ET Williams

The Doctor of Common Sense

Blog

by

The Media Is to Blame

Don't Let My Pretty Face Fool You

By: Elmer Williams

From The Book: “Whatever Happen To COMMON SENSE” Chapter 22

I believe that the media is one of the primary reasons that politicians can get away with the lies and deceptions they propagate to the general public. I further believe that the only reason that so-called illegal aliens can be seen as victims is because of our corrupt media. They are supposed to report the news and let us decide what our opinions are about a particular story.

I think George W. Bush made a lot of mistakes when he was in office. I believe we should have gone to war withIraq, but I don’t think we should have fought the war in a way that would get a lot of our young men killed when it could have been avoided.

If George W. Bush was black and had a D (Democrat) in front of is name, he would not have received such flack over the war. I have heard a lot of people say after the facts that we went to Iraq for the oil and that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). I don’t know if that is the reason we went to war or not, but what I do know is that when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he was defeated. He signed a resolution stating that he would allow inspectors to come in and check for WMDs. After Saddam had ignored the seventeen or eighteen UN resolutions, it was clear that he had no intention of doing the right thing. We know for a fact the Saddam used WMDs on his own people. If we had not attacked this terrorist, he would probably have WMDs today.

I don’t care if they found WMDs or not. He made a promise to allow the inspectors into his country to carry out their work. The inspectors were given the run around and the planes attempted to fly over for inspection were shot at repeatedly. George W. Bush’s first mistake was that he let the media into Iraq to cover the war. What moron decided that it was a good idea to inform the enemy about some of our activities? You might as well put GPS on your tank trucks. The second mistake he made was refusing to let our young men kill the enemies even though they were trying to chop our men’s heads off. While he was president, we even court marshaled some of our soldiers for killing terrorists. And what did the media report about some of these stories? They showed sympathy toward the enemies and made our army out to be the bad guys.

I am curious as to why we haven’t been hearing about the wars since the Messiah came into office. President Obama gets a free pass on his warmongerings. Where are all the tree huggers and the antiwar protesters now? If George Bush were black and had a D in front of his name, he would not have been criticized for going to war. All I hear now is deafening silence from these hypocrites. They pretend they care about the rights of citizens in other countries, but we know that to be a big, fat lie.

Compare the casualties in Afghanistan under George W. Bush over eight years and Barack Obama over three and a half years. There is a chart from iCasualties.org that shows the casualties under Obama have surpassed those under Bush. The scoreboard for Bush from 2001 to 2008 is 630. The scoreboard for Obama from 2009 to 2011 is 1203. It is a blowout, Obama wins running away.

If the facts were clearly in favor of our first black president, anti-war movement would be out in full strength. They love to play the race card whenever they are losing an argument. The casualty scoreboard reads Obama: 1203 and Bush: 630. I’m not that smart, but when I was in school, 1,203 was a higher number than 630. I know times have changed and we are constantly redefining words, so I suppose numbers might as well come under attack also.

Where are CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and the other media outlets on these casualties? I thought they wanted to protect our men and women from oppressive warmongers. I thought they wanted to protect the citizens of other countries. Is it our job to protect other counties? Why are we still in Afghanistan and Iraq? You don’t need a PhD in common sense in order to see what’s going on. Obama is a black Democrat. Most news outlets on television are liberal and progressive, so they are compassionate toward democrats. They do not want to be perceived as racist.

This is the insanity of the politically correct crowd. They would rather drive off the side of a mountain before being viewed as judgmental. They voted for Obama in the hopes that he would deliver them from their troubles.

They hoped he would lead them to the promised land of nirvana. They hoped we would become one big Communist party. I have learned that liberal whites are shocked that all blacks don’t like Obama’s politics, and liberal blacks are appalled by fellow blacks who don’t support him. It’s an incredible achievement for a black man to have become president. Liberal blacks believe he should be blindly supported.

Never mind that he constantly contradicts himself and acts as if George W. Bush is at fault for everything that’s wrong. When he ran for office, why didn’t he tell us that almost four years into his term, he wasn’t going to be able to fix anything because of George W. Bush? He and the media should have been clear that George W. Bush messed things up so badly that Obama can only make it worse. If I am not mistaken, his election theme was change without partisan politics. Are you freaking kidding me? All he has done is partisan politics. The only changes he has made have been for the worse. If you are black and don’t agree with the black president, you must be an Uncle Tom.

Perhaps you have been brainwashed by the Tea Party or some other conservative group. I always find it funny when people refuse to talk about the facts and focus on race, saying things like, “You are just jealous of the man.” Should I vote for Obama because he’s black? Should I like him because he’s black? I don’t like a lot of my own black relatives, so I will certainly not like a man based solely on his skin color. How uninformed can you be, to vote for a man based purely on race?

Where are the media, especially the conservative media, on defending Michael Savage from being banned from Britain? I have not heard one media outlet say it is preposterous for a talk radio host to be banned from a country. I have not heard any mention that a top-selling author should not be on the same list as a terrorist. Where is Fox News? Where is Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh? If these people were real journalists and seekers of truth, they would report this story.

I believe the media is one of the primary reasons that Americans have become so portentous about ignoring the truth. The media plays fast and loose with the facts every night. When we joined NATO to start a war inLibya, the media would have us believe we were justified in our actions.

Muammar Qaddafi might not be a saint, but why are we invading Libya? We are still at war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The economy is horrible yet we have decided to spend millions on a war against Libya. A CNN story posted online on July 17, 2011, says, “The Western alliance has been bombarding Libya since late March a U.N. mandate to protect civilians from forces loyal to longtime strongman Muammar Gaddafi, who is attempting to put down a revolt against his nearly forty-two-year rule.”

Notice that according to CNN, the only reason we invadedLibyawas because of a “mandate to protect civilians.” Is that a good reason to go to war? If we are going to fight to protect a country’s citizens, we should declare war on many other countries. As soon as I heard the story about NATO forces taking down the evil dictator, I was very suspicious about why we would go to war with a man who wasn’t a threat to anyone outsideLibya. The media made us think Gaddafi was the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin.

Eight NATO members are involved in the air strike crusade, including the USA United States led by our antiwar leader Barack Obama (I thought he was against war when George W. was in office); France, (which never wants to fight); Canada (do they have an army?); Denmark (It must have stop raining long enough to send help); Belgium (I hope they bring some Tapestry); Italy; Norway (what a joke); and Britain, which can’t stop the riots in its own cities. A Huffington Post headline read, Libya Says NATO Bombed Residential Area in Tripoli, Killed Civilians. In this story, Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, the commander of the anti-Libya operation, is quoted as saying, “NATO regrets the loss of innocent civilian lives and takes great care in conducting strikes against a regime determined to use violence against its own citizens.”

The media has no shame. I wonder why these purveyors of justice didn’t side with the United Stateswhen we attacked Saddam Hussein, who, may I add, used WMDs on his own citizens. I think the people of Libyashould play the race card against the NATO forces. They should say that the only reason they are being attacked is because of their skin color and because they are Muslims. We have not fought the wars in Iraqor Afghanistan correctly under Bush or Obama. If we had, we would have killed the enemy and not wasted taxpayer money.

From The Book: “Whatever Hapeen To COMMONS SENSE”

 

 

 

by

Obama Rejects Pipeline which kills jobs

 

By: Robert J. Samuelson

President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from
Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity. It isn’t often
that a president makes a decision that has no redeeming virtues and — beyond
the symbolism — won’t even advance the goals of the groups that demanded it.
All it tells us is that Obama is so obsessed with his reelection that, through
some sort of political calculus, he believes that placating his environmental
supporters will improve his chances.

Aside from the political and public relations victory,
environmentalists won’t get much. Stopping the pipeline won’t halt the
development of tar sands, to which the Canadian government is committed;
therefore, there will be little effect on global-warming emissions. Indeed,
Obama’s decision might add to them. If Canada builds a pipeline from Alberta to
the Pacific for export to Asia, moving all that oil across the ocean by tanker
will create extra emissions. There will also be the risk of added spills.

Now consider how Obama’s decision hurts the United States.
For starters, it insults and antagonizes a strong ally; getting future Canadian
cooperation on other issues will be harder. Next, it threatens a large source
of relatively secure oil that, combined with new discoveries in the United
States, could reduce (though not eliminate) our dependence on insecure foreign
oil.

Finally, Obama’s decision forgoes all the project’s jobs.
There’s some dispute over the magnitude. Project sponsor TransCanada claims
20,000, split between construction (13,000) and manufacturing (7,000) of
everything from pumps to control equipment. Apparently, this refers to “job
years,” meaning one job for one year. If so, the actual number of jobs would be
about half that spread over two years. Whatever the figure, it’s in the
thousands and thus important in a country hungering for work. And Keystone XL
is precisely the sort of infrastructure project that Obama claims to favor.

The big winners are the Chinese. They must be celebrating
their good fortune and wondering how the crazy Americans could repudiate such a
huge supply of nearby energy. There’s no guarantee that tar-sands oil will go
to China; pipelines to the Pacific would have to be built. But it creates the
possibility when the oil’s natural market is the United States.

There are three things to remember about Keystone and U.S.
energy policy.

First, we’re going to use lots of oil for a long time. The
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that U.S. oil consumption
will increase 4 percent between 2009 and 2035. The increase occurs despite
highly optimistic assumptions about vehicle fuel efficiency and bio-fuels. But
a larger population (390 million in 2035 versus 308 million in 2009) and more
driving per vehicle offset savings.

The more oil we produce domestically and import from
neighbors, the more we’re insulated from dramatic interruptions of global
supplies. After the United States, Canada is the most dependable source of oil
— or was, until Obama’s decision.

Second, barring major technological breakthroughs, emissions
of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, will rise for similar reasons. The
EIA projects that America’s CO2 emissions will increase by 16 percent from 2009
to 2035. (The EIA is updating its projections, but the main trends aren’t
likely to change dramatically.) Stopping Canadian tar-sands development, were
that possible, wouldn’t affect these emissions.

Finally, even if — as Keystone critics argue — some Canadian
oil were refined in the United States and then exported, this would be a good
thing. The exports would probably go mostly to Latin America. They would keep
well-paid industrial jobs (yes, refining) in the United States and reduce our
trade deficit in oil, which exceeded $300 billion in 2011.

By law, Obama’s decision was supposed to reflect “the
national interest.” His standard was his political interest. The State
Department had spent three years evaluating Keystone and appeared ready to
approve the project by year-end 2011. Then the administration, citing
opposition to the pipeline’s route in Nebraska, reversed course and postponed a
decision to 2013 — after the election.

Now, reacting to a congressional deadline to decide, Obama
rejected the proposal. But he also suggested that a new application with a
modified Nebraska route — already being negotiated — might be approved, after
the election. So the sop tossed to the environmentalists could be temporary.
The cynicism is breathtaking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rejecting-the-keystone-pipeline-is-an-act-of-insanity/2012/01/19/gIQAowG6AQ_story.html

by

Gingrich Fights back asking about his Ex

Focus On The Issues

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich slammed CNN host John King for asking about an explosive ABC News report claiming the White House hopeful asked his former wife for an “open marriage” before they later divorced.

“I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run of for public office and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich accused CNN host John King of poor taste for bringing up the issue. “John — John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don’t try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with it.”

“Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife, and make it two days before the primary a sign question in a presidential campaign, is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine,” Gingrich said.

ABC News reported Thursday that Gingrich’s second wife, Marianne, says the GOP presidential candidate asked her for an “open marriage” after he became involved with the woman who became his third and current wife. Gingrich said the claim is false.

Marianne Gingrich told ABC News that Gingrich wanted the then-Callista Bisek, his current wife, as his mistress while keeping Marianne Gingrich as his wife. She said he admitted at the time to a six-year affair with Callista.

Gingrich proceeded to attack the media for being biased against Republican candidates.

“I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans,” he said. “They would like to attack any Republican.”

The audience responded with a standing ovation and the other three candidates on stage did not touch the issue.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said “John, let’s get on to the real issues. That’s all I have to say.”

ABC aired the interview with Marianne Gingrich this evening shortly after the debate ended but little else was revealed.

