Wow: Even This Uber-Liberal Hollywood Actress Doesn’t Like Obama Anymore

Maggie-Gyllenhaal cropped

Although Hollywood star Maggie Gyllenhaal has been reputed to be a major supporter of President Barack Obama, cheering him on throughout both the 2008 and 2012 elections, it seems her admiration for him has dissipated.

“I really believed in him,” Gyllenhaal said in an interview with Time Magazine, “and I’m not sure what he believes in anymore.”

She explained that she began to feel this way when the events of the NSA scandal unfurled. She was “really disappointed” with how Obama handled the situation, saying he wasn’t “aggressive enough.”

“I still somewhere, I route for him, I hope for him one day I think he’s gonna come out and stand up for all the things he promised he was gonna stand up for, but I feel a little hopeless right now,” she added.

Via CNN:

“Look, I get it, I know. It’s a complicated job. I could never do it. But I hope for a leader who will stand up and be unpopular,” she said.

In addition to her work as a prominent Obama campaign surrogate, records show Gyllenhaal donated $5,800 to Obama in 2008 and 2012 cycles combined.

It seems despite Hollywood’s track record for being among Obama’s greatest fans and financial backers, not everyone in the entertainment industry is on the same page as the President anymore.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Watch: Israeli Official Slams Obama For The Despicable Way Obama Treated Netanyahu

Bibi Netanyahu

In a 35-minute phone call between Obama and Netanyahu on July 27, Obama started the conversation by demanding that Israel immediately declare a cease-fire and cease any offensive actions.

Obama: “I demand that Israel agree to an immediate unilateral ceasefire and cease all offensive action, especially airstrikes.”

When Netanyahu asked what Israel will get for this action, Obama answered vaguely, “I believe that Hamas will end the rocket attacks.”  Netanyahu reminded Obama that Hamas has violated five previous ceasefires and is a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel.  Obama refused to listen and repeated his expectation of Israel ceasing all military operations.

In this video, Steve Malzberg is in a phone interview with former Israeli Defense Minister Danny Danon about the conversation between Obama and Netanyahu:

MALZBERG: “Would any ceasefire have to include, if they accept any, would it have to include Israel’s right to continue to get the tunnels, and continue to keep the troops in Gaza, and continue to strike back at rocket launches?”

DANON: “Well, I don’t know if it was published in the U.S., but here in Israel we all talk about the phone conversation between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu. And it was not a pleasant conversation. If you saw what happened there, it was not pleasant.

MALZBERG: “Danny, was there a threat by President Obama?”

He was yelling and telling Prime Minister Netanyahu what he should do and what he should not do

DANON: “He was yelling and telling Prime Minister Netanyahu what he should do and what he should not do. And I will tell you frankly, we have very close relationship with the U.S.. It’s not just ally of Israel. But this is not a way to treat the leader of an ally country. He’s not talking, President Obama, with a leader of the Taliban. He’s talking with the leader of the State of Israel, of the Jewish people. And when we are in a time of war, we need to back in with the support of the U.S.. Unfortunately, we do not have it now. I urge Prime Minister Netanyahu and my friends in the cabinet to be strong now and to do whatever is good for Israel. Even if it means to tell President Obama, ‘no, we cannot do, we cannot satisfy your wishes or your pressure to sign a ceasefire, which would be bad for Israel now.”

MALZBERG: “Danny, one of the reports I did read about that conversation was that there was a threat, the cut-off of aid, not completely, but of some form of aid to Israel. Do you know anything about that?”

DANON: “No, I have to tell you that I am aware of the support that we have in both Houses, from the American people. And I think President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, they are all aware that we have good friends in need in the U.S. that will not allow the President to halt the connection between the American people and the Israelis. But it is not pleasant to hear such a voice when you have so much pressure. I can tell you it is not easy for us when we see our boys being buried on a daily basis. And we see that on a daily basis we have missiles. Even as we speak now, and I am on my way to Jerusalem, we had air raid sirens going off and we are still under attacks, rocket attacks, as we speak. So it’s not a time when you expect to get such a conversation or such attitude from a friend.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The Mainstream Media Could Be Covering Up A Secret So Huge It Would End Obama’s Presidency

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

What would happen if Americans learned that Barack Obama is not just an individual with a history of radical, anti-American associations, but an illegal President and an unindicted felon?

What would happen if Americans learned that the US government, including all members of Congress, and leading figures in the American media knew it and deliberately hid the truth from us?

If such a scenario were true, the political system and the media, as we now know it, would collapse; most politicians and journalists would lose their jobs, and many would go to jail.

Who in government and the media have the greatest incentive to remain silent and run out the clock on Barack Obama?

Obama and his inner circle know that there is a limit to the opposition’s ability to investigate governmental corruption without exposing their own possible complicity.

Does it explain Obama’s promotion of policies seemingly detrimental to the United States, his ability to lie without accountability, and his constant use of political brinkmanship?

Neither Kapiolani Medical Center nor Queens Medical Center, both in Honolulu, Hawaii, have ever confirmed from their hospital records that Obama was born in either hospital. Between November 20th and December 2nd of 2008, 13 separate Hawaiian hospitals were contacted to determine if Obama had been born there, none of which could or would confirm that it was the facility where he was born. Hawaiian law allows the state to issue a certificate of live birth even if the child is born outside Hawaii, provided the parents have been legal residents for at least one year immediately preceding the birth.

If Obama was born in Kenya, he was not even a citizen of the United States at birth. According to the Nationality Act of 1940, revised in June 1952, his American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, had to have been a resident of the United States for 10 years, at least five of which were over the age of 14, to confer U.S. citizenship. Dunham did not meet that five-year requirement until her 19th birthday in late November of 1961, almost four months after Obama was born.

