By Chuck Rogér, American Thinker

 Obama wants to control the media like Chavez does in Venezuela

The President warns us that Americans must beware of "the craziest claims" and "arguments" in which "information becomes a distraction" that puts "pressures" on "our democracy." What was behind Barack Obama’s recent remarks to the graduating class of Hampton University? What "information" must Americans fear?

FCC Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd foretold Obama’s meaning in a coauthored 2007 Center for American Progress (CAP) report. The report complained that 91 percent of talk radio was conservative and praised the "more balanced" programming "in markets such as New York and Chicago." The deep blue demographics of two of the bluest American cities betray a deceitful usage of the term "more balanced."

To further corrupt the meaning of "balance," even after admitting that "no matter how the data is analyzed" conservative talk dominates "over and over again," the CAP report implied that talk radio balance means half conservative, half progressive programming. This is instructive. Although twice as many Americans self-identify as conservative versus liberal, the liberal meaning of balance mutates from allotment according to real-life proportions to equal market share. Armed with any redefinitions required, FCC Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd is now in a position to rebalance political talk radio.

To understand how "balance" could be achieved, we refer again to President Obama’s warning that Hampton graduates must avoid information that becomes distracting. Precisely how can one recognize distracting information? A clue lies in the CAP report’s insistence that broadcast companies serve "the listening needs of all Americans." The key word is "needs." Liberals assume that people should need only the information that liberals want people to have. Other information constitutes "distraction."

Read More:

Craig R Smith, WND

“Tell me again how you nationalized those industries?”

Victim in Chief Barack Hussein Obama is adding to his long list of evil, greedy corporations taking advantage of millions of fellow victims in America. After targeting Big Oil and the health-insurance evildoers, the banks are now the target of his ire.

On Thursday, Mr. Obama made it clear he will no longer allow big banks to victimize the population. The days of their "obscene" profits and bonuses are over, and he is ready for a "fight" if they even consider opposing his new taxes and regulations.

It appears we are all victims of all these mean, greedy, nasty people who run big business in America. Mr. Obama is going to put them in their place and save us poor victims from the evil ways of big business.

The "fat cats" are now going to pay.

Forget the fact that for years Big Oil has made billions of gallons of gasoline available at thousands of gas stations throughout America, making the refueling of our vehicles much easier. Ignore the warmth in the winter and cool in the summer produced from the energy Big Oil makes available in abundance without interruption – or the ability to cook meals with the natural gas or electric Big Oil provides instead of having to make a fire in our homes. All of this apparently means nothing to Mr. Obama.

Read More:

by Mark Hillman, Town hall

Obama believes he is so great people will just follow his words

Say what you will about Bill Clinton’s foreign policy shortcomings, but for the most part he had the good sense not to squander Ronald Reagan’s legacy of peace through strength.

By contrast, Barack Obama’s foreign policy seems to be predicated on a boundless faith in his own persuasive powers and the naïve notion that our international antagonists are merely misunderstood. Not since Jimmy Carter has American foreign policy been so obsequious or short-sighted.

Rather than isolate Argentine menace Hugo Chavez, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have managed the remarkable feat of backing Chavez’s acolyte in Honduras, ousted president Manuel Zelaya, while still eliciting ridicule from Latin America’s most notorious thug.

Read More:

By Ashley Rindsberg, WorldNetDaily

Zelaya with his role model Chavez,Obama is working to reinstate Zelaya

The Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa erupted into demonstrations amid reports ousted president Manuel Zelaya has returned.

The interim government, led by Roberto Micheletti, issued denials that Zelaya is was the country. But the U.S. State Department confirmed Zelaya was in Honduras, and he now has shown himself to the public from the Brazilian embassy.

The latest development threatened to reignite demonstrations that broke out earlier today after reports of Zelaya’s return. Police helicopters, possibly informed that Zelaya had revealed his whereabouts, flew close to the Brazilian embassy, although the police and military seemed to be keeping some distance.

The Obama administration has shown strong support for Zelaya despite widespread criticism that the former president was leading the country down a path eerily similar to that of Venezuela under its leftist president, Hugo Chavez.

Zelaya declared he was in the capital during a broadcast today on Venezuela’ government-owned Telesur network.

"I’m here in the Honduran capital, in the first place carrying out the people’ will, which has insisted on my restoration," Zelaya said.

Read More:

By Spengler, Asia Times

Obama is empowering our enemies

There’s a joke about a man who tells a psychiatrist, “Everybody hates me,” to which the psychiatrist responds, “That’s ridiculous – everyone doesn’t know you, yet.” Which brings me to Barack Obama: one of the best-informed people in the American security establishment told me the other day that the president is a “Manchurian Candidate”.

That can’t be true – Manchuria isn’t in the business of brainwashing prospective presidential candidates any more. There’s no one left to betray America to. Obama is creating astrategic void in which no major power will dominate, and every minor power must fend for itself. The outcome is incalculably hard to analyze and terrifying to consider.

