It would seem that Fox News is the current target of the White House. One might wonder why. Of course the answer is simple. Fox News has shown (through Cable TV and the web) opinions that are contrary to that of the Obama administration.

It is interesting to see how the White House deals with dissent. Instead of having people from the administration go on Fox News and debate the issues, they try and delegitimize Fox News. This is no different than getting into an argument about a matter of historical fact. Sometimes one person says, “You’re too young. You don’t know what happened back then.” Of course attempting to pull age/rank is not a response; it’s an admission to defeat.

The fact that the White House believes that it has to stop a news agency is proof that the news agency is effective. The White House, wanting to stop a news agency by attempting to discredit it is proof that the news agency is reporting facts. If there were factual issues with Fox News' reporting, why has there been no direct debate amongst those on Fox News and those in the Obama administration?

Many people consider Fox News to be a completely right wing news agency. For those people I offer you this:

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2009/05/27/fox-pink-eyes.html

It's hard to believe, but Pink Eyes — a.k.a. Damian Abraham, the notoriously manic lead singer of Toronto hardcore band F---ed Up — has joined the ranks of Fox News commentators.

After two guest appearances on the ultra-conservative cable news network's early-morning show Red Eye, Abraham has been asked to come on the show more regularly.

So, we have "Pink Eyes" on Red Eye. But wait a minute! I was told that Fox News was a right wing echo chamber! If that was the case, why would they have so many liberals on their shows? Ever heard of Hannity and Colmes?

That's the problem with delegitimizing a TV news network. It's hard to do because you just bring it more viewers. Those viewers are going to see the liberals right next to the conservatives.

I'm afraid that the White House has lost this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/white-house-loses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

The Obama administration on Thursday failed in its attempt to manipulate other news networks into isolating and excluding Fox News, as Republicans on Capitol Hill stepped up their criticism of the hardball tactics employed by the White House.

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency.

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.

The pushback came after White House senior adviser David Axelrod told ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday that Fox News is not a real news organization and other news networks "ought not to treat them that way."

Media analysts cheered the decision to boycott the Feinberg interview unless Fox News was included, saying the administration's gambit was taking its feud with Fox News too far. President Obama has already declined to go on "Fox News Sunday," even while appearing on the other Sunday shows.

Perhaps the other major networks caught on to the fact that this was an attempt by the White House to silence the media. If they try to silence Fox News; who's next?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://www.buycostumes.com/Illegal-Alien-Adult-Costume/60504/ProductDetail.aspx

I saw this and couldn't resist myself. I can't think of any reason why this costume would anger anyone.

Now, if the alien was wearing a sombrero and a mustache, I could see where some people might get offended.

People need to lighten up. It's like the boy who cried wolf. If these "immigrant rights groups" cry every time the word alien comes around, nobody will listen. I stopped listening when they had the immigrant parades in 2006. A day without immigrants. You know, the one where the majority of the crowds were waving flags from other countries, while at the same time screaming for rights here in the U.S.

You can see, from the above images, that the people at these rallies really love The United States of America. Notice the sign that says "Full Rights for All Immigrants." If that were the case, why would anyone become a U.S. citizen? Oh that's right --these people don't want to be U.S. citizens.

I think that the alien costume is far less offensive than these images from A Day Without Immigrants 2006.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

This is not a surprise.

So Obama wants to change the country. We're here to change the country, right? I ask one simple question, "change the country into what?"

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8299824.stm

The committee said he won for efforts to boost diplomacy and co-operation.

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the Norwegian committee said in a statement.

"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Since when does a U.S. president govern based on "values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population?"

So, the Nobel Committee believes that to lead the world, you must do so through consensus. That consensus being based primarily in countries other than the one Obama took an oath to protect. After all the U.S. doesn't represent a majority of the worlds population. So if Obama were to govern based on the world's consensus; the U.S. citizens would have much less pull when compared with the rest of the world.

Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".

So Obama is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for things he has not yet done. Does this not illustrate the illegitimacy the Nobel Committee?

Obama's response is rather strange:

"I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honour specific achievements," he said.

"It's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st Century."

How exactly is a prize awarded to Obama "a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st Century?" Were all other world leaders sitting on their hands until the moment that Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? This is absurd.

The real reasoning behind this award is that Obama is currently, and will continue, to weaken the United States. Obama's policies have, and will reduce the United States' influence globally.

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112777942

Iran's president hit back Saturday at President Barack Obama's accusation that his country had sought to hide its construction of a new nuclear site, arguing that Tehran reported the facility to the U.N. even earlier than required.

Obama and the leaders of France and Britain accused Iran of keeping the construction hidden from the world for years. The U.S. president said last month that Iran's actions "raised grave doubts" about its promise to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only.

ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has also said Tehran was "on the wrong side of the law" over the new plant and should have revealed its plans as soon as it decided to build the facility.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad challenged that view in a speech Saturday, saying that Iran voluntarily revealed the facility to the IAEA in a letter on Sept. 21. He said that was one year earlier than necessary under the agency's rules.

"The U.S. president made a big and historic mistake," Iranian state TV quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. "Later it became clear that (his) information was wrong and that we had no secrecy."

White House spokesman Tom Vietor said the administration had no comment on Ahmadinejad's remarks.

Iranian officials argue that under IAEA safeguard rules, a member nation is required to inform the U.N. agency about the existence of a nuclear facility six months before introducing nuclear material into the machines. Iran says the new facility won't be operational for 18 months, and so it has not violated any IAEA requirements.

The IAEA has said that Iran is obliged under the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to notify the organization when it begins to design a new nuclear facility.

Iran says it voluntarily implemented the Additional Protocol for 2 1/2 years as a confidence-building gesture, but its parliament passed legislation in 2007 forcing the government to end such cooperation after the country was referred to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions over its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment.

The IAEA has countered by saying that a government cannot unilaterally abandon such an agreement.

Does Iran have a nuclear program? Yes. Are they using it for peaceful endeavors? Probably not. Should Iran be forced to do what the U.N. tells it to do? No.

I hate to take the side of Iran here, but I think that there is quite a bit to consider here. The U.N. placed more stringent rules on Iran when it comes to reporting on their nuclear activity. So does Iran, as a sovereign nation, have the right to overrule the U.N. measure? I say yes. I think this sets a dangerous precedent; when the U.N. demands that a sovereign nation bend to its will.

Iran made a decision to stop going along with the U.N. protocol. This, because the protocol, led to Iran being turned over to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions. Sanctions were placed on Iran which caused economic problems, so the Iranian government decided to ignore the protocol. Makes sense to me.

Why is this a dangerous precedent?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/5050407/US-backing-for-world-currency-stuns-markets.html

US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner shocked global markets by revealing that Washington is "quite open" to Chinese proposals for the gradual development of a global reserve currency run by the International Monetary Fund.

"The mere fact that the US Treasury Secretary is even entertaining thoughts that the dollar may cease being the anchor of the global monetary system has caused consternation," he said.

Mr Geithner later qualified his remarks, insisting that the dollar would remain the "world's dominant reserve currency ... for a long period of time" but the seeds of doubt have been sown.

The value of the dollar could be controlled --entirely by outside forces.

Other than the fact that the United States Dollar, currently, is the unit of world trade; what is there to keep the U.N. from placing sanctions against the United States?

The U.N. is not exactly filled with U.S. friendly countries if you remember. Polling shows that most Europeans would like to see a weaker United States, or at least a United States with less influence. The vast majority of votes in the U.N. are votes against the United States.

Just something to think about...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.