Pinheads And Patriots: Where You Stand In The Age Of Obama Part 2

However, the question going forward is this: Will the man Barack Obama has become achieve greatness with the opportunity the voters have given him? Right now the tea leaves (some covered with oil) seem to be saying no, but the President does have substantial time left in office.

What else are those tea leaves saying? Let's begin our microa.n.a.lysis of Obama's fortunes with the n.o.bel Peace Prize. On October 9, 2009, the Norwegian n.o.bel Committee, consisting of five guys wearing heavy woolen sweaters, announced that the President had won the prestigious award that carries with it a $1.4 million cash prize.

The n.o.bel Committee chairman, Thorbjrn Jagland (Thorby for short), told the world that the President won for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

Thorby, the former prime minister of Norway, went on to explain that Mr. Obama's desire to reduce the world's stock of nuclear arms had also impressed the committee.

The President himself was caught off guard. After deliberating for a few hours, he said this about the peace prize: Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leaders.h.i.+p on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations. To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize.

That would be folks like Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Ya.s.ser Arafat, to name a few-the latter of whom, you will remember, ama.s.sed millions of dollars by siphoning off foreign aid intended for the beleaguered Palestinian people. Wouldn't you have loved to witness old Ya.s.ser's face when that n.o.bel check rolled in? That bounty certainly made his day, even if he did have to share it with the other winners, Israelis s.h.i.+mon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin.

Anyway, some conservatives hooted at the n.o.bel situation and derided the President, even though he had nothing to do with the process. He was simply a beneficiary of a decision by some guys from Norway who apparently respect style over substance. I hear that eating a lot of herring leads to that.

As for the peace concept, the truth is that Barack Obama is conducting the war on terror pretty much the same way President Bush did. He's sending Predator drones into Pakistani villages to kill al-Qaeda big shots (sometimes killing civilians in the process). He's maintaining the U.S. troop presence in Iraq. He sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. And, perhaps most controversial, Obama still allows the CIA to send captured terrorists to countries like Egypt, where they can get free root ca.n.a.ls even if they don't need them.

As far as nukes are concerned, is there any sane person who wants more nuclear weapons? Just about everybody, with the possible exceptions of Kim Jong II and the nutty Iranian mullahs, would like to get rid of the doomsday weapons. Call me cynical, but giving a speech about downsizing nukes isn't exactly a bold statement about peace. Or am I wrong?

Nevertheless, most of the world greeted Barack Obama's peace prize with rapture. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said it marked "America's return to the hearts of the world's peoples." German chancellor Angela Merkel called it an "incentive to the President and to us all to do more for world peace."

By the way, Merkel would not allow German troops to aggressively fight the terrorists in Afghanistan, thereby ensuring more violence from the Muslim killers, who are not exactly known for giving peace a chance, with apologies to John Lennon.

Ideological propaganda aside, the real reason President Obama won the n.o.bel Peace Prize is a Pinheaded one: he made a series of speeches, including the famous address to the Muslim world in Cairo, in which he ate humble pie on behalf of we the American people. The Norwegians loved loved that. They loved it better than North Sea oil, better than reindeer burgers. that. They loved it better than North Sea oil, better than reindeer burgers.

In fact, most of the world likes Barack Obama primarily because he is the ant.i.thesis of George W. Bush. While Bush didn't give a fig what the world thought of his war on terror, Obama is apologizing for much of it, and that is a Pinheaded move. President Bush largely destroyed al-Qaeda's operational abilities, and the record shows no further foreign attacks on American soil during his watch. Mr. Obama should respect that achievement. Apparently, he does not.

My take on the n.o.bel Prize saga was tepid. I saw the absurdity of the decision, but unlike the hard Right, I chalked it up as a positive for America. I mean, if folks overseas like us better because they think President Obama is a peacemaker, what's the downside? In my opinion, the more people who like the USA, the better.

But some of my viewers dissented. Judy Robinson, who lives in Richmond, Indiana, wrote: "The n.o.bel people are a bunch of socialists. Don't give them any credence, Bill. I would be embarra.s.sed to accept an award from them."

s.h.i.+rley Venente from Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, opined: "O'Reilly, you are wrong. The award is not good for our country because it is based on a lie. Is that what we want, a lie?"

