Obama Reads the "News" In Order To Know "How To Respond?"

Sean Davis, Co-founder of "The Federalist" (@ thefederalist.com) has a thorough report on how the New York Times has edited "a mistake" made by the Obama administration.  According to Davis the action by the NYT had "caused some major media waves:"

"...The story, which was written by reporters Peter Baker and Gardiner Harris, included a remarkable admission by Obama about his response to the recent terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California ... By Friday morning, however, the entire passage containing Obama’s admission had been erased from the story without any explanation from the New York Times..."

Davis quotes CNN's Brian Stelter, who reported:  "...In his meeting with the columnists, Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments. Republicans were telling Americans that he is not doing anything when he is doing a lot, he said..."

The way Davis calls it is this:

"... The version of the New York Times story that was published early Thursday evening indicated that Obama knew he was out of touch with the country on terrorism, and he thought that was due to not watching enough television. Obama critics immediately pounced on the stunning admission from the president, expressing shock that he would claim that a lack of TV time was the real reason for him not understanding Americans’ anxiety about terrorism..."

Davis continued in his column that the passage containing Obama's admission was gone as of Friday morning, and then displayed the passages as they went through several revisions, including several changes in the headlines of that article, and included the following:

"...The original headline when the story was first published was 'Obama Visiting National Counterterrorism Center.' Less than two hours later, the headline was 'Obama, at Counterterrorism Center, Offers Assurances On Safety.' Then the headline was changed to 'Frustrated by Republican Critics, Obama Defends Muted Response to Attacks.' Two hours later, the headline was once again revised to 'Under Fire From G.O.P., Obama Defends Response to Terror Attacks.' The most recent headline revision, which accompanied the deletion of the passage where Obama admitted he didn’t understand the American public’s anxiety about terrorism, now reads, 'Assailed by G.O.P., Obama Defends His Response To Terror Attacks.' ..."

The action by the New York Times is as just as absurd, if not more, than the Original statement by Obama.  THAT is what IS the news.  Deliberately or "unconsciously" the media, the "conservative" camp, as well as the socialist shills for Obama, are overlooking what is disappointingly obvious to many Americans, and that is, not the attempt to hide Obama's failings via the editing of the reporting of his actions, but the actions (or statements) themselves.

Specifically THIS:  What sort of person has to rely on cable news, or any reports for that matter in order to feel a certain way about a particular incident.  Obama is described as being "out of touch," but I submit that there is much more there to ponder than a mere lack of information.

WHO needs to be told by someone or something else how to act?  14 Americans were brutally slaughtered by psycopathic terrorist killers. Who even measures the amount of anxiety needed as a response?

THIS person is your President Today.  We have heard constantly how Hillary Clinton's campaign operatives have been working overtime to make her seem more real, more appealing to her audiences.  Is it because she too, like the President lacks the social empathy that is natural to other human beings?

Do both of these personalities lack a particular trait that makes everyone else "normal?"

Would you care to mention what trait that is, and what psychological disorder this points to?

[Original Story Source:  Sean Davis @ The Federalist)

WHAT IF?

The following is a "What If?" example to make a point about the President's pitch for gun control in the wake of the San Bernardino Terrorist attack:

Let's suppose there was a well-guarded  base in Afghanistan, which security, a handful of terrorists managed to breach, and before being caught and/or killed, managed to kill a dozen soldiers within the base.  The base Commander, knowing full well the intentions of the enemy terrorists, and communicating that to the troops within the base, then announces that he wants anyone in possession of any kind of weapon to turn in that/those weapons, and he wants base police to prevent the troops from obtaining any additional weapons.  The Commander does this as the enemy sends out a public announcement to the base, stating that they are going to launch further attacks upon the base.

The rationale the Commander advances as a justification for "gun control" is that the terrorists will not be able to shoot or kill anyone if there are no guns to be obtained from those that possess the guns on the base.

What do you think the troops within that base will perceive the state of mind of their Commander is?  On whose side do you think the troops will believe their Commander is on?

What that hypothetical Commander should do is to make sure that every one of his soldiers in that base is fully armed, and is fully trained in using the arms that they possess.  Further that Commander should ensure that any of his troops that do not have a weapon,  immediately obtain a weapon, and that they receive the best training in the use of those weapons as soon as they receive them.  The Commander should then order defensive and offensive drills, and then launch attacks on the terrorists BEFORE they are able to attack his base again, and he should annihilate the terrorists and any danger of attack by any other enemy entities, in order to ensure the security and safety of the base.

Now, apply this "hypothetical" to the San Bernardino terrorist attack and the actions of the President in its aftermath.

I should point out that we are into the second week, since our homeland was attacked.  It was an act of WAR against our country.  DAYS after the mass murder it was already too late.  Hell should have been unleashed immediately upon the headquarters of the cowards in Syria and Iraq that congratulated the terrorists for their actions in San Bernardino.  Their headquarters in Raqqah should have already been wiped out, and a systematic annihilation of anything left of that regime should have by now been systematically underway.

Instead  those that were thrust into cowardice and hand-wringing by the attack, including those in the media, are targeting our own people in this country, are advocating for the surrender of our arms, demonizing those who dare to speak against the enemy, rabidly criticizing anyone who wants to take aggressive measures to protect our borders and our national entry points, and in the case of our "Attorney General," she has threatened to violate our first amendment rights, outright stating that we now have no freedom of speech, unless she deems it so, and that we cannot write or say anything against anyone of a particular religion, and that if anyone does, they will be prosecuted for "hate speech."

Pardon me, but where exactly would the Attorney General incarcerate thousands upon thousands of Black Muslims, who rant and rave with "hate speech" against "White Devils?"  Would she immediately arrest Louis Frarrakhan and his followers?  Or was she favoring one religion over another, "just because" she is the Attorney General.

To sum this up: The President should have launched an all out attack against our terrorist enemies.  He should have issued an executive order for the applicable agencies to issue weapons  immediately to any Americans who are able to use them, and made training available to them.  The applicable agencies should then be organizing community security events to teach people what to look for to detect terrorism and terrorist attacks.

In other words, he should be taking any and all actions necessary to make safe our nation and its borders.

Instead, what do we have?