Obama doesn’t want to betray the United States; he only wants to empower America’s enemies. Forcing Israel to abandon its strategic buffer (the so-called settlements) was supposed to placate Iran, so that Iran would help America stabilize Iraq, where its influence looms large over the Shi’ite majority.

By Lauri B. Regan, American Thinker

Obama sides with Castro, Chavez and Ahmadinejad over oppressed citizens

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” – Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address, January 20, 2009

The left in this country spent the Bush years wringing their hands, frustrated over efforts at nation building in the Mideast. Newsweek’s attempt at rewriting history with claims of success in Iraq due to Obama’s policies won’t change the fact that the Bush administration’s “war of choice” was a success. An entire population of repressed people now lives in freedom due to United States Mideast policy under President Bush. And the Iranian people desire a similar fate if only the American President were to seize the opportunity and support the populace demanding that their voices be heard.

Unfortunately, President Obama has traveled the globe handing out carrots to each and every one of America’s enemies, leaders who also happen to be repressive dictators. Yet, no matter which tyrant Obama approaches with his open hand, he has, as my kids like to say, been “dissed.”

With each fist bump from Hugo Chavez, Team Medvedev/Putin, Kim Jong-Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, one would expect that Obama would learn to close his open palm and offer up the tough policy that he promised would appear. Yet the only world leader who has seen Obama’s stick wielding, clenched fist is Israeli Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu.

By Armstrong Williams, The Hill

Two Socialists compare notes

President Obama’s interactions with anti-American leadership, namely Hugo Chavez, throughout the developing world are threatening the honor of American self-reliance. Now, more than ever, the president’s intentions are made frightfully clear.

Chavez has a long history of hatred toward America, which is fueled by the distrust of cherished American values threatening his tyrannical rule. U.S. paranoia has marked his administration as he holds to America’s involvement in the failed 2002 coup, prompting a U.S. inspector general investigation finding no U.S. wrongdoing.

Further, Chavez has diligently orchestrated an impressive anti-American alliance consisting of Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba and guerrillas scattered around South America, as he has fervently strengthened his own army.

His desire to fulfill Cuba’s model of anti-Americanism and his eagerness to learn from Castro is without contention. More so, Chavez actively courts those on the fringe of anti-Americanism, such as Russia, which has committed to helping Chavez build a nuclear reactor.

Now Chavez has one more alliance to add to his anti-American repertoire: President Obama.

By SHMULEY BOTEACH, Jerusalem Post

Obama's Big Adventure World Tour includes time for dictators

The picture of the president of the United States smiling broadly as he met President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela startled me. Our president is a nice guy. Chavez is anything but.

The State Department maintains that Chávez has attacked democratic traditions and has put Venezuelan democracy on life support with unchecked concentration of power, political persecution, and intimidation. Foreign Affairs magazine says that Chávez is a power-hungry dictator with autocratic and megalomaniacal tendencies whose authoritarian vision and policies are a serious threat to his people. In testimony before the US Senate, the South American project director for the Center for Strategic International Studies said that Chavez’s government engages in “arresting opposition leaders, torturing some members of the opposition (according to human rights organizations) and encouraging, if not directing, its squads of Bolivarian Circles to beat up members of Congress and intimidate voters-all with impunity.”

Then there was the incident of President Barack Obama seeming to bow before King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the G-20 summit in London. The president’s people denied it was a bow, but it certainly was a sign of great deference from the American president to the dictator of a country who just six weeks ago sentenced a 75-year-old woman to 40 lashes for having been secluded with her nephew after he delivered bread to her home. This is the same Abdullah whom, when asked why Saudi Arabia prohibits the public practice of religions other than Islam, said, “It is absurd to impose on an individual or a society rights that are alien to its beliefs or principles.”

WATCHING ALL THIS, I was wondering what the new standards were. How oppressive must a leader be before we determine that he has not merited a hug by the democratic standard-bearer of the free world, the president of the United States? Yes, I get it. We have to speak to our enemies, and America has to push “reset” on its relationship with many of these countries. We should try and change them through charm. But who said the president himself, rather than a lower-level diplomat, must do so?

By Michael Barone, Washington Examiner

Obama receives gift from Leftist Chavez

As Barack Obama finishes up his second major foreign tour, a pattern in his approach to foreign policy seems to be emerging. On pressing matters of obvious importance, he has made responsible decisions that have not been far out of line with the policies of his predecessor and current necessities. But when it comes to seting priorities for the future, he has chosen to emphasize initiatives that seem more appropriate to situations America faced in his college years, the late 1970s and early 1980s, than to the threats America faces today.

Candidate Obama campaigned as the man who would lead us out of Iraq. President Obama, admitting belatedly and begrudgingly the success of George W. Bush’s surge strategy, decided to keep large numbers of troops there for another 19 months and an unspecified number after that. Responsibly, he decided not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. On Afghanistan, in line with his campaign rhetoric that this was the good war Bush was neglecting, he has decided to send in more troops, and his envoy Richard Holbrooke has pressed the Pakistani government to fight the Islamist terrorists too.