What lie, s.h.i.+rley? I know for sure that the n.o.bel committee believes that Barack Obama is a force for peace. So no lie is involved on their part. The difficulty that some are having with the President being honored is that he had not done done anything to earn it. But, hey, who really cares? Mr. Obama donated the money to charity, a Patriotic move, and again, having America a.s.sociated with peace is not a negative, unless we back away from confronting danger. More on that coming up. anything to earn it. But, hey, who really cares? Mr. Obama donated the money to charity, a Patriotic move, and again, having America a.s.sociated with peace is not a negative, unless we back away from confronting danger. More on that coming up.

Summing up the n.o.bel deal: The committee people are Pinheads, committed liberals who want peace at any price. The President is blameless. Those who criticized him for being honored? Kind of petty, don't you think?

By the way, I would like to win the n.o.bel Peace Prize some day, so if you run into Thorby, please tell him that even though I've done nothing directly to promote world peace, I do want fewer nukes and have some Muslim friends. Should be enough.

THE GREAT RATINGS WAR As we all know, life is a series of ups and downs, and shortly after winning the n.o.bel Peace Prize, President Obama entered a stunning downward cycle that damaged his administration perhaps beyond repair. There is no doubt that the autumn of 2009 was a terrible time for Barack Obama, and much of the carnage was of his own making.

The insanity began when the Obama people suddenly declared war on Fox News. By the way, shouldn't the President return the peace prize for such an aggressive action? After all, the Fox News Channel is a nonviolent enterprise with no standing army. The declaration of war from the White House came as a complete surprise to those of us who toil at FNC. You know, it was kind of like a symbolic Pearl Harbor.

But unlike America after the j.a.panese attack, Fox News almost immediately declared victory, because our ratings went through the roof. Folks who would never consider watching a cable news channel tuned in to see what the fight was all about. As the White House launched their verbal Predator drone missiles, my colleagues and I gleefully debated what the heck was going on.

On October 11, 2009, the Was.h.i.+ngton newspaper The Hill The Hill reported the opening salvo: "Fox News is simply 'a wing of the Republican Party,' a top White House aide said today.... 'Fox News operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party,' [White House communications director Anita] Dunn said." reported the opening salvo: "Fox News is simply 'a wing of the Republican Party,' a top White House aide said today.... 'Fox News operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party,' [White House communications director Anita] Dunn said."

The article went on to quote some Fox News executives as saying Ms. Dunn's contention was bull and ended this way: "'The best a.n.a.logy is probably baseball,' White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told Time Time [magazine]. 'The only way to get somebody to stop crowding the plate is to throw a fastball at them. They move.'" [magazine]. 'The only way to get somebody to stop crowding the plate is to throw a fastball at them. They move.'"

Or, they throw one right back at you.

Which is what FNC did.

Predictably, the left-wing media tried to come to the rescue of the Obama administration. The crazy Left New Yorker New Yorker magazine printed this kooky a.n.a.lysis: magazine printed this kooky a.n.a.lysis: Half the people who watch Fox News were over sixty-three, which is the oldest demographic in the cable-news business, and, according to a poll, the majority of the ones who watch the most strident programs, such as Sean Hannity's or Bill O'Reilly's shows, were men. All that chesty fulminating apparently functions as political Cialis. Fox News shows should probably carry a warning: Contact your doctor if you have rage lasting more than four hours.

Ho, ho, ho. Memo to the New Yorker New Yorker: People who declare declare war are usually the ones experiencing rage, are they not? war are usually the ones experiencing rage, are they not?

The Pinheads at that magazine neglected to tell their readers.h.i.+p two basic facts of the trade. First, since every news program skews older, the age differences in audience are minuscule. Second, according to a Pew Research Center study, the Factor Factor's audience is 48 percent female, a very high percentage for a news program.