In 1966 or 1967, Stanley Ann Dunham married Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro, who adopted Obama–which made him an Indonesian citizen according to Indonesian law. Elementary school records in Indonesia list Obama’s name as Barry Soetoro, his religion as Islam, and his citizenship as Indonesian. Because Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, Obama thus lost his U.S. citizenship (if he even had it) when he became an Indonesian citizen around 1967.

Indonesia today still does not allow dual citizenship. Under Indonesia law, once Obama became a naturalized citizen by virtue of adoption, he could not lose that status without relinquishing his citizenship in writing, under oath. Upon returning to the United States from Indonesia, Obama eventually satisfied the “five-years-after-age-14″ residency requirement of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, thus making him a naturalized citizen of the United States at age 19.

It may be that Obama’s Indonesian citizenship permitted him to apply to Occidental College as a foreign student, was the reason why Obama may have never registered for Selective Service, and why he could have used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan in 1981.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The Absurd, Bureaucratic Hell That Is the American Police State

Photo Credit: WEBN-TV (Creative Commons)

“The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern.”—C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

Whether it’s the working mother arrested for letting her 9-year-old play unsupervised at a playground, the teenager forced to have his genitals photographed by police, the underage burglar sentenced to 23 years for shooting a retired police dog, or the 43-year-old man who died of a heart attack after being put in a chokehold by NYPD officers allegedly over the sale of untaxed cigarettes, the theater of the absurd that passes for life in the American police state grows more tragic and incomprehensible by the day.

Debra Harrell, a 46-year-old South Carolina working mother, was arrested, charged with abandonment, and had her child placed in state custody after allowing the 9-year-old to spend unsupervised time at a neighborhood playground while the mom worked a shift at McDonald’s. Mind you, the child asked to play outside; was given a cell phone in case she needed to reach someone; and the park—a stone’s throw from the mom’s place of work—was overrun with kids enjoying its swings, splash pad, and shade.

A Connecticut mother was charged with leaving her 11-year-old daughter in the car unsupervised while she ran inside a store—despite the fact that the child asked to stay in the car and was not overheated or in distress. A few states away, a New Jersey man was arrested and charged with endangering the welfare of his children after leaving them in a car parked in a police station parking lot, windows rolled down, while he ran inside to pay a ticket.

A Virginia teenager was charged with violating the state’s sexting law after exchanging sexually provocative videos with his girlfriend. Instead of insisting that the matter be dealt with as a matter of parental concern, police charged the boy with manufacturing and distributing child pornography and issued a search warrant to “medically induce an erection” in the 17-year-old boy in order to photograph his erect penis and compare it to the images sent in the sexting exchange. The police had already taken an initial photograph of the boy’s penis against his will, upon his arrest.

In Georgia, a toddler had his face severely burned when a flash bang grenade, launched by a SWAT team during the course of a no-knock warrant, landed in his portable crib, detonating on his pillow. Also in Georgia, a police officer shot and killed a 17-year-old boy who answered the door, reportedly with a Nintendo Wii controller in his hands. The cop claimed the teenager pointed a gun at her, thereby justifying the use of deadly force. Then there was the incident wherein a police officer, responding to a complaint that some children were “chopping off tree limbs” creating “tripping hazards,” pulled a gun on a group of 11-year-old boys who were playing in a wooded area, attempting to build a tree fort.

Pages: 1 2 3 4

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Watch: The Hosts Of ‘The View’ Just Said Some Shocking Things About Guns (It’s Not What You Think)

The View1

In the course of Tuesday’s edition of The View, an astounding three out of four panelists admitted that the most effective way for a woman to protect herself and her children is by owning a gun.

As they discussed an ad created by the gun control group “Everytown for Gun Safety,” they did not agree with the anti-gun message – as one would expect from The View’s liberal leanings – but instead, almost all of the women went the other way, in favor of guns.

ABC Good Morning America co-host Lara Spencer was the odd one out in this scenario, as Sherri Shepherd, Jenny McCarthy, and guest co-host Juliet Huddy of Fox News rallied together and shared their real life scenarios that led them to reconsider their anti-gun stance. Shepherd was the first to explain why she now owns a firearm.

Via NewsBusters:

“The flipside is when I was at my home and the alarm went off, and I ran to my son’s bedroom and Jeffrey was crying, and I realized all I had to protect me and somebody coming around that corner was a daggone wicker trash basket.

“And I said to myself and everybody said to me, ‘well get a bat.’ You got one chance to use a bat if they take it away. ‘Get pepper spray.’ You know how close they got to get to you, if you use pepper spray?

“You got one of these? [makes a gesture like she's holding a gun and makes a sound of cocking a gun] They’re not gonna come near you and your child! So when you’re standing there, and you don’t know how to protect your child? Get a gun in your home!”

Huddy then shared the time she was faced with a stalker: “And I remember feeling so vulnerable. And I just remember constantly going to sleep at night wishing that I could go over and grab my dad’s gun.”

McCarthy had a similar experience to Shepherd as she revealed: “I’ve been in circumstances like Sherri where, you know people tried to break in and I’m with my son going, I wish I had something to protect myself with.”

When Spencer expressed her nervousness that “I have two kids. I would never want a gun in the house,” both Shepherd and McCarthy tried to assuage her fears.

When asked by Spencer, “What changed you?” Mccarthy said the situation changed her, adding, “I have it [the gun] very well protected now. There’s no way. Locked up.”

Whether in favor of gun control or not, no one could dispute a mother’s right to protect her loved ones.

It seems this pro gun control advertisement might have had the opposite of its intended effect on their audience. Oops!

H/T: Free Beacon

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom