Posts Tagged ‘bias’

Secular Humanism The Source Behind Education’s Ills Across The Board As We Decline In Knowledge, In Tolerance And In Morality

May 19, 2014

Secular humanism – in religious terms you can label it “atheism” and in political terms you can label it “progressive liberalism” – is a shell game that tries to hide the existence of the human soul.

The soul is there, of course.  It simply HAS to be there for humans to be in any meaningful way categorically different than the beasts, or for human justice to be anything other than a morbid joke as “beasts” judge one another for acting like beasts.  But the project of secular humanism is to only allow as much “soul” as is absolutely necessary to allow society to function while at the same time denying it’s reality lest the people reject the atheism and the progressive liberalism that are based on the denial of the soul.

The problem is that the soul is NOT a degreed property.  “Size” and “weight” are a degreed properties; a thing can have more of it or less of it and still be the thing itself.  But in this case the soul must be the kind of thing (a substance) that HAS properties rather than a property that has degrees.  We therefore either have souls – in which case the secular humanists are entirely wrong about the nature of humanity, the nature of religion, the nature of morality, the nature of science and the very  nature of the universe – or we do NOT have souls and therefore we do NOT have “free will” in which case human society, human justice and basically everything worthwhile about “humanity” is an entirely manufactured lie.

Look, I am either a soul – created in the image of God – that has a body, or else I am nothing more than a body – and frankly a meat puppet – which was the result of random DNA conditioned by my environment.  It’s one or the other; there is no middle ground.  Free will becomes a logical as well as biological impossibility for the latter view – which is why secular humanist scientists and philosophers are increasingly rejecting the very possibility of free will.

The problem is that if you were to actually assume the latter was actually true, then how could you hold anybody responsible for anything?  It’s really a frightening thought.  After all, if I commit a brutal murder, but there really is no “me” inside of me to truly hold accountable, but rather I was conditioned by genes I didn’t choose and an environment I didn’t choose, why should I be held accountable?  How is this not like holding a child responsible for what his parents did?  But of course, on this view, you can’t hold the parents responsible any more than the child, because they suffer the same complete lack of moral free will that their child does.  And the final result of this view is that we should no more hold a human being – who is NOTHING but an evolved monkey, after all – any more morally responsible for his or her “crimes” than we would hold a tiger responsible for killing a goat.   Because in both cases, you merely do what you “evolved” to do.

Therefore, the people who claim the latter (no God, ergo sum no imago dei ergo sum no free will) is reality have to pretend for the most part that it is most definitely NOT reality in order to have any kind of functioning human society.  What they have done is determined that humans are in fact “animals” (or beasts); and that, more specifically, we are “herd animals.”  Mind you, we are also clearly – judging by human experience – “predator animals” who prey on herd animals.  And so the secular humanists have construed for themselves a “foundation for their description of reality” in which they have appointed themselves the outside role of “the bureaucrats” and “the professors” and “the journalists” (etc.) who shape and control the behavior of the herd and attempt to keep the herd animals relatively safe from the predator animals.

And of course liberalism only becomes consistent in their anthropology when they refuse to execute murderers (after all, THAT would be holding someone accountable for their moral crimes when that man is merely a beast who merely did what his brain had evolved to do); so we house them, keep them locked up in cages.  Just like animals.  Because they ARE animals and nothing more than animals conditioned by DNA plus environment.  Just like YOU’RE nothing more than a mindless animal purely conditioned by DNA plus environment.

I suggest that the increasing breakdown of society under the control of secular humanism is itself a refutation of their system.  We are skyrocketing out of control as a species because when you treat men like beasts, like beasts men shall increasingly become.  As the Bible puts it, “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).  But we can offer a great deal more of an analysis than merely pointing out that “by their fruits shall ye know them” (Matthew 7:16-20).

One of the things you need to realize is the bait and switch you have received regarding science and the nature of science.  You have been fed a pile of lies in the form of a narrative that science is incompatible with religion and that “science” produces open-mindedness and tolerance for new ideas whereas “religion” produces close-mindedness and hostility to new ideas.  But that is simply a lie: as a matter of factual history, “science” is uniquely a product of Judeo-Christianity.  It arose ONLY in Christendom as the result of belief in a Personal, Transcendent Creator God rather than anywhere else on earth.  Belief in God was a necessary condition for the rise of science as not only the discoverer of the scientific method itself (Francis Bacon) but the discoverer of every single branch of science was a publicly confessing Christian who “sought appreciate the beauty of God’s handiwork” and who “wanted to think God’s thoughts after Him.”

J.P. Moreland (Source: The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, p. 17) listed some of the philosophical presuppositions – based on the Judeo-Christian worldview – that were necessary for the foundation of science:

1. the existence of a theory-independent, external world

2. the orderly nature of the external world

3. the knowability of the external world

4. the existence of truth

5. the laws of logic

6. the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as -truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment

7. the adequacy of language to describe the world

8. the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”)

9. the uniformity of nature and induction

10. the existence of numbers

Good luck in starting science without all of these assumptions – of which the assumption of God according to the Judeo-Christian worldview was necessary to provide.  Science could not verify or validate any of the list above for the reason that they already needed to be accepted in order for science to ever get off the ground in the first place.

To put it crassly, if it were up to secular humanists, we would still be living in caves and afraid of fire.  And if it left up to secular humanists, we will ultimately be living in caves and afraid of fire again.  And all you have to do to realize that society is not advancing under their standard, but degenerating, to know that.

God created the world as a habitation for the capstone of His creation, man.  And then God created man in His own image and therefore able to see and fathom the world which He had created for humanity.  That is the basis for science.

Gleason Archer framed an insurmountable intellectual contradiction for the “scientific atheist”:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”  — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

Basically, if the atheist is right, then “human reason” becomes a contradiction in terms and let’s just live like the beasts they say we are and be done pretending we’re something we’re not.

What secular humanists have been trying to do – frankly for generations – is to perpetuate a fraud.  It would be akin to me intercepting a great thinker’s work and trying to pass it off as my own.

But imagine – for the sake of argument – what would have happened had I done such a thing with the work of Albert Einstein.  Imagine I had enough of a vocabulary to pass myself off as a great scientific mind.  What would have happened to science as a result of my limiting it?

And that is what’s essentially being described in the R. Scott Smith article below.  Education – the teaching of science and of how to do science, for example – would suffer more and more as fools who are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7) hijacked the agenda.

I would like to begin this discussion with an article on the logically-entailed implications of Darwinism in crucial human pursuits by beginning with an article detailing the ramifications of Darwinism on education:

Winter 2014
Does Darwinian Evolution Actually Undermine Education?
By R. Scott Smith

Low standard test scores, serious budget crunches and more — our public schools face daunting challenges. But perhaps they face a deeper issue, one not being mentioned in recent public discussions: What if they aren’t really teaching our youth knowledge?

Today’s education is based upon the assumption that science gives us knowledge. But other disciplines give us (at best) “inferior knowledge,” or just preferences and opinions.

And today’s scientific orthodoxy is Darwinian and naturalistic, meaning all that’s real is natural, or material; there isn’t anything real that’s supernatural or immaterial. There’s no God, souls or minds, and so no real “mental states” — thoughts, beliefs, experiences, intentions, etc.

If that seems overstated, notice what Daniel Dennett, a leading philosopher of neuroscience at Tufts University, says. He admits that according to naturalistic evolution, the dominant scientific theory, brains and physical patterns of physical forces exist. Physical stuff (matter) is real, but things like mental states aren’t.

Yet when we do science, pay our taxes or watch a football game, it seems we really think, have beliefs and experience things. So, how can that be?

According to Dennett, all that’s going on is the interpretation of the behavior of “intentional systems,” like sophisticated chess-playing computers and people. While observing them, we try to interpret and predict their behavior. For instance, we might interpret a computer’s move in a game as “intending” to checkmate its opponent, whereas the human player “thinks” or “believes” she can escape by making a certain move. We just interpret their behaviors by how we conceive of (or talk about) their behaviors as mental states — but that’s all there’s to it. There are no real beliefs, thoughts or observations.

However, suppose a person comes here from a fourth-world country. She’ll need to get a concept of what a traffic light is and that she can cross the street on a green light, not red. To learn that, she’ll need experiences and thoughts of what these things are, and then form a concept of when it’s safe to cross a street.

So, for Darwinian evolution and naturalism, there’s a crucial problem here: How could anyone make observations and form concepts and interpretations? To do these seems to require we use the very mental things we’re told don’t exist.

Yet without real observations, we don’t seem able to do any scientific experiments. Without concepts, thoughts and beliefs, how could we even form, test and accept scientific theories?

Worse, how could we have knowledge if there aren’t real beliefs we can accept as true? We also need adequate evidence for our beliefs to count as knowledge. But with Darwinian, naturalistic science, evidence from experience seems impossible.

Now, maybe Michael Tye (a philosopher at the University of Texas at Austin) could reply that we do have mental states, yet these really are just something physical, like brain states, being conceived of as being mental. But, that won’t work — to even have concepts, we need real mental states to work with.

So, it seems the assumption upon which our education system is founded — that Darwinian evolutionary, naturalistic science uniquely gives us knowledge of the facts — cannot be true. And, Darwinian evolution also is mistaken, for on it we couldn’t know anything. Yet we do know many things — for instance, that we’re alive.

Therefore, real, immaterial mental states must exist. While this essay doesn’t prove it, it suggests something very important — supernaturalism isn’t far-fetched after all. Indeed, we can infer even more. If we can have real immaterial thoughts, experiences, beliefs and more, then it seems that there must be something immaterial that is real which can have and use them. That suggests that we have minds, even souls, that are real and non-physical. So, how then do we best explain their existence? Surely not from Darwinian evolution. Instead, it seems that this short study highly suggests that God exists and has made us in a way that we can have knowledge. I am reminded of what Solomon said: “To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord” (Prov. 1:7, GNT).

