Obama on media CNN screenshot

President Obama gave an interview with National Public Radio before heading off for vacation that should send chills down the spine of anyone who cares about national security. The president blamed the media for Americans’ fears of the Islamic State group instead of a.) the Dec. 2 terror attack in California, the deadliest on U.S. soil since 9/11, b.) the resiliency of ISIS, and c.) an aimless “strategy” to defeat the terror group.

“If you’ve been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you,” Obama said Monday, CNN reported. Look, the media is pursuing ratings. This is a legitimate news story. I think that, you know, it’s up to the media to make a determination about how they want to cover things.”

How delusional does a man have to be to question media coverage of a terror group only weeks after 14 Americans were slaughtered in San Bernardino by its supporters?

How tone-deaf does a man have to be to question media  coverage of a terror group just weeks after it killed 130 during an attack inside Paris, France?

To add insult to injury,  Abdirizak Mohamed Warsame, 20, was arrested in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on Dec. 9 and charged with trying to join ISIS. He is the 10th Twin Cities resident facing such charges.

The president’s comments also come in the middle of a world-wide refugee crisis fueled by the U.S.-led coalition’s failure to destroy ISIS in Iraq, Syria, and parts of North Africa. Millions of people are scattered across the globe, ISIS explicitly says it wants to use the chaos to filter its members into western nations, and Mr. Obama wonders why networks are covering the story.

In short, Mr. Obama’s comments can be translated: “Can’t you guys just cover Steve Harvey screwing up the 2015 Miss Universe pageant? You’ll get ratings and protect my reputation at the same time! Come on, what do you say? You just need to cover for me one more year and I’ll be out of here.”

Steve Harvey ABC screenshot

The president did everything within his power to ignore the Middle East since 2008. He believed his own hype — that the world’s terrorism-related ills could primarily be traced by to George W. Bush — and in doing so he allowed al Qaeda’s mutation to thrive and grow.

The fear Americans have of ISIS is a rational response to a reality that Mr. Obama helped create. If the president is unhappy with news coverage now, then he should not have dismissed ISIS as a “JV” team on Jan. 27, 2014.


  1. The Manchurian candidate is brilliant, and a mastermind, and not delusional at all.

    His greatest weapon is the cognitive dissonance that people feel when, deep in the recesses of their brains, an obvious pattern emerges amidst an array of acts committed by this president: the release of 5 senior taliban commanders in exchange for the deserter Bergdhal; the release of the rest of Guantanamo jihadists while knowing that many will return to the battlefield against the West (as indeed many already have and are known with certainty to have done); the denial of protection for four Americans in Benghazi in their hour of need, the resulting slaughter of those Americans by jihadists, and then the cover-up of the whole affair by himself and his administration; the fake “red line” of Syria and the message of impotence that it sent to our enemy; the abandonment of Iraq that led directly to the rise of ISIS; his refusal to use the term “radical Islam” and refusal to acknowledge Islamic terrorism whenever it occurs, such as the Fort Hood massacre that he described as an episode of “work place violence”; his ruthless pursuit of a treaty that will encourage and allow Iran to develop and deploy nuclear weapons.

    I could go on, as there are many more actions and policies that join these others in revealing a unifying theme behind them all: the enemy is emboldened, while the USA is made weaker.

    It is undeniable that this is the result. Whether this president intended it is a matter of conjecture.

    However, if you had no idea who was president, and you read the list, you would wonder whose side he was on.

    And so back to cognitive dissonance: some revelations are so disturbing they are dismissed outright.

    This is his greatest ally against our interests, and at every turn he doubles down. When Bill Clinton lost the House, he moved towards the center. Not this president. With each election loss in the Senate, and in the House, and in governorships across the country, and state legislatures across the country, he merely presses on with his purpose.

    He is not delusional. He is serious, smart, and devoted. But not to honoring his twice-sworn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

    That he has other goals in mind is so very clear now, and to deny it is to compel one’s own delusion.

  2. His attitude isn’t confined to him alone. I count among my closest friends, quite a few liberals. And the sad truth is, that this is a full on Ideological problem. I don’t want it to be. I’m pretty liberal about a few things…of course these things are no longer called ‘liberal’, not anymore.

    Never have we faced an opponent so counter to every ideal that a liberal holds dear. But the first reaction out of many of these people after the Paris attacks was worry about a backlash against minorities here…shortly before frenchifying their portraits on facebook.

    Lets call the initial reaction to the San Bernardino attacks what they really were…excitement. The news that a man in fatigues with an ‘assault weapon’ was killing people was yet another opportunity to ban guns. Excitement…over the murder of innocent people. Australia is all of a sudden a topic of discussion…it’s isn’t the effectiveness of the law…which is doubtful…it’s the incredible speed that the government used to overwhelm any opposition after an unfortunate tragedy years ago. Its about strategy.