Gingrich’s two adult daughters, Kathy Lubbers and Jackie Cushman, sent a letter to ABC news in defense of their father and scolding ABC for airing the interview.

“The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved,” they write. “We will not say anything negative about our father’s ex-wife.”

Rick Santorum was asked by King about the accusations against Gingrich. Santorum failed to defend or disparage Gingrich. “I thank God for forgiveness,” he said. “But the bottom line is those are — those are things for everyone in this audience to look at.”

Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign issued a statement before the debate was over agreeing with Gingrich that CNN should not have opened the debate with questions about his ex-wife.

“Our problem with Newt Gingrich is not that he lied to his wife but that he lied to the American people,” Ron Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57362440-503544/gingrich-slams-cnn-for-asking-about-ex-wife/

 

 

by

Hollywood Says That They Will Not Support Obama Anymore

“BUY THE BOOK NOW”

By: NIKKI FINKE

Internet sites on their SOPA-Strike may be conducting a blackout but Hollywood studios are conducting a boycott. I’ve learned that Hollywood studio chiefs individually and as a group are drawing a line in the sand on the piracy issue with the Obama re-election campaign and refusing to give any more donations. The blowup came after President Obama on Saturday dashed moguls’ hopes that he would remain on the sidelines in the dispute over the U.S. House Of Representatives’ Stop Online Piracy Act and the U.S. Senate’s Protect IP Act. In a posting on the White House web site, three of the Obama administration’s top officials for Internet and intellectual property matters said that they share many of the concerns that the Internet community has about the Hollywood-supported bills. The trio said that they “will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.” Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel, U.S. Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra, and Special Assistant to the President Howard Schmidt tried to soften the blow to Hollywood by acknowledging that that online piracy is “a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response.” They added that they plan to host an online event “to get more input” on the matter. But Hollywood moguls told me they “didn’t know it was going to be as over the top as it was” and took this as a declaration of war. “We just feel very let down by the administration and Obama for not supporting us,” one studio chief explained to me. “At least let him remain neutral and not go against it until we can get the legislation right. But Obama went against it. I’m personally not going to support him anymore and not give a dime anymore,” another movie mogul who’s also a well-known Obama supporter told me this week.

So far the most outspoken mogul against the Obama administration on this issue has been Rupert Murdoch who on Saturday told his new Twitter audience: “So Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery.” But I’ve learned that other moguls privately are having “direct and personal conversations” with Obama and his administration and the Democratic Party. Several moguls have informed Obama’s newly anointed Hollywood re-election liason to the entertainment community Nicole Avant and her husband who is helping her, Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos, that they are pulling out of major fundraisers planned over the next few days and won’t participate in any more headed by Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (whom they see as in the pocket of the Internet giants like Google).

One of those events is a major January 31st fundraiser attended by First Lady Michelle Obama at the Beverly Hills home of Avant and Sarandos. There’s another LA fundraiser for the First Lady on February 1st. And both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will be coming for more fundraisers here in coming weeks. The moguls are telling Avant and Sarandos to count them out. “Now is when all the fundraises are starting. But everyone in my position is really pissed. It’s a real conundrum,” one mogul told me.

Alarmed by the mogul boycott, Sarandos sent a personal plea to the Hollywood studio chiefs over the weekend begging them to continue supporting the Obama re-election campaign even though he knows they are disappointed with the Obama administration’s position on the piracy bills. Several moguls, in response, ”sent back word saying ‘Fuck You’ basically,” one insider tells me, expressing how they feel used and abused by the President despite their campaign contributions. I’ve learned that Fox Filmed Entertainment Chairman Jim Gianopulos even sat down and wrote his good friend (and fellow Greek-American) Sarandos an articulate note over the weekend the gist of which said that he and his fellow moguls won’t give any more money if they keep getting taken for granted. One insider told me, “Jim explained that this notion that the Hollywood community will continue giving regardless of its business interests has to be taken into consideration. The message was, ‘Don’t expect Hollywood to show up and say ‘Who do I write the check to’ anymore.”

