Tony Blankley Exposes The Arrogant Hypocrisy Of The Leftist Media And Its Dem Supporters

Look for many differences between the previous eight years and the next four years. Of course, you already knew to do that. But look at what issues are going to be tackled differently and why.

One of those issues is censorship and the manner in which Old Media deals with the Chief Executive. Tony Blankley's new book, American Grit, contains a chapter about just this and it would be a good idea to look into it further.

Writing for Town Hall, Brent Bozell takes us on a guided tour of that chapter and what it means:

He reminds us that during the Bush years, "the media blissfully endangered America's safety for the pleasure of striking a blow at a president it despised. ... Even when there's no allegation of wrongdoing, it seems that many newspapers today take a perverse pride in revealing U.S. intelligence secrets." It's these repeated actions by papers like the New York Times exposing and destroying our anti-terrorist programs (and in the case of the Los Angeles Times, tattling about how our government encouraged defectors from Iran's nuclear program) that cries out for censorship, Blankley argues. It's not enough to hope these newspapers will now cooperate with the Obama administration when it wants them to keep its actions secret.

In other words, leftist publications like the New York Times had absolutely no problem with endangering Americans by revealing our secrets when it would be an embarrassment to President Bush to do so, but they will help President Obama by keeping his darkest secrets safe.

More:

Blankley trenchantly recounts left-wing hacks like CNN's Jack Cafferty and Newsweek's Jonathan Alter finding the seeds of a "full-blown dictatorship" in the Bush White House, and snarling Joe Conason claiming Bush was headed toward an "authoritarian peril." Blankley dismisses these claims for showing "an embarrassing ignorance of the history of executive authority."

There were numerous shrill cries from the leftist media that the Bush Administration was engaging in some sort of censorship of the news. But it never happened. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. In fact, the evidence argues the opposite.

But what is real censorship? Let's take a look at the Presidents whom Barack Obama idolizes and see what their records on censorship were:

President Lincoln shut down dozens of newspapers and imprisoned their editors. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson's Sedition Act banned "uttering, printing, writing or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language about the United States government or the military." At least 75 periodicals were banned by the postmaster general. During World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt gave FBI director J. Edgar Hoover the power to censor all news or communications entering or leaving America. Blankley notes FDR repeatedly asked his attorney general, Francis Biddle, "When are you going to indict the seditionists?"

Let's see, Lincoln, FDR and Wilson. Yep, Barack Obama holds those three in high regard. Think the leftists at the NYT will report on this? Probably not.

But was there any kind of censorship during the Bush years?

By contrast, during those allegedly dictatorial Bush years, our national newspapers proudly published op-eds by founders and supporters of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Dictatorial censorship? Hardly. It was the working of a Free Press and President Bush allowed it to happen despite the shrill claims from the left and pathetic attempts at re-writing history.

What is Obama's view on this?

President Obama has already signaled that it isn't Hamas chieftains he wants to silence, but conservative talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh.

Who do these leftists think they are kidding? Obama and his followers are clearly on the path of allowing America's enemies every chance to stand up and speak while simultaneously trying to censor private American citizens.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Tony Blankley's Untimely Cry
Brent Bozell III
TownHall.com
January 28, 2009

The Leftist Double-Standard Against The Jews

If leftists didn't have double-standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all. The typical leftist (socialist, communist, Democrat, etc.) usually holds very low standards for their own kind while holding their political opponents to much higher standards. For example, leftists were all over Florida Rep. Mark Foley for the lewd text massages he was exchanging with Congressional pages, but felt that there was absolutely nothing wrong when Rep. Barney Frank ran a gay prostitution ring out of his Washington D.C. apartment.

That's a prime example of the double-standard.

The latest example of left-wing hypocrisy comes from Hamas firing rockets that deliberately targeted Israeli civilians for which Israel had to act in self-defense and target Hamas sites in Gaza.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Rabbi Marvin Hier spells out clearly and conscisely exactly what the double-standards are and show how arrogant those leftists are who hold them. From his column:

Just look at the spate of attacks this week on Jews and Jewish institutions around the world: a car ramming into a synagogue in France; a Chabad menorah and Jewish-owned shops sprayed with swastikas in Belgium; a banner at an Australian rally demanding "clean the earth from dirty Zionists!"; demonstrators in the Netherlands chanting "Gas the Jews"; and in Florida, protestors demanding Jews "Go back to the ovens!" ... At the U.N., no surprise, this double-standard is in full force. In response to Israel's attack on Hamas, the Security Council immediately pulled an all-night emergency meeting to consider yet another resolution condemning Israel. Have there been any all-night Security Council sessions held during the seven months when Hamas fired 3,000 rockets at half a million innocent civilians in southern Israel? You can be certain that during those seven months, no midnight oil was burning at the U.N. headquarters over resolutions condemning terrorist organizations like Hamas. But put condemnation of Israel on the agenda and, rain or shine, it's sure to be a full house.

