proven controversial, with several conservative organizations and individuals accusing him of trying to pitch his arguments too aggressively in a local-education setting. White House officials, including Education Secretary Arne Duncan, have said the allegations are silly.

Oh my god! Obama’s trying to tell our kids that we have the most supportive parents, the best teachers, the best schools, but that it won’t matter if our children don’t fulfill their responsibilities! Socialist! Socialist! I found a socialist everyone!
This is just stupid.

FROM THE ARTICLE:

"It's a sad state of affairs that many in this country politically would rather start an "Animal House" food fight rather than inspire kids to stay in school, to work hard, to engage parents to stay involved, and to ensure that the millions of teachers that are making great sacrifices continue to be the best in the world," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday. "It's a sad state of affairs."
In the prepared remarks, Obama tells young people that all the work of parents, educators and others won't matter "unless you show up to those schools, pay attention to those teachers."

Yes, it is a sad state of affairs when someone turns a good message into something political. I don’t see how this is indoctrinating at all. I don’t see how this instills communist ideas and attitudes in our children.

In my last few blogs about this subject I was under the impression that this speech was only going to be delivered to students through the internet. I found out that C-SPAN is actually going to be carrying the speech.

If that’s true, than why is Dr. Hubbard from Newport-Mesa Unified School District claiming that all of his schools are having internet access problems and that’s why he can’t show the kids Obama’s speech? That is one lame duck of an excuse and I urge everyone to call NMUSD and leave a message telling them what you think of his lame excuses.

Indoctrination…yeah right. Lets see you try and pull that stuff now righties...

FULL SPEECH RIGHT HERE!!! YOU WILL FIND NO INDOCTRINATION, THIS IS OBAMA'S FULL SPEECH!! CLICK HERE!!

Glenn Beck Loses Sponserships

Media Matters for America is reporting today that Glenn Beck has had more than twenty ads pulled from his show in the last two weeks. Companies like Wal-Mart, Ally Bank, Best Buy, CVS, and others have pulled their ads from the controversial show which is aired on the Fox News Network.

All of this hit the fan for Beck when he said on the show Fox & Friends, that Obama was actually a racist who has a deep seeded hated for white people. Beck is losing more and more of his sponsors because of this radical (yes I yes 'radical'), hate mongering rhetoric.

Other companies that are giving Beck the boot are, "ConAgra, GEICO, Lawyers.com, Men’s Wearhouse, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance, RadioShack, Roche, SC Johnson, Sanofi-Aventis, Sargento, and State Farm Insurance."

I've been following this for a while, but I've been too caught up Rush "Limbo" to write anything about it.

FROM THE PRESS RELEASE:

“We are heartened to see so many corporate citizens step up in support of our campaign against Glenn Beck,” said James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org. “Their action sends a clear a message to Glenn Beck: Broadcasters shouldn’t abuse the privilege they enjoy by spewing dangerous and racially charged hate language over the air. No matter their political affiliation, hate language doesn’t belong in our national dialogue.”

This is perfect. It's nonpartisan, and it shows the right wingers that the lefty libs can play the same game. Back when Bush was in office and people called him a warmonger and etc, many pundits like Sean Hannity stepped up and said, "how dare you say those things about our President? That is anti-American!"

Well guys, saying things about Obama like, "he's a racist" is the same thing...but worse. White men in America know NOTHING about racism, except how to proliferate it. And when you come out and just start hatefully smearing someone like that with no proof you should accept the consequences and keep your mouths shut.

Ya know, this has been going on for a while. A lot of people called Bush a racist after Katrina. Kayne West said something to the affect of, "Bush doesn't give a fuck about black people." Then guess what happened at the end of '08? A black man was elected president. Now it's the same game, only slightly reversed. The old white man from Texas isn't the racist. It's the almost old black man for Chicago that's the racist.

Except here's the problem. When Bush was in office you heard a very few people talk about Bush being a racist. Many of the right winged news outlets shot that rhetoric down, and many liberal news outlets wouldn't touch it unless they were super brazen. The truth is, the whole thought that Bush was racist was shot down because no one wants to view their president as some racist who doesn't have the public's interest at mind.

Look everyone, it's called spin. I have been talking about spin for a long time now (even on my older blogs) and all I can say is BEWARE. Know your politicians, know your issues, and know your SPIN. But just keep this in mind; when the left was spinning Bush they never lost a whole bunch of their sponsors. Take into account spin on both sides and you see a kind of middle ground (if you are like me that is). Look at Glenn Becks spin and it takes spin to a whole new level (kind of like Bill O'Reilly, but he is way more articulate then Beck), especially when he hatefully bashes our President and calls him a racist who hates white people. He never gave any kind of scale (lol), so as far as I know Beck is saying, "Obama is one of the biggest racists in the world. He hates every white man with a passion and he wants them all to fall into poverty."

Mr. Beck, with all due respect your hateful rants about the president are wrong and libelous. You shouldn't just lose your sponsors, you should lose your show.