Thus, fixing our education system seems to involve, in part, a  repudiation of naturalism and Darwinian, naturalistic science. For on it, we lose all knowledge whatsoever. But since we do know many things, that fact strongly suggests that God exists.


R. Scott Smith (M.A. ’95) is an associate professor of ethics and Christian apologetics in Biola’s master’s program in Christian
apologetics. He holds a Ph.D. in religion and social ethics from the University of Southern California.

Science isn’t “discovering” very much.  We put a man on the moon in the 1960s and we literally aren’t capable of repeating that feat today.  The first computer was invented by a Christian, of course.  We keep making them smaller and faster, but we haven’t had any major leaps for decades.  We’ve been following Moore’s Law rather than any “scientific advance.”  We’ve been very successful at “technology,” and at reducing the size of previously designed devices or at creatively marketing/engineering a device based on the success of a previous device.  But contrary to your secular humanist, we’re not making giant leaps and bounds on the frontiers of science.

And that is most definitely true of education – and especially education in America relative to other nations as we plunge ever more deeply into the philosophy of secular humanism that had NOTHING to do with the origin of science or the origin of ANY OTHER MEANINGFUL THING.

I look at education and I see what many parents as well as many educators see: kids that are getting dumber and dumber.

And you have to ask yourself, why is that, given that we’re spending more per pupil than ever???  Why do we keep falling behind?  And why do Christian schools run circles around the government (secular humanist education center) schools???  Because it is simply a FACT that they do:

If you want a flourishing education system – you know, the kind of system that put a man on the moon – you need to demand a return to a religion-friendly education system rather than the one that has replaced the system that made America great.

It is a fact of history that American public education began as a RELIGIOUS ENDEAVOROf the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian.  As a native Californian, I also marveled to learn that Christianity and churches EXCLUSIVELY bore the burden of education for basically the first hundred years of westward expansion.

I’ve written about what happened as government invited itself in to take over education:

Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck.  Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields.  It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.

Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries.  Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.

Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.

Look what’s happened.  Liberals have purged out conservatives.  The snootiest, most hoity toity, most sanctimonious lecturers about “tolerance” are THE most intolerant people of all:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” [...]

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”

By the way, I’m “possibly” liberal by that standard of measurement.  Yeah, being conservative or being a Christian (and recall that it was the Democrat Party that voted to remove “God” from its party platform until God was illegally put back into the platform amid a chorus of boos) most definitely “counts against you” in the stacked deck that liberalism has created to benefit itself and punish its enemies.  As Professor Guillermo Gonzalez found out the hard way when liberals denied him tenure because he had the gall to write a book expressing his belief in an intelligent designer of the universe.  And after denying him tenure because he believed in God and they are fascists, they fired a professor who should by all rights have been celebrated.

Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people.  Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.

That was our strike two for us [note: I write about three strikes in the article].  Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.

By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law.  They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means.  By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history.  Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination.  And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies.  It has become a vicious circle.

Today we have an “education system” ladened with secular humanist theories which don’t teach children because as secular humanists they have understanding of “humanity” or the little souls whom they seek more to indoctrinate than to educate.

Johnny can’t read, at least he can’t read very well.  But that’s okay; he doesn’t need to be able to read very well in order to serve the future State or the crony capitalist corporations in the progressive liberals’ fascist system in order to be a good drone worker bee.  When your child is toiling away at his or her menial job, feel good in the knowledge that your child will do so believing that being a good citizen and taking your place as one of myriad cogs in the machine will keep him or her moving mindlessly forward.

In a way, I’ve already also described the rabid intolerance that is the quintessence of secular humanism in describing above the purging of conservatives by liberals.  But believe me, there is way, way more than that.

One of the frightening things about the Holocaust was that only one who closely followed the theories presented in the German universities could see it coming.  But those who DID follow what was being taught in the elite German universities could see it coming very clearly.  Many of those who did follow what was being taught were terrified and tried to warn the free nations about what was happening.  But of course nobody listened.  And so it all played out exactly as the most strident voices warned it would play out unless something was done.  That “play” was World War II and the death camps that accompanied it.

The lesson of history is that ideas have consequences.  And terrible ideas have terrible consequences, indeed.

So with that introduction, allow me to replay a recent article written by a student of one of the most – if not THE most – prestigious of universities in America reflecting a new rabid intolerance of free speech in academia:

 In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.

Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue. [...]

It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.

Basically, she says that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.

Here as in so many other ways, secular humanist “liberalism” is Nazism.  Period.

I want you to consider the bastion of bias and intolerance that academia has truly become:

AN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

We are now seeing a massive effort on the part of students who have been brain-washed by the above secular humanist dictatorship of academia in which they simply refuse to tolerate or even listen to any ideas that disagree with their dogma.

Students are now shouting down anyone with whom they disagree.  It doesn’t matter how many other students want to hear a speaker: secular humanist liberal students and faculty are fascists who impose their will and dictate their agenda on others (even when they are in the very tiny minority):  And so:

At least three prominent leaders — former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde, and former UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau — cancelled their commencement speeches this spring after a typhoon of campus activism.

Consider what happened this week with Birgeneau, who had been scheduled to speak at Haverford College, a close-knit liberal arts school just outside Philadelphia.

By some measures, Birgeneau is the perfect person to give a graduation speech: Successful, civic-minded and notable, not least for guiding Berkeley as it became the first American public university to offer comprehensive financial aid to students in the country illegally. But Birgeneau was actually far from ideal, some Haverford students and faculty decided.

Despite his left-friendly work on immigration, they said they wanted Birgeneau to apologize for how campus police brutalized Occupy Wall Street demonstrators in 2011 — or else they would protest his graduation speech.

In response, Birgeneau decided not to attend the graduation. His cancellation, the most recent of the three, is raising concerns in some quarters that campus leftist groups are putting so much emphasis on social justice issues that they’re squashing the spirit of open debate. [...]

But some observers say the recent campus blow back belongs in its own category, which political writer Michelle Goldberg, in a column for The Nation, called “left-wing anti-liberalism” – the idea that some speech and some people are so politically disagreeable that their views don’t need to be heard.

Lukianoff, of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, pointed to a 2013 dust-up at Brown University in which former New York police head Ray Kelly’s speech to students had to be canceled after he was shouted down and unable to speak.

Kelly has long been despised by the left for his defense of stop-and-frisk policies and how the NYPD cracked down on Occupy Wall Street protesters. His embarrassment at Brown became a YouTube moment that other officials would likely hope to avoid. [....]

For centuries, universities – which again were started by Christians out of the monasticism movement (as in America, where 106 of the first 108 universities in America including ALL the Ivy League schools were began by Christians; and of the first 126 colleges, 123 were Christian) have celebrated their institutions as bastions of free expression and the interchange of ideas.  That is a lie today.  You don’t GET to learn “ideas” any more; you get to learn THE idea of secular humanist liberalism and nothing else.  Because whether you are a student or a professor or an administrator, these secular humanist liberals will come after you if you commit the sin of heresy in their rabid eyes.

Therefore, what has happened in the colleges and universities is analogous to a wayward girl who began to date a monster and ultimately helped murder her own parents in the night.  That’s what secular humanism did in purging the universities and colleges from the Christian tradition that gave BIRTH to those universities and colleges.

I compare what I’m seeing today to the French Revolution.  It, like what we’re seeing today, was the result of secular humanism.  And like what we’re seeing today, the French Revolution quickly degenerated from a bunch of hoity-toity pronouncements to hell on earth as the French Revolution rapidly degenerated into the Reign of Terror.

It is an easy thing to prove that rabid intolerance is a defining feature of the (secular humanist “liberal”) left today.  We are seeing the left declare open war on free speech and on the exercise of First Amendment rights as this nation has never seen before.  Executives are being forced out of companies they helped found because they had the audacity to exercise their free speech rights as AmericansJournalists are getting purged for daring to speak the truth.   And just consider the vicious, rabid leftist Occupy Movement compared to the conservative Tea Party that was so demonized by the leftist press:

Occupy Movement Costs America UNTOLD MILLIONS ($2.3 Milion In L.A. ALONE) Versus Tea Party Movement Which MADE Cities Money

Liberalism = Marxism. See The Occupy Movement Shutting Down Ports, Capitalism, Jobs To Get Their Way (Communist Russian Revolution Part Deux)

After Obama Deceitfully Demonized GOP For ‘Dirtier Air And Dirtier Water,’ His Occupy Movement Leaves Behind 30 TONS Of Diseased Filfth At Just ONE Site

Vile Liberal Occupy Movement Killed The Grass At L.A. City Hall – What Should Be Done Now?

Occupy Movement Officially A Terrorist Group Now

The American Left Personified By Occupy Movement: Vile, Violent Fascist Thugs

Occupy Movement Is Destroying Jobs And Hurting Little People

Consider The Fundamental Incoherence And Hypocrisy Of The Left And The Occupy Movement

Occupy Wall Street Movement Ranks Have Criminals, Rioters, Rapists, Terrorists And Now Murderers

There have been 7,765 documented arrests of leftist Occupy Movement fascists.  Versus ZERO for the Tea Party.

Occupy – as a symbol and a symptom of the left – believed it had the right to “occupy” private property, to destroy property, to destroy jobs, to pretty much take over.  And in the case of UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, we discover that it is a sin punishable by the maximum penalty to apply law and order to the left.  Better to just let them occupy and riot and vandalize, I suppose.

Liberalism is fascist intolerance when “liberalism” has been hijacked by secular humanist progressive liberalism.  Liberals are simply pathologically intolerant people across the board as expressed in pretty much any way you can measure it.

I come at last to sexual assaults.  They’ve either absolutely skyrocketed in Obama’s military and in liberalism’s universities or Obama has – incredibly cynically – manufactured a political crisis to demagogue.  Let’s just assume the data we have is correct and Obama ISN’T an incredibly evil man and go with it.  Sexual assaults have skyrocketed on his watch during his administration.

Secular humanists have no answer for why this would be.  After all, they’ve been talking about it and requiring more enforcement – including universities which clearly aren’t able to deal with the crisis – and punishing it more than ever.  So why is it growing out of control on a liberal president’s watch?

