(It’s How They Poll, Too): Mainstream Media ‘Counts’ 18,000 Obama Worshipers In Unfilled 5,000 Seat Wisconsin Arena

Yes, God DOES have a special place in hell reserved for “journalists.”

If you’ve got some naive place left in you somewhere that thinks that the media really is actually trying to report the news objectively and accurately, this ought to send it to that psychological trash bin where you’ve put Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and other fairy tales:

Media Put 18,000 in Not-Quite-Full 5,000-Seat Arena for Obama in Wisconsin
by Joel B. Pollak22 Sep 2012

President Barack Obama is having trouble drawing large crowds on the campaign trail. At the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, his campaign was forced to move his acceptance speech from the 74,000-seat Bank of America Stadium to the 20,000 Time Warner Cable Arena, citing weather as the excuse. But the media are always eager to help–for example, putting 18,000 people inside a 5,000-seat arena at an Obama event in Milwaukee on Saturday.

The contradiction was first noted by battlegroundwatch.com. Local media, including the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, reported that Obama had addressed “supporters who filled the 5,000-seat BMO Harris Pavilion, along with thousands more who sat in bleachers and stood on the pavement beyond the protection of the roof, even as wind and rain lashed down in the latter moments of the near 30-minute speech.”

The pavilion was not “filled”–a local reporter for Patch.com filmed empty seats in the bleachers at the side of the arena (see above). Nevertheless, the Journal-Sentinal played it safe, putting attendance at roughly 5,000-plus, a small but respectable turnout.

That’s not how national media covered it. Darren Samuelsohn of Politico reported that the president addressed “a crowd the Obama campaign estimated at 18,000 in a city park overlooking Lake Michigan” in an attempt to “lock up” Wisconsin.

Laura Meckler of the Wall Street Journal–whose news section, according to UCLA professor Tim Groseclose, is the most liberal of any major mainstream outlet–repeated the campaign’s 18,000 claim without even revealing the source of the official-sounding estimate.

Both outlets described the location of the rally as a “park,” without revealing the name of the arena itself, which would have given the game away.

The images provided by news wires are predominantly close-up shots such as the one above, showing Obama surrounded by a small circle of supporters. Only Getty Images has a wider shot, similar to images at the left-wing message board Democratic Underground that show the inside of the arena. That’s a full-ish arena, but nowhere near 18,000 people.

There seem to be no images at all of the 13,000 people who supposedly made up the difference outside the BMO Harris Pavilion.

(I’ll be happy to correct this article if anyone can find any.)

Meanwhile, the nation is being told that Obama drew a massive crowd–nearly the size of the crowd at his acceptance speech in Charlotte–in a crucial swing state six weeks before the election is over.

If Obama were really doing so well, why would the media have to resort to such distortions?

And why would he be in Wisconsin in the first place?

Perdog has a pictorial illustration for us as to just how profoundly wrong and obviously beyond biased the mainstream media is in its “counting”:

The 0bumugabe Rally

What 18,000 person crowd looks like

BMO Harris arena has a maximum seating capacity of 5,000 – with a capacity of 2,500 in the lower (blue) gallery and another capacity of 2,500 in the upper gallery:

I guess the media counts Obama crowds the way the Democrat Party counts Obama votes – you know, all the dead people count, too.

It’s also how they “count” unemployed people to come up with 8.1%, of course.

The mainstream media is coming up with utterly bogus polls that dramatically oversample Democrats in order to create an illusion of inevitability which they hope will discourage voters (the way Obama has discouraged workers resulting in artificially low unemployment numbers) to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It’s part of the same lie that results in an unfilled 5,000 capacity arena holding 18,000 Obama worshipers.

The fact of the matter is that there is a HUGE enthusiasm/turnout gap this year favoring Republicans:

CBS Poll: GOP Has Huge Turnout Edge Over Dems
by Mike Flynn19 Sep 2012, 9:15 AM PDT

One of the chief reasons the media is so mistaken in their zeal to proclaim Obama the election winner is that most of the polls they’re basing their predictions on are wildly inflating Democrat turnout. The overwhelming majority of media polls are an assuming an electorate that is at least as Democrat as the one in 2008, with many polls assuming a higher Democrat turnout. This is just daft. The latest CBS poll of 3 swing states is the most recent to show that GOP has a huge turnout advantage over Democrats.
 
Yesterday, CBS/NYT released its latest Quinnipiac poll of Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin. With the exception of CO, the polls had heavy Democrat skews, so the head-to-head match-ups aren’t particularly informative. What was telling though was the differences in enthusiasm between the two parties.
 
In all three states, a majority of Republicans say they are more enthusiastic about voting this year, compared to about a third of Democrats who are. In Colorado and Virginia, GOP voters are more enthusiastic than Democrats by a 15 point margin. In Wisconsin, GOP enthusiasm outpaces Democrats by 16 points.
 
Particularly interesting is that GOP voters have become more enthusiastic about voting in the past month. GOP enthusiasm has increased 9 points in CO, 10 points in WI and 12 points in VA. Democrat enthusiasm, meanwhile has increased only modestly; 5 points in VA, 4 in WI and 10 in CO (from a very low 28% of Democrats who were more enthusiastic about voting).
 
If these trends continue, today’s head-to-head numbers will be wildly off base, as the electorate this November will be very different than the one that voted in 2008.
 
Keep in mind, GOP voters in these swing states have become more enthusiastic about voting in the midst of a weeks-long assault on Romney by the Democrat-media industrial complex. Since the beginning of the Democrat convention, the media have reported that Obama was surging, Romney was flailing, and the election was all but over. And yet, GOP voting enthusiasm increased.
 
The media reports of the death of the Romney campaign are not just exaggerated, they are flights of fantasy made up from whole cloth. GOP voters are clearly ready to rumble this fall.

Not only is Republican enthusians – which WILL show up in turnout on election day – far higher than Democrats’, but Rasmussen just measured the highest number and percentage of Republicans EVER recorded in its history:

During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in Julyand 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002. The previous peak for the GOP was 37.3% in September 2004. See History of Party Trends.

You’ve got to realize that the mainstream media has been increasingly blatantly dishonest propagandists and simply ignore the polls and get out and vote.

They think they can help Obama with their version of Jedi mind tricks.  And of course they might be right.  It’s up to you to ignore “the gang of 500” and keep them from hijacking America yet again.

Mainstream Media Pathological In Its Effort To Slant And Distort The News To Protect Their Messiah Obama And Defame Their Emmanuel Goldstein Romney

The Wall Street Journal’s Dorothy Rabinowitz was driven to righteous anger yesterday:

September 17, 2012, 7:32 p.m. ET.
Dorothy Rabinowitz: The Fourth Estate, Still Thrilling to the Spirit of ’08
The spectacle of reporters over the past week hounding Mitt Romney for speaking his mind does not come as a surprise.
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

After an astounding week of ardent media focus on Mitt Romney’s criticism of the initial U.S. response to mob assaults on American diplomatic outposts, the furor is dying down—but it’s not over by any means. Nor was the message that the furor sent a negligible one.

Condemnations of Mr. Romney had come thick and fast. He had been “crass and tone deaf,” in the view of MSNBC’s Chuck Todd. He had committed a “slander” against the president, according to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic.

Journalists in pursuit of this story—to the exclusion of virtually all else going on—were quick to point out that denunciations of Mr. Romney were by no means limited to Democrats, that criticism came from Republican commentators too. This fact was hardly surprising—the sanctimony of the virtuous knows no political bounds.

The spectacle of those hordes of journalists in single-minded pursuit of the Romney story day after day—days that saw the killing of four Americans, embassies burned and trashed, mobs of the faithful running amok—shouldn’t have been surprising either. It’s the most dramatic indicator yet that in this election the pack journalism of four years ago is alive, and well, and in full cry again.

Especially wonderful to hear were all the charges about Mr. Romney’s political opportunism and tone-deafness—this after three days of a Democratic convention distinguished by shameless, nonstop exploitation of the military raid that put an end to Osama bin Laden. It is impossible to imagine any other president in American history orchestrating even two minutes—much less three days—of the self-glorification and wallowing in a victory won by the nation’s armed forces that was on display at the convention. If any of this orgy of boasting in the interest of a political campaign caught the attention of those commentators whose sensibilities were so offended by Mr. Romney last week, we haven’t heard about it.

The governor’s offense, as the world knows, had to do with his blast at the eye-popping apologias that had come from our Cairo embassy while mobs of the faithful were gathering to wreak havoc over a crude YouTube video insulting to Islam—apologies that Mr. Romney linked to the general inclinations of the Obama administration.

For this he was pilloried as having criticized the president in a time of urgent crisis. Or, as Andrea Mitchell put it Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Romney had come out with his statement when the State Department didn’t know where Ambassador Chris Stevens was—”the body was missing.”