The moguls are reminding Obama et al that, in the words of one studio chief, “God knows how much money we’ve given to Obama and the Democrats and yet they’re not supporting our interests. There’s been no greater supporters of him than we’ve been from the first day and the first fundraisers continuing until he was elected. We all were pleased. And, at its heart institutionally, Hollywood supports the Democrats. Now we need the administration to support us. This is a very important time for Hollywood. The issue at hand — piracy — is a legitimate concern. But Google and those Internet guys have been swiftboating the entertainment industry by saying we’re trying to shut down the Internet just because we don’t want them to advertise pirated movies. As for other claims, we make 24. We don’t make national security problems.”

The boycott even extends to many of the moguls’ families who also are big Obama and Democratic Party donors. The situation is serious because many moguls and/or their families comprise Obama’s top bundlers in the TV/movie/music biz. Bundlers as defined by opensecrets.org are “people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who’s willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big ‘bundle’.” These donors direct more money to the candidates than anyone else. As of September 2011 these 357 elite bundlers were directing at least $55,900,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts — money that has gone into the coffers of his campaign as well as the Democratic National Committee, according to opensecrets.org. That figure by now has significantly increased and will continue to do so.
http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/exclusive-hollywood-moguls-stopping-obama-donations-because-of-administrations-piracy-stand/

by

The Courts Tell UK that they cannot send a Hate Preacher home

Muslim Men Know How To Dress Their Women

By: msnbc.com staff and news services

An extremist cleric described as one of Europe’s leading al-Qaida operatives should not be deported to Jordan to face trial because of the risk that evidence obtained through torture would be used against him, Europe’s highest court ruled Tuesday.

After a six-year legal battle, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that deporting Abu Qatada from Britain — where he is in prison custody — would “give rise to a flagrant denial of justice.”
The move means that within days Qatada could apply for bail to be released from the maximum security prison where he is being kept, the Guardian newspaper reported.

Although Abu Qatada has never faced criminal charges in Britain, authorities in the U.K. have accused him of advising militants and raising money for terrorist attacks. He “is a leading spiritual advisor with extensive links to, and influence over, extreme Islamists in the U.K. and overseas,” prosecutors told a British court in 2007.

Britain’s Home Secretary Theresa May said the U.K. would consider appealing the European court’s decision. It has a three-month window in which to make any appeal, the court said.

“I am disappointed that the court has made this ruling,” May said in a statement. “This is not the end of the road, and we will now consider all the legal options available to us.” “Whatever Happen To COMMON SENSE”

Abu Qatada will remain held in British prison custody while a decision is made, she said.

May has not specified what Britain would do if it loses any appeal, though it is likely Abu Qatada would be freed from prison and monitored under a surveillance program which requires those suspected of involvement in terrorism — but not charged with any crime — to abide by a curfew and wear an electronic anklet.

Britain’s Special Immigration Appeals Commission has previously been told Abu Qatada was also suspected of links to a bomb plot in Strasbourg, France, and to the raising of funds for terrorism in Chechnya.
In their ruling, the European judges based in Strasbourg said they did not accept Abu Qatada’s claims that he would face ill treatment or torture at the hands of Jordanian authorities if sent there for trial, citing recent agreements between Jordan and the U.K.

But the judges warned that evidence in his case had been obtained by torturing his co-accused.
“The court found that torture was widespread in Jordan, as was the use of torture evidence by the Jordanian courts,” the ruling said. “In relation to each of the two terrorist conspiracies … the evidence of his involvement had been obtained by torturing one of his co-defendants.”

Judges said evidence obtained through torture was illegal under international law and was also unreliable. The ruling said “there was a high probability that the incriminating evidence would be admitted … and that it would be of considerable, perhaps decisive, importance.”
Britain’s highest court had ruled in 2009 that Abu Qatada should be deported to Jordan, despite fears over his potential mistreatment.

Human rights group Liberty urged the British government to make efforts to have Abu Qatada prosecuted in Britain.
“The case … constitutes a damning indictment of the Jordanian criminal justice system where torture and evidence obtained by torture are completely commonplace,” Shami Chakrabarti, the group’s director, said in a statement. “So it is clear that, if Abu Qatada is to be tried for terrorism, this should happen in a British court without further delay.”

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/17/10173239-court-uk-cannot-send-extremist-preacher-home-to-jordan