Thursday, April 28, 2011

A List That Explains Most Everything

The 15 top reasons why we all should vote for Obama and the Democrats:

1. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

2. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

3. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it or it applies to radical Democrats only!

4. I voted Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect myself from murderers and thieves.

5. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

6. I voted Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

7. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits paid by American tax payers.

8. I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

9. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

10. I voted Democrat because I think that it’s better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle or gopher.

11. I voted Democrat because while we live in the greatest, most wonderful country in the world, I was promised “HOPE AND CHANGE”.

12. I vote Democrat because I think unions should be allowed to exhort money from everyone to buy Democrat Politicians!

13. I vote Democrat because I believe the federal government can do a much better jobs deciding what medicine and medical treatment I need then me or my Doctor.

14. I vote Democrat because I believe the invading horde of illegal aliens, welfare leeches, criminals and the lazy deserve my money more than I do.

15. I vote Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my butt, it’s unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.

First Posted by Gary DeMar on April 6, 2011

Thanks Gary!

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Obama the Tax Hypocrite

By Kevin McCullough

President Barack Obama is a hypocrite. He is not willing to practice what he preaches when it comes to taxes. And in so doing, he is exposing the lack of importance his own agenda really carries -- even in his own household.

Let me lay it out for you:

In the 2008 campaign, then-Senator Obama repeatedly scoffed at the tax rates for the majority of the small business class of our country. He repeatedly chided those in the tax bracket that included the highest number of small business owners. He declared that these folks would need to do "more" and suggested that everybody should, "do their share."

He also promised that if he were elected president he would increase tax rates for those making over $250,000 per year, that he would force those in that tax bracket to do more, and that it would be the true measure of patriotism for this group of Americans to pay more in taxes.

He spoke in glowing terms about returning the tax rates in his administration to the levels of the Clinton-era, and challenged those earning above $250,000 a year to embrace their responsibility to pay 39% in federal income taxes (not the rate at the time, which was then 35% under President George W. Bush.)

In his debt reduction speech earlier this month he made his fourth attempt at explaining how he would reduce the deficit. He returned to the idea that those in the top earnings bracket ought to pay what he refers to, constantly, as "their fair share." He insisted that he personally didn't need "yet another tax cut." And he scoffed at the notion that any deficit reduction plan ought to include a tax break.

To hear Mr. Obama rail against those who earn big paychecks you could only come away convinced that this was a president who was as committed to using taxes to reduce the deficit as any president we'd ever seen.

And then we saw his tax return.

In 2010 President Obama earned well over $250,000 in total family income.

In fact the Obama household--after every loophole, donation, and tax exempt charitable donation had been deducted --recorded earnings of $1,700,000 and change. To repeat, this wasn't gross earnings, this was adjusted earnings. This is the amount that he the president had a responsibility to pay taxes on.

For those of you who weren't able to quickly do the math, that's $1,450,000 over the $250,000 in income that he wants to tax at 39 percent -- maximum level in taxes we saw during the Clinton era.

From reports concerning the president's tax returns, however, it looks like he paid roughly $454,000 and change in federal taxes. Sounds like a lot doesn't it?

It is... to most people. But on taxable income of $1,700,000 that only works out to be just a tad more than 26 percent. Whoa! Wait a minute... The president--who had a taxable income of $1,700,000--paid how much?

Had President Obama voluntarily paid his taxes at the rate he believes everyone else in his income bracket ought to pay (39%) in federal taxes, he SHOULD have paid $663,000.

But wait there's more... To put the cherry on top of the sundae, President Obama even received a tax refund back from the government of $12,000.

Last week following his deficit reduction speech--or as I like to call it--the Obama 2012 campaign kick-off event--the president made a series of stops across the country pitching the idea of taxing people in his own income bracket at a much higher level than the amount they currently pay.

I wonder how many of those in the audience at each of these campaign stops even had a clue about what President Obama himself has just paid in taxes. Did they know that he's forking over about $200,000 less per year than what he suggests they ought to pay? And that he got a $12,000 rebate to boot?

Like the phony group of "millionaires" who held press conferences after the president's "deficit reduction" speech and declared they wished to be paying more in taxes, let me remind the president, just as I did the millionaires: the IRS does accept donations.