Also, the Factor Factor has more young (twenty-five to fifty-four) viewers than CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and Headline News has more young (twenty-five to fifty-four) viewers than CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and Headline News combined. combined. So much for the So much for the New Yorker New Yorker giving its readers the truth. giving its readers the truth.

To be fair, the magazine did print one honest paragraph: Fox News has had a robust 2009 so far, and the recent decision by the White House to declare war on the channel is not likely to put a dent in the ratings. That decision has dispirited some of the President's well-wishers [like the New Yorker]. New Yorker]. It has also puzzled them. It has also puzzled them.

Indeed. It also puzzled me.

If you want to be a Patriot, you have to look at the country honestly. So let's do that vis-a-vis President Obama and Fox News. Two of my colleagues, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, do not like the President's policies. There is no question about that. In the morning, Fox & Friends Fox & Friends guy Steve Doocy is also not a fan. But that's about it, as far as routinely hammering Mr. Obama goes. Then there is business guy Neil Cavuto, a free-market capitalist who does not accept Obama's enthusiastic spending as an effective way to juice the economy. guy Steve Doocy is also not a fan. But that's about it, as far as routinely hammering Mr. Obama goes. Then there is business guy Neil Cavuto, a free-market capitalist who does not accept Obama's enthusiastic spending as an effective way to juice the economy.

As for FNC's highest-rated program, The O'Reilly Factor The O'Reilly Factor: we've been very fair to the President. The folks in his administration have a standing offer to come on my program if they have a beef about anything. Anytime.

By all legitimate accounts, I conducted a probing interview of the future President in September of 2008. He said it was very fair, and it was. I've posted that interview in the last chapter of this book. Based on what has happened since, the transcript makes for interesting reading.

But back to FNC. Fox News anchorman Shepard Smith likes the President. So does Greta Van Susteren. Bret Baier is very fair to Mr. Obama, as are our political team covering the White House. No fair-minded person really disputes that.

So this charge of promoting Republican stuff is a complete myth. You may remember that John McCain did not really want to appear on the Factor Factor during the campaign. And his staff actually kept Sarah Palin off the program because they feared tough questioning. during the campaign. And his staff actually kept Sarah Palin off the program because they feared tough questioning.

Does that sound like a GOP alliance to you?

So I do remain puzzled by the White House allegation and must enter the world of speculation for a moment to put forth an opinion on the matter. As you all know, I don't really like the theoretical world, but here goes: I believe Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was the architect of the war against Fox News. The former congressman from Illinois is a left-wing ideologue who simply loathes FNC. Also, the President himself doesn't like criticism. I can identify. I don't like criticism, either, especially when it's unfair.

The problem is that reportedly the President doesn't watch much television and receives his information about cable news secondhand. From guys like Rahm Emanuel. So he's teed off at Fox News. He might not be if he actually watched us, although, to be fair, the hours from 5:00 to 6:00 P.M P.M. and 9:00 to 10:00 P.M P.M. would not exactly soothe Mr. Obama.

And so, there is no question that there is an animus between the Obama people and Fox News.

Quick story: After doing the aforementioned interview with then-Senator Obama in York, Pennsylvania, my staff and I had pictures taken with him. Shortly after he won the election, we sent the pictures to Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs and asked if the President would be kind enough to sign them. By the way, many of my staff voted for Obama, and mindful of the growing deficit, we included return postage.

The pictures did not come back.

So I called Gibbs and threatened to visit his house if the photos weren't returned. A few weeks later, back they came.

They were signed by autopen. We took them to Christie's auction house in New York City for verification. The writing expert we consulted actually laughed.

Thanks a lot, Robert Gibbs.

Several more weeks pa.s.sed before I saw Gibbs at the White House Correspondent's dinner in Was.h.i.+ngton and gave him some grief. He said it was a terrible mistake and asked me to please resend the pictures, which I did.

Months later, President Obama wrote this note on the picture of him and me: "To Bill-I enjoyed our conversation and look forward to more in the future."

Then he signed it. Very nice, don't you think?

Yours truly with then-Senator Barack Obama in a photograph that took almost as many months to sign as the health care bill!

Author's Collection When I told my colleague Glenn Beck about the signed photo, he said I should put it alongside the one President Andrew Jackson personalized for me. Beck loves age jokes.

The whole signed picture deal is a small thing, to be sure, but it is somewhat telling and speaks to the matter of respect. I am betting big money that NBC's Brian Williams has a signed photo of him and the President hanging on his office wall, and that he did not wait more than a year to get it. Anyone care to take that wager?

Now I have a prediction: in order to demonstrate how petty I am toward the Obama administration, a number of left-wing book reviewers will pick up on the anecdote you just read and decry my "ego." They'll ignore the contextual message of the picture story and harp on my "bitterness." After writing eight books, I know these people very well. Sadly, many book reviewers are ideological Pinheads, and readers are often deceived or driven away from worthy books by their biased remarks.

But back to reality. The White House war on Fox News lasted just short of two weeks. Then other events overtook the nonsense. But it was fun while it lasted, and very profitable. Fox News increased its lead over CNN and MSNBC by even wider margins. One CNN guy told me he asked Gibbs to declare war on Larry King. I mean, why not?

Let me put one final nail in the war-on-Fox-News coffin and offer a postscript that is fascinating. By doing battle with FNC, the Obama administration attacked some Democrats and Independents as well. According to a Pew Research Center study done in 2008, the Fox News audience breaks down this way: 39 percent Republican33 percent Democrat22 percent Independent So the Obama administration must not have considered the "friendly fire" factor before launching the first missile. The administration also did not count on the ultimate unintended consequence. Ready? This is really sweet.

On January 14, 2010, the Public Policy Polling organization, a company that usually works for Democrats, issued a press release with the headline: "Fox the Most Trusted Name in News?"

Here's the first part of the dispatch:

FOX THE MOST TRUSTED NAME IN NEWS?

Raleigh, N.C.-A new poll asking Americans whether they trust each of the major television news organizations in the country finds that the only one getting a positive review is Fox News. CNN does next best followed by NBC News, then CBS News, and finally ABC News.

49% of Americans say they trust Fox News to 37% who [do not].... 39% say they trust [CNN] compared to 41% who do not.... 35% trust NBC News, 44% do not....

[For CBS News the trust percentage was 32%, with 46% not trusting. ABC News clocked in at just 31% trusting, 46% not trusting.]

The release went on to say: "PPP conducted a national survey of 1,151 registered voters on January 18th and 19th. The survey's margin of error is plus or minus 2.8%."

Can you imagine the White House reaction to that poll? And it gets even worse for them. Men and women trust FNC equally. Fifty-three percent of Hispanic Americans trust Fox News, and African Americans are split: 38 percent trust us, 38 percent don't. The rest aren't sure.

The liberal media would have you believe the only people who trust FNC are angry old white guys. Apparently not. The poll says 61 percent of Americans ages eighteen to twenty-nine are confident FNC is telling them the straight story.

The Public Policy Polling exposition was a huge win for Fox News and embarra.s.sed the other networks, all of which have been in the news business far longer than FNC.

The culmination of all this brouhaha came during the same week, January 1824. Stunningly, Fox News was the highest-rated cable network-not news channel-in the United States. We beat USA, ESPN, the Caterpillar Channel, everybody. Thanks again, Obama administration! And I mean that.

My hypothetical interpretation is that only one TV news network did not outwardly root root for Barack Obama: Fox. Therefore, when things began to go south for the President, voters were reminded of that, especially after the brief "war" between us. Again, it's not that FNC is anti-Obama, it's that we are not in the proverbial tank for him, as so many other news networks and commentators are. That is why viewers are coming to us and apparently trusting us. for Barack Obama: Fox. Therefore, when things began to go south for the President, voters were reminded of that, especially after the brief "war" between us. Again, it's not that FNC is anti-Obama, it's that we are not in the proverbial tank for him, as so many other news networks and commentators are. That is why viewers are coming to us and apparently trusting us.

MAJOR GAFFE The disastrous shoot-out with Fox News was the first in a series of events that scorched the President's cool image. On November 5, 2009, an act of terrorism rocked the country when an army psychiatrist, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, went on a rampage, murdering thirteen people and wounding twenty-nine others at Fort Hood, Texas. Almost immediately, a debate erupted over the description of the ma.s.sacre: Why weren't the media and the administration calling Hasan what he obviously was, a Muslim crazy with jihad?

As each day pa.s.sed, evidence that the killer was a vicious terrorist mounted. Hasan had e-mailed a top al-Qaeda recruiter in Yemen eighteen times and had a history of making jihadist statements. He also carried a business card with the letters SOA: Soldier of Allah. But some politically correct folks, mainly in the media, simply refused to describe Hasan as a Muslim terrorist, making themselves look ridiculous.

President Obama's reaction was interesting as well. Here's how the conservative Was.h.i.+ngton Times Was.h.i.+ngton Times described it: described it: Hours after the Fort Hood ma.s.sacre, a grieving nation looked to the President for consolation and leaders.h.i.+p. Instead, it got light banter and a "shout out" before President Obama read a perfunctory statement.Mr. Obama was scheduled to speak at the Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs. Rather than canceling the photo op or addressing the tragedy from another venue, the President chose to open with the kind of obligatory thanks and recognition that would be appropriate in any other circ.u.mstance but not this one. The emotional s.h.i.+ft was jarring and confusing. It was as though he were an actor switching scripts heedless of the emotional content of the event he was addressing.[President] Bush also suffered his critics' ire for reading The Pet Goat The Pet Goat to a group of schoolchildren...after he was informed of the aircraft hitting the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. to a group of schoolchildren...after he was informed of the aircraft hitting the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.[This] was Mr. Obama's Pet Goat Pet Goat moment. moment.

Only it wasn't.

The national media quickly buried the story, leaving it to the conservative ideologues on talk radio. Although a few liberal organizations like the Boston Globe Boston Globe did criticize the President's initial remarks, the media largely protected him. did criticize the President's initial remarks, the media largely protected him.

So was the Fort Hood gaffe really that big a deal? The answer is no. Mr. Obama made a mistake, as Presidents often do. He also urged the nation to avoid "jumping to conclusions" about Major Hasan-nothing wrong with a call for temperance when emotions are running high. No, the President's reactions to the Fort Hood horror were not a big deal. But his failure to confront the evil involved in the ma.s.sacre is.

Major Nidal Hasan (left), the psychiatrist accused of gunning down thirteen people in Fort Hood, Texas, appears at a pretrial hearing.

a.s.sociated Press/AP Photographed by Pool, Pat Lopez via WFAA The pattern we are seeing with President Obama is that evil doesn't really matter all that much; it's treated as just another b.u.mp in the road. We now know that Hasan was a troubled man who got preferential treatment, despite prior instances of disturbing behavior and poor performance reviews, because he's a Muslim. That insane situation directly led to the deaths of thirteen people.

Did President Obama address that situation? No, he did not. That is not the President's style. Unlike President Bush the Younger and Ronald Reagan before him, Mr. Obama does not like to confront people with their sins. There is no "Axis of Evil" or "Evil Empire" rhetoric coming out of the Obama White House. That would be too "divisive." Instead, the President prides himself on keeping cool while dealing with destructive elements. No heated dress-downs for him...unless we're talking about Fox News personnel.

The problem with that approach is that it goes against the American way. We are a nation that makes value judgments and demands that the bad guys pay a price. Hasan is a terrorist, and that's that. Most Americans reject nuance when dealing with ma.s.s murderers, and they don't give a fig about political correctness.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal Wall Street Journal, former CIA officer Reuel Marc Gerecht was blunt about Mr. Obama's lack of pa.s.sion in the face of persistent terrorism: President Barack Obama's determined effort not to mention Islam in terrorist discussions-which means that we must not suggest Major Hasan's murderous activities flowed from his faith-will weaken American counterterrorism. Worse, the President's position is an enormous wasted opportunity to advance an all-critical Muslim debate about the nature and legitimacy of jihad.[Obama] could ask, as some Muslims have, why is it that Islam has produced so many jihadists? Why is it that Major Hasan's rampage has produced so little questioning among Muslim clerics about why a man, one in a long line of Muslim militants, so easily takes G.o.d's name to slaughter his fellow citizens?