The answer is easy.  On my Judeo-Christian view, rape is wrong, wrong, WRONG.  Because contrary to secular humanism, we’re NOT just DNA-plus-environment-plus nothing meat puppets; we are human beings created by God in His image.  And to sexually assault another human being is to ignore, degrade and pervert the image of God in another soul.

On a secular humanist, not so much.

Oh, your liberal feminist asserts it’s wrong.  But when you stop and consider the tenets of Darwinian evolution, on what grounds do they assert such a thing?

Evolutionists have long talked about rape in terms of advancing evolution.  We’re equipped for fleeing, fighting and fornicating, we’re told.  There’s such a thing as a “rape gene,” we’re told.  And since Darwinism is all about “survival of the fittest,” and since the fittest survive precisely by passing on their DNA, well, rape is merely one of many possible pathways for an organism to strive to be the fittest in Darwinan terms.  And of course the animal world abounds with examples in which humans would call it “rape” but animals would call it “reproducing.”

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Because as evolutionists explain:

“rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”

Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

Rape isn’t wrong because secular humanists say it is.  That’s not a good enough reason.  Certainly not for the increasing numbers of humans committing sexual assaults it isn’t, anyway.

Why is rape wrong?  Frankly, in our new system of “morality,” rape is wrong because Obama says it is wrong.  That’s certainly the “logic” Obama used to first say that homosexual marriage was wrong when it was politically convenient to do so and that it somehow became right when it was politically convenient for him to say it was right.  I mean, literally, gay marriage was wrong until Obama said it was right.  And now it’s right.  But anyone who thinks that this is the way morality works is quite literally morally insane.

And so we have insane sexual assault statistics to go with it.

If secular humanist liberalism is in any way, shape or form true, THERE IS NO REASON TO BE TOLERANT.  In fact, we ought to be as vicious, as ruthless, as determined to win in our struggle for ideology – which of course is merely the result of how our brains happened to be randomly wired versus having any “truth” to them if secular humanism is true – as is necessary to prevail.

If secular humanist liberalism is true, then the struggle for “ideas” today is no different between rival packs of baboons fighting over the same turf.

And the reason the beast is coming is because God foreknew 2,000 years ago and beyond that in the last days, the most vicious pack of baboons (the secular humanist liberals) would prevail in a world in which rational argument and debate had been expunged by “liberalism.”

 

Life At The Most Respected Liberal Newspaper (Read, Worst And Most Biased Piece Of Garbage) In The Country

February 5, 2014

I found this piece about life at the insufferable New York Times rather a fun read:

The Tyranny and Lethargy of the Times Editorial Page
Reporters in ‘semi-open revolt’ against Andrew Rosenthal
By Ken Kurson 2/04 3:38pm

Illustration by Torren Thomas.

Illustration by Torren Thomas.

IT’S WELL KNOWN AMONG THE SMALL WORLD of people who pay attention to such things that the liberal-leaning reporters at The Wall Street Journal resent the conservative-leaning editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. What’s less well known—and about to break into the open, threatening the very fabric of the institution—is how deeply the liberal-leaning reporters at The New York Times resent the liberal-leaning editorial page of The New York Times.

The New York Observer has learned over the course of interviews with more than two-dozen current and former Times staffers that the situation has “reached the boiling point” in the words of one current Times reporter. Only two people interviewed for this story agreed to be identified, given the fears of retaliation by someone they criticize as petty and vindictive.

The blame here, in the eyes of most Times reporters to whom The Observer spoke, belongs to Andrew Rosenthal, who as editorial page editor leads both the paper’s opinion pages and opinion postings online, as well as overseeing the editorial board and the letters, columnists and op-ed departments. Mr. Rosenthal is accused of both tyranny and pettiness, by the majority of the Times staffers interviewed for this story. And the growing dissatisfaction with Mr. Rosenthal stems from a commitment to excellence that has lifted the rest of the Times, which is viewed by every staffer The Observer spoke to as rapidly and dramatically improving.

“He runs the show and is lazy as all get-out,” says a current Times writer, and one can almost hear the Times-ness in his controlled anger (who but a Timesman uses the phrase “as all get-out” these days?). Laziness and bossiness are unattractive qualities in any superior, but they seem particularly galling at a time when the Times continues to pare valued staffers via unending buyouts.

The Times declined to provide exact staffing numbers, but that too is a source of resentment. Said one staffer, “Andy’s got 14 or 15 people plus a whole bevy of assistants working on these three unsigned editorials every day. They’re completely reflexively liberal, utterly predictable, usually poorly written and totally ineffectual. I mean, just try and remember the last time that anybody was talking about one of those editorials. You know, I can think of one time recently, which is with the [Edward] Snowden stuff, but mostly nobody pays attention, and millions of dollars is being spent on that stuff.”

Asked by The Observer for hard evidence supporting a loss of influence of the vaunted editorial page, the same Times staffer fired back, “You know, the editorials are never on the most emailed list; they’re never on the most read list. People just are not paying attention, and they don’t care. It’s a waste of money.”

Andrew Rosenthal. (Photo via Patrick McMullan)

Andrew Rosenthal. (Photo via Patrick McMullan)

Multiple attempts to reach Mr. Rosenthal were rebuffed, and emails directly to him were responded to instead by the Times publicity operation. A Times spokesperson defended the page, telling The Observer, “The power of the editorial page is in the strength of the ideas it expresses. Some editorials are read more widely than others, but virtually all generate discussion and response among our readers, policy-makers and thought leaders. Recently, the editorial series on STEM Education and the editorial on Mr. Snowden sparked a great deal of discussion among readers and policy-makers.” Asked for data, she added, “We do not share statistics or traffic numbers at the individual article or section level.” In a list of 2013’s most read stories the Times sent over, no editorials or columnists appeared (two guest editorials, from Angelina Jolie and Vladimir Putin, did make the cut).

Another sign of a loss of influence may have been revealed this past fall. A member of then Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s inner circle who remained in City Hall until the end of Mr. Bloomberg’s term told The Observer that the entire administration was “shocked” by the Times’ inability to drag its endorsed candidates over the goal line, referring to Christine Quinn in the mayoral primary and Dan Garodnick in the City Council speaker race. “When was the last time The New York Times lost both? Those are both essentially Democratic primaries, and the Times couldn’t carry any water.” The Times also endorsed Dan Squadron for advocate; he was defeated by Letitia James.

This charge was amplified by a different member of Mr. Bloomberg’s kitchen cabinet who left the administration a few years ago. He reports that Ms. Quinn’s political team viewed the Times endorsement as “critical” to her cementing the nomination, which led them to allow the Times to follow Ms. Quinn around making a documentary. What resulted was Hers To Lose, a behind-the-scenes look that was clearly supposed to show the historic win of an out lesbian but instead turned into an awkward and sometimes excruciating look at a campaign that finished in third place, despite the Times endorsement.

According to this source, “Chris worked very hard to get the endorsement. Ask yourself: Why did she allow the Times movie? Why would any campaign ever do that? They were so focused on the editorial [endorsement] that when Executive Editor Jill Abramson personally called over and asked Chris to do the movie, it was seen within the Quinn campaign as something they’d better say ‘yes’ to in order to get the endorsement.”

As for the charges that Mr. Rosenthal is a despot, one writer provided a funny example that others interviewed for this story immediately recognized. “Rosenthal himself is like a petty tyrant, like anytime anyone on the news pages uses the word ‘should’ in their copy, you know, he sends nasty emails around kind of CCing the world. The word ‘should’ belongs to him and his people.”

Also coming in for intense criticism were the opinion-page columnists, always a juicy target. Particularly strong criticism, to the point of resentful (some might say jealous), was directed at Thomas Friedman, the three-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize who writes mostly about foreign affairs and the environment.

One current Times staffer told The Observer, “Tom Friedman is an embarrassment. I mean there are multiple blogs and Tumblrs and Twitter feeds that exist solely to make fun of his sort of blowhardy bullshit.” (Gawker has been particularly hard on Mr. Friedman, with Hamilton Nolan memorably skewering him in a column entitled “Tom Friedman Travels the World to Find Incredibly Uninteresting Platitudes,” as a “mustachioed soothsaying simpleton”; another column was titled “Tom Friedman Does Not Know What’s Happening Here,” and the @firetomfriedman Twitter account has more than 1,800 followers.)

From left, Joe Nocera, Thomas L. Friedman, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Carmen Reinhart, Andrew Rosenthal, Paul Krugman.

From left, Joe Nocera, Thomas L. Friedman, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Carmen Reinhart, Andrew Rosenthal, Paul Krugman. (Photo by Neil Rasmus/BFAnyc.com)

Another Times reporter brought up Mr. Friedman, unsolicited, toward the end of a conversation that was generally positive about the editorial page: “I never got a note from Andy or anything like that. But I will say, regarding Friedman, there’s the sense that he’s on cruise control now that he’s his own brand. And no one is saying, ‘Hey, did you see the latest Friedman column?’ in the way they’ll talk about ‘Hey, Gail [Collins] was really funny today.’”

Asked if this stirring resentment toward the editorial page might not just be garden variety news vs. edit stuff or even the leanings of a conservative news reporter toward a liberal editorial page, one current Times staffer said, “It really isn’t about politics, because I land more to the left than I do to the right. I just find it …”

He paused for a long time before continuing and then, unprompted, returned to Mr. Friedman. “I just think it’s bad, and nobody is acknowledging that they suck, but everybody in the newsroom knows it, and we really are embarrassed by what goes on with Friedman. I mean anybody who knows anything about most of what he’s writing about understands that he’s, like, literally mailing it in from wherever he is on the globe. He’s a travel reporter. A joke. The guy gets $75,000 for speeches and probably charges the paper for his first-class airfare.”

Another former Times writer, someone who has gone on to great success elsewhere, expressed similar contempt (and even used the word “embarrass”) and says it’s longstanding.

“I think the editorials are viewed by most reporters as largely irrelevant, and there’s not a lot of respect for the editorial page. The editorials are dull, and that’s a cardinal sin. They aren’t getting any less dull. As for the columnists, Friedman is the worst. He hasn’t had an original thought in 20 years; he’s an embarrassment. He’s perceived as an idiot who has been wrong about every major issue for 20 years, from favoring the invasion of Iraq to the notion that green energy is the most important topic in the world even as the financial markets were imploding. Then there’s Maureen Dowd, who has been writing the same column since George H. W. Bush was president.”

Yet another former Times writer concurred. “Andy is a wrecking ball, a lot like his father but without the gravitas. What strikes me about the editorial and op-ed pages is that they have become relentlessly grim. With very few exceptions, there’s almost nothing light-hearted or whimsical or sprightly about them, nothing to gladden the soul. They’re horribly doctrinaire, down the line, and that goes for the couple of conservatives in the bunch. It wasn’t always like that on those pages.”

THIS VIEW IS NOT unanimous. Joe LaPointe, who spent 20 years covering sports for the Times before taking a buyout in 2010, views the page and its maestro more positively. “The editorial page certainly has changed. It used to be bland, wishy-washy. Now it’s strident. It has more energy and bite. Rosenthal’s voice rings very loud, and I read it closer than I ever had. It’s definitely a left-wing, progressive page, but I find the editorials very interesting. And my brief dealings with Andy have been very pleasant.”

Arhut Sulzberger Jr. (Photo by YASUYOSHI CHIBA/AFP/GettyImages)

Arthur Sulzberger Jr. (Photo via Getty Images)

Timothy L. O’Brien, the publisher of Bloomberg View and a former New York Times editor and reporter, also has nice things to say about an institution that is now a competitor. “While all opinion pages have hard work to do to stand out on the digital landscape, the Times is still a very singular and weighty player and never easily discounted.”

So just how widespread is the impression of laziness and tyranny within the opinion section?

One former business reporter remarked that the entire business section viewed the editorial page as “irrelevant” and went on to say, “Their business editorials were relatively rare and really bad. Floyd Norris went up there to make the business editorials better and eventually just left because he got tired of trying to explain economics to them.”

A veteran reporter brought up the Sunday Review section, which falls under Mr. Rosenthal’s purview. “When it stopped being called Week in Review, I don’t know anyone in the newsroom who thinks it got better, and almost everyone thinks it got worse. Everyone I know thinks it’s less fun and more pointless. It just reaffirms the idea that he’s an empire builder. He wanted this expanded authority and Arthur’s giving it to him. He’s not the least bit answerable to Jill. Even as the newsroom has cut its staff and budget, Andy’s has grown.”

One current staffer pointed to the lack of diversity on the editorial page—the exact kind of charge for which one could imagine the Times filleting another institution. She declined to be quoted, even anonymously, but noted that Mr. Rosenthal seemed to view the editorial board akin to the way the Supreme Court was once viewed: There was a “minority seat” and a “female seat.” Of the 32 people who are either columnists or members of the editorial board, 26 are white, and 23 are male; 19 are—egad!—white males. (During the race for City Council speaker, NY1 Noticias reporter Juan Manuel Benítez tweeted at Times columnist Michael Powell, “Are there any Latinos in the edit board?” Mr. Powell replied, “Just looking, appears none.”)

Another current staffer blamed the same lack of imagination for a recent Times loss. When Times writer Catherine Rampell was snatched by The Washington Post to become an op-ed columnist, this reporter emailed The Observer, “It would never even occur to [Andy] to take a 33-year-old economics reporter and make her an op-ed columnist, but it’s just the kind of jolt his page needs.”

Another reporter told a story in which he had a “scared-y cat editor who had been so frightened by the vitriol that Andy spews around the newsroom about the word ‘should’ that [the editor] literally took it out of my copy every time I used the word when it was applied to an entity or a government institution, as opposed to something an individual should do. She literally just removed it so I didn’t have an opportunity to get into it with them, because she just wouldn’t allow it in my copy.”

Yet another reporter described the exact same obsession with “should” by saying of Mr. Rosenthal, “You know, I think he literally had a Google alert for the word ‘should’ and, like, goes reading through the entire newspaper for it, and that’s what he does all day instead of improving his section.”

The resentment extends beyond the policing of words and into a fight over resources.

Jill Abramson.

Jill Abramson. (Photo via Getty Images)

“They continue to own the top right of the home page, even in the redesign, which is a really, really important place for eyeballs. That probably translates into a lot of readers, but it’s only because they have that guaranteed placement, which they do not deserve, so it’s just a source of real annoyance. At a time when resources are diminished and people fight over them, it’s also a source of aggravation.”

Given the near universality of the view within the Times that the opinion pages have grown tired and irrelevant, it’s a wonder that nothing has been done to address the problem, especially as the paper has trimmed and restructured in every department. (The Times has made cuts to its roster of columnists, including Clyde Haberman and Verlyn Klinkenborg). According to the Times spokesperson, “We have a relatively small editorial staff that has remained steady over the past 10 years.”

The difficulty comes in part from the way the Times is structured. Andrew Rosenthal reports not to Executive Editor Jill Abramson but directly to publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. One source claims that Mr. Sulzberger is “afraid” of Mr. Rosenthal, possibly because of a perceived debt that the Sulzberger family owes to Mr. Rosenthal’s father, A. M. “Abe” Rosenthal, for the elder Mr. Rosenthal’s half century of service to the Sulzberger family.

Andrew Rosenthal now inhabits perhaps the most important opinion perch in the world, at a time in which the media is awash in opinion. During his long career at the Times—a career that has included stints as assistant managing editor and foreign editor, as well as some time at the Associated Press—he has consolidated hold on that perch and answers only to Mr. Sulzberger, himself facing the challenge of filling his father’s big shoes.

One veteran reporter who has been at the paper for more than 20 years said, “‘Bullying’ and ‘petty’ are Andy’s middle name. He’s very smart, he’s very funny. But any place he’s gone where he’s had a position of authority, he’s bullying and petty. For a time in 2000, he was essentially running the Washington bureau, though I don’t think he had the title of bureau chief. Dean Baquet was the national editor and left for the L.A. Times, and they put Andy in as sort of acting national editor for the duration of the 2000 coverage. During the 2000 campaign, he developed a very personal, gut-level animus toward Al Gore. And it showed in our coverage. And then he was the assistant managing editor under Howell [Raines], and the consensus was that as he rose he became nastier. He had the reputation as Howell’s hatchet man. When Howell was tossed out and Andy was sent to the editorial page, there were a lot of people breathing a sigh of relief that they didn’t have to deal with Andy anymore. That’s not an exaggeration. He had made himself extremely unpopular.”

There is suddenly evidence that the festering dissatisfaction with the edit page has broken into what one reporter dubbed “semi-open revolt.” One reporter says that he literally will not allow Mr. Rosenthal to join their lunch table in the cafeteria.

The Observer heard from two different sources about a posting created by respected health reporter Catherine Saint Louis and shared among her friends that pointed out a bevy of bad thinking made by the editorial page in a recent editorial related to the Affordable Care Act. In it, Ms. Saint Louis detailed the many errors in the piece’s coverage and asserted that “the basic premise is wrong.” (The Observer agreed not to share the post itself, since the person who shared it with The Observer did not have permission from Ms. Saint Louis to do so.)

Confronted with the charge that the reporters might simply be envious that resources don’t seem to be bleeding from the edit page the way they have throughout the rest of the institution, one reporter hit back hard at that notion.

“It’s so obvious that people on the news side find what the people on the opinion side are doing to be less than optimal. And it’s not that we want their money; we want them to be awesome. The fact of the matter is the Wall Street Journal editorial page just kicks our editorial page’s ass. I mean there’s just no contest, from top to bottom, and it’s disappointing. You know, we hold ourselves to incredibly high standards on the news side, and we meet them more often than not. Methodically, for the last 10 years, you’ve seen various editors march through and dispatch with mediocrity in many places where it had been allowed to fester for years, from the book review to the feature pages. And so to see it persist and persist and persist on the editorial page with nobody having the guts to retire some of the people or things that are not only not working but have become caricatures of themselves is just a huge bummer.”

UPDATE: After this piece was published on Tuesday afternoon, several New York Times reporters The Observer had not originally interviewed have been in touch. One texted the author simply, “Thank you.” Another emailed to say, “I saw opinion people storming around the newsroom. … Especially nice to see Andy get the focus.” Finally, Catherine Saint Louis, whose post critical of the editorial page’s take on health care was cited in the story, contacted The Observer to take issue with the characterization of the impact of her post: “I think these paragraphs err in leaving the impression that a single Facebook post by me constitutes “evidence that the festering dissatisfaction with the edit page has broken into … ‘semi-open revolt.’ ” It does not. Such a post would at most constitute evidence that one reporter disagreed with a single editorial. As it happens, I have no objection to the way op-ed conducts business.”
Read more at http://observer.com/2014/02/the-tyranny-and-lethargy-of-the-times-editorial-page/#ixzz2sTo5cSVG Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook

The New York Times is as liberal “as all get out,” to use the words of the Times reporters themselves.  That means it is intellectually bankrupt, morally bankrupt and of course FINANCIALLY bankrupt.  Oh, and fascist.  Because even the leftist reporters are telling us that it is as FASCIST “as all get out,” as well.

Liberals Are Fascists Who Silence Debate With Rabid Intolerance. Especially In ‘Quest For Truth’ Fields Such As Academia And Journalism.

February 15, 2013

Here’s yet another story of liberals being liberals – by which I mean liberals being intolerant fascists:

Lib West Virginia Prof Tells Students They Can’t Use FOX News in Her Class
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, February 14, 2013, 2:23 PM

“FOX News makes me cringe.”

Political Science Professor Stephanie Wolfe West Liberty University

poly sci lib teacher Stephanie Wolfe

West Virginia professor Stephanie Wolfe told her class not to use FOX News in her class. WTOV9 reported:

Students and parents are questioning a college professor after she reportedly issued a syllabus that filtered student’s research options

The syllabus tells students in a West Liberty University political science course what sources they can and cannot use.

Among those students are asked not to use are The Onion, an openly fictitious parody of real-life news, and Fox News, a professional news organization.

In the syllabus, the professor allegedly says, “The tagline Fox News makes me cringe.”

“One of our values at West Liberty is to encourage students to go out and inquire and gather information and look at as many different sources as possible on any side, before you reach your opinion,” said Robin Capehart, president of West Liberty University.

Upset students and parents have taken their concerns to local media, like NEWS9’s news partner Dave Bloomquist at WWVA, who shared an email from a concerned parent with us.

Here’s a look at the lib instructor’s syllabus. syllibus (America Live) Stephanie takes her indoctrination duties seriously.

Now, in addition to their hypocrisy, another interesting feature about liberals is their dishonesty and refusal to ever actually admit their fascism even when caught red-handed being fascist:

In her own defense, Wolfe claimed that she never told students they weren’t allowed to use Fox News as a source.”

And, of course, it doesn’t matter if it’s right there on her damn syllabus that yes she did tell her students not to use Fox News.  Just like it doesn’t matter how many times Obama has been caught red-bloody-handed in one galling and appalling lie after another.

It is simply a FACT that liberals are THE most rabidly intolerant people in America; and that what is true of “ordinary” liberals is even more true of “professional” liberals.

This is why the two fields that most pat themselves on the back for their “openness to the truth” and for “tolerance” – academia and journalism (see here and here for more examples) – are in fact THE most intolerant and biased fields in America.  Stephanie Wolfe is merely one of thousands of rabidly intolerant pseudo-intellectuals who are too stupid to understand that they themselves are the very thing they claim to most despise.

When the beast comes, liberal professors and liberal journalists will be the first to worship him and endorse his mark.

Obama Bullied A Young Girl. So Why Is The Left ‘BULLYING’ Mitt Romney Over A ‘Factually Incorrect’ Incident That Happened Fifty Years Ago???

May 11, 2012

The Washington Post published a 5,400-word story to characterize Mitt Romney as a “bully” guilty of having committed “troubling incidents” as a teen age kid.

A couple of things.

First, I think this post puts things into perspective:

 How absurd is the following sentence?

“As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.”

The Washington Post publishes an over 5,400 word story this morning exploring Mitt Romney’s high school career as a prankster, including this story of a time when he teamed up with a group of boy to cut the floppy blond locks of John Lauber, described as a “a soft-spoken new student” who was “perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality.”

That’s just one of many stories ‘exposed’ by the Washington Post, in a story that sets this narrative: Romney was an entitled rich kid who bullied people different than himself to get laughs from his peers.

For men who have attended all boys schools, a hair cutting incident is remarkably tame.

Where are the 5,000 word stories about Obama’s teen years?

I didn’t go to an all-boys school.  I can only imagine what it would have been like (although I did see the movie Porky’s years and years back).

We still know NOTHING about Obama’s early years that Obama didn’t tell us (i.e., we know NOTHING).  But we’ve not got a 5,000 word expose on Romney?

And when did this story come out?  At the most convenient time for Obama:

One day after gay rights moved to the center of the presidential race with Obama’s announcement on same-sex marriage, a Washington Post report about Romney’s high school escapades nearly 50 years ago added a personal dimension to Democrats’ claim that he’s out of step on the sensitive topic.

Which is to say that Wa Po was sitting on this waiting to hurt Romney the most with it and help Obama the most with it.  You know, as opposed to being fair or objective.

Another problem is that there is apparently no factual record that John Lauber ever came out as a homosexual.  He died a few years ago (again, this happened a REALLY long time ago!), so conveniently you can’t ask him.  But it is convenient for the liberal media to say he was “presumed” to be gay.  So it’s a clear case of gay-bashing.

Here’s the thing: John Lauber’s sister – who presumably knows her brother – has come out and issued the following statement:

The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family.”

So the portrayal of the very heart of Wa Po’s 5,400 word article is “factually incorrect.”  If a liberal were to ever have contact with the truth, the allergic reaction would kill them.  Fortunately for them, the world of lies they live in insulates them from facts and from reality.

We’re also told in the Wa Po story:

The paper recounted another incident in which Romney shouted “atta girl” to a different student at the all-boys’ school who, years later, came out as gay.

If we implemented a policy that any boy who has ever referred to another boy in feminine terms should be put to death, there would never be a boy who survived into adulthood ever again – including homosexual boys.  I’ve had the somewhat unfortunate experience to be around a few homosexual men – who call each other “girls” and “bitches” all the time.  Which is to say if you attacked every boy who said “atta girl” to another boy, no group of boys would be more under attack than HOMOSEXUAL boys.

This stuff was never anything.  It is far more a testament to the unhinged propaganda that is coming out from even the most “respected” liberal media sources than it is anything about a young Mitt Romney while in an all-boys high school fifty years ago.

Romney was apparently a pretty straight-laced kid from a pretty straight-laced family.  He never had any behavior problems at school.  Not that the Washington Post cares about the truth or about character assassination of children who would one day grow up to be Republicans.

There are a lot of problems in the Washington Post story that defy journalistic credibility.  One of those problems boils down to Romney’s main accuser.  We find of Stu White:

The Washington Post’s Mitt Romney was a teenage bully story has caused a lot of media thumbsucking today. However, questions about the story itself keep emerging. The Post acknowledges that one of the major sources for the story was an Obama campaign volunteer in 2008. Beyond that, the paper’s been less than transparent. Here’s the original version of the story:

“I always enjoyed his pranks,” said Stu White, a popular friend of Romney’s who went on to a career as a public school teacher and has long been bothered by the Lauber incident.”

However, Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller noted that White told ABC News a different version of the story:

White was not present for the prank, in which Romney is said to have forcefully cut a student’s long hair and was not aware of it until this year when he was contacted by the Washington Post.

After ABC News’s report, the Post had changed its story. It now reads:

“I always enjoyed his pranks,” said Stu White, a popular friend of Romney’s who went on to a career as a public school teacher and said he has been “disturbed” by the Lauber incident since hearing about it several weeks ago, before being contacted by The Washington Post. “But I was not the brunt of any of his pranks.”

Emphasis added. That is a pretty substantive change to the story, yet nowhere does the Post note that a correction/clarification has been made.

If a conservative Republican Tea Party activist had made a claim about Obama being a jerk as a kid, would the Washington Post have accepted those claims???  Because that’s exactly what they did with a LIBERAL ACTIVIST who said Romney was a jerk as a kid.  And it damn well turns out that he wasn’t even present for the central slam of the story and didn’t even KNOW about it until the Wa Po interviewer brought it up. 

And then the “newspaper” wrote up this account by a clearly activist and biased individual with an axe to grind who wasn’t even there and didn’t even know about it to make it sound like he’d always been troubled with how evil Mitt Romney was about an incident he never even knew had happened???

From “long been bothered by the Lauber incident” to “he has been “disturbed” by the Lauber incident since hearing about it several weeks ago, before being contacted by The Washington Post…”????

You don’t get more biased or more propagandistic than this Wa Po crap.

Ben Shapiro tears into this dishonest Wa Po story like a hungry pit bull going after a crippled poodle:

That Romney. You never know whose life he was going to ruin (subtext: it could be yours!).

Romney, the Post claims, was mean enough that he once dumped a girl:

“The person who wrote the most consistently was Mitt,” said Lyn Moon Shields, who dated Romney in the fall semester of 1964. Gentlemanly and fun, Romney was her best date in her six years at school. He called every evening and picked her up in his powder blue Rambler and drove her up and down Woodward Avenue on weekends, and to school dances where she wore blue-green formal dresses and he a dark suit and tie. “Things were so innocent,” she said. “We kissed each other, I think Mitt would admit to that.” One day, she said, Romney just stopped calling. He had taken an interest in a Kingswood sophomore.

Wow. Back in high school, Romney had the gall to break up with someone. No word from the Post on why a young Barack Obama was sleeping with a girl, refusing to tell her he loved her, then dumping her for racial incompatibility.

The Post is clearly doing rearguard action for Obama on his same-sex marriage blow-up. But they’ve done so by destroying their journalistic credibility.

Back to that whole “where’s the damn stories about Obama?” meme.

It’s a good meme, because there happens to be a lot of substance behind it.  For example, in a story that slams Mitt Romney for being an anti-gay bully (when if anything he was an anti-bottle-job-blond-hair bully), where’s the objectivity by which Wa Po finds out if there are any similar incidents from Obama’s past?

The media will never bother to dig through Obama’s past the way they’ve repeatedly dug through Sarah Palin’s, of course, but Obama himself revealed he bullied a girl:

The above text comes directly from President Obama’s first memoir, “Dreams From My Father” and recounts an incident which occurred while he was in middle school. When our president became the subject of taunts from his fellow classmates, he decided to shove a little girl named Coretta. Although he chronicles his feelings of regret, he never does not offer her an apology.

When the Washington Post does a story titled, “Barack Obama’s despicable history as a girl-shoving misogynist,” that’ll be the day.  When the Washington Post describes this lurid story as Obama shoving a girl, causing her to stagger back and flee in obvious terror and humiliation from his physical and emotional attack and needs to resign from office for his hate crime, THEN you can go after Romney.  Until then, kindly shut the hell up.

When on the one hand the Wa Po and the Democrat machine argue that something that – according to the “victim’s” own FAMILY  is FACTUALLY INCORRECT PROPAGANDA, and which happened FIFTY DAMN YEARS AGO – is valid, then why is Obama’s photographed and admitted hard-core drug use as an adult man irrelevant???  Because it’s a HELL of a lot more likely Obama is snorting coke and smoking crank in the White House basement than it is that Mitt Romney is cutting kids’ hair off, you know.

What the mainstream media is doing to Mitt Romney reminds me of my older brother grabbing my own arm and then asking me why I’m hitting myself.  It’s the liberal MEDIA who are the most vicious bullies of all.

Biased LA Times The Other Super Bowl Loser

February 6, 2012

The Los Angeles Times is a pathologically biased newspaper, which is why it went bankrupt and why I bought a weekend only subscription just for the coupons for something like fifteen bucks a year.  And got a $25 gift card at a major retail store for spending that fifteen bucks.  Oh, and then got “upgraded” for free to daily delivery without even wanting it.

I have to pay up the wazoo to get a legitimate newspaper like the Wall Street Journal even when it’s on a great sale, but the LA Times is going for birdcage liner money because it IS a birdcage liner.

Even the local rag the Desert Sun is a vastly superior newspaper just in terms of having articles that actually matter.

The Los Angeles Times has to give their papers away in order to maintain the facade of having any kind of subscription rate in order to be able to sell advertisement space.

This is a paper that is so filled with political/ideological bias that it creeps pretty much into everything.  For example, in their Calender section front page main story from Super Bowl Sunday, I read:

By Mary McNamara, Los Angeles Times Television Critic
February 5, 2012

When, during his recent State of the Union address, President Obama spoke of “an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules,” I wasn’t worried about the GOP response or changes to our tax codes. I was worried about Downton.

Everyone loves “Downton Abbey.”PBS‘ biggest hit in years,

And, of course, apparently everyone loves Barack Obama, too.  At least they do at the LA Times “reporting” staff.

Can’t I even read a reveiw about a television series set in early 20th century England without hearing about how wonderful the messiah-in-chief is?  Not if I read this bird cage liner, I can’t.

If you think that example of cover-to-cover LA Times bias is cheesy, here’s a better one I’m also talking about today.

So I never mind when the hoity-toity staff of Los Angeles Times looks like the fools they are:

You think you know, but you have no idea
February 04, 2012|Bill Plaschke

Reporting from Indianapolis — You’re wrong.

I know what you’re thinking, what most of America is thinking, and you’re wrong.

You’re thinking the New York Giants are going to win the Super Bowl against the New England Patriots on Sunday, and you’re thinking it might not even be close.

After watching the Giants roll through the playoffs by putting a “discount double check” on Aaron Rodgers and a postgame head slap on Jim Harbaugh, you feel it in your gut. After watching the Hoodie slowly wrinkle and Gisele’s husband slowly wilt, you know it in your soul.

 The Patriots are officially the favorites here, so it makes everyone feel smug and smarter to pick the Giants, and I understand, because I arrived in Indianapolis last week thinking the same thing.

 How could the horrible Patriots defense hang for four quarters against the best New York closer since Mariano Rivera? How could the Patriots offense move against a raging defensive line led by one guy who does Subway commercials and three other guys hungry enough to eat Jared?

 But after spending several days here being battered by cabbie-style Giants hype, then after witnessing Madonna literally halt her news conference to perform a Victor Cruz salsa, I thought, how could we all fall for this?

 So, um, yeah, you’re wrong.

 You’re wrong to give up on Tom Brady.

 That is what you are saying by picking the Giants. I can’t say that. History won’t say that. This is a guy who outplayed counterpart Eli Manning throughout the regular season — his passer rating was 13 points higher — and then threw for six touchdown passes in his first postseason game against the Denver Broncos, and yet he’s done?

 Yes, Brady conceded that he played like “crap” against the Baltimore Ravens in the AFC championship game, but he still pulled off a fourth-quarter comeback drive to win, he has still won 16 of 21 postseason games, he has still won the Super Bowl three times. A victory here would turn him into Joe Montana, and you’re going to pick against Joe Montana?

 You’re wrong to discount Bill Belichick.

 I don’t like him, but you don’t give up on a coach whose team has just rattled off 10 consecutive victories. And everyone says the Giants, who have won only five straight, are hotter? It’s also hard to quit on a coach who has lost only twice in 11 games after bye weeks. You give Belichick this much time, he’ll beat you. The drab coach showed up this week smiling and laughing and once even wearing a purple shirt, so he’s figured out something.

 You’re wrong if you think that Myra Kraft doesn’t matter.

 The wife of Patriots owner Robert Kraft was an integral part of the team culture, providing the players with a motherly figure whom they constantly reference. Her death this summer from cancer put a resolve in the locker room that has grown stronger over time. Her memory is more than just a patch on their jerseys — it’s a fire under their shoulder pads.

You’re wrong if you think that the Giants’ yapping wasn’t heard.

 This week the Indy streets have roared with 500 kinds of Giants trash talk. Antrel Rolle guaranteed victory, Chris Canty told New York fans to prepare for a parade, and Jason Pierre-Paul essentially said that Brady has been playing scared. The Patriots, as usual, have said nothing but have heard everything, if only because Belichick often turns them into battle cries by reading them in the locker room.

 You’re wrong if you think the Giants will run all over them.

 Vince Wilfork is playing like the league’s best defensive lineman after his defense, on consecutive weeks, held Tim Tebow to 2.6 yards per carry and Ray Rice to 3.2 yards per carry.

 You’re wrong if you think the Giants can win this game through the air.

 Yes, the Patriots secondary stunk for most of the year, but it has continually improved, Belichick’s halftime adjustments have been as brilliant as usual, and the Patriots have not given up a fourth-quarter touchdown in the postseason. Yes, Manning will throw for 300 yards, but most of it will be early, and without a solid running attack, it won’t be enough to keep Brady on the bench long enough to matter.

 You’re wrong if you think the New England tight ends can be stopped.

 Even with a bad ankle, Rob Gronkowski will play, and Aaron Hernandez will join him. They burned the Giants for 136 yards and two touchdowns in their first meeting, and they’ve only gotten better. Meanwhile, two weeks ago, the Giants’ 29th-ranked pass defense reeled against 49ers tight end Vernon Davis, allowing him three catches for 112 yards and two touchdowns.

 You’re wrong if you think that first game meant anything.

 In the Giants’ 24-20 win Nov. 6 at Foxborough, Mass., the Patriots outgained them by 77 yards, played them equally in the trenches, and lost it only in the final 15 seconds after committing four turnovers. The Patriots haven’t lost since, and history favors them here, as the last three Super Bowls contested by teams that met in the regular season were won by the team that lost that regular-season game.

 You’re wrong if you think my Super Bowl magic is going to end.

 Four years ago when these teams met in the Super Bowl, I correctly picked the Giants to defeat the unbeaten Patriots in one of the greatest upsets in Super Bowl history. The upset being, I actually got something right. But when it comes to this matchup, do you really want to go against me again?

 New England Patriots 31, New York Giants 28.

Hey, turd sportswriter for the Los Angeles Times:

YOU’RE WRONG.

I was rooting for the Giants, as much as I don’t care either for New York or the Giants.  The bottom line is that I’ve despised the arrogant New England Patriots for years, whereas the New York Giants simply hadn’t risen to the level of meriting such ire.

But if I hadn’t formed an opinion as to who I was going to root for prior to reading the Los Angeles Times lecture about my impoverished football epistemology, I certainly would have by the first sentence of the above article.

http://seg.sharethis.com/getSegment.php?purl=http%3A%2F%2Fstartthinkingright.wordpress.com%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost-new.php&jsref=&rnd=1328538435996

Pro-Liberal Mainstream Media Intentionally Distorts The Truth On A Daily Basis

January 3, 2012

It’s not enough to say that the media lies.  You also need to know how they lie and why they lie.

What stories are the media going to report and what stories are they going to ignore?  There’s fertile grounds right there; stories that favor conservatives tend to get ignored or underreported versus stories that favor liberals getting premium coverage – which gets brought up again and again until it enters the public consciousness (e.g. “Read my lips; no new taxes” by George H.W. Bush).

Another way to maintain a bias is to use ideology to select which stories get repeated and which end up in the purge bin.  When I find mainstream media articles that help conservatives, I copy and paste it to a Word file; because I have personally encountered hundreds of occasions when such stories get “purged” and I have learned from experience that you have to preserve a record.  You can’t merely allude to articles that help out conservatives and insert a link to the source, because that link will lead to nowhere in short order.  You’ve got to cite the relevant facts.  Versus pro-liberal stories which seem to live on forever.

Then there’s the issue of “fairness” that liberals invariably like to talk about – but never actually live out in their own lives and careers.  Fox News is routinely derided for it’s “fair and balanced” slogan.  But the fact of the matter is that Fox News IS fair and balanced when compared to any other news outlets; they allow liberals to have a substantial representation whereas the other networks allow virtually no conservative representation.

According to a nonprofit, politically neutral, non-partisan George Mason University Centre for Media and Public Affairs study, Fox News Channel’s evening news broadcasts provide more balanced news coverage than all other news shows on networks or cable.

I still remember getting into an argument with a local news reporter who defended  media exclusion of conservative ideas by comparing the debate to round earth versus flat earth.  With of course the “flat earth” view being held by conservatives.  And on this characterization, it is simply wrong to give coverage to the flat earth view.  So it wasn’t bias the media was showing in ignoring conservative positions, but simple intelligence.

It is for that reason that liberals such as John Kerry have publicly said that the media has a responsibility to NOT give equal time to conservatives:

SEN. JOHN KERRY: “And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.”

It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?”

The problem is that a whopping load of journalists agree with this view.

And most of these journalists voted for Kerry.  From the New York Times:

When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic.

And:

Polling of MSM journalists showed they voted 9-1 in favor of Bill Clinton over George H.W. Bush in 1992 and voted in the same margin for John Kerry versus George W. Bush in 2004. No surprise, then, that the Center for Media and Public Affairs found Kerry received 77 percent favorable coverage in 2004 while Bush received 34 percent favorable coverage — quite a chasm, in my view.

Hypothetical question: If Bush had instead received nine out of 10 votes of the MSM in 2004, does anyone really believe Kerry would have garnered that 77 percent favorable coverage compared to Bush’s 34 percent? One did not have to have a Mensa-level IQ in 2008 to ascertain the MSM were virtual cheerleaders for the Obama campaign.

Wouldn’t you like to have that kind of power to delegitimize the opposition and shut them out?  Then you should be a journalist, as long as you use your power to target conservatives and help liberals.

One of the other ways that I’ve found that liberal bias reeks out of news stories is when “experts” are used.  I swear these reporters will pick up a phone and call fifteen experts until they finally get the “expert opinion” they want.

We recently witnessed this with statements that Obama has repeatedly made – and which the mainstream media has repeatedly reported as fact – about the opinion of “economists.”  Obama has routinely said things like:

“…this jobs bill can help guard against another downturn here in America. This isn’t just my belief. This is what independent economists have said. Not just politicians. Not just people in my administration. Independent experts who do this for a living have said that this jobs bill will have a significant effect for our economy and middle-class families all across America. But if we don’t act, the opposite will be true — there will be fewer jobs and weaker growth.”

Where has the barrage of fact checking been – you know, like there would have been if BUSH had said something like that?  Or if John Boehner said something like it today?

Well, there IS this

The same media that would have jumped all over such untrue statements by a Republican have repeatedly allowed Obama to say this crap without any challenge.  And that’s the Big Lie strategy that Hitler crafted and our own media propaganda perfected.

Here’s the truth.  And grab it while you can because one day you’ll click on the link and you will get the message, “Article no longer available…”:

(AP) WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama gets mediocre marks for his handling of the economy, and Mitt Romney easily outpolls his Republican rivals in an Associated Press survey of economists.   [...]

Half of the 36 economists who responded to the Dec. 14-20 AP survey rated Obama’s economic policies “fair.” And 13 called them “poor.” Just five of the economists gave the president “good” marks. None rated him as “excellent.”

That’s zero As, five Bs, 18 Cs or Ds and 13 Fs (you know they only had four rather than five “grade” criteria so that it would be impossible to nail down a grade point average. FWIW).  That’s a very low D average, friends.  But that’s like a 2.2 GPA.

The problem is that the mainstream media keeps using shockingly partisan “non-partisan” sources – such as the liberal Tax Policy Center – to provide “objective analysis.”

Yes, the Tax Policy Center is directly connected to the liberal Urban Institute and the liberal Brookings Institution, and this wouldn’t be one iota different than Fox News going to the Rush Limbaugh Policy Center for an “objective evaluation,” but what the hell.

I mean, yes, this does explain why Fox News gets better ratings than CNN, MSNBC and CNBC combined, but of course the mainstream media says even though they’re relentlessly biased and no one watches them, Fox News is evil.

The media depicted Obama as the man who was somehow constantly crowned with a mystical halo of wonderfulness by the “objective” sources such as the AP and Reuters:

John McCain wasn’t quite so fortunate:

Politico had this to say about media “balance” in the coverage of Obama versus McCain:

The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s researchers found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative.

What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent).

You call that balanced?

OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.

And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.

So what?

Yeah, so what if the people calling themselves “journalists” are really just a bunch of Nazi Joseph Goebbels wannabes?

Americans have degenerated into a bunch of intellectually and morally stupid herd animals who can be told what to think just as surely as herd animals can be easily led to their own slaughtering.  And that’s basically the one and only truth that the mainstream media accurately understands.  Which is why you can count on them to keep shoveling manure and calling it “journalism” in this year that will determine whether America has a chance to survive or goes the way of the Dodo bird due to insane spending and the crushing debt that invariably accompanies such insane spending.

The media have been shockingly biased to the left going back to Walter Lippman, whose thoughts on mind-control is summarized as follows:

The intelligent minorities have long understood this to be their function. Walter Lippmann described a “revolution” in “the practice of democracy” as “the manufacture of consent” has become “a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government.” This is a natural development when public opinion cannot be trusted: “In the absence of institutions and education by which the environment is so successfully reported that the realities of public life stand out very sharply against self-centered opinion, 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,” and are thus able to perceive “the realities.” These are the men of best quality, who alone are capable of social and economic management.

Not only is the American public  of today no more intelligent than was the pre-World War II German public, but any objective evaluation would show that the people who voted for Hitler were FAR better educated and FAR more “enlightened” than we are today.

Liberal education not only didn’t help Germany; it profoundly hurt them -

“Indeed, about one-third of the (half million) officials and leaders of the Nazi Party in 1935 were teachers by profession.  Support for National Socialism, extreme nationalism and pan-Germanism was particularly marked among university students and professors (Kolinsky 1974: 87-8).  One quarter of the future SS had doctorates, while in the elections to student councils in German universities during the academic year 1930-1 Nazi candidates received 40 per cent or more of the votes cast in fourteen of the eighteen universities for which such data survive, and fifty per cent or more of the votes in nine of them (Kornhauser 1960: 188).  It does not necessarily follow that all highly educated people were inherently susceptible to fascism, but students and university professors were very strikingly over-represented within most of the major fascist movements…” [Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change: p. 380].

- just as it profoundly hurts the United States of America today as the same sort of vile people with the same sorts of vile beliefs and attitudes overwhelmingly inhabit our intelligentsia today.

You take a look at who is filling the ranks of the incredibly vile and toxic Occupy movement and you find college students and college professors.  And it was teaching physicians at the University of Wisconsin Madison who wrote fake sick notes – in abject disregard of their medical and professional ethics – to help the far-leftist cause in the Wisconsin riots.

And these same fools who have had their brains washed by an incredibly toxic pseudo-academic climate that is more intolerant of ideas than any other institution on earth bar none are the ones running our elite media.  If you want actual attempts to literally try to brainwash ideological opponents, if you want systematic exclusion and persecution of rival ideas, if you want the systematic denial of free speech, if you want to see a place where only liberals are allowed to have a voice – at least without being shouted down, if you want to see the fascist mindset that you are above the law until you get to make the laws that others must be forced to follow, then all you have to do is go to the universities that give Obama a 63-1 advantage in their newspapers.  Because that’s where you’ll find it today, just as it was where you’d find it in the Germany that became Nazi Germany.

And then realize that it is these same arrogant elitist snobs who dominate our journalism today who both created this climate and oozed out of it like the slime they are.

The media have done the same thing that the universities have done; it is a trick the left has long practiced: demand to be included in the interest of tolerance, or fairness, or rights, or what have you, obtain a foothold in an institution – and then slam the door shut in the faces of everyone they disagree with.  Because whether you’re talking about university faculty or journalists, it’s the same story: good luck getting a job if you are a conservative.

And then realize that these people have incredible power and influence over what the people think, even as they believe they have not only the right but the duty to intentionally shape what the unwashed masses think in the name of “objective journalism.”

I keep saying over and over again that the beast is coming.  And there are two things to say about that: 1) the beast will be a big government leader who will unite the world exactly as liberals have always dreamed about; and 2) the same liberals who are the loudest in their unbelief of the coming last days will be the very same ones who will one day most ardently worship that beast (Revelation 13:7-8).

Demagogue Obama Simply LIES When Demonizing Republicans Over Payroll Tax Cut. Mainstream Media Propaganda Helps Him Do It.

December 7, 2011

This is a liar:

“Last week virtually every Senate Republican voted against that tax cut.”

This is a liar getting caught lying:

“In fact twenty out of forty-seven republicans voted for a payroll tax cut extension last Thursday night.”

Of course only Fox News will reveal the constant stream of lies that fly out of Obama’s lying mouth.  You won’t get the facts watching the Joseph Goebbels media.

Barack Obama is the most dishonest, dishonerable demagogue who ever inhabited the White House.  And we’ve had a lot of dishonest, dishonerable demagogues in that House.

And this mainstream media is the most biased, most corrupt and most partisan propaganda that the world has seen since the fall of the Soviet Union:

Obama Lies….Claims “Virtually Every Senate Republican Voted Against Payroll Tax Cut”
By: Curt

Worst. President. Ever…

and a liar:

(h/t Gateway Pundit)

Of course it took Fox News to call him out on the lie.

The rest of the media?

Crickets…..or spin.

Kinda like this spin:

Take a look at these headlines:

The President’s Jobless Recovery
Frustrated Job Seekers Cause Jobless Rate To Drop
Economy Adds Few New Jobs
Low Jobless Rate Reflects Lost Hope
US Jobless Rate Drops But For Wrong Reasons

Recent headlines regarding the drop in the unemployment rate from 9% to 8.6% right?

Wrong.

Those are headlines from January 2004, when the jobless rate dropped to 5.7% and when President Bush was just starting a re-election campaign.

Here are headlines from Friday’s job numbers:

Unemployment Rate Drops To 8.6% Raising Hopes
Jobless Rate Drop Could Boost Obama
Obama Gets Economic Indicator He Can Crow About
Good News On Job Front For Obama
Jobless Rate Lowest In 2.5 Years

No liberal bias my ass.

For the record, the payroll tax cut sounds like a good thing.  Until you consider the fact that it goes directly to Social Security(something like $250 billion a year), which is already $6 trillion in the red and which is going to collapse because of demagogues like Obama.

Obama wants to force the rich to pay even higher taxes (versus the lower 50% of Americans who pay NOTHING).  But here’s the problem: Obama is trying to argue that the payroll tax cut extension will create jobs, while simultaneously trying to pay for that tax cut with a tax HIKE on the actual job creators.

And the most dishonest media since Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda is helping him sell that message.

The fact of the matter can be summed up in the words of moderate Republican Susan Collins, “He [Obama] cannot continue to resort to offsets to pay for proposals that have been repeatedly rejected.”

Unless of course Obama is just a demagogue trying to divide America for his own political benefit rather than actually trying to help the American people, that is.

The beast is coming.

The mainstream media will celebrate him, and Democrats will vote for him. And then joyously take his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads (Rev 13:16).

Perry’s Oops Moment? Obama’s Whole Career Is One Long ‘Oops’ Moment

November 19, 2011

If the media were even remotely fair Obama never would have been allowed to visit the White House, let alone actually live there.

New Video: Obama’s Own 53 Seconds of Oops
By Paul Bedard
November 14, 2011

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been on the receiving end of a ton of criticism for his self-described “oops” moment when, during a presidential debate last week, he forgot the third federal department he wants to kill. His 53 second brain freeze has made him the star of late night comedy.

But he’s not the only one who apparently suffers from memory loss, and conservative Gary Bauer, himself a former presidential candidate, has just produced a video documenting several of President Obama’s wandering speeches. [Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]

It’s full of a lot of “ums,” and presidential teleprompter errors that have sometimes had the president tongue-tied.

Bauer, chair of the Campaign for Working Families, kept his video to the Perry-length of 53 seconds. It starts showing a picture of Perry over the words, “You’ve heard about the 53 seconds that supposedly ended a presidential campaign,” followed by another screen showing the president over the line, “How about the 53 seconds that should end a presidency?” [See a slide show of 10 reasons Obama should be re-elected.]

Said Bauer, also president of American Values: “53 seconds of silence by a Republican is better than 53 seconds of blather from Barack Obama.”

Watch the video below:

And that doesn’t even include the one with Obama telling a crowd he’d visited 57 states with one left to go.

NBC Pollsters ‘Are Concerned’ With Obama’s Low Approval

September 8, 2011

This blatant demonstration of media bias and lack of objectivity is what “concerns” me.

From Real Clear Politics:

Posted on September 7, 2011
NBC’s Chuck Todd: “Our Pollsters Are Concerned” With Obama Approval

“Now this has taken a hit on the president politically. 44-percent approve of the job he’s doing, all time low of his presidency. A more important number that our pollsters say is in there is this idea that is this a long-term setback for him or a short-term one? 54-percent said long-term. Our pollsters are concerned. That’s kind of numbers you have when the public starts to give up on a president as a problem solver,” NBC’s Chuck Todd said on the “Nightly News.”

[See Real Clear Politics for the video]

Here’s your challenge, lefties: show me ANYWHERE where NBC pollsters were described as “being concerned” over George Bush’s poll numbers tanking.  You know, if you’re going to comment to this article suggesting that the media ISN’T in the fish-tank-biased to the left and you don’t expect me to laugh you right off planet earth.

I was glad I wasn’t drinking milk when I read a couple of takes on this story from Free Republic:

The public is giving up on Obama as a problem solver?  Pontiac wrote:

“The only problem that Obama has been working on is his golf swing.”

McGruff zeroed in on Chuck Todd as a leftwing media whore and hearkened him to Monica Lewinsky:

“I’ll bet Todd has a blue dress in his closet.”

I sincerely hope I never see Todd in that dress.  That gives me yet one MORE reason to keep NBC off my list of channels.

You kind of have to figure that NBC anchor Brian Williams has a presidentially-stained blue dress in his closet, too, given that it appears the man wishes he’d worn it to his fluff interview with Obama:

Obama bows down to foreign dictators, while the mainstream media bow down to Obama.

You see NBC, CBS and other “blue-dress” mainstream media networks selling their messiah’s memorabilia like the bunch of little Goebbels that they clearly are.

Which reminds me of a classic Goebbels quote:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

That was true in socialist Germany; and it is every bit as true in socialist America.

NBC is worried.  They’d better redouble their propaganda efforts.  Obama was elected on the basis of gigantic lies; that’s the only way in hell the fool would ever be re-elected.

Democrats/Mainstream Media On Debt Ceiling Negotiations: ‘Why Don’t We Just Start Telling Lies?’

July 27, 2011

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lied about his “plan” versus House Speaker John Boehner’s plan, saying that Standard & Poors had said that his plan would keep our AAA credit rating, but Boehner’s would not.

The DNC immediately packaged the lie for the press and sent it out to the world:

To: NATIONAL AND POLITICAL EDITORS

Contact: DNC Press, +1-202-863-8148, dncpress@dnc.org

WASHINGTON, July 26, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today on CNN, Erin Burnett reported that she spoke with an investor who talked directly with the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s. According to the Standard & Poor’s source, John Boehner’s debt plan would probably still lead to a downgrade of U.S. debt by the ratings agencies, raising interest rates for all Americans. Harry Reid’s plan, however, would preserve America’s AAA credit rating.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/25/278929/ratings-agency-source-boehner-plan-TTwould-lead-to-downgrade/

Watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RXNrtUU-TQ&feature=player_embedded

SOURCE  Democratic National Committee

And then of course the mainstream media jumped in and immediately backed Harry Reid’s and the DNC’s lie.

I don’t know what the record is for a brand new CNN anchor to report lies as fact, but given that it’s CNN, it’s probably a matter of minutes.  New CNN anchor Erin Burnett reported:

Facts should never get in the way of a story that makes Democrats look good and Republicans look bad, so I almost hesitate to mention this, but … it wasn’t true:

And so legitimate media (i.e., sorry CNN and MSNBC, but you aint) began to correct the lie that Harry Reid, the DNC and the mainstream media had invented:

JULY 26, 2011, 4:07 P.M. ET.UPDATE: S&P: Reports That It Endorses One Debt Plan “Not Accurate”
By Stephen L. Bernard
Off DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)–Standard & Poor’s said Tuesday that reports that it would endorse one of two competing Congressional frameworks to secure an increase the U.S. debt ceiling are “inaccurate.”

“Standard & Poor’s has chosen not to comment on the many and varying proposals that have arisen in the current debate,” the ratings agency said in an official announcement. The official statement echoes comments a spokesman gave to Dow Jones earlier in the day.

Ratings agencies have repeatedly said throughout the ongoing debt debate that they do not endorse any specific deals to cut long-term U.S. deficits.

Reports early Tuesday indicated that S&P was said to prefer Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) plan over the one being pitched by House of Representatives Speak John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Congress is facing an Aug. 2 deadline to hammer out a deal to raise the debt ceiling or else the U.S. could default on its debt. Politicians have tried to tie the increase in the debt ceiling to cutting long-term deficits.

Reid’s plan calls for a $2.7 trillion increase to the debt ceiling, while cutting spending by a similar amount. Critically, that would increase the debt ceiling by a high enough figure that it would give the government space to spend through 2012 and the next presidential election.

Boehner’s plan, by contrast, calls for a two-step process. The first would cut spending and raise the debt ceiling by $1 trillion to get through 2011. Then another increase of up to $1.5 trillion would be sought via a bipartisan commission’s recommendations and would have to be approved in 2012 with an equal amount of spending cuts.

Democrats have argued that Boehner’s plan would introduce uncertainty to markets and drive up U.S. borrowing costs.

S&P has previously said that even if the debt ceiling is raised, it could still cut the U.S. government’s perfect “AAA” rating if a long-term deficit-reduction plan is not enacted.

Fox News also reported the facts and further corrected the record of Harry Reid’s unprofessional and disgraceful lie:

After Reid claimed Tuesday morning that the rating agencies had endorsed his plan – which cuts $2.7 trillion at most — S&P reiterated through a spokesman that it has not endorsed “any particular plan.”

There is so much dishonesty and so many lies coming from Democrats and their mainstream media propagandists that it is positively unreal.

Here’s more on the actual story without the Harry Reid/DNC/mainstream media spin:

Deal or no deal? US downgrade looking likely
By MATTHEW CRAFT – AP Business Writer | AP – 8 hrs ago

NEW YORK (AP) — Could the U.S. lose its top credit rating even if a deal is reached to raise the debt limit?

Market analysts and investors increasingly say yes. The outcome won’t be quite as scary as a default, but financial markets would still take a blow. Mortgage rates could rise. States and cities, already strapped, could find it more difficult to borrow. Stocks could lose their gains for the year.

“At this point, we’re more concerned about the risk of a downgrade than a default,” said Terry Belton, global head of fixed income strategy at JPMorgan Chase. In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, Belton said the loss of the country’s AAA rating may rattle markets, but it’s “better than missing an interest payment.”

Even with a deadline to raise the U.S. debt limit less than a week away, many investors still believe Washington will pull off a last-minute deal to avoid a catastrophic default. Washington has until Aug. 2 to raise the country’s $14.3 trillion borrowing limit or risk missing a payment on its debt. President Barack Obama and Congressional Republicans have failed to reach an agreement to raise the debt ceiling and pass a larger budget-cutting package. Politicians have tied raising the debt limit and spending cuts together.

But at least one credit rating agency has already made it clear that unless that agreement includes at least $4 trillion in budget cuts over the next decade, the country’s AAA rating could be lost. Right now, the proposals under discussion cut around $2 trillion or less.

Standard & Poor’s warned earlier this month that there was a 50-50 chance of a downgrade, if Congress and President Obama failed to find a “credible solution to the rising U.S. government debt burden.” S&P said it may cut the U.S. rating to AA within 90 days. Passing a $4 trillion agreement could prevent a downgrade, S&P said.

And why will our credit rating get cut?  Because Obama and his depraved administration have been lying and fearmongering the crisis:

While officials from the Obama Administration raised their rhetoric over the weekend about the possibility of a debt default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, they privately have been telling top executives at major U.S. banks that such an event won’t happen, FOX Business has learned.

In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn’t raised by the August 2 date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the government will run out of money to pay all its bills, including obligations to bond holders. Geithner made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows saying a default is imminent if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, and President Obama issued a similar warning during a Friday press conference after budget negotiations with House Republicans broke down. [...]

A senior banking official told FOX Business that administration officials have provided guidance to them that even though a default is off the table, a downgrade “is a real possibility for no other reason than S&P and Moody’s have to cover (themselves) since they’ve been speaking out on the debt cap so much.”

Thanks, Barry Hussein and Turbo Tax Tim!

That’s right.  We’re going to get our credit rating downgraded – which will have disastrous long-term consequences – because of Barack Obama’s fearmongering lies.  Harry Reid reports something that isn’t even remotely true, and the DNC and the mainstream media pick it up like a symphony.

Mark Twain once said that a lie could get halfway around the world before the truth could even get its boots on.  But I think even that famous cynic would be amazed and apalled by the liberal media complex.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 517 other followers