In fact here's the address: "Internal Revenue Service, Washington D.C., 20001"

So Mr. President before you give your next speech and recommend that those in your own income bracket suggesting that they should be "ponying up" and "doing more" when will you be cutting your own check and putting your money where your mouth is?

In my new book, "No He Can't," I carefully examine the hypocrisy of what our current president does vs. what he says in several areas. It is designed to be great reading as we approach the debate over deficit reduction--or as I like to call it, campaign 2012.

Leadership is not created from simply a cult of personality. It is not doing one thing, while saying something else. Real leadership is acting with clarity when crises present themselves. At this moment, it is something the American executive branch sorely lacks.

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show." His newest book, "No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change" is in stores now.

Friday, April 22, 2011

On Easter Sunday and Always, Remember the Sacrifice of Our Military Men and Women

By KT McFarland

Editor's note: K.T. McFarland has just returned from visiting U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Lent is the season when many Christians offer sacrifice. We give up chocolate, or bread, or steer clear of eating meat on Fridays as a symbol of Christ’s 40 days in the desert. If we make it all the way through Lent to Easter, we’re proud of ourselves, maybe even a little smug and self-righteous for our ability to do without.

Last week I was in Afghanistan and saw what our military men and women do without every day. Things like the sound of their children’s laughter….a peck on the cheek from a loved one while dashing out the door to work…..flopping down on the sofa to relax in front of the TV after a long day…a hot shower….a home-cooked meal…a soft mattress and clean sheets.

But our servicemen and women do without those things for weeks on end, for months at a time. Our active duty forces are in combat for longer periods and with less time at home than ever before. Our reserve forces are being called up more frequently deployed longer.

Our servicemen and women are stretched to the breaking point, and increasingly isolated from the rest of American society. Only 1% of Americans serve in the military in our all-volunteer forces, and it is too easy for the other 99% of us to ignore their sacrifices.

When our forces are deployed overseas, it is 24/7, with no weekends off, no R&R trips away from the front lines. -- Because in modern warfare everything is the front line. You don’t know who your enemy is, because he’s not wearing a uniform. He’s wearing a long, loose-fitting shirt (kamiz shalwar) that could just be baggy….or cover a suicide vest. You could be the target of a sniper hidden on a rooftop, or walk over an IED buried under a harmless looking rock.

Last week I was sitting in a small restaurant at the “Milano”, the recreation center at the ISAF base in Kabul, taking advantage of the great wireless reception to read my e-mails.

In a small table in the corner, a young man in full combat gear sat in front of his open laptop, earphones plugged in and laughing and chatting away. He was skyping with his family; it sounded like he had young children. When he closed the laptop, and took out his earphones, he pressed a hand to his eyes and brushed away the beginnings of a tear. Somehow my "sacrifice" of giving up chocolate for Lent seemed pathetically inadequate.

Whatever you may think about the war in Afghanistan, or Iraq or Libya, remember our military men and women this Easter weekend. Say a special prayer for their safe return, and when you see someone in uniform, give them your thanks.

Kathleen Troia "K.T." McFarland is a Fox News National Security Analyst and host of's DefCon 3. She served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, and wrote Secretary of Defense Weinberger’s November 1984 "Principles of War Speech" which laid out the Weinberger Doctrine. Be sure to watch "K.T." every Wednesday at 2 p.m. ET on's "DefCon3"-- already one of the Web's most watched national security programs.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

MICHAEL GOODWIN: Obama's Living In Fiscal Fantasyland

By Michael Goodwin

Elections have consequences, we are told, but the admonition usually refers to how results shape subsequent events. Yet as last week's huge battle over puny budget trims proved, America already is suffering from an election that is still 18 months away.

Blame President Obama. By waiting until Republicans offered a bold plan to address the staggering debt and deficit problems, then countering with a partisan attack that lacked any serious reforms, he signaled that no major changes will happen until voters speak in 2012.

Indeed, he defined his sketchy financial plan in pure political terms, saying it is "an attempt to clarify the choice that we have as a country right now."

Like many of Obama's claims, this one is both technically accurate and not true. Voters have a "choice" only to the extent that they must choose between fantasy and reality.

Obama's plan resides firmly in the fantasy camp. His vision is that America's financial problems can be fixed by raising taxes on 2 percent of the population. Everything else will take care of itself, or Congress will do something about it down the road.

His is not a plan as much as it is a placeholder while he tries to rally his party's ultra-liberal, anti-business base. He is already in cheap populism mode, telling supporters at a Chicago fund-raiser he "reformed Wall Street so you won't get cheated when you apply for mortgages or take out credit cards."

Contrast that with the more realistic vision of Republican Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. While Ryan's plan, passed Friday by the House, is incomplete and far from perfect, his starting point is honesty: The nation cannot continue on its current path because entitlement spending, especially for health care, will take the country over the cliff. No amount of tax hikes can keep up with the explosion of climbing costs and existing debt, or, as Ryan puts it: "We don't have a problem with our budget because Americans don't pay enough taxes. We have problems with our budget because we spend too much money."

He proposes fundamental changes to save nearly $6 trillion over a decade, including making Medicaid a block-grant program so states can administer it more efficiently. He also proposes a voucher program for Medicare for those under 55. Those already in the program or age 55 and above would not see any reduced benefits.

While both Republicans and Obama are guilty of pushing plans they know the other side won't accept, they are not equally guilty with regard to the fundamental problem. As Ryan argues, comparing his plan to what exists now, as Obama does, is "measuring us against a fiscal fallacy . . . against a future that's not going to happen."

Changes are necessary because the current programs will bankrupt the nation in less than a generation. In fact, some economists warn that a debt crisis could happen in less than five years.

The only choice, then, is what the changes are and how we get there. By failing to be honest about that basic fact and refusing to work now to build a consensus, Obama shows he is willing to forfeit the responsibility of leadership and waste the remainder of his term. Even worse, he intentionally distorts the GOP plan to scare voters.

"Under their vision, we can't invest in roads and bridges and broadband and high-speed rail," Obama told the Chicago crowd. "I mean, we would be a nation of potholes, and our airports would be worse than places that we thought -- that we used to call the Third World."

He went on to say: "That's what the 2012 campaign is going to be about."

His hard-line stance is an admission that nothing significant will change as long as he is in the White House.

Which is pretty amazing when you think about it: He's now the candidate fighting to protect the status quo. And Republicans are the Party of change.

True story.

Michael Goodwin is a New York Post columnist.

Monday, April 18, 2011

Obama Pushes Healthcare Reform…Again!

By Liz Peek

President Obama is in full campaign mode, now promising to Fix Our Budget Deficits!

Unfortunately, Mr. Obama as Cost-cutter is about as believable as Buffy as Vampire-slayer; meanwhile, the need to rally his liberal base is paramount. Consequently, he has offered up juicy sound bites about hitting up “millionaires and billionaires” and a promise -- not to raise taxes, which might not play well on prime time -- but rather to cut “tax expenditures.”

In other words, we are now being treated to more Obama gobbledegook, from the same press office that came up with “kinetic military action” and “man-caused disasters”. And – this is a president that ran on transparency!

The president’s budget speech should, however, be welcomed by Republicans. President Obama unwittingly gave the GOP a rallying cry for the 2012 campaign. In (finally) putting forth his proposal to narrow our country’s long-term budget deficits, Mr. Obama all but acknowledged that Medicare and Medicaid – which Obama has called the “single biggest contributors to our long-term deficit” -- remain open sores, oozing red ink into the foreseeable future.

Stop a minute for this to sink in. After all the disruptive skirmishing and chicanery that finally paved the way for Obamacare, we now find that we are again going to the mattresses --- over healthcare costs. Does no one else find this a complete and perfect indictment of the cynically titled Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that Mr. Obama sold the nation? In effect, the president makes clear that his gigantic healthcare bill, that divided the country when it needed healing, did not fix the problem. Republicans should fasten onto this virtual admission like limpets.

Remember the promises? “We agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of healthcare….This plan will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of that program. And because it gets rid of the waste and inefficiencies in our health care system, this will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade.” Moreover, Mr. Obama touted the cost-saving nature of the bill: “whatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs…those elements are in this bill.” Most important, the president emphasized that the bill “has to be budget neutral, it’s got to be deficit neutral…”

It turns out that Obamacare did not bend the cost curve, was not budget neutral and in fact added to the country’s swollen government healthcare budget. Is anyone surprised?

What is surprising is that President Obama is now ramping up to make the debate over healthcare a cornerstone of his reelection campaign. This is unexpected because so far Obamacare has not won the president many friends, except from his liberal base. Democrats continue to say the fault is in the messaging – that it was not “sold” properly. Rubbish! President Obama, who early in his tenure was extremely popular, spent months and months criss-crossing the country, giving dozens of speeches that extolled its virtues. Nonetheless, Americans remain neutral at best on Obamacare. They would surely be even more negative except that the large taxes incorporated into the bill have not begun to kick in—those were cleverly designed to become effective only after Mr. Obama ran for re-election.

Republicans need to broadcast what the debate over Obama’s healthcare bill cost the nation. At a time when confidence was shattered by the financial crisis, when businesses were terrified by plummeting demand and needed reassurance, we had instead a president focused on his legacy.

Over the protests of business managers big and small, the president insisted on changing the cost of hiring workers, and flipping upside down existing insurance programs offered to employees. Even as millions of Americans lost their jobs, the president was consumed with the historic nature of his quest.

Economist and former senator Phil Gramm makes the real cost of Obamacare clear. He compares our current recovery to those that followed the other ten recessions that have occurred since World War II. He says that if this bounce-back had kept pace with those of other cycles, GDP would be significantly higher than it is today, and nearly 12 million more Americans would have jobs. As he acknowledges, Obama supporters will argue that this case was unusual because of the depth of the downturn. Mr. Gramm points out that historically “the bigger the bust, the bigger the boom” that follows. The numbers don’t lie. In past recessions, three years after the downturn, real GDP had increased 7.6% beyond the pre-recession level. Today, GDP is only 0.1% higher.

That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the real cost of Obamacare. Of course, it is not just the health bill that so unsettled the country, and most importantly the country’s employers. Attempts to change labor rules facilitating union organizing, ramped up antitrust and labor prosecutions, extensive new environmental regulations, the monstrously complex financial bill – they all played a role in setting back our recovery. But Obamacare got the ball rolling.

As we head into the 2012 campaign, Republicans should ask voters, why should you give President Obama another shot at fixing the double disasters of Medicare and Medicaid? Hasn’t he damaged our country enough?

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Civil War Anniversary -- Are We Still a Nation Divided?

By Peter Roff

One hundred and fifty years ago today, troops loyal to the newly-formed Confederate States of America opened fire on Fort Sumter, a U.S. military outpost located in Charleston, South Carolina.

In response, President Abraham Lincoln called for the raising of an army of volunteers to recapture federal property in the states that had seceded, prompting four more to leave the union, meaning the battle was on.

Hindsight being twenty-twenty, it is easy to see how things had progressed to that point. For years the Democrats had won presidential election after presidential election by electing northerners sympathetic to the South’s insistence on the preservation, even the expansion of slavery. Even though the period produced some of the greatest debates in its history Congress likewise failed to adequately address the issue – crafting compromise after compromise in an effort to forestall what can now be seen as inevitable. The ensuing war divided the nation as never before, pitting brother against brother and state against state in a costly conflict that was not resolved even after the shooting stopped.

There are those who suggest the nation is once again as divided as it was a century and a half ago. Those who do are either poor students of history or simply engaged in hyperbole. The union is strong and does not show signs of pulling apart as it did in 1861. Yet while slavery (which is and was always indefensible) is no longer an issue there is subtext to the current political debates regarding the size and scope of the federal government, its relationship to the individual states and the freedom of the individual that faintly echoes the concerns of those who engaged in the decades-long political and intellectual argument that dominated the era preceding the Civil War.

There were those who held to the position that the union was a voluntary compact, entered into by the individual states and from which they could withdraw if they chose. The war settled that issue but the growth in the power of the federal state, particularly in the regulatory arena and in its lust for taxes and extravagant way it spends money have revived the idea that the states may need to in a way that places controls on the federal government.

These ideas are varied and include such suggestions as the abolition of the direct election of senators, which would restore the importance of the states as political entities – rather than the voters of the states – in the federal system. They also include a state initiated constitutional convention to offer a balanced budget amendment and a proposal that would allow a majority of the states acting in concert to render invalid actions taken by the federal government.

With all that, unlike in 1861, the nation remains strong and united. These debates, even those that contemplate placing limits on the power of the federal government are vigorous, robust and have energized the public in ways not seen for several score years. There is nothing sinister or un-American about these discussions; they are part of the enduring life blood of the nation. Those who pretend this is not so are merely seeking a shortcut to end the conversation while continuing to increase the power of the central government.

No one can predict how these debates will turn out. The recent budget agreement to actually cut federal spending suggests the birth of a new era may be at hand, one in which the American people retake responsibility for their lives in a way that rejects the cradle-to-grave “Nanny state” European-style socialism toward which the nation has been headed since the onset of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Whether or not this is a new trend or an aberration will only become clear after the 2012 national election.

What is clear is that the nation has progressed mightily beyond where it was at the onset of the Civil War, both as a world power and in the way that the equal rights of its citizens are regarded and protected. It was a long, hard road but it has taken us all to a better place.

Peter Roff is a senior fellow at the non-partisan Institute for Liberty as well as a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report

As a footnote, there were over 600,000 casualties in the Civil War, but the only casualty in the first battle at Ft. Sumter - which started the war - was one old mule. Kind of Ironic, eh?

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Is American “Exceptionalism” being destroyed by American “Acceptionalism?”

America was built upon the Judeo-Christian principle that man has been endowed by our Creator God with the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Man, including government, existed under the authority of God.

Life was recognized as the first “right.” Human Life was to be protected as the most precious of creation. Taking of a life, whether by violent act or abortion, was illegal in each state in America. Without “Life,” Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are not even possible. This belief made America “exceptional.” It was understood that someone’s perception of the "Pursuit of Happiness" did not trump another’s "Right to Life."

Today, many Americans have become “acceptional” on the issue of life. Many ACCEPT challenges to the right to life, deferring to convenience, feelings, momentary preference.

“Sovereignty” was recognized as the right of America to exist apart from other nations and people. While we welcomed immigrants, the requirement that immigrants forsake loyalty to other nations, systems, and principles in exchange for acceptance in America was recognized as necessary in order for the “Exceptionalism” of America to continue to exist and thrive.

Today, Liberal Progressivism tells us that we should ACCEPT anyone, any system, any preference. That even those who come to America illegally should receive tax payer support and all the benefits of citizenship, including the right to vote, even if it affects the very existence of America. All should be welcomed even if their intent is to destroy America from within.

“Freedom of Religion” meant that, while America is clearly based upon Judeo-Christian belief and principle, no single Christian Denomination was to be declared as the official one of America. To be American meant that we acknowledge our Declaration of Independence, that we acknowledge the authority of our Constitution as Law, and that we acknowledge the concept of “Freedom of Religion.”

Today, we are told that we must ACCEPT people into America who neither acknowledge the Constitution as the basis of our Legal System nor who believe in the concept of “Freedom of Religion” and allow them an ACCEPTION to these basic principles while they seek to implement their own Legal / Religious system in America.

Leadership in America meant that people, having proven themselves worthy of such position, were given the privilege of serving in a STEWARDSHIP capacity of America, our Constitution, our Laws, our Sovereignty, our Freedoms, our Culture, our Standards. Anyone who failed to live up to this responsibility and honor would be removed.

Today we have “leadership” that states their intention of “fundamentally changing America and the world,” that seeks to “redistribute wealth” within America and around the world, that apologizes for American Exceptionalism or denies its existence. They ignore the rule of law. National sovereignty and borders mean nothing. They have stated that Americans are ready for “Socialism and Communism.” They operate on a belief that what exists in America must be destroyed in order to replace all things American with the new, progressive views. Evil rules in America today.

It is time to recognize that if all things can be American, then to be American means nothing.

The most evil thing one can do is to refuse to call that which is evil, evil.

We must choose between American “Exceptionalism” and American “Acceptionalism?” They can’t co-exist.

Monday, April 4, 2011

'Let Me Go... I Want to be a Martyr'

Pakistani police identify the 14-year-old boy (left) as Fida Hussain, a Taliban suicide bomber whose vest failed to fully detonate during an attack on a crowded Sufi shrine. The attack left at least 42 dead — and as Fida's wounds were being tended to, he defiantly said, 'Let me go, I want to be a martyr... I want to send all you policemen to hell.'

  The religion of peace and love...

Friday, April 1, 2011

President Obama and Libya -- Now the Media Support a President Waging Another War In the Middle East

By Dan Gainor

Where have all the war protesters gone, long time passing?