TRIAL AND ERROR That a.n.a.lysis leads us to the discussion of one of the most absurd decisions I have ever seen a President make: civilian trials for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his al-Qaeda thug friends.

As you most likely know, on November 13, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that KSM would be tried in a New York City federal court and that the government would seek the death penalty. Holder acknowledged that the terrorist could have been placed in front of a military tribunal, which would have protected national security information far better than the civilian system will. Military trials are also much less expensive.

By the way, when Holder made his controversial announcement President Obama was in Asia. Far away. Not close by.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a hard-core al-Qaeda operative who admitted planning the attacks on the World Trade Center and Was.h.i.+ngton, D.C. He also says he personally beheaded Wall Street Journal Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. reporter Daniel Pearl.

After his capture in Pakistan, KSM was waterboarded and held at Guantanamo Bay for more than three years, so some believe that the Obama administration wanted to allow a full exposition of KSM's captivity in order to embarra.s.s the Bush administration. That's speculation, but the initial decision to try the terrorists in New York City makes little sense unless there was indeed some kind of political component.

Anger mounted as reports said the trial was estimated to take years and could cost as much as $800 million, a tab that the taxpayers would have to pick up. Lawyers for the terrorists said openly that they intended to put the United States on trial. It is a foregone conclusion that the thugs are guilty, so the only thing they have to gain is the opportunity to spread al-Qaeda propaganda, which the terrorists would almost certainly do. Just look at how Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani-born terrorist who admitted trying to set off a bomb in Times Square, used his arraignment hearing as a press op for his anti-American "cause."

They love this stuff in Islamabad.

The word Pinhead Pinhead does not even come close to describing what kind of person would support giving these killers more of a worldwide propaganda forum. I am on record as admiring Barack Obama's intelligence and drive. But the New York City/KSM deal was flat-out stupid, and every poll showed that most Americans realized that. For example, a Gallup poll taken a few days after the KSM announcement showed 59 percent of Americans favoring military justice for old Khalid and his mates. Just 36 percent supported the ridiculous civilian venue. does not even come close to describing what kind of person would support giving these killers more of a worldwide propaganda forum. I am on record as admiring Barack Obama's intelligence and drive. But the New York City/KSM deal was flat-out stupid, and every poll showed that most Americans realized that. For example, a Gallup poll taken a few days after the KSM announcement showed 59 percent of Americans favoring military justice for old Khalid and his mates. Just 36 percent supported the ridiculous civilian venue.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) addresses the impact of bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terror suspects to American soil for trial.

a.s.sociated Press/AP Photographed by Manuel Balce Ceneta In addition, the Obama administration's desire to allow these killers another shot at demeaning America brought pain to the families and friends of those murdered on 9/11. In my area on Long Island, hundreds of innocent people woke up that terrible morning, went to work, and never came back. And the President turns around and tells surviving family members that al-Qaeda members captured overseas are ent.i.tled to U.S. const.i.tutional protections? What a foolish, foolish decision. And one that hurt the President's job approval rating. It was just a matter of time before that confounding decision had to be reversed. Unfortunately, the President took his time righting this wrong, the same way he took his time deploying additional troops to Afghanistan. In the interim, the chaos made him look weak.

Remember, Mr. Obama told CNN that he did not personally order the decision to try KSM and the others in New York City but had allowed Holder to make it "based on the law." The President also said KSM and his pals would be found guilty and executed.

Upon hearing that, ACLU lawyers jotted down these words: "polluted jury."

A few days later, in a bizarre display in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Holder seemed befuddled by questions about his decision. He dodged and weaved before Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina finally knocked him out.

Lindsey Graham: Can you give me one case in United States history where an enemy combatant caught on the battlefield was tried in civilian court? Can you give me one case in United States history where an enemy combatant caught on the battlefield was tried in civilian court?