At the time of Mr. Romney’s initial statement, of course, no word had as yet come about Stevens’s fate or those of his murdered colleagues. Which didn’t prevent members of the press and pundits from proclaiming, all the rest of the week, that Mr. Romney had embarked on a political attack while the world was aflame and the president embroiled in the crisis. The same president who would, in the midst of that crisis, go tootling off to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser.

By the time the presidential campaign had ended four years ago, the media’s role in driving the outcome had become a fact too obvious to dispute. The impact of the journalistic horde’s devotion to the Democratic candidates was clear, the evidence vivid—especially in the case of reporters transported to a state of ecstasy over candidate Obama’s speeches. One New York Times reporter wrote of being so moved he could barely keep from weeping. Not for nothing did the role of the press become a news story in itself—an embarrassing one that might, serious people thought, serve as a caution during future campaigns.

In 2012 Barack Obama is no longer delivering thrilling speeches, but an unembarrassed press corps is still available, in full prosecutorial mode when it comes to coverage of the Republican challenger. If you hadn’t heard the story about Mitt Romney’s bullying treatment of another student during his prep-school days—1965, that is—the Washington Post had a story for you, a lengthy investigative piece. On the matter of Mr. Obama’s school records, locked away and secured against investigation, the press maintains a serene incuriosity.

Mr. Obama continues to receive the benefits of a supportive media—one prone to dark suspicions about his challenger. The heavy ooze of moral superiority emanating from all the condemnations of Mr. Romney last week, all the breathless media reports on those condemnations, did not begin with something he said last week. But the moral superiority was certainly on its gaudiest display. Mr. Romney’s tone was offensive, unpresidential, his critics charged.

Yet it is the president of the United States—the same one who presented himself as the man who would transcend political partisanship because we were all Americans—who has for most of his term set about dividing the nation by class, by the stoking of resentments. Who mocks “millionaires and billionaires.” Who makes it clear that he considers himself the president of the other—the good—Americans. How’s that for presidential tone?

No one could have missed the importance to Mr. Obama’s campaign of the class-war themes that reverberated continually during the Democratic convention speeches. The references to “millionaires and billionaires” are by now a reliable applause line for the campaign. Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm underscored the point with an address whose opening line declared, with a strange note of defiance—it wasn’t the only thing strange about the speech—that the heart of America wasn’t to be found in corporate board rooms.

But it is Vice President Biden who has been the most faithful purveyor of Mr. Obama’s class-war theme. Earnest, affable, with a bottomless cache of wise maxims from his mother and father, the persuasive Joe Biden excels at explaining, in his accomplished infomercial tones, how the other side wants to ensnare you, the poor and the helpless. And how, I promise you, folks, Barack Obama isn’t going to let them.

Mitt Romney isn’t going to have an easy time defeating a president with Mr. Obama’s advantages. A friendly press corps surpasses all wealth, sayeth the sages. The governor will stand a far better chance if he takes to heart the lesson of the past week, when he seems to have recognized, at last, that there are issues in addition to the economy—matters like foreign policy, Iran, America’s stance in the world—that he must address. In the weeks that remain to this election, he will have to speak to those matters in depth and in unflinching terms that set him apart from his opponent. And he’ll have to do it often.

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.

A version of this article appeared September 18, 2012, on page A17 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Fourth Estate, Still Thrilling to the Spirit of ’08.

Bias is a function that emerges from the decision as to “what is news,” what’s considered news, what’s considered a gaffe.  And this was one amazing week.

Mitt Romney’s denunciation of a statement – the ONLY official statement from the Obama regime for 15 hours after the US Embassy in Cairo issued its famous “statement” and which was FINALLY likewise denounced by the Obama White House an hour AFTER Romney showed some leadership - was considered “news” more than the fact that the entire Middle East and Muslim world was melting down all around Obama’s weak foreign policy.

A US ambassador was raped and then murdered in a preplanned attack that the White House lied about because Obama failed to provide that ambassador with anywhere near adequate security.  The entire Muslim world was in flames.  But do you want to know what the media said the “news” was?  That Romney should have waited longer before issuing a statement. 

