One Big Reason I Hate Bob Beckel

Don't hold your breath waiting for the Democratic party to disavow this guy. On Fox News' The Five on Tuesday, host Bob Beckel told the audience that Mitt Romney had a fundraiser in Israel 'with a bunch of diamond merchants.'



Is it any wonder that people are getting so angry at Beckel and FOX News for hiring him.  After all he blames every Conservative, every Jew, everyone who doesn't believe what he believes he will blame them for every failure in the country.

If you find his words offensive, you can tell FOX News here.   But knowing the attitude of the network these days, you can be assured that he will remain and get a raise for his anti-Semitism.

Here is a copy of my e-mail to FOX News.

For over a year Bob Beckel has insulted many viewers on your network.  From his obscenity on Hannity on April 16, 2012 to his continuing degrading of opponents of Barack Obama, he was very close to the edge.

But this:  'with a bunch of diamond merchants.' was the last straw.  Not only is it anti-Semitic, it shows the lengths the man will go to promote his candidate and views.

I don't expect you to respond to this by doing the right thing and dismissing Mr. Beckel.  And if this poor excuse for a human being does try to apologize to the Jewish Community, it will not be accepted.  He has gone too far this time.

Katie Norcross
Mt. Prospect, Illinois

Where Is The Outrage?

Hat Tip to Texas Fred

I read this at the above site and am passing this along to give it a wide birth.  Judge Andrew P. Napolitano has been a voice of common sense on FOX News.  I do hope that you will read this and pass it to others.

Since this particular piece didn’t get that much coverage, I hope the good Judge and FOX News will have no objections to this being used, in full, with full accreditation back to FOX News and Judge Andrew P. Napolitano. This is a piece that needs to be seen by ALL Americans.

Where is the outrage?

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Published June 07, 2012

For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government’s use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson would have done if — had drones existed at the time — King George III had sent drones to peer inside the bedroom windows of Monticello. I suspect that Jefferson and his household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as one who is urging the use of violence against the government.

Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes, and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. The folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.

Don’t believe me that this is coming? The photos that the drones will take may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the “recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function” in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel inside the United States and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them “to collect information about U.S. persons.”

It gets worse. If the military personnel see something of interest from a drone, they may apply to a military judge or “military commander” for permission to conduct a physical search of the private property that intrigues them. And, any “incidentally acquired information” can be retained or turned over to local law enforcement. What’s next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the U.S.?

The quoted phrases above are extracted from a now-public 30-page memorandum issued by President Obama’s Secretary of the Air Force on April 23, 2012. The purpose of the memorandum is stated as “balancing … obtaining intelligence information … and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution…” Note the primacy of intelligence gathering over freedom protection, and note the peculiar use of the word “balancing.”

When liberty and safety clash, do we really expect the government to balance those values? Of course not. The government cannot be trusted to restrain itself in the face of individual choices to pursue happiness. That’s why we have a Constitution and a life-tenured judiciary: to protect the minority from the liberty-stealing impulses of the majority. And that’s why the Air Force memo has its priorities reversed — intelligence gathering first, protecting freedom second — and the mechanism of reconciling the two — balancing them — constitutionally incorrect.

Everyone who works for the government swears to uphold the Constitution. It was written to define and restrain the government. According to the Declaration of Independence, the government’s powers come from the consent of the governed. The government in America was not created by a powerful king reluctantly granting liberty to his subjects. It was created by free people willingly granting limited power to their government — and retaining that which they did not delegate.

The Declaration also defines our liberties as coming from our Creator, as integral to our humanity and as inseparable from us, unless we give them up by violating someone else’s liberties. Hence the Jeffersonian and constitutional beef with the word “balancing” when it comes to government power versus individual liberty.

The Judeo-Christian and constitutionally mandated relationship between government power and individual liberty is not balance. It is bias — a bias in favor of liberty. All presumptions should favor the natural rights of individuals, not the delegated and seized powers of the government. Individual liberty, not government power, is the default position because persons are immortal and created in God’s image, and governments are temporary and based on force.

Hence my outrage at the coming use of drones — some as small as golf balls — to watch us, to listen to us and to record us. Did you consent to the government having that power? Did you consent to the American military spying on Americans in America? I don’t know a single person who has, but I know only a few who are complaining.

If we remain silent when our popularly elected government violates the laws it has sworn to uphold and steals the freedoms we elected it to protect, we will have only ourselves to blame when Big Brother is everywhere. Somehow, I doubt my father’s generation fought the Nazis in World War II only to permit a totalitarian government to flourish here. Is President Obama prepared to defend this? Is Gov. Romney prepared to challenge it? Are you prepared for its consequences?

Source

Barack Hussein Obama can offer NO viable defense for this invasion of privacy. Mitt Romney, if he has ANY courage in him, will not only challenge it, he will vow to strike it down once he is elected POTUS.

Are *WE* prepared for the consequences?

I think a more fair question would be; is the regime of Barack Hussein Obama prepared to suffer the consequences that indeed they must if this travesty is allowed to come to fruition?

It has been reminded to us time and time again that our freedoms will be taken from us not all at once, but slowly.  All so slowly that we will not even notice their loss.  By the time we notice the loss of our freedoms it will be too late.

Take heed America!  It is time to Wake Up!

It Has Been Just One Short Year

Since Obama said this:




It was followed by this:

The Beer Summit!

The height of the Obama Presidency!

 Now we have Shirley Sherrod, the rush to judgment from the Obama Regime, and the Mea Culpas. I have never seen a White House jump to conclusions so fast.  Ms. Sherrod was fired asked to resign due to the fact that Glen Beck was going to do a segment on her NAACP video (He never did that night.  In fact he came to Ms. Sherrod's defense the next day.).  It is nice to see that the White House's war on FOX News is over (FOX won!).


The video shown that caused the problem:




The full video:



It is too bad that neither the NAACP, the White House, or FOX News didn't view the second video before making that leap of judgment against Ms. Sherrod.  Both FOX News and the White House didn't have access to the full tape, but the NAACP did.  It is reported that the NAACP asked the White House to fire Ms. Sherrod.

What does the NAACP have to hide?

Obama Vs. Fox News

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Fox News Gets It Right!

One sometimes wonder what the Media is thinking when they condemn Israel and support Hamas. It is a fact that the Media has a bias towards the left and have never praised Israel in the last 20 years, it is refreshing to see that one member of the Media gets it right.

View at YouTube

It is good to see that the truth is finally getting out to the public, that they lies are not going unchallenged, that PalArabs cannot just make statements without proof.

Way to go Fox News!