Exactly. The leftists in the U.N. are perfectly okay with the terrorist organization Hamas launching rockets at Israeli civilians, but will not tolerate Israel defending itself from such terrorist attacks.

More:

Red Cross officials are all over the Gaza crisis, describing it as a full-blown humanitarian nightmare. Where were they during the seven months when tens of thousands of Israeli families could not sleep for fear of a rocket attack? Where were their trauma experts to decry that humanitarian crisis? There have been hundreds of articles and reports written from the Erez border crossing falsely accusing Israel of blocking humanitarian supplies from reaching beleaguered Palestinians in Gaza. (In fact, over 520 truck loads of humanitarian aid have been delivered through Israeli crossings since the beginning of the Israeli counterattack.) But how many news articles, NGO reports and special U.N. commissions have investigated Hamas's policy of deliberately placing rocket launchers near schools, mosques and homes in order to use innocent Palestinians as human shields?

That is the hallmark of an Islamic terrorist: no concern for anyone's safety, not even their own people. Hamas has no interest in defending Palestinians. Their only interest is gaining power for themselves, even if it means doing that which will kill their own.

Does the rest of the world see this? No! They only feel their own hatred for Israel and the Jews. So much so, that they will make every effort to ensure that Israel's enemies have the time and resources to rest and re-arm for the next round of terrorist strikes.

Rabbi Hier goes on:

And then there are the clarion calls for a cease-fire. These words, which come so easily, have proven to be a recipe for disaster. Hamas uses the cease-fire as a time-out to rearm and smuggle even more deadly weapons so the next time, instead of hitting Sderot and Ashkelon, they can target Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The pattern is always the same. Following a cease-fire brought on by international pressure, there will be a call for a massive infusion of funds to help Palestinians recover from the devastation of the Israeli attack. The world will respond eagerly, handing over hundreds of millions of dollars. To whom does this money go? To Hamas, the same terrorist group that brought disaster to the Palestinians in the first place.

Blame for the Gaza crisis rests solely and squarely on the heads of Hamas. Were it not for their irrational hatred of the Jews and their brazen terrorist attacks against innocent civilians, it would not have been necessary for Israel to rise in defense of herself.

As Golda Meir once said: ""There will be peace in the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate the Jews"."

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Jews Face A Double Standard
Rabbi Marvin Hier
The Wall Street Journal
January 8, 2009

Palestinian Protestor Yells Anti-Semitic Curse, ANSWER Refuses To Condemn The Comment

Who are the new Nazis? Clearly, the new Nazi Party has an adamant believer in a Palestinian woman from Ft. Lauderdale who believes that the Jewish people should be sent "back to the oven." She was referring to the method in which the Nazis gassed the European Jews back during the 30's and 40's before cremating the remains in an oven.

This woman was part of a protest organized by the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition. But, the ANSWER leader of the Ft. Lauderdale protest flatly refused to condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by his followers.

From Fox News:

Most of the chants were run-of-the-mill; men and women waving Palestinian flags called Israel's invasion of Gaza a "crime," while the pro-Israel group carried signs calling the Hamas-run territory a "terror state." But as the protest continued and crowds grew, one woman in a hijab began to shout curses and slurs that shocked Jewish activists in the city, which has a sizable Jewish population. "Go back to the oven," she shouted, calling for the counter-protesters to die in the manner that the Nazis used to exterminate Jews during the Holocaust. "You need a big oven, that's what you need," she yelled.

The ANSWER leader of this protest was one Emmanuel Lopez who gave us a look at his own anti-Semitism by not condemning the offensive outburst.

The protest organizers, asked to comment on the woman's overt call for Jewish extermination, said she was "insensitive" but refused to condemn her statement.

Perhaps because Emmanuel Lopez agrees with her belief that the Jews should be exterminated? Lopez himself admitted that anti-Semitism was a problem in the ranks of ANSWER. Why would such a problem exist if the leaders of ANSWER were serious about ending violence and racism?

More:

Lopez, a state coordinator for ANSWER, admitted there is a problem with anti-Semitism within his organization's ranks. But then he went on to call the supporters of Israel across the street "barbaric, racist" Zionist terrorists. "Zionism in general is a barbaric, racist movement that really is the cause of the situation in the entire Middle East," Lopez said. The unidentified woman, who protest organizers said was a Muslim, wasn't the only protester who raised hackles that day. Other demonstrators held signs that said "Nuke Israel," ...

Fascism is alive and well and it lives over on the left side of the political spectrum.

You can access this news story plus a link to the video on-line here:

Protester Calls For Jews To 'Go Back To The Oven' At Anti-Israel Demonstration
Joseph Abrams
FoxNews.com
January 7, 2009

Al Jazeera Reports Palestinians Phonebanking For Obama

As if his recent flap with Mid-East Advisor Robert Malley, who was in talks with Hamas, was not enough.

From The American Thinker:

It appears that some Palestinians in Gaza share American Thinker's skepticism over Barack Obama's devotion to the cause of Israel. Jim Geraghty of NRO's The Campaign Spot draws our attention to this video news report broadcast on Al Jazeera television, showing Palestinians in Gaza running a phone bank to call American voters before primary elections and urge them to support Obama. Hamas support Obama, and Palestinians in Gaza, which is run by Hamas, are manning phone banks on his behalf. A number of Obama's foreign policy advisors have troubling track records, and one of them, Robert Malley was talking with Hamas and resigned when this became known. I suppose it will be called "old politics" to even notice these facts. But Palestinians, and many American voters, can and do read the signs he is giving on his Middle East policies.

Check out the video:

Video on YouTube.com

This is yet another reason why we cannot allow the Dems to have the White House in November.

You can access the original article on-line here:

Al Jazeera Reports Palestinians Phonebanking For Obama
Thomas Lifson
The American Thinker
May 14, 2008

Barack Obama Sacks Adviser Over Talks With Hamas

If this little "incident" doesn't make you stop and think about the consequences of an Obama Presidency, then you should do the rest of the country a favor and not even show up to vote in November.

Here's the timeline of some very current events:

1. The terrorist group Hamas endorses Barack Obama for President. (This is no hoax. It really happened.)
2. Senator McCain noted that a major terrorist group endorsed Barack Obama and said that the voting public should be able to "make judgments accordingly."
3. Senator Obama accuses Senator McCain of "losing his bearings."
4. Senator Obama fires his Middle East Policy advisor for being in talks with Hamas.

Obama claims that he did not know that one of his advisors was speaking with a vicious terrorist group and yet, he feels it's okay to make the ridiculous claim that John McCain is somehow lost? If this obvious double-standard weren't the reality of the 2008 Democrat Presidential Campaign, it would probably sound like the plot to a really bad "B" movie.

Disregarding the John McCain angle for the moment, what does this say about the Democrat front-runner who had absolutely no idea that one of his advisors was in communication with known terrorists? Advisers are the people who will have the President's ear in the Oval Office. Shouldn't the President be aware of who is advising him and why?

If anyone has "lost his bearings," it is Barack Obama.

From the Times of London:

One of Barack Obama's Middle East policy advisers disclosed yesterday that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas – prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him. Robert Malley told The Times that he had been in regular contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza and is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. ... Mr Obama, who has been trying to assuage suspicion towards him among the influential Jewish and pro-Israel lobby, spoke at a Washington reception marking the 60th anniversary of Israeli independence on Thursday when he promised that his commitment to the country’s security would be "unshakeable." However, Mr McCain has high-lighted the Democrat's pledge to negotiate directly with nations such as Iran – whose leaders talk of wiping Israel off the map – and a statement from Hamas saying that it hoped that Mr Obama would win the presidency. This was denounced as an offensive smear by Mr Obama.

So, stating facts is an "offensive smear?" I wonder what the Democrats call it when they tell lies about John McCain's POW experience or tell lies about the fire aboard the USS Forrestal?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Barack Obama Sacks Adviser Over Talks With Hamas
Tom Baldwin
Times of London
May 10, 2008

BTW, have you noticed that this story is not being picked up and played over and over by American Media outlets? If Obama had been a Republican candidate, this would have been front-page news for the next three months.