Stanton's Space

The National Intelligence Council (NIC) is responsible for sorting through the mountains of data mined by 16 intelligence gathering agencies, in order to determine what information gets presented – and how it gets presented – to the president and senior policymakers.  As such, the person who heads the NIC has enormous influence on how well our government is able to defend the nation from its enemies. 

What would you think if that person was a man who believes that China’s communist government was justified in its crackdown against freedom demonstrators in Tiananmen Square, during which it murdered one of them by running him over with a tank?  What would you think if he was recently on an advisory board of China National Offshore Oil Corporation, which is owned by the communist government and known for its ties to many of the world’s dictatorships?  What would you think if he had literally worked for the Saudi royals whose nation is the world’s largest exporter of terrorists?  What would you think if he is currently president of an anti-Israel organization that receives the bulk of its funding from the Saudi king?  What would you think if he believes America brought the September 11^th attacks on itself by being allied with Israel?  Would you think that person really believes in America and has her best interests at heart?

Well, the above description is the real biography of the man recently named head of the NIC.  His name is Charles Freeman.  His ties to China go back at least as far as 1971, when he served as an interpreter during Richard Nixon’s meetings with its government.  His ties to Saudi Arabia go back at least as far as 1989, when he became U.S. ambassador to that country.

The position of NIC Chair does not require Senate confirmation, so it often goes under the radar.  Freeman was named to the post on February 26^th, not by President Obama but by Dennis Blair (director of national intelligence).  Obama can undo it, however, and he should.  If he does not, this country is on a predictable path to disaster – and by extension, so is freedom everywhere.

On a side note:  Notice how you hear virtually nothing in the media about Freeman being tabbed to lead the NIC, but you hear so much about the Obamas buying a swingset and choosing a dog and the president's hair starting to turn gray?

One month into a president’s tenure, the norm is for him to have approval ratings just over 60% and disapproval ratings of about 16%.  Right now, Barack Obama has been president for one month and his approval rating is 63% while his disapproval rating is 24%.  In other words, the percentage of people who approve of his performance is normal while the percentage who disapprove is much higher than normal. 

The usually liberal L.A. Times Top of the Ticket Blog deserves a lot of credit for pointing these numbers out.  However, the blog does not appear in the actual newspaper and is not identified on the home page of the L.A. Times’ web site…which brings us to the question of how the media is covering The Exalted One now that he is in office.

Recently the MSM has spent a lot of time reporting Obama’s approval numbers without bothering to mention their normalcy – and without reporting his disapproval numbers at all.  To those who are not independently knowledgeable about such matters (in other words, just about everybody) this gives the false impression that abnormally large numbers of people who are “in the know” think Obama is doing the right things. 

Do you think the MSM has a reason for wanting people to get that impression?  Don’t insult my intelligence by saying “no.”  They got Obama to the White House by crafting a phony image of him in people’s minds, and they will do everything they can to keep that image alive because they are already thinking of 2012.

And on a separate note, what on earth was Sean Penn talking about at the Oscars when he said he was proud to live in a country that elected an “elegant man” for president?  There’s nothing wrong with elegance, of course, but it has absolutely nothing to do with one’s qualifications for leadership.  We don’t elect presidents to dress in the finest suits and speak mellifluously while sipping Macallan Scotch in five-star hotels.  We elect them to make tough decisions, to stand down violent enemies, and to guide the ship of state through dangerous waters.  What does elegance have to do with any of that?

And lastly, this:  During the same speech in which he got mushy about Obama being elegant, Mr. Penn went out of his way to angrily condemn people who oppose gay marriage.  He even said that their grandchildren will look back on them with shame. Makes me wonder if Mr. Penn knows that Obama has gone on recod opposing gay marriage, or if he’s giving him a pass because he’s a Democrat.

The unutterable thoughts began to roll around in my head a few weeks ago, and they have continued to do so, gaining momentum slowly but steadily until I can no longer deny their existence.  But because they are unutterable, I dared not utter them…until I spoke with my brother the other night and learned that he too has felt their tug…which helped me conclude that untold others must be feeling the same.

The initial, superficial thought was this:  I feel a measure of sympathy for Rod Blagojevich.  The deeper, more consequential thought, manifested via the superficial one, is this:  I believe that Blago is being railroaded and his prosecution is a farce.

Like a living effigy, he has been strung up and set afire to take the fall for corrupt politicians everywhere.  And his lynching will benefit many, because while everybody is distracted by the media circus surrounding this man nobody heard of until recently, the big fish are able to swim away without being seen.

The big fish are all those nationally known politicians who have never been depicted as crooked even though they are as crooked as the day is long.  I am willing to bet that at least 90% of them are Democrats and most of them are widely thought of as "leaders." 

Just think:  It is unheard of for the MSM to openly criticize a Democrat, yet as soon as the Blago story broke, the entire MSM immediately fell into lockstep and began depicting him as a sleazebag.  Many MSM’ers even went so far as to claim that he is literally insane, on top of being a sleazebag.  This should cause every conservative and every media watcher to be very, very suspicious.

After all, we’re talking about the same MSM that 1) ignored Juanita Broaddrick’s wholly credible allegations that Democrat President Bill Clinton raped her; 2) granted automatic, unquestioning acceptance to Democrat Congressman Barney Frank’s claim that he had no idea his boyfriend was running a prostitution ring out of their home; and 3) granted acceptance that was even more automatic and unquestioning when it came to Democrat Presidential Candidate Barack Obama’s incoherent explanations about his alliances with the racist Jeremiah Wright and the terrorist Bill Ayers.

Is Blago a saint?  Absolutely not.  Is he ethical?  Doubtful, based on what we’ve heard from those tapes.  But how is it that he differs from all the other powerful Chicago Democrats through the years?  Why is it that the MSM loudly condemns Blago but was always subdued when it came to Richard J. Daley and Dan Rostenkowski?  Shouldn’t the uniform abnormality of the MSM’s reaction to Blago cause eyebrows to raise, at the very least?

The “big fish” thought – that the media is playing the matador, getting people to gaze at a flapping red cape while wrongdoers escape in another direction – will not leave my mind.  Who are the big fish?  I don’t know, but I do suspect that one of them is our president.  After all, Obama sprang from the same state, in fact the same city, whose politicians have always been known for corruption on a legendary scale.

To put it nicely, it is implausible to think that anyone can come from Chicago politics and rise high while being clean.  And Obama rose from Chicago politics all the way to the top.  And nobody can deny that the MSM has been protecting his reputation as if it is their own.  I do not know if Obama is one of the people the Blagojevich crucifixion is designed to save, but when you think about it, everything adds up that way.