It's All FoxNEWS fault, whines the POTUS!

Call Me Stephen J. Urkel

The Won assumes that the only reason anyone can oppose his bankrupting policies and ridiculous BIG GOVERNMENT/BIG TAXES plans and programs are because of bad faith and a lack of patriotism. Okay for Demonrats to speak truth to power, but not the GOP nor the Tea Partiers [which this obscene POTUS was calling "teabaggers" for a while in honor of his favorite sexual position?]

Here is suck-up question from a Rolling Stone acolyte paying homage to The Won:

What do you think of Fox News? Do you think it's a good institution for America and for democracy?

The sycophantic sillyboy Wenner is answered by the MAN BEHIND THE GREEN CURTAIN:

[Laughs] Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We've got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition--it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It's a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it's been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it's that Fox is very successful.

The president's disparagement of Fox doesn't bother us. He has a right to free speech, and we're proud to work for News Corp., which owns the only network that consistently fulfills the press's adversarial role.

But suppose he had ended the answer after the first sentence, simply stating that he supports Fox's rights under the First Amendment and declining to express an opinion about how the network uses those rights? That would have matched precisely his approach to the Ground Zero mosque.

If President Obama is willing to criticize Fox for the way in which it uses its First Amendment rights, why does he refuse to urge the Ground Zero mosque people to move to a less obnoxious site? Or, to put it another way, why is the Ground Zero mosque the only case in which Obama has ever defended anyone's First Amendment rights without qualification?

Could it be that he is a Muslim under the code of taqiyya, which allows denying one's religion to demonstrate just what a third-rate dissembler the POTUS evidently, at the end of the day, doesn't mind allowing himself to be perceived as appearing to be?