    And standing tall over this nightmare thought process and inability to defend our ideals, our morals, our basic safety, is a man that always has his finger pointed at his own countryman. And with him is an entire ideology, now turned on it’s own countrymen over any tragedy. Every murder by the very heart of evil is now the fault of the man that wants to defend his family. Every chopped off head, removed hand, a result of our hubris, our wealth or our deep hidden racism. The media, who love him so dearly is being blamed for being unable to lose their last remaining grip on sanity…though it is clear that they already have. Innocent Muslims have been murdered by Isis and other terror groups for years, with no support from any liberal I can think of, Kurds bleed for us even now. Only on command by their media masters can they muster any outrage…command us Obama…Jon Stewart…Stephen Colbert. They can’t even muster anger over the murder of their fellow Americans…as this president has let them know that their neighbors are the real enemy.

    I can barely stand to watch it.

    1. The list you provided is incredibly telling, sasoc. I agree that the ramifications of the president’s foreign policy will bring pain to Americans for years to come.

      I may have said this before, but my only issue is with referring to him as “The Manchurian candidate.” It’s similar to what liberals did with Bush, likening him to a puppet who reported to Dick Cheney as if the vice president was Emperor Palpatine. People who are already inclined to agree with you will go, “Yeah! Yeah! Truth!” but those just outside our ideological choir see “Manchurian candidate” as a red flag. It conjures up visions of Obama calling Iranian mullahs and whispering, “It’s all going according to plan.”

      I think Obama is incredibly smart, but I also think he has a toxic brew of narcissism and devotion to far-left ideology that detaches him from reality. Every time reality is presented to him, those flaws sort of create a mental blind spot and replace it with an image of people trying to thwart his greatness or people trying to undermine liberalism. It’s incredibly scary from a national security standpoint, but it’s not the same as some Islamic sleeper agent who managed to become commander in chief.

    2. My usage of the phrase “Manchurian candidate” is not meant as a statement of my belief that he is a “sleeper agent”, so I agree with your distinction. I use the phrase to describe certain realities about the man’s origins that are not in dispute: he was raised for the first ten years of his life in Indonesia, hearing the Muslim call to prayer every day (as he related in his books). His birth certificate is far less relevant than the fact that he was not a kid living in and being formed by the way of life we have in these United States. 0-10 yrs of age is the very essence of “formative”, and when you add his Marxist mentors such as Frank Marshall Davis, you have a 2007 candidate that is as Manchurian as it gets. This was, and is, a man apart, with an agenda that is antithetical to our way of life and government, and he acts like it and proves it all the time. I think the label fits well in this sense.

    3. I think that is very well said. Thanks for clarifying that. I’m not sure how much you know about my professional life outside this blog, but let’s just say that the email I receive from readers at my current job…and to a lesser extent my last job, sometimes used “Manchurian candidate” in a very different way. I don’t want people muddling up your usage, which is totally logical, with what I see at work on occasion.

    4. And standing tall over this nightmare thought process and inability to defend our ideals, our morals, our basic safety, is a man that always has his finger pointed at his own countryman. And with him is an entire ideology, now turned on it’s own countrymen over any tragedy. Every murder by the very heart of evil is now the fault of the man that wants to defend his family.”

      When I exited the military I considered myself a defacto Democrat. I wasn’t a political guy at all, and just sort of assumed that’s what I was because Democrats were always portrayed as the “cool” guys. But then I went to college and it seemed like my liberal professors always — always — blamed the U.S. for all the world’s problems. They acted as if the U.S. is the only country with skeletons in its closet. There wasn’t a single issue that couldn’t be used a springboard for a “This is why I’m sorry that I’m an American” speech. It really bothered me. I’ve said this in past blog posts, but I will never forget when one of my professors said, “Only red-neck Republican hicks who are happy to get a free pair of boots join the Army.”

      I thought, “Screw you, jerk.” I liked a lot of the guys I served with, and if someone that mean wanted to use “red neck Republican hicks” as a pejorative, then I was going to embrace it.

  3. Obama never complained about the sensationalistic coverage of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, or Freddie Gray. Or Newtown. Or the Planned Parenthood shooting. Or anything else that served his purposes.

    By and large, the media have reported what Obama (and the Left in general) wanted reported, and in the way that Obama wanted it reported. And they have ignored anything that did not fit the agenda. Compare the coverage of Michael Brown to the coverage (or lack of it) of Kate Steinle’s murder.

    Sometimes a story (Paris, San Bernardino) is too big to sweep under the rug. Then the MSM try to spin it. We were told that the motive behind the San Bernardino attack was “still unclear,” but that the Inland Regional center was “only a few blocks away” from a Planned Parenthood clinic. (The actual distance was one and a half miles.) And the media are helping Obama exploit the San Bernardino tragedy to enact more gun control laws. The New York Times and Atlantic editorialized about how “even people on the No-Fly List can buy guns.” When Bush was president, they were denouncing the Terror Watch List and its subset, the No-Fly List, for their lack of due process and for their lack of objective criteria.

    (BTW, Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook were never on the No-Fly List, so Obama’s plan to prohibit gun sales to people on the list would not have prevented the SB tragedy. Trump’s proposal (temporarily bar Muslims from entering or re-entering the US until we have some reasonable, common sense vetting procedures in place) could have.)

    But Obama has to blame someone. The Tea Party, Fox News, the NRA, Trump, Bush, the Boy Scouts, Rush Limbaugh, Memories Pizza, somebody, anybody. And now, “the media.” There is no way he will ever accept any part of the blame for anything.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: