Obama Slams Rush Limbaugh For Calling Sandra Fluke A ‘Slut.’ It’s Strange That He Forgot To Denounce David Letterman For Calling Sarah Palin A ‘Slut.’

My first comment by way of referencing the below story is that Rush Limbaugh did NOT call Sandra Fluke a “slut” for “her views on contraception.”  He called her a slut because, according to her own testimony, she and all the women she was speaking for were having sex three times a day every single day, according to her “$3,000″ example.  And whether you like it or not, if Sandra Fluke was getting mounted three times a day every single day by myriad boys, she most definitely qualifies for the technical descriptive term “slut.”

Another article correctly reports the Sandra Fluke testimony as, “Sex-crazed co-eds going broke buying birth control.”  That is simply factually accurate reporting of Sandra Fluke’s testimony.

Limbaugh also points out that if Sandra Fluke wants us to pay her for having all of this sex, she fully qualifies for the label “prostitute” as well.  And, probably crassly, he says that if America is supposed to pay for Sandra Fluke to have sex three times a day every single day, the least she could do is set up a video camera in her dorm room so we can watch as a return on our investment.

You can argue that Rush Limbaugh was actually respecting Sandra Fluke.  Based on her testimony and the numbers she provided, she is either an abject slut or a pathological liar.  And he assumed that she wasn’t a pathological liar.

Well, anyway, Barack Obama, the community-agitator-in-chief, decided to invoke the full weight of the presidency of the United States in this crisis.  Because if he’s spending his time on this issue, he can keep procrastinating dealing with the only slightly less important crisis of Iran on the verge of nuclear weapons and the whole Armageddon thing:

Rush Limbaugh condemned by Barack Obama for ‘slut’ remarks
Georgetown student Sandra Fluke was called a ‘slut’ and a ‘prostitute’ by Limbaugh because of her views on contraception
Ryan Devereaux
guardian.co.uk, Friday 2 March 2012 15.46 EST

President Barack Obama has offered his support to a US law student called a “slut” on Wednesday by rightwing talkshow host Rush Limbaugh because of her views on contraception.

According to White House spokesman Jay Carney, the president called Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke on Friday and expressed his disappointment that she was the target of Limbaugh’s personal attacks. Obama reportedly thanked Fluke for supporting his administration’s policy of requiring health insurance coverage of contraceptives for women.

The call came moments before Fluke was set to appear on the TV news network MSNBC. Speaking to host Andrea Mitchell about the president’s call, Fluke said: “What was really personal for me was [that] he said to tell my parents that they should be proud.”

Limbaugh called Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” on Wednesday after she expressed her support for the administration’s policy in an informal testimony on Capitol Hill.

Then, on Thursday, on his nationally syndicated radio show, he added: “So, Miss Fluke, if we are going to … pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

Limbaugh’s outburst has already prompted some advertisers to pull their support for his controversial show. Following heavy pressure from the Democrats, House speaker John Boehner described Limbaugh’s comments as “inappropriate”. Boehner argued, however, that the Democrats were using the incident as an opportunity to raise money.

On Friday, Boehner’s spokesman, Michael Steel, echoed the concerns, saying: “The speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate, as is trying to raise money off the situation.”

At last month’s hearing, Fluke pointed out that her fellow Georgetown students pay as much as $1,000 a year for contraceptives that are not covered by student health plans.

On his show on Wednesday, Limbaugh equated the payment to prostitution.

“What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute,” he said.

“She wants to be paid to have sex … She’s having so much sex she can’t afford contraception,” Limbaugh added.

Georgetown – itself a Jesuit school – has, along with a number of other Catholic institutions, denounced the Obama administration’s contraception policy as an infringement on their religious rights.

Rather than apologize, Limbaugh has stood by his inflammatory rhetoric. On his Thursday show, he referred to a controversial joke made by Rick Santorum’s wealthy backer, Foster Friess, suggesting women should hold aspirin tablets between their knees in order to remain abstinent.

“I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want,” Limbaugh said.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is gathering signatures for an online petition calling on Republican leaders to “denounce Rush Limbaugh’s cruel tirade against women”.

Fluke responded to Limbaugh in a written statement, saying: “No woman deserves to be disrespected in this manner. This language is an attack on all women, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices.”

Obama’s choices about who he calls and who he doesn’t is actually rather fascinating: he never bothered to pick up the phone and call the parents of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry who was murdered as a result of Obama’s Fast And Furious gun scandal, for instance.

If that isn’t outrageous enough, allow me to also point out that the same Obama who is outraged by Rush Limbaugh’s calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” just accepted $1 million from Bill Maher AFTER Maher called Sarah Palin a “cunt.”

Barack Obama’s outrage is purely hypocritical and purely ideological. That is simply a documented fact.

Well, something seems to be worth remembering about all of these self-righteous liberals as we contemplate the horror of Rush Limbaugh calling a woman who spends $1,000 a year on her out-of-control sexual addiction; it wasn’t all that terribly long ago that David Letterman called Sarah Palin a slut.  And somehow that outraged telephone call from Barack Obama never came:

David Letterman Calls Sarah Palin A Slut
Jan 10, 2009
Posted by Tory Aardvark

The Liberal media purveyors of Political Correctness and moral judges of what is it acceptable to say, and what is not acceptable say. This normally translates in to say anything you want about a right wing person, but, and this is a very big but, say anything against a Liberal Left person and you are immediately guilty of a range adjectives ending in “ist”.

As with any left wing agenda, be it AGW, Political Correctness, immigration et al, there is always rank and blatant hypocrisy from those that seek to convince us they know better.

The left has long championed the cause of women to be treated as equals and not pieces of meat, yet the very first to indulge in sexually demeaning and degrading slurs on female politicians are the very same left, that claim to champion their cause.

David Letterman sinks to a new low, even for an East Coast liberal broadcaster when he suggests that “Sarah Palin should update her slutty air stewardess look“

And the point of making such a remark politically, or for any other reason is?

In Aardvarks experience “slut” is a term used by the micro dicked to deal with rejection #justsaying

I hope Sarah Palin isn’t waiting by the phone for the president to call, thinking it’s the least he could do to NOT show what a hypocrite ideologue divider he is.  Because Obama is very much all of those things, and there won’t be a call coming.

Oh, and by the way, Sarah Palin’s FOURTEEN YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER might be hanging around by the phone waiting for that Obama phone call, too: David Letterman accused her of slutting around and getting knocked up by baseball player A-Rod.

I don’t know.  It is still theoretically possible that the left will have a self-righteous outraged hissy fit about something they didn’t already do first to a conservative.  Highly unlikely, I know.  But you have to admit it is theoretically possible by the sheer statistical probabilities involving random chance that it could happen.

Sandra Fluke is an abject liar.  She is claiming that women are spending $3,000 on birth control: WOMEN CAN BUY GENERIC BIRTH CONTROL AT WAL-MART FOR $9 A MONTH.  That’s $324 over three years – kind of a long way from $3,000.

Oh, and I understand she could get birth control at Sam’s for $5.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, she could get condoms for FREE.

Which is to say that $3,000 birth control is just another demonic lie from the demonic left.  Liberals like Sandra Fluke and Nancy Pelosi who brought this liar in to falsely testify have no honesty or integrity and they simply lie like the hell they are going to to manipulate stupid people.

Further, since Sandra Fluke is trying to force universities – and in particular THE PRIVATE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY THAT SHE CHOSE TO GO TO – to provide birth control, let’s point out the fact that Georgetown law school costs $23,432.50 PER SEMESTER.  NOT COUNTING TEXTBOOKS, fwiw.  Forty seven thousand dollars a year is no problem for this “slut,” but that $108 she has to spend on birth control for her own private business is just busting her tiny little balls.

Rather than demonize and attack the Catholic Church and her universities, why doesn’t Sandra Fluke go after the REAL crisis facing university students: THE OUT OF CONTROL TUITION INFLATION which is even WORSE at public colleges and universities that are completely dominated by the left???

Bottom line: if Sandra Fluke wants to slut around and live in a universe of outright lies, the very least she can do is go to one of the many leftist public colleges that love that garbage.

What’s most fascinating is how often liberals lie out of every orifice in their bodies and conservatives still end up being the ones who have to apologize.

Updated March 4, 2012

Kirsten Powers wrote a piece from the liberal side denouncing the left for its abject hypocrisy available here.

There’s also these facts about Sandra Fluke and her “testimony”:

Fluke, who was portrayed as a 23 year-old co-ed, is actually 30 years old and by her own admission chose to attend Georgetown precisely so she could battle their insurance policy since it does not cover contraceptives. What a handy witness she turned out to be last week on behalf of Obama’s contraception mandate. So important was she to Obama’s theater show that he personally called her to apologize for things Rush Limbaugh said on his program concerning her testimony.

Fluke testified that she and her classmates have to spend $3,000 during their time at Georgetown on contraception, and it’s simply an unbearable financial burden for them. If they paid top-dollar for birth control pills, that would be about $600 a year; $1,800 for three years. A box of condoms ranges from about $4.00 to $15.00. That’s maybe another $100 a year, but still nowhere close to $3,000.

Updated March 5. 2012

Why Sarah Palin Should NOT Run For President In 2012

There seem to be two camps regarding Sarah Palin: there is the camp who hates her, demonizes her, trivializes her, etc.; and then there is the camp that fanatically adores her.

Imagine how lonely I must be for not being in either camp.

I genuinely admire Sarah Palin, and if anyone takes the time to search my blog, he or she will find only positive things about Sarah Barracuda.

And yet I do not want Sarah Palin to run; and in fact I would argue that it is BECAUSE I admire Palin and her past and future contribution to this nation that I do not want her to run.

I write this the day after Sarah’s Iowa speech, during which she offered no clues whatsoever on whether she would enter the race.

First, let me present the list of things that I think would make Sarah Palin a great future president:  She is fearless; she has proven that she is ready to take on the entrenched special interests of EITHER party; she has a rare degree of common sense; she has a talent at zeroing in on the heart of an issue and framing it in a way that enables a real solution; and I believe she has genuine integrity and that she truly understands America in a way that we’d have to go back to Ronald Reagan to rival.

Does that sound like something that would come from a Sarah Palin hater?

So why don’t I think – after all the above accolade singing – that Sarah should NOT run for president this year?

Another list: she is too young; too inexperienced; too distant from Washington to understand the people or the political system; too much of a lightening rod; and too polarizing.

Sarah Palin had more relevant experience than did Barack Obama when Obama ran for president, because she had served as a governor.  That said, she was the governor of one of the smallest states in the nation by population, and a state that is almost entirely dependent upon federal money.  And she only served half of her term as governor.

While I personally believe she was forced to leave the governorship for the sake of her family due to a system that allowed the left to despicably personally target her over and over again, the fact remains that she left office.  And the left will never let America forget that she left.  And of course you can’t quit when you’re president, can you?

Barack Obama has demonstrated that he was far too young and far too inexperienced to be the president of the United States.  But the man has the single virtue of being nearly three years OLDER than Sarah Palin.

It certainly is not Sarah Palin’s fault that the mainstream media went beyond morally rabid and psychologically unhinged in their coverage of her; the fact of the matter is that to too large of a degree, their blood libel paid off.  Sarah Palin was torn down one vicious, hateful lie at a time.  And at this point in her career, she simply has not recovered from that.

According to the Fox News polling (hardly unfavorably to her), Sarah Palin would begin with 8% in the polls if she ran.  And that is way too little, way too late.

Barack Obama announced in February of 2007.  He ran for president for nearly two full years.  If Sarah Palin had wanted in, she frankly should have got in a long time ago.

I support Rick Perry, and most of the reasons I support him have to do with the fact that where Palin has deficiencies, Perry has assets.  He is in his sixties; he has been the longest-serving governor of one of the largest states; he very much understands how the Washington system works; he has a documented record of job-creation that Sarah Palin simply cannot match.  And he has the ability to both unite the Tea Party and the GOP establishment AND to raise large institutional money that Sarah Palin simply will not be able to do.

Barack Obama will have a billion dollar war chest, by most accounts.  He is a cynical disingenuous hypocrite and liar to amass that war chest, given his previous rhetoric, but he will have a billion dollars nevertheless.  Sarah Palin’s unfunded moxy will simply not defeat a billion dollars’ worth of ads that will make her look like a Christian fanatic “last days psycho” version of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by the time the smoke clears.

The other reason I hope that Sarah Palin does not run is that doing so would tremendously undermine the brand of none other than Sarah Palin.

As long as she dances on the edges, the fact remains that no one will know what would have happened had she run.  She’ll continue to possess her mystique.  If she runs and loses, that bloom will forever be off the rose, and Sarah Palin will be nothing more than another failed presidential candidate.  She’ll be a loser.  Yes, if she were to lose in a closely fought campaign, it could actually help her – as it helped Ronald Reagan who ran a primary challenge against Gerald Ford in 1976 (which sadly guaranteed the presidency of one unmitigated fool named Jimmy Carter, but that’s another story).  But if she loses by a wide margin – which I predict would happen this season – she would be done as a future viable Republican candidate.  She would never get the attention or the money of the establishment she needs to win, because that establishment would judge her by her performance this time around and simply never give her another chance.

Sarah Palin is currently incredibly successful at identifying and helping good candidates, raising funds and framing issues.  I still marvel at how she transformed the narrative in the ObamaCare debate using Facebook while on vacation.  That capacity – which I would argue all Republicans should treasure – would be massively undermined by an unsuccessful primary run now.

To put it into gun metaphors, Sarah, keep your powder dry.

Stay out, keep working, keep raising money, keep your profile up and come to America’s rescue in (hopefully!) 2020 when you are older and demonstrably wiser.

Liberal Calls Sarah Palin A “Cunt” A Week After Calling Her A “Dumb Twat”

All I can say is that, based on liberals rationale, conservatives should be able to call Obama a “stupid nigger” all day long.  After all, just as it’s wrong to use such hateful language toward women unless we don’t happen to like a particular woman’s political views, it’s therefore perfectly okay to use the “N” word toward a black person when you don’t agree with him or her politically.

This racist, bigoted hatred of the left isn’t new.  It is who they are and who they always have been.  It defines them.  It’s called “projection”: liberals assume that conservatives must be racist and bigoted and misogynist, because liberals are so damn racist and bigoted and misogynist.

Interestingly, given that I said conservatives have every right to call Obama a nigger now, given the left’s justification for anti-woman hatred for Sarah Palin, it is fitting that it is – as usual - LEFTISTS who are actually applying that label on Obama.

The fact that Bill Maher is still on the air is proof positive that liberals are despicable, hateful, vile hypocrites.  Because only liberals are depraved enough to watch this over-the-top despicable liberal fascist.

Bill Maher Calls Sarah Palin a “****” a Week After Calling Palin a “Dumb ****”
Monday, March 28, 2011 | Kristinn
Posted on Monday, March 28, 2011 3:50:53 PM by kristinn

A week after calling former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin a “dumb t***” vulgar insult for women, comedian Bill Maher went all the way and called Palin the c-word, adding, “There’s just no other word for her.”

The Dallas Voice (The Premier Media Source for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual) Texas) reporting on Maher’s appearance Sunday night at the Winnspear Opera House Sunday night, cheered Maher using the crude sexist slur against the 2008 Republican party vice presidential nominee as an act of “fearlessness”:

It’s that fearlessness — he acknowledged that some people would probably be uncomfortable with some of his remarks about religion, not to mention calling Sarah Palin a “c***” (“there’s just no other word for her”) — that makes Maher the most dangerous person in comedy.

The audience at the Winnspear was descibed by the Voice as “largely gay (and certainly gay-friendly)”, which might explain Maher’s fearlessness in attacking a conservative, Christian, married mother of five in the most vulgar, personal and sexist way.

When Maher was first being criticized for calling Palin the t-word, Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters asked:

Is the universal media hatred for this woman so pervasive that it’s now acceptable for a man to call her that?

Can the dreaded C-word be far behind?

Sadly, it didn’t take long for Sheppard to be proven right.

Last month, Slate Magazine was caught slyly calling Palin the c-word in a headline. Slate’s editor apologized after being called out by Big Journalism.

It’s really not all that hard to be right when you’re talking about liberal progressives.  Simply assume that they are as vile as possible, and then think, “If I were 95% cockroach, what would I do next?”

Lesbians, gay, bisexuals and transexuals cheered this as “fearless,” did they?  So conservatives now have every right to be similarly “fearless” and apply the same sort of bigoted hatred in labeling toward them now?  Why is it only “fearless” when a liberal displays this level of personal hatred toward a conservative?  How does it not work the other way around?

If Glenn Beck did this, there is no question that he would be fired.  And that is because conservatives are superior to liberals in every way morally possible.

These are ugly, ugly people.  They have no shame.  They have no decency.  They have no integrity.  And they have no honor.

Liberals Despise Independent Women, And Every Intelligent Woman Knows It

Show me the video of Rush Limbaugh calling Hillary Clinton a “dumb twat” and the National Organization for Women having nothing to say about it, and you might have a case.  Otherwise, if you are a liberal, and you aren’t hanging your head in abject shame, you are just too morally stupid and hypocritical to bother arguing with.

Bill Maher, George Lopez and the War on Women — Why Are Attacks on Conservative Women Given Just a Shrug?
By Penny Young Nance
Published March 25, 2011
| FoxNews.com

It takes a really weak, insecure, and spineless man to attack a woman on television. It takes an even weaker “feminist” movement to play down such attacks.

In a recent episode of “Somebody, Please Notice Me,” also known as “Real Time with Bill Maher” on HBO, the show’s host may have hit rock bottom with his latest rhetorical bomb by referring to Sarah Palin with a vulgarity exceedingly offensive to women. Far more noticeable, and certainly more noteworthy, was the backhanded “defense”of Palin from radical feminists and their clearly misnamed organizations.

National Organization for Women communications director Lisa Bennett, after days of silence, sounded more as if she didn’t want to be bothered: “Sorry, but we can’t defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every sexist insult hurled at them in the media.”

Several weeks ago, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews attacked Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) with another derogatory slur in reference to a harmless geographical gaffe she made about American history. Only crickets from the radical feminists. (A few weeks later Matthews found himself geographically-challenged when he said the Panama Canal was in Egypt.)

Lest this be confined only to conservative women, comedian George Lopez had no problem attacking actress Kirstie Alley and likening her to a squealing pig. At least Lopez apologized.

 So what gives with these attacks and the 800-pound double standard in the room?

Suppose Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity did drop a vulgarity on Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi? Despite her protestations a rapid, robust response from Ms. Bennett, NOW and the feminist Left would’ve taken all of 30 seconds, give or take a few. Broadcast news shows would be leading with the story and the reaction, repeated calls for apologies, and firings would ensue. Left-wing groups would harass advertisers in an attempt to get them to pull their sponsorships.

All women, regardless of their political persuasions need to speak out against these kinds of attacks because they harm everyone who is female from age 2 – 92, but the prevailing view among radical feminists seems to be that conservative women either don’t exist or are merely female impersonators. They don’t deserve to be defended when attacked because, after all, real women don’t hold conservative views.

So if you’re a woman leader with conservative positions on the issues, and you’re active in your church and speak out about matters of faith, and you get demeaned, demonized, slurred, or smeared, the radical feminist attitude toward you is, “You get what you deserve, because we, frankly, have the same opinion of you.”

Already teetering on the precipice of irrelevance, radical feminists only further undercut their credibility and authority to speak out on behalf of women when they stay silent in the face of such unacceptable behavior. They have become as clueless and delusional as the men they challenged and mocked 40 years ago.

The collapse of radical feminism was first revealed in the movement’s turning a blind eye toward Bill Clinton’s philandering and clear objectification of women. A conservative president who behaved like Clinton would have been publicly filleted, but instead, the leaders of the “women’s movement” gave him a wink and a nod.

In one of radical feminism’s lowest moments (and there are many), former Time magazine White House correspondent Nina Burleigh appointed herself the official Clinton apologist when she infamously told Mirabella magazine: “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”

From embracing Bill Clinton to ignoring Bill Maher, radical feminists have reduced themselves to pitiful insignificance. New women have emerged as leaders, and many more will follow, and they reject the radical feminist orthodoxy with its hypocrisies and double-standards.

The movement’s leaders will have only themselves to blame. Women achieved substantial, needed gains several generations ago. Unfortunately, too many radical feminists are stuck in 1971, where they are destined to remain.

Penny Young Nance is CEO of Concerned Women for America, the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

Liberalism has now officially become the ideology of dumb twats, while liberal women who hypocritically claim to stand up for women do nothing.

Mainstream Media Propaganda Machine Times Sarah Palin Hit Pieces To Her Speech At Prestigious India Forum

There is a mainstream media fire brigade that is prepared to fight any potential Sarah Palin blaze with so many buckets of leftwing hate that she simply doesn’t have a chance.

It is coordinated and it extends to the highest levels of the Big Lie machine we call “journalism”:

New Polls and hit pieces surfaces just when Palin is to give major speech in India (coincidence?)
Thursday March 17, 2011
Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:53:33 PM by Bigtigermike

It was said that Joseph Stalin use to bring foreign journalists and correspondents to his famous “show trials” of his enemies as essential to the success of them. When arguments that public opinion of Western Europe must be considered during these show trials, Stalin replied “Never mind, they’ll swallow it”

Stalin was right, many indeed swallowed it…

Conservatives everywhere for the most part understand that most Major news organizations in the United States is nothing more than a propaganda machine for left wing ideology and special interest groups. But more than just knowing who they are, it is also imperative to know how they do their dirty deed less we fall into the trap eyes-wide open.

Since Sarah Palin came out on the national scene in August of 2008, the big media guns in print, web and television have been going on the offensive against Palin, her family and all that she has accomplish with great fervor filled with gossip, lies and propaganda hit-pieces. The greatest weapon used against Palin is the use of FEAR, UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT to cast a pall over supporters and potential supporters of the former Governor if she ever has an desire to pursue higher office.

This is an attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious information designed only to undermine the credibility of their beliefs; the belief that Sarah Palin is a strong candidate that can defeat Barrack Obama in the 2012 election.

Case in point…

Enter India Today Conclave 2011 Saturday, March 19 – A prestigious forum for world leaders to discuss the challenges facing the New World. Previous speakers for this conference have included Benazir Bhutto, Bill Clinton, Colin Powell and the Dalai Lama. The Prime Minister of India is schedule to give the opening remarks to the conference. The former vice-presidential nominee of the Republican Party and Governor of Alaska from 2006-09 will exclusively attend the 10th India Today Conclave on Saturday, March 19th and give the key note speech title: “My Vision of America”.

Enter the media -

On Sunday March 13: The New York Magazine publish a ‘UNSOURCED’ gossip article that Palin and Fox News chairman Roger Aile were at odds against each other and that Palin was brazen and contemptuous in her actions to Ailes over advice given to her about the Tucson shooting – something that happened almost two months ago that suddenly reappeared this week for some strange reason.

On Monday March 14: The Politico ran a story Titled: “Palin becoming Al Sharpton?” In the hit-piece they attempt to make Palin politics to be about “grievances and group identity” according to her critics, which is a betrayal of conservative principle and tie her to the likes of Democrat Al Sharpton who is considered a joke, race-baiter and hustler among conservatives.

On Tuesday March 15: Mitt Romney received an another piece of hardware for his Republican-In-Name-Only mantle, the most coveted seal of approval from Meagan McCain (I just threw this bit in just to break the ice a little, it wasn’t all bad for Palin)

On Wednesday March 16: Low and behold, a brand new smacking poll from ABC/Washington Post showing that fewer GOP-leaning independents see Palin in a favorable light – they pointed out that these poll numbers show “a potentially troubling sign for the former Alaska governor as she weighs…” whether to run or not in the 2012 election. Of course many media sources picked up on the new poll and compared Sarah to the likes of Nancy Pelosi low poll numbers and other liberals that conservatives don’t care much for.

(By the way do you actually think that if Palin indeed does run that ABC/Washington Post will ever have a favorable poll numbers for Palin?)

Well, we have two more days to consider what other hit-piece, gossip or polling data telling us who Sarah Palin is or is not, however way you may see it. Some conservatives and independents will indeed lap it up by getting discouraged and buy it no matter how well Palin may do in India which is on the weekend so if Sarah Palin does well you won’t hear much from it but if she was to make a tiny gaffe or something out of the ordinary happened, of course it will be blared across the World.

That’s the World of propaganda and we must learn to see it with eyes wide open what it is before we ‘swallow it’ without even realizing it.

I personally hope Sarah Palin does not try to run for president, as much as I admire her.  The reason is simply that the media collectively have too much power and too much blatant irrational hatred for her.

They will continue to dump more and more toxic stories about her – and who gives a damn if they are all baseless and false? – until they achieve their desired result of poisoning 50-plus percent of the minds against her.

Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134):

“All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.  These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.”

Hitler’s minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, summarized Hitler’s “big lie” theory, saying that if a lie is repeated enough times it would become widely accepted as truth.

This is exactly what the leftwing mainstream media (both in the “news” and in the opinion-shaping late night programs) have repeatedly been doing all along.

I’ve pointed this out before:

As icon of leftwing journalists Walter Lippmann put it:

“News and truth are not the same thing.”

Which of course allows the mainstream media to misrepresent the truth in the guise of reporting “the news.”

As Walter Lippmann also put it:

“The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality.”

Which gives the mainstream media the right to serve as “gatekeepers,” and prevent the people from learning anything that might otherwise cause them to discover that conservatives have it right and liberals have it dead wrong.

And as fellow member of the leftwing journalist hall of fame Edward Bernays put it:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.  Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

Because what is power if you can’t even manipulate the truth and shape it to serve your agenda?  And if you’re a leftwing liberal progressive journalist – as basically 90 percent of journalists are today – what could be better than being one of the people “who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society” so you can “constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country”???

Bernays is a monster in the field of “journalism” that was long-ago hijacked by liberal ideologues with an agenda.  And in fact it isn’t a stretch of any kind to connect Hitler’s “Big Lie” strategy to Bernays:

In describing the origin of the term Public Relations, Bernays commented, “When I came back to the United States [from the war], I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And propaganda got to be a bad word because of the Germans … using it. So what I did was to try to find some other words, so we found the words Counsel on Public Relations”.

Even people who can’t imagine themselves being affected by this ARE affected.  And in fact it’s the fact that they don’t think they can be fooled that serves as the principle reason that they are so easily fooled.  They hear an avalanche of negative coverage, day in and day out, and the inevitable result in their subconscious minds is that they say to themselves, “Something must be wrong with that woman.”

When of course the only thing that’s “wrong” with Sarah Palin is that a completely wicked, dishonest and depraved media machine utterly despise her.

I don’t think Sarah Palin can overcome this.  When you add the ignorant people to the bad people today, you’ve got a clear majority.  And Sarah – as talented as she is – will not be able to compensate for nonstop negative coverage.

What she needs to do is keep doing what she’s been doing since 2009.  She needs to keep getting her message out, getting under the skin of liberals, serving as a lightening rod and playing king- and queenmaker.

And may God bless that courageous woman.

Mainstream Media Propaganda Machine Turns Other Way As Democrats Now Want To ‘Get A Little Bloody’

Somehow the mainstream media – which was ALL OVER the fact that many tea party protestors happened to be Caucasian - managed to completely overlook the fact that the liberals being bussed in to raise hell in Wisconsin were whiter than say, oh, a freshly laundered Ku Klux Klansman’s kleenest robe.

Now suddenly the race of the protestors is apparently irrelevant.  Mobs of white LIBERALS are fine.

Oh, well, NEVER EXPECT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA TO BE FAIR, OBJECTIVE OR HONEST.

We constantly heard of allegations that the tea party was putting up violent and hateful signs from the mainstream media.  It didn’t matter that there was very little of that.  Nor did it matter that the little there was the result of dishonest and despicable leftists.

Now, in Wisconsin, that hateful Nazi swastika Hitler crap abounds.  But it’s liberals hating a Republican, and so the mainstream media just doesn’t seem to find that very newsworthy:

And did you notice just how WHITE and CAUCASIAN those Wisconsin protestors happen to be with their Nazi Hitler swastika signs???

If you hold your breath waiting for the media to actually be fair and objective and give the left the kind of coverage they give the right every single damn day, you will spend the rest of your life unconscious.

There’s another angle to this: the “human sympathy” story angle.  You wait until the government gets shut down in a couple of months, and the media goes over the top making sure that the Republicans get all the blame for a dance that obviously takes two for the tango.  What you will get to see at that time will be an avalanche of stories as “journalists” and “reporters” scour the country looking for every single victim of the government shutdown they can possibly find.

But let me ask you: how many stories have you heard about poor single mothers losing their jobs because public schools canceled their classes because liberal government union teachers were out protesting?  How many stories have you heard about the terrible difficulty poor parents have had trying to scramble for day care for children who should have been in school?

Zero, you say?

Well, don’t you worry.  As soon as the media has some way to frame a story blaming Republicans, they’ll more than make up for that deficiency.

The mainstream media and of course the Democrat Party whose useful idiots the mainstream media are were all over themselves with outrage over the “hate” coming out of the right in the nanoseconds following the Tucson, Arizona shooting in which Gabrielle Giffords was one of the victims.  It didn’t matter that there was zero evidence that the shooter had anything to do with conservatives and if anything was a liberal (and see here and also here).  It didn’t matter if the actual documented hater involved in any way with the shooting was in in fact a documented liberal.  Heck, it didn’t even matter if one of the mainstream media outlets leading the charge to demonize Sarah Palin for the word “target” had used the damn word themselves in the same way Palin had.  The charge was enough.  And if they could make it with really shrill voices, so much the better.

So can you expect to see outrage over a Democrat Representative saying this?

This story is actually worse than first reported, when Capuano made the blood comments to union supporters he was pointing at a small group of Tea Partiers who were brave enough to counter-protest in Boston. Capuano is lucky nobody got hurt.

(Boston Herald) — U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano expressed regret Wednesday for his choice of words at a Tuesday rally to support Wisconsin workers, after national and local Republicans pounced on him for “over-the-top and inflammatory rhetoric.”

“Congressman Mike Capuano must have lost the memo from President Obama and Democratic leaders who were demanding more civility in our political discourse and a toning down of incendiary rhetoric after the massacre in Tucson on January 8,” the Massachusetts Republican Party wrote in a Wednesday statement. “Yesterday, at a rally on Beacon Hill, Capuano couldn’t resist the urge to stir up a crowd of union members with a call for blood in the pursuit and protection of their political agenda.”

During the Tuesday rally — a gathering of more than 1,000 union supporters protesting a proposal by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to diminish the collective bargaining rights of public sector workers in that state — Capuano, speaking in front of the State House, fired up the crowd by saying, “I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.”

After Republicans took aim at his rhetoric, Capuano issued a statement expressing regret for his language, although at the time it drew wild applause and cheers from the throngs of union supporters.

Capuano also referred to a vastly outnumbered throng of Tea Party counter-protesters as “a couple of nuts in the background who want to take it all away from you,” waving his hand dismissively in their direction. Throughout the three-hour rally, rank-and-file union members traded heated barbs with the Tea Party backers. Some clashes nearly escalated into violence and resulted in police intervention. In one case, a pro-union rallier spit in the face of one of the counter-protesters, who set up camp near the rally.

Capuano’s comments quickly drew contrasts with the call for a more civil tone in national political rhetoric by President Barack Obama and politicians across the country after a mass shooting in Tucson that injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Capuano was reportedly among those who agreed with Obama’s call, telling the Boston Globe in January, “Everybody knows the last couple of years there’s been an intentional increase in the degree of heat in political discourse . . . If nothing else good comes out of this, I’m hoping it causes people to reconsider how they deal with things.’’

How about the call to violence by the SEIU in its new “fight song”?

SEIU fight song: ‘Take the bastards down’

SEIU posted a fight song on their website called ‘Take ‘Em Down’ and it goes like this: “Ya got take the bastards down. Let them know. We got to smash them to the ground. Let them know. We got to take the bastards down. When the boss comes calling you got to stand your ground. When the boss comes calling let them know.”  With lyrics like that, it’s no wonder the violent SEIU took special notice of the song.

Here’s the screenshot of the SEIU posting this song telling the left to take conservatives down and smash them to the ground:

I’ve said this about the left before: what enrages me about them isn’t that they’ve been engaging in hate for the past fifty years, back when they started spitting on American soldiers and throwing dog shit at them.  It’s that they’ve done this crap for a full generation and then actually have the chutzpah to demonize the right for doing what they themselves have been doing for fifty years.  And then right after they demonize us, they actually go right back to being worse than the very thing they just got through demonizing us for doing.  And the thing that infuriates me even more than that is a media machine that – between self-backpatting for what virtues of journalistic objecivity they are – actually deliberately seek out stories of “rightwing hate” and actually refuse to report episodes of leftwing hate.

Three years into the utterly failed Obama presidency – a presidency, by the way, in which Obama’s core promise was to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars – and five years after Democrats took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, Democrats can only blame, blame and blame.

This was a nice summary of history:

Let’s look at the deficit history since Clinton was elected with his party in control of both houses of Congress:
1992 290.4 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
1993 255.1 Billion Dollar Deficit
1994 203.2 Billion Dollar Deficit
(GOP takes control of both houses, watch the deficit decrease)
1995 164 Billion Dollar Deficit
1996 107.5 Billion Dollar Deficit
1997 22 Billion Dollar Deficit
1998 69.2 Billion Dollar Surplus
1999 125.6 Billion Dollar Surplus
2000 236.4 Billion Dollar Surplus
(Bush elected with both houses still in GOP control)
2001 127.3 Billion Dollar Surplus
2002 157.8 Billion Dollar Deficit
(Dems take Senate, post 9-11 bills start piling up)
2003 374 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
2004 413 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
(GOP back in control of both houses; deficits going down again)
2005 319 Billion Dollar Deficit
2006 248 Billion Dollar Deficit
(Dems take both houses and retain them through FY 2010)
2007 162 Billion Dollar Deficit
2008 455 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
(Obama’s first year; both houses have larger Democrat majorities)
2009 1400 Billion Dollar Deficit <<== WTF? Record x 3!!!!!!!
2010 1350 Billion Dollar Deficit

… why do Republicans get blamed for such deficits, when the trend clearly illustrates the reverse is true?
Republicans are always lowering deficits, except when there is a war on — and even then, they keep budgets at lower % of GDP than their Democrat predecessors when they had wars on their watch.

The Republicans last budget that they controlled in FY-2007 had a deficit of $162 billion.  The VERY NEXT YEAR, the Democrats very nearly tripled that figure with their FY-2008 budget of $459 billion.  And by last year the Democrats were spending so shockingly and so recklessly that they didn’t even bother to pass a budget.

There are very few reasons to blame Republicans for the mess that we are now in, and all kinds of reasons to blame Democrats.  But the media will never be fair or honest.

The same media that rushed to give Obama credit for the “magnificent” popular uprising in Egypt are now mysteriously silent as hundreds and more likely thousands of people die in the rampages of Libya as we speak.  And suddenly there’s no mention of the fact that the same wave that started in Tunisia, then overtook Egypt, has now taken root in Yemen and Libya.  Suddenly, as our oil prices begin to skyrocket, it isn’t as “magnificent” anymore.  Even though skyrocketing energy prices were clearly in Obama’s plan for America.

But don’t you forget that Obama and his Organizing for America are bringing the same hysteria we see on our TV screens about the Middle East to states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio.

And don’t you forget that even as Arabs get bloody in the streets of Tripoli, it is DEMOCRATS who have called for Americans to get bloody in our streets.

On Why The Left So Viscerally Despises Sarah Palin

First, the accompanying brief as I discovered it on Politicons.net:

The very sound of her name provokes reactions that run from reverence to loathing. She has become for better or worse a hopeless tangle of causes and effects. Here is a woman who carries all the symbolic freight of America’s culture war. It has become her fate to symbolize everything that some people like, and others detest about this country’s red states.

Sarah Palin has been criticized not only for her record and positions but for her intelligence, her accent, her body, her clothes and even her fitness as a mother. And all this in a time of history celebrated as progressive and forward thinking on the issues of women and power. Many of us watched as her sudden rise provoked a kind of hysteria among liberals and media elite that can only be seen to the objective eye as venomous and cutting. The vicious snobbery and breathtaking double standards will certainly have media consequences for years to come.

Now for the seven minute Youtube video via the Atheist Antidote:

Here’s the latest despicable episode in the long, long list of despicable episodes of the left vs. Sarah Palin: more death threats by the very people who incredibly call HER the hater.

“Due to an onslaught of personal attacks against Governor Palin and others associated with her appearance, it is with deep sadness and disappointment that, in the best interest of all, we cancel the event for safety concerns.”

I also thought it interesting to read about where the political usage of the term “sheep” came from and why it applies so perfectly to liberals – especially media liberals.

This notion as to how the left – particularly liberal women – just viciously tears down Sarah Palin like rabid dogs in spite of the fact that what she is at her core is just a strong, successful woman made me think of this exchange:

Kirsten Powers is an analyst for Fox News.  She is a proven liberal.  But it turns out she is no friend of the N.O.W.

During the 5 September 2008 broadcast of the Fox News program “Hannity and Colmes,” Kirsten Powers said this:

It’s not the National Organization for Women, right?  But it’s not.  It’s really the National Organization for Liberal Women.  It’s not the National Organization for Women, because she’s a woman.  And they put out a statement saying, “Not all women speak for women.  Sarah Palin doesn’t speak for women.”  Well, look; this woman, when I look at her – even if I don’t support her, you know, a lot of her policies, she is the embodiment of what feminism was all about.  She’s a mother, she’s successful, her husband helps with the children.  You know, we should be exited about this, even if you don’t support her.

Alan Colmes then said:

If you support someone just because they’re a woman, and the National Organization for Women supports anybody whose a woman,then you’re saying we’re just supporting them because they’re a woman, and you’re not being discerning at all.  So you can’t have it both ways.

And Kirsten Powers responded:

I would agree with that if they had any kind of actual moral authority, but they don’t, because they don’t ever support any women who don’t support their very narrow agenda.  So they should just rename themselves and say what they’re really for, and stop pretending like they really care about the advancement for women.

I believe it’s becoming clear that the convoluted “feminism” of the N.O.W. is in trouble.  If it dies tough, successful, intelligent and independent women like Sarah Palin and Kirsten Powers will have been the ones that killed it.

I especially liked the part of this video where you have the speaker describing liberals accusing Sarah Palin of being “a retard” and then pointing out that if they really believed that, it should clearly engender a reaction of sympathy rather than hate piled on top of hate.

I have described Sarah Palin and liberals in terms of Jesus and demons.  Whenever a demon heard the mere mention of Jesus’ name, it just came unglued.  And that’s pretty much what happens every time a liberal hears the name of Sarah Palin: she just brings the devil right out of them so that any discerning eye can see who and what these people truly are.

Meet Michelle Obama, Mass-Murdering Liberal

Let’s start out with the story as told by uberlib Kate Sheppard:

A new report from the Governor’s Highway Safety Association is getting lots of press today because some reporters, rather bizarrely, have tried to blame the increase in pedestrian deaths in 2010 on First Lady Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign.

Yes, you read that right. See the original piece in The Examiner and the followup in the Daily Caller.

The reporters in question posit that perhaps the increase in the number of pedestrians struck by cars last year, after four years of decline, is because people are out exercising more, choosing to walk when possible instead of hopping in the car. TBD has a good post in which the GHSA’s executive director, Barbara Harsha, explaining that she never said that at all. The group isn’t sure exactly what caused the uptick in deaths—and they certainly can’t pin it on Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” initiative.

Now, do I think for a single second that Michelle Obama’s initiative should be blamed for the spike in pedestrian deaths?

No.

Then again, I don’t think like a liberal.

Sarah Palin got widely blamed for Jared Loughner’s shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and many others in Tucson Arizona for no other reason than that she had a map that “targeted” vulnerable Democrats – Giffords included – for political defeat.

It wasn’t just the far-left that did this; even supposed “mainstream” journalists were all over themselves denouncing Sarah Palin for her inciting violence.

They didn’t really give a damn that Democrats themselves routinely used the same sort of maps to “target” Republicans:

Nor did they think it worthwhile to mention that Bob Beckel – the Democrat strategist who ran Walter Mondale’s campaign – claimed that he invented “targeting” maps.  And that, therefore, the worse thing Republicans did was respond to this act of hate and violence by fighting back.

Nor did they decide it was worthwhile to mention the fact that not only did a leftwing group “target” Gabrielle Giffords for defeat because she wasn’t liberal enough for them, but they actually used the word “dead” in reference to her:

The website Daily Kos has also deleted a diary about Rep. Gabrielle Giffords entitled “My Congresswoman Voted Against Pelosi, Now She’s Dead To Me,” but so far has not deleted a post by founder Markos Moulitsas that lists Giffords’ district among those on their “target list,” and noted that “Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district.”

We have since learned that there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between Sarah Palin and anything that Sarah Palin said or did or posted and Tucson gunman Jared Loughner.

But that didn’t stop the rabid left, did it?

But allow me to think like a liberal, for a second…

Okay, I’m back from the sudden urge to vomit that overcame me.  My stomach is now as devoid of its contents as my mind of rationality.  I now return to my experiment of thinking like a liberal.

If we apply the left’s “guilty until proven innocent” tactic on Michelle Obama, where do we end up?

With all due respect, there is FAR more evidence linking Michelle Obama to the traffic deaths of pedestrians (after all, she did encourage people to get out there and walk, and she should have known that many people who were stupid enough to take advice from her in the first place would be too stupid to survive an encounter with the real world).

It seems obvious that, applying liberal methodology, we should immediately brand Michelle Obama a mass-murderer.  And we should continue to denounce her until we do a study and determine that every single pedestrian killed had never once heard her instruction to “move.”

And, of course, if so much as one pedestrian causality ever heard Michelle Obama say “let’s move,” then obviously Michelle Obama as much as killed that poor victim.

And all we need to condemn Michelle Obama for her “Let’s Murder” initiative is to apply the same standard that the left applied to Sarah Palin.

Who Won The Debate? Fox News Goes Through The Roof; Keith Olberman Goes Way Of Dodo Bird

Keith Olbermann just got his walking papers.  MSNBC just announced that it was ending its contract with him.  “Countdown” was appropriately very well named: 5-4-3-2-1-phhfffft.

Olbermann has a book titled, Pitchforks and Torches: The Worst of the Worst, from Beck, Bill, and Bush to Palin and Other Posturing Republicans.  Well, let’s look at those “posturing Republicans.”  The question becomes, “Which monster did the townsfolk actually drive away from their village?” Bush is thriving, with polls saying more and more Americans are wishing he were still president, a memoir that will now almost certainly outsell Bill Clinton’s and a generally happy disposition.  Bill O’Reilly continues to dominate.  Sarah Palin is doing just peachy, thank you.  And Glenn Beck?  Liberals are all over the web as we speak posting that Glenn Beck’s ratings have taken a giant dive.  But here’s the facts for Beck in his time slot:

Net	5PM	P2+ (000s)	25-54 (000s)	35-64 (000s)
FNC	GLENN BECK	1,920	452	933
CNN	SITUATION ROOM	490	130	183
MSNBC	HARDBALL WITH C. MATTHEWS	603	93	187
CNBC	FAST MONEY	288	53	134
HLN	SHOWBIZ TONIGHT	176	71	91

Glenn Beck’s Fox News program is doing considerably better than the next four programs combined.  It looks like he’s just hurting so bad, doesn’t it?

Liberals like Keith Olbermann have their hysterical shrillness, their poisonous fang-dripping hate and their hypocrisy.  Fox News has actual ratings.

Look at the most recent ratings: FNC, for the record, means “Fox News Channel.”  Do you notice how they dominate every single time slot?

The quite left-leaning Public Policy Polling found Fox News “the most trusted” in last years’ survey.  According to their survey this year, Fox has slipped.  But, first of all, read this.  And second of all, just take another look at the ratings.

Dinesh D’Souza, in his great book What’s So Great About Christianity, begins his first chapter with these words:

God has come back to life.  The world is witnessing a huge explosion of religious conversion and growth, and Christianity is growing faster than any other religion.  Nietzsche’s proclamation “God is dead” is now proven false.  Nietzsche is dead.  The ranks of the unbelievers are shrinking as a proportion of the world’s population.  Secularism has lost its identification with progress and modernity, and consequently has lost the main source of its appeal.  God is very much alive, and His future prospects look to be excellent.  This is the biggest comeback story of the twenty-first century.

D’Souza proceeds to document that claim with facts that will make atheists weep and gnash their little rodent fangs.  [You can read the chapter here].  Secular humanists long claimed that the progression of reason and science would conquer religious “superstition.”  It was a groundless and distorted comparison that is now demonstrated to be a lie, another fairy tale myth of secularism.

Now I cite the beginning of a Human Events article titled, “The Conservative Undead“:

“American political parties have disappeared before,” Keith Olbermann warned Republicans in a 2009 “special comment.” The suspended MSNBC host histrionically continued, “You’re rapidly moving from the party of no conscience towards the party of no relevancy. You are behind the wheel of a political Toyota, and before the midterms you will be reduced to obviously being this generation’s home for the nuts.

To play off D’Souza, “Olbermann’s proclamation ‘The Republican Party is dead’ is now proven false.  Olbermann is dead.”

And to allude to a song from The Wizard of Oz: “Ding-Dong.”  It’s about time.

When it comes to liberals a line out of Willie Wonka puts it best: in a world of pure imagination, what you see will defy explanation.

Before Demonizing ‘Crosshairs,’ CNN Used Word To Refer To Target Palin And Bachmann

This pretty much sums it all up when it comes to blatant media hypocrisy and propaganda:

Before banning ‘crosshairs,’ CNN used it to refer to Palin, Bachmann
By: Byron York 01/19/11 8:08 AM
Chief Political Correspondent

CNN’s John King is attracting a lot of notice — and some ridicule — in the blogosphere for his on-air apology after a guest used the word “crosshairs” during a report on Chicago politics Tuesday.  (The guest, a former Chicago reporter, referred to two rivals of mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel, saying Emanuel is “in both of their crosshairs.”) “We were just having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race,” King told viewers.  “My friend Andy Shaw…used the term ‘in the crosshairs’ in talking about the candidates out there. We’re trying, we’re trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend, he’s covered politics for a long time, but we’re trying to get away from using that kind of language.  We won’t always be perfect, so hold us accountable when we don’t meet your standards.”

King’s statement comes after widespread discussion of whether Sarah Palin’s now-infamous “crosshairs” map targeting vulnerable Democratic candidates in last November’s elections somehow caused the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson January 8.  There has been plenty of that kind of speculation on CNN, including on Tuesday, the day of John King’s statement, when one brief discussion of Palin used the word “crosshairs” five times.

Now, King says, CNN is “trying to get away” from such terms, suggesting that in the wake of the Tucson shootings, such language should no longer be part of the public conversation.  But if Palin is to blame for using crosshairs in her much-discussed map, then CNN, by its own use of the allegedly inflammatory term “crosshairs,” might also share some blame for creating the atmosphere that led to the violence in Arizona.  A look at transcripts of CNN programs in the month leading up to the shootings shows that the network was filled with references to “crosshairs” — and once even used the term to suggest the targeting of Palin herself. Some examples:

“Palin’s moose-hunting episode on her reality show enraged People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and now, she’s square in the crosshairs of big time Hollywood producer, Aaron Sorkin,” reported A.J. Hammer of CNN’s Headline News on December 8.

“Companies like MasterCard are in the crosshairs for cutting ties with WikiLeaks,” said CNN Kiran Chetry in a December 9 report.

“Thousands of people living in areas that are in the crosshairs have been told to evacuate,” Chetry said in a December 21 report on flooding in California.

“He’s in their crosshairs,” said a guest in a December 21 CNN discussion of suspects in a missing-person case.

“This will be the first time your food will be actually in the crosshairs of the FDA,” business reporter Christine Romans said on December 22.

“The U.S. commander in the East has Haqqani in his crosshairs,” CNN’s Barbara Starr reported on December 28, referring to an Afghan warlord.

“We know that health care reform is in the crosshairs again,” CNN’s Joe Johns reported on January 3.

Seven uses of “crosshairs” in just the month before the Tucson attacks, and just one of them referring to an actual wartime situation.  And one reference to Sarah Palin herself as being in “crosshairs.”

And not just Palin.  On September 14, Mark Preston, CNN’s senior political editor, referred to another controversial politician, Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, as being “in the crosshairs.” “Michelle Bachmann is raising lots of money, raising her national profile,” Preston said on September 14.  “She is in the crosshairs of Democrats as well.”

It turns out Preston was back on CNN’s air on Tuesday, discussing Palin’s recent interview on Fox News. “We saw her on Fox News last night where she is a paid contributor,” Preston said.  “A kind of a friendly setting, but she defended herself from all the criticism that’s been directed at her regarding a Web site that she had put out where she had used crosshairs over 20 Democratic candidates.  Now a lot of people said that her rhetoric is inciting violence. She said that that is not true…”

“Crosshairs” again.  Just for the record, CNN anchors, reporters and guests did absolutely nothing wrong with their use of the word in the last month and before.  It would be impossible, at least for any reasonable person, to argue that the network’s use of “crosshairs” in any of the various contexts it was used, was an incitement to violence by anyone, anywhere.  But by announcing that “we’re trying to get away” from “crosshairs” and other allegedly incendiary language, CNN is aligning itself with those who blame “rhetoric” for the killings.  And by doing that — plus inviting the public to “hold us accountable” — CNN could open itself up to an examination of its own uses of the word and accusations that it helped create an environment that led to violence.  Does that make any sense at all?

In the bizarro world of Democrats and their propaganda allies in the mainstream media, truth and moral consistency are the very first “targets” that are placed in the “crosshairs” and killed.