It’s all about Obama…Mm…Mm..Mm!

It’s all about Obama…Mm…Mm..Mm!

(Editor’s Note: This is commentary about leadership from Lloyd Marcus)

It’s all about Obama…Mm…Mm..Mm!

By Lloyd Marcus

My wife Mary’s eyes glaze over whenever I mention football. “But honey this is about life not football” I promise her. She graciously listens. Three years ago with only a few minutes left in the game, all Tony Romo, quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys had to do was hold the football so his kicker could kick a game tying field goal. Romo fumbled the ball.

After his horrible unbelievable mistake, the young quarterback sat on the bench dejected with his head hung low. John Madden, former pro football coach was one of the announcers on the TV broadcast team. Madden said, “Somebody needs to tell Romo to get his head up. This game is not over and he still has to lead his team”. Wow, I don’t know why, but I found the wise old coach instructing (mentoring) the young man quite moving.

Madden was saying leadership is understanding it is not about you. As the Bible says, “To whom much is given, much is required”. Madden is also saying, OK, Tony Romo, you said you wanted to be the leader of this team; you must do just that, Lead! You do not have the luxury of sulking over your mistakes. True leadership is putting the needs of your team before your needs.

The Obama administration and the media puts his needs before the best interest of the American people. They believe since Obama is the first black president, he is simply too big to fail. Consequently, every event, policy and etc is judged from a “how will this affect Obama’s presidency” point of view rather than what is best for America.

They protect him at all cost against all offenders. Rush Limbaugh was verbally gang flogged for daring to say he hoped Obama’s wacko agenda failed?

Think about this folks. We have a president that everything is about him. Despite it being the best facility to house enemy combatants, Obama has vowed to close Guantanamo Bay prison to appease far left voters. It’s all about what is best for Obama.

Months ago, Obama called the Cambridge cops stupid for arresting Gates. Black professor Gates was wrong. The white decorated arresting officer was right. Still, the Obama administration and liberal media immediately went into “defend Obama mode”. They launched a national champaign on talk shows, print and etc attempting to prove Obama correct; all police are racist profilers who abuse blacks. Can you imagine the lengths Obama and his minions will go to make him look good. Throw national relations between blacks and the police under the bus, no problem. It’s all about Obama.

Most outrageously, along with 9-11 terrorists, the failed underwear bomber will be given the same legal rights as an American citizen, free lawyer and etc. Why? To pander to Obama’s far left America hating radical voters. Trying terrorists in civilian court will give them access to our intelligence and a worldwide platform to spew their anti-American rhetoric, thus putting American lives at risk. No problem because it is not about us, it’s all about Obama. He has to throw his voters who think we deserved 9-11 a big bone.

After three terrorists attacks in the last six months, many predict another attack will put our president in deep trouble with the American people. That might be the truth regarding a normal presidency. But, you just don’t get it. The media will simply circle the wagons around their golden child. Obama’s black skin is the ultimate trump card exempting him of any criticism and objective critique.

Obama-ites in the media and democrats call the millions of Tea Party Patriots who are against Obama’s, “Fundamental restructuring of America” an angry mob of rednecks and racists. Ignoring the presence of highly visible blacks such as myself and others (I wrote the national Tea Party Anthem for crying out loud) lib commentator Chris Matthews boldly proclaimed, “There are no blacks at the tea parties. They’re all white!” Again, trashing whites and straining race relations in America to further Obama’s agenda, no problem. It’s all about Obama.

Obama was caught on video eight times during his campaign promising health care negotiations would be broadcast on C-span. Now in the White House, Obama has rejected C-span’s request to broadcast the health care negotiations. Obama’s lie will only be reported on a few cable networks and the web. The majority of the mainstream media will protect Obama.

Remember, when the story broke about elementary school kids being taught songs praising Obama? The real message in the songs is, “It’s all about Obama…Mm…Mm..Mm!”

I could go on and on giving examples of how the media judges every political event as how it will affect the presidency of their sacred black president with no regard for America’s best interest.

Here is another quick example. After his heart attack scare, Rush Limbaugh said the health care he received was excellent. Rush said the American health care system is the best in the world. The media was outraged and called Rush’s proclamation an attack against Obama. Apparently, praising our health care system is unacceptable and bordering on “hate speech” when it does not line up with Obama’s agenda. Everything is about Obama.

Mr. Obama is the man who occupies the Oval office, but he is not our leader. He has yet to grasp the concept that it is not about him.

By the way, quarterback Tony Romo did get his head up. He has lead his team to numerous victories. Today, Tony Romo is a pro football superstar.

Lloyd Marcus (black) Unhyphenated American, Singer/Songwriter, Entertainer, Author, Artist & Tea Party Patriot

Iowa Woman’s Answer To The ObamaMedia

….because after the last few days, everybody needs to smile.  I know Nancy is enjoying this as much as us.

You go Deloris!

Carroll woman’s answer to highly visible Obama: Selling her televisions

A 78-year-old Carroll woman says she’s so tired of seeing President Barack Obama on the airwaves that she’s selling her television sets – two of them.

Deloris Nissen, a retired nurses’ aide and former Kmart employee who was raised on a farm near Audubon, placed a classified advertisement with The Daily Times Herald for Friday’s paper.

In the $5.50 ad, Nissen tells readers she has two television sets for sale.

The reason: “Obama on every channel and station.”

In an interview Nissen said she is serious about selling two TVs – and genuine about her disgust with what she believes to be an overexposed president.

“I just got tired of watching him on every channel,” Nissen said. “I thought, my gosh, does he ever stay at the White House?”

Nissen, who voted for U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the 2008 presidential election, said she could live with seeing Obama come on television to make serious announcements. But he seems to be on all the time, Nissen said.

When the president does appear on a channel she happens to be watching, Nissen said, she quickly turns.

“I have the remote real handy,” Nissen said. “I have the batteries. I’m ready for him.”

Nissen’s annoyance with the president as a frequent presence on her television doesn’t mean she’ll abandon the medium altogether.

She’s keeping a bigger flat-screen television and selling an older 20-inch Sony and possibly a 13-inch set.

“It’s too heavy,” Nissen said of the 20-inch TV. “I can’t handle it anymore.”

That said, she doesn’t plan on selling it for less than $100 – even if Obama was just on Tuesday pitching his health-care-reform plans.

Obama’s own advisers and political observers across the ideological spectrum have for months debated whether the now popular president is overexposed.

For her part, Nissen said she expects to take some flack for the advertisement in her local paper. After all, Obama did win Iowa and Carroll County in the 2008 election.

But she’s not worried about any criticism.
“I’m an old lady, and I don’t care,” Nissen said.

Does this dear lady have a computer and lurk on our sites?

(As an aside, as soon as I can actually write my tribute to our dear friend, I will.  Problem is, everytime I start to write, I am blinded by the tears.  It may take a few days.)

The Media’s Message About Palin

I have been watching and reading what the MSM have been saying about Sarah since her resignation on 7.3.09 and the message that their masters have given them to spew forth over and over again in a new mantra of attack is this; Palin has no experience, an almost transparent resume, she is leaving the only job that would give her experience, and therefore, her message cannot possible be correct because it is not based on anything.

Here is just one example of the numerous I have read over the last few days,  and the blinding omission of the obvious; Barack Obama has even less experience.   This snake oil salesman and frontman for the shadow chess players was a “community organizer” and served only 143 days in the Illinois Senate before starting his alexandrian campaign for the White House.

I found this story over at CQ Politics and it was written by David Corn about Time Magazine.

Time Goes Gaga for Palin

In a classic example of newsmagazine overthink, Time profiles Sarah Palin with a cover story that practically celebrates her thin résumé and essentially makes the case that know-nothingism could be good for America. Seriously:

“Palin’s unconventional step speaks to an ingrained frontier skepticism of authority — even one’s own. Given the plunging credibility of institutions and élites, that’s a mood that fits the Palin brand. Résumés ain’t what they used to be; they count only with people who trust credentials — a dwindling breed. The mathematics Ph.D.s who dreamed up economy-killing derivatives have pretty impressive résumés. The leaders of congressional committees and executive agencies have decades of experience — at wallowing in red ink, mismanaging economic bubbles and botching covert intelligence.”

If ever there has been a time to gamble on a flimsy résumé, ever a time for the ultimate outsider, this might be it. “We have so little trust in the character of the people we elected that most of us wouldn’t invite them into our homes for dinner, let alone leave our children alone in their care,” writes talk-show host Glenn Beck in his book Glenn Beck’s Common Sense, a pox-on-all-their-houses fusillade at Washington. Dashed off in a fever of disillusionment with those in power, Beck’s book is selling like vampire lit, with more than 1 million copies in print.

Citing Glenn Beck as proof that many Americans are eager to turn to a pol with little expertise in national policy? But didn’t the country just have an election? And didn’t a significant majority vote for the guy with two Ivy League degrees who talked about bringing professionalism, science, and expertise back to policymaking in Washington? (Anyone remember Palin’s climate change denialism? Not the Time people.)

Didn’t 69 Million incredibly gullible people buy the MSM marketing of a candidate that has no experience and even more questionable judgement?  It is no wonder we are in this mess when Americans are voting with their emotions instead of their cranial faculties.

You may or may not like Sarah or agree with her; that’s not the point of this post.  The point is to watch what the Media is stating about her and see the reverse marketing approach that they are making in hopes of slowing down her message by discrediting her personally and professionally.

I personally am glad that with all that is happening in the beltway, we at least have one adult speaking the truth above the heads of the crack-smokin’ congress and the hormonally challenged teenagers in the White House.

RePrinted By Popular Demand

Soooooooooooooooooooo……………….WHAT have PUMAs been telling the world for months?  Oh, that’s right, we are bitter, sore losers who are whining and don’t know jack…..

Alert! Due to the popularity of this article on the Rhinoceros Times, we have moved it to a static HTML format. After reading this article, if you would like to visit our Web site, greensboro.rhinotimes.com, Click here.


Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

by Orson Scott Card

October 20, 2008
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President’s Men and thinking: That’s journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. “Housing-gate,” no doubt. Or “Fannie-gate.”

Instead, it was Sen. Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled “Do Facts Matter?” (http://snipurl.com/457to): “Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury.”

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was … the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was … the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It’s not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let’s follow the money … right to the presidential candidate who is the number two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Fred Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate’s campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an “adviser” to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama’s people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn’t listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That’s what you claim you do, when you accept people’s money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that’s what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don’t like the probable consequences. That’s what honesty means. That’s how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards’ own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women (NOW) threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That’s where you are right now.

It’s not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation’s prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama’s door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You’re just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it’s time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.

Bad Behavior has blocked 2095 access attempts in the last 7 days.

%d bloggers like this: