Four people died in the Boston Marathon bombings and subsequent manhunt. Four people died in the Benghazi terrorist attack. We had wall-to-wall coverage of the first, virtually nothing on the second, although that may be changing. Hearings this week will highlight whistleblowers who have tales to tell about this administration’s attempt to cover up its incompetence and failure to act. That failure seems to be the result of lack of desire to call out Islamic terrorism for what it is and to ensure reelection by shoving the event under the rug. As the pressure mounts for the truth to be known, how does our president spend his time? What does he consider worthy of attention?

The NBA player is being hailed as a “hero” for coming forward with a declaration of his homosexuality. It’s kind of an upside-down world when that is celebrated and a solid Christian faith is not:

Here’s another example of how backward we have become morally:

Meanwhile, the jury is still out on Kermit Gosnell. One has to wonder if justice will be served there, given the moral state of the country. Who are the jurors? Will they realize the immensity of the depravity on display? Four died in Boston. Four died in Benghazi. Thousands died at the hands of Gosnell. He is the face of the entire abortion industry, which has rightly been termed the New Holocaust. As with Auschwitz, perhaps we should make Gosnell’s facility into a somber reminder of our departure from the laws of God:

When Nidal Malik Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar” and killed thirteen and wounded twenty-nine at Ft. Hood in 2009, the Obama administration refused to call it what it was: Islamic terrorism. The Department of Defense classified the attack as simply “workplace violence.”

Remember the comical attempt by Janet Napolitano, our chief of Homeland Security, to rename Islamic terrorism as “man-caused disasters”?

The September 11, 2012 Benghazi terror attack, which killed our ambassador and three others, was blamed on an obscure anti-Mohammed video, not on the real perpetrators, and the administration has stonewalled on that incident ever since, blocking access to the truth about Hillary Clinton’s role in the fiasco.

Now, with the Boston bombers, we are seeing the same approach—refusal to call it what it really was. Aided by their compatriots in the media, the administration tried to deflect attention away from the Islamic roots of this latest act. They hinted it might be “right-wing extremists” since the bombings took place on tax day. They were disappointed.

One almost expected another Benghazi explanation:

President Obama tells Americans not to rush to judgment. Fine. We haven’t. We can see clearly what’s happening. It’s the federal government that is blind:

Why the obfuscation? A longtime reporter who has excellent sources, Bill Gertz, has come up with the answer. Here’s what he has written recently:

U.S. officials familiar with the FBI’s counterterrorism training program and its controversial public outreach program to Muslim groups said FBI policy toward Islam—that it should not be used to describe those who seek to wage jihad or holy war against the United States and others they regard as infidels—has prevented both effective counterterrorism investigations and training.

The officials said the problem is that most field agents understand the nature of the threat but have been hamstrung by policies imposed by senior FBI leaders who are acting under orders of political appointees in the Obama administration, including Islamic advisers to the White House. The policies have prevented the FBI from conducting aggressive counterterrorism investigations of Islamic radicals or those who are in the process of being radicalized.

In other words, this is the official policy of the Obama administration: never blame the Islamists for what the Islamists do. The FBI is hampered by the political appointees, some of whom are Muslims, who actively prevent honest investigations.

There are some who will immediately jump on this to say that Obama is a Muslim. Well, if he is, he’s the most non-observant Muslim in the world. No, he is, and always has been, a convinced Marxist/anti-colonialist who sees Muslims as a group oppressed by the West. Every once in a while that attitude sneaks out for all to see, but he usually keeps it mostly under wraps, schooled as he is in the Saul Alinsky tactic of working from the inside to revolutionize the nation.

The Boston Marathon bombings are just another example to showcase the Obama worldview. This insidious, destructive worldview needs to be more fully exposed. Americans need to wake up and realize whom they have placed in the highest office in the land.

President Obama suffered a stunning defeat the other day when gun control legislation failed to pass Congress. His statement afterwards was vintage Obama: arrogant, whining, blaming. This has become a wearisome pattern these past four-plus years. The fact is, none of the proposed legislation would have done anything to prevent gun violence.

The Boston bombers had unregistered guns. Boston has strict gun control laws. That worked well, didn’t it? How many times do we have to be shown that criminals and terrorists don’t pay any attention to those laws? They only work against law-abiding citizens who wish to be able to defend themselves should the need arise.

The terrorists who set off the bombs at the marathon used pressure cookers, not guns. If we wish to follow the gun-control advocates’ logic, this is where we will need to go:

And of course we’ll be assured it’s not a threat to take away all cookware:

Did you notice that the president continues to have a hard time connecting dots? When the Ft. Hood shooter shouted “Allah akbar” when he went on his murderous rampage, we were told not to jump to conclusions as to his motives. The two Boston Marathon bombers were devout Muslims who took jihad seriously. YouTube videos and linked Internet sites from the the older brother make this abundantly clear. Yet, once again, we are cautioned not to assume their religion motivated them. We’re always, it seems, investigating “why” these terrorists do what they do. And this administration is loathe to ever admit the obvious truth:

This political correctness is going to be the death of us—literally—as Joe Biden would say.

As regulars readers of this blog know, one of my principal concerns is the manner in which the news media present—or fail to present—stories. A twin concern is the entertainment media, with its subtle undermining of Biblical morality in its programming. There are also times when the mainstream news media act almost like entertainment media. When it’s hard to tell the difference, you know we’re in deep trouble.

The events of last week with the Boston Marathon bombing and the subsequent chase and investigation of the bombers gave the media an opportunity to redeem itself. With the exception of Fox News, it failed miserably. If you followed closely what was proclaimed on many of the networks, you heard a variety of commentators practically falling over themselves in hopes that the bombers would prove to be angry Tea Partiers. The worst offender, naturally, was MSNBC, with Chris Matthews, as usual, leading the way. Disappointment reigned supreme when the bombers were revealed to be Muslims with ties to radical groups, perhaps even Al Qaeda. The networks’ theme was destroyed.

They also were adept at their other primary tasks:

Sometimes it could get rather comical, despite the seriousness of the story:

Meanwhile, the other massacre that should have held our attention remained in the deep background:

After all, in the view of the mainstream press, some stories really aren’t stories at all, particularly when they challenge their ideology:

If you still expect fair and balanced reporting from any of the major networks besides Fox, you’re living in a fantasy world.

There are just too many stories this morning, so I’ll offer some passing thoughts on a number of them. We have to begin with the Boston Marathon bombings.

• Unlike many of the liberal news anchors [forgive the redundancy], we need to withhold our speculations on who is responsible for the attacks that killed at least three. There is no need to rush into accusations. Wait and see where the evidence leads.

• Apparently, all the pressure on the media to cover the Kermit Gosnell trial is working. For the first time, reporters from the major networks and newspapers have decided to watch the proceedings. That, by itself, is only half the battle; the second half is ensuring what they report is not skewed.

• In their heart of hearts, they’d rather be elsewhere, reporting on what they consider to be the breaking news stories of the day:

• Speaking of the media, we now know that there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant:

• On the healthcare front, it seems Obamacare’s true nature is being revealed—by its own supporters and those responsible for carrying it out:

• Then there’s the budget President Obama has presented, increasing the debt annually forever and ever. Amen. It even calls for all four-year-olds to be enrolled in school. Hey, it’s never too early to make the government one’s real family. Even though his new budget is a monstrosity, he continues to make ludicrous statements about his bipartisanship:

• Fortunately for us, his new budget is getting the same reception his previous ones received:

• I began with the Boston Marathon; I’ll end with it: May those who lost family and/or friends in this terrorist act find their true solace in the love of God displayed through His Son. May those who were injured in the blasts turn to the only One who can provide healing, both physically and spiritually, and comfort. May those in the vicinity of the tragedy who escaped serious injury come to the recognition of their mortality and how they might have to face eternity at any time, and may they turn from their selfishness and turn toward the Cross and the Empty Tomb. May those who were there and already know the reality of repentance and forgiveness, be God’s arms and hands in the midst of this turmoil.

Most people, I’m sure, had never heard of Benghazi, Libya, until last month. But on September 11, 2012—the date of which was not coincidental—it became the latest scene of Islamic terrorism against the United States. Nearly seven weeks later, we are still discovering the details of what occurred, and with every new detail, the Obama administration’s response to it looks increasingly worse.

What do we now know? I’ll try to summarize.

• The consulate came under attack shortly after 9:30 p.m.
• There was no demonstration beforehand that got out of control; rather, this was a well-planned act of terrorism
• No internet trailer for a video was the spark; it was designed to occur on the anniversary of 9/11/01 to show the ongoing hatred the Islamic radicals have for America
• There were Al Qaeda elements involved with it; they probably were the masterminds
• The White House, and President Obama personally, were monitoring what occurred via drone pictures, so they had real-time information
• Not only did they have the drone to help see what was happening, but there were reports coming in from the ground at the scene of the attack
• Three times personnel requested aid, knowing they were in a precarious situation
• Three times that aid was denied even though it could have been sent in a timely manner since this attack continued for seven hours
• As a result of the lack of aid, four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, were killed
• Two of those who later died first defied the direct order to “stand down,” and staged a heroic rescue of consulate personnel, taking them from the consulate to the annex a mile away, saving the lives of those personnel

Incredibly, the American government watched while these people risked their lives and did absolutely nothing to help them. We were then treated to at least two weeks of misinformation about the entire episode, with White House spokesperson Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and President Obama himself continuing to claim that this was in response to that video trailer. They knew for a fact the video was not the real cause for this attack. In the real world, we call that lying.

Even as late as September 25th, during his speech at the UN, Obama referred to the video six times while studiously avoiding calling it an act of terror. As the truth has leaked out, the administration has slowly, and painfully, backtracked on that scenario, but it has been a reluctant backtrack.

The big question has been “Why was the administration so adamant that this was not a pre-planned attack?” The best answer has to do with the campaign for reelection. The Obama team, knowing it has a losing hand on the economy, desperately needed a “win” in the foreign policy field. Their convention trumpeted the killing Osama bin Laden and the “fact” that Al Qaeda had been defeated. To admit Benghazi was a successful attack orchestrated by Al Qaeda would undermine their assertions and give them nothing positive to proclaim on the campaign trail. It would also destroy The One’s credibility even more.

Now they find themselves in an awkward situation, and they are going to have to depend more than ever on their biggest supporter to overcome this “bump in the road”: the media.

Obama can always count on the mainstream media to hide the truth from the public. The only—and I mean only—news organization that is digging up the truth on Benghazi has been Fox. All the other news outlets have given this episode only scant mention. Well, let me modify that. They were giving it good attention as long as the video was the centerpiece. Now that it appears this is a coverup of gargantuan proportions, they have shown little interest. On those few occasions when Obama allows any reporter to ask him questions, no one in the mainstream media feels any duty to press him on the Libya fiasco. He’s getting, as usual, a free pass.

In the midst of this “fog of reporting,” only the very brave few have ventured to lay the blame where it belongs. It’s always the president’s call as to when to send in the military to help. The night of this attack, President Obama was fully aware of what was transpiring, but he was the one who ultimately decided not to provide the aid that was required. He must shoulder the blame for those deaths because they could have been avoided. Yet he will never take real responsibility for his actions. Why do I know that? Because he never has for the last four years—for anything. It’s a pattern in his life. In his upside-down perspective, others are always to blame for whatever goes wrong; he is guiltless.

Obama’s very polished at manifesting faux outrage whenever anyone questions his actions [remember his well-practiced response on Libya in the second debate?], but the truth will eventually win out in this instance. Despite the media near-blackout, the word is spreading, and it can’t help but have an effect on the final vote one week from tomorrow.

Polling since the second debate has been fascinating. While every “snap” poll gave the overall debate to Obama by small margins, those same polls show that Romney won in basically every category, from how to handle the economy to taxes to security. In some cases, the numbers weren’t even close. How then did Obama gain a “victory” when the particulars show differently? It all comes down to perceptions. Since he was aggressive, he won points for that, but it seems the voters don’t really believe he has any solutions.

If not for the Libya stumble at the debate, the overall number might have been different. Romney didn’t handle that question well, focusing as he did on the president’s Rose Garden statement when he should have stuck exclusively to the trail of evidence from September 11 through the  couple of weeks that followed the terrorist attack. Of course, it is increasingly clear that Obama had some inside help from the moderator, Candy Crowley:

No moderator should ever interrupt a candidate with a presumed “fact check,” particularly when the fact check is inaccurate itself. Crowley as much as admitted afterward that Romney was essentially correct in his statement that Obama never specifically acknowledged the Libyan murders to be a terrorist act. He spoke about acts of terror in general, but the main thrust of his statement that day was on the so-called provocation of the anti-Muslim video on the internet. He continued to spread that disinformation for at least two weeks, culminating in his UN speech on September 25.

After the debate, Obama went up to the man who raised the question of the security status at the Libyan consulate and told him that the reason he didn’t call it terrorism from the start—which, by the way, reversed what he said in the debate—was that he wanted to get all the facts first, and that he was sensitive to not spreading disinformation. Huh? From September 11 through at least September 25, he was the master of disinformation. Even now, he has found it difficult to boldly declare the event a terrorist attack. This is reminiscent of the way he handled the Ft. Hood massacre. Anytime there’s evidence of Islamic radicalism behind an act, he instinctively recoils from “pre-judging.”

Did anyone notice that he never really answered the question the man asked him at the debate? It had to do with the lack of security at the consulate on the president’s watch. Obama avoided addressing that directly, and then when Romney critiqued him for the security lapse, the president’s rejoinder was to become indignant and deliver a “how dare you accuse me of not caring about our embassy personnel” diatribe. It was a forceful statement, to be sure. It was also devoid of any facts to back up his indignation. He chose bluster over substance.

The question remains: why was security so lax?

Hope can only go so far.

Finally, just prior to the debate, someone stepped up and took responsibility, at least technically.

Quite conveniently, Hillary Clinton said she was accountable for the security problem, not the president. I do agree that it was her task to look out for the safety of our diplomatic personnel, but whose orders was she following? It’s always nice when underlings take the entire blame, but it never relieves the one in charge of ultimate responsibility no matter how much he may want to pawn it off on others.

I suggest that President Obama now undertake another apology tour, only this time it should be directed to those who actually are owed an apology:

We apologize also, Mr. President. Please forgive us for putting someone in the highest office in this land who combines a radical ideology with massive incompetence. You weren’t qualified for the job you now hold and we are responsible for placing you there. On November 6, we would like to deliver that apology to you in person—on a massive scale.