Bin Laden Death Confirmed by Obama

We just caught the live stream of President Obama's announcement on Fox News. Stories have yet to update, but should shortly. Some details are still not exactly complete, but it appears that this is the real deal.

Americans regardless of political persuasion should feel good about this. But leave it to Reuters to stick this snide paragraph in their report on bin Laden's death:

It is a major accomplishment for Obama and his national security team. Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, had repeatedly vowed to bring to justice the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, but never did before leaving office in early 2009.

Yeah, right. Even President Obama, not exactly known for his classiness toward the Bush Administration, gave Bush and the military plenty of credit for the intelligence leading up to this operation in his statement.

The major media in this country has almost entirely lost its last shred of respectability over the last several years. The gratuitous paragraph cited above is yet another nail in the MSM's credibility coffin.

More on Media Matters' Illegal Exploitation of 501(c)(3)

You heard it here first--there's almost certainly a very good case to be made for revoking Media Matters' 501(c)(3) privileges, i.e., that organization's nonprofit status, with reference to its recently announced plan to destroy Fox News. This Soros-funded hard-left hate site is certainly violating the IRS rules that prohibit such an organization from active partisan politicking which is all it takes for a revocation as we explained in our earlier HazZzMat post here.

Now the Examiner's editorial page is picking up the refrain:

Being a C3 puts MM in the non-profit, non-commercial sector, and it also bars the organzation from participating in partisan political activity. This new, more aggressive stance, however, appears to run directly counter to the government's requirements for maintaining a C3 tax status.

Since Brock classifies Fox News as the "leader" of the Republican Party, by his own description he is involving his organization in a partisan battle. High-priced K Street lawyers can probably find a federal judge or a sympathetic IRS bureaucrat willing to either look the other way or accept some sort of MM rationale such as that it is merely providing educational information about a partisan group.

But in the IRS application for 501(C)(3) tax-exempt educational foundation status, Section VIII, Question I asks the applicant: "Do you support or oppose candidates in political campaigns in any way?" (Emphasis added).

Yup. Wonder if Soros' expensive lawyers or Media Matters' reprehensible David Brock thought of that before they launched this latest Gramsican-Alinskyite attack on free speech. If they look like Stalinists and talk like Stalinists....

Texas Farmers Under Terrorist Attack

This from a Fox News report headed "America's Third War":

In Texas, nearly 8,200 farms and ranches back up to the Mexican border.

The men and women who live and work on those properties say they’re under attack from the same drug cartels blamed for thousands of murders in Mexico.

“It’s a war, make no mistake about it,” Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples said. “And it’s happening on American soil.”

Need details? Try these:

“Farmers and ranchers are being run off their own property by armed terrorists showing up and telling them they have to leave their land,” Staples said...

... Joe Aguilar, said enough is enough. After walking up on armed gunmen sneaking undocumented immigrants into the United States through his land, Aguilar decided to sell his farm.“It’s really sad to say, you either have to beat ‘em or join ‘em and I decided not to do either,” Aguilar said.

This is another example of some very serious business that isn't being covered at all by the MSM, largely because it doesn't track with "the narrative." It's also largely being ignored by the Obama administration because they figure the land in question should go back to Mexico anyway. You think I'm kidding? Well action--in this case inaction--speaks louder than words.

Doesn't every President take an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the union" of the United States of America? How is this President fulfilling his oath with regard to, say, Arizona and Texas. Rhetorical question, of course. (BTW, except for the now-aborted fence, the Bushies were not a ton better on this.) What the hell is wrong here? Do Texas and Arizona need to deputize vigilante groups to get things done? Or is this administration happy with the drug cartels moving their operations over to this side of the Rio Grande?

HazZzMat has been thumping on this issue--the slow descent of Mexico into failed-nation status and its dire consequences for the U.S. Here's just another example of the issue. Do we have to wait for another 9/11-style calamity in America's southwest region before the Federal government--and this president--wake up and do their jobs? Or is this yet another fine example of how the soft tyranny of incremental Marxism in this country is rotting us from within?

BTW, Fox provides a link to the Texas Border Protection site but it doesn't seem to work. For a more generalized link on the issue, try USBorderWatch.com.