They’re mostly backing Obama’s attack on Libya or at least keeping quiet so they don’t aid those evil conservatives intent on criticizing the president. More moderate lefties had once promised a third way. Now we find out that was a typo. It’s not a third way, it’s a third war.

President Obama, who was swept in on a tide of anti-war sentiment and anger over GOP spending, is now running yet another unpopular war and spending more than any president in history. If the GOP tried this, the news media would beat them with their microphones. But because it’s the president with journalists in his back pocket, there is little controversy.

It wasn’t so long ago that Code Pinkers were the darlings of journalism. You could find them across the media landscape. The Washington Post had lovingly huge features on them titled “Protesting for Peace With a Vivid Hue and Cry; Code Pink's Tactics: Often Theatrical, Always Colorful.” “Bring the troops home,” that 2007 story ended. Four years later, we know no one on the left really wanted to send the troops home. They just wanted to send Bush home.

Or there was the Code Pink protester confronting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a Capitol Hill hearing. As The Post described it, “an antiwar protester shouted ‘War criminal!’ and waved blood-colored hands in her face.” Who hasn’t seen that picture? The news ran that so often it was like they got royalties. (News outlets are desperate for cash these days.)

Or how about Cindy Sheehan protesting in Texas outside the Bush ranch? She and others were there long enough that they could claim squatters rights. Sheehan is still anti-war, but the crowd behind her has thinned to a bridge game.

Where did that crowd go? There are no major anti-war rallies on the mall. The crazy lefties that flock to an ANSWER event are nowhere to be seen. There aren’t enough liberals singing “give peace a chance” to fill up your average coffee house.

When Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Libyan troops had “been planting bodies ‘of the people he's killed’ at the site of allied air strikes” media outlets reported it dutifully. Had the hated Don Rumsfeld said as much, the sound of media laughter would have been heard from sea to shining sea.

Yes, a few left-wingers have complained about Obama’s attack on Libya. “Fahrenheit 9/11” director Michael Moore used Twitter to criticize the president, urging “a 50-mile evacuation zone around Obama’s Nobel Peace prize.” But there is no organized resistance because he’s on their team.

The 2004 Abu Ghraib scandal gave journalists the chance to talk about the evils of war and blame them on George W. Bush. The Post did more than 1,700 Abu Ghraib stories and about 800 of those mention Bush. A new scandal involves an alleged “‘kill team’ of soldiers,” and their purported crimes. It was shocking enough that Rolling Stone wrote more than 8,000 words how “U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan murdered innocent civilians and mutilated their corpses.”

One word wasn’t in that report: Obama. The commander-in-chief.

I wonder what the leftover hippies would have to chant about that. Oh, that’s right, they don’t chant, they’re enchanted with Obama.

Some liberals claim the right is echoing Qaddafi by linking the rebels to Al Qaeda. The implication is that conservatives are defending the dictator for political reasons. No sane person would defend that monster. Obama said Qaddafi “denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world.” He’s right. Qaddafi has funded terrorism, been responsible for the horrific Lockerbie bombing and attacked his own people with jets.

But by that measure, half the leaders in the world should be attacked and maybe more. Qaddafi is an amateur when it comes to butchery and mayhem. There’s Kim Jong-Il in North Korea who has nuclear weapons, blackmails his neighbors and starves his own population by the millions.

Or Bashar al-Assad, who inherited his presidency from his monstrous dear old dad. The Assads back terror both against Israel and American troops in Iraq, repress their own people and shoot them in the street as needed.

The list, while thankfully not endless, is still monumentally long. From Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, to the Castros in Cuba to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, there are plenty of targets to go around. Most on that list would laugh at what Qaddafi has done and consider it minor by comparison. And most of those would be hard-pressed to compete with Saddam Hussein.

You remember Hussein? Started wars. Invaded his neighbors. Oppressed his own people. Gassed his own people. His secret police were widely feared. Human rights groups regularly complained about his numerous violations. His sons were just as evil, raping almost as a hobby. Hussein was even “condemned by the United Nations' top human rights body for conducting a campaign of ‘all pervasive repression and widespread terror.’”

Yet journalists and the left have spent years claiming that was a bad war or a “war for oil.” It’s easy to say the same about Libya, yet here we are, once again, in a new war and the media simply pick the side with the “D” after its name.

Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture.

Free Hit Counter

Copyright © 2009 - 2012 The Audacity of Logic