That Barack Obama’s “soft” foreign policy has utterly failed all over the world isn’t “news.”  That a US ambassador was raped and murdered isn’t “news.”  That Obama sent a good man to die in a dangerous hellhole without bothering to give him anywhere NEAR the security that he has provided his political adviser at Martha’s Freaking Vineyard isn’t “news.”  The fact that Obama is as we speak preparing to cut $131 million from embassy security isn’t “news.”  And the fact that the Obama White House and in fact the entire Obama regime have been caught repeatedly LYING about the cause of the Middle East meltdown isn’t “news.”

What’s the capital of Israel, President Obama?  Why are people in 33 Muslim countries burning our flag and burning pictures of YOU after your famous “new beginning,” President Obama?  Are all of these people at war with us or not, President Obama?  None of those embarrassing answers that Obama has no answer for is “news” so you can count on Pimp with a Limp (the only “journalists” Obama is willing to talk to these days) won’t ask such questions.

As for “gaffes,” how on earth is it NOT a MASSIVE gaffe that a sitting president of the United States declares than a country that has been an official ALLY of the United States for 23 years is in fact NOT an ally, only to be corrected by his own State Department which says that contrary to the president Egypt IS an ally?  Given the fact that Egypt is the heart of the Middle East, how is that not an ENORMOUS gaffe?  Egypt was declared a “major non-NATO ally of the United States” in 1989.  Is this a good time to make that kind of massive foreign policy error???  But that wasn’t really “news,” either; far better to attack Mitt Romney as often and over as many things as possible.

Nope.  Journalists will not look deeply at ANY of that because it hurts Obama, and Obama is the only messiah with whom they have to do.  And as much as “journalists” love their Big Brother, they hate Big Brother’s Emmanuel Goldstein.

As Obama’s Foreign Policy Completely Melts Down Two Months Before Election, Desperate Mainstream Media Propagandists Gang Up To Slander Romney Statement

The most blatant way the mainstream media engages in bias is their answer to the question, “What is news?”  Because their answer INVARIABLY undermines conservatives and strives to support liberals.

As an example, what was the story two days ago?  Was the story about a planned, coordinated attack on the US consulate in Libya that resulted in four Americans (including the United States Ambassador) being murdered?  Was the story about the fact that Obama had information about the attack plans on the US Consulate in Libya for 48 hours and did NOTHING? Was the story about a coordinated mob of AstroTurf Muslims overrunning the United States Embassy in Cairo, Egypt while Egyptian security forces conveniently vanished, with the United States flag torn down and desecrated and replaced with a flag that al Qaeda has flown?  Was the story about how on Obama’s watch and just two months before he comes up for reelection the name “Osama bin Laden” is now written on the United States Embassy entrance or how under Obama that entrance now states, “There is no God but Allah”?  Nope.  The media says that wasn’t the story.

Obama demagogued Mitt Romney for “shooting and then aiming.”  In an eery repeat of Jimmy Carter before the American people fired his incompetent ass.  Read this to see HOW eerily similar Obama is to the failed Jimmy Carter.

Do you know what they say the story was?

Let’s look at what all the journalists from all the various media outlets coordinated with one another to make sure that Mitt Romney would get attacked no matter who he picked (we know know the CBS reporter was Jan Crawford and she was sharpening knives with NPR correspondent Ari Shapiro):

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: …pointing out that the Republicans… *unintelligible* …Obama….

CBS REPORTER: That’s the question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: *unintelligible*

CBS REPORTER: Yeah that’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Your question? Your statement?

CBS REPORTER: I mean your statement. Not even the tone, because then he can go off on…

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And then if he does, if we can just follow up and say ‘but this morning your answer is continuing to sound…’ – *becomes unintelligble*

CBS REPORTER: You can’t say that..

**Later**

CBS REPORTER: I’m just trying to make sure that we’re just talking about, no matter who he calls on we’re covered on the one question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?

And so, sure enough, the story, the “news”, was NOT about the meltdown of Obama’s entire foreign policy which had famously even been criticized by Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden during the 2008 Democrat primary race.  The ”news” was NOT that for more than nine hours the ONLY official American statement coming from the United States government was this:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

 Now, that statement is so gutless, so cowardly, and frankly so un-American that it is beyond unreal.  And THAT was the ONLY official statement for half a damn day after it was issued.  Note that it literally agrees with the people who are attacking American soil by climbing over the walls of our embassy and tearing down our flag and burning it.  Note that it decries not the despicable ACT-OF-WAR actions of the Egyptians but rather an American who is practicing his constitutionally (at least up to now) right to free speech.

I note that that official statement from the US Embassy in Cairo was so despicable that it has since been taken down “like it never even happened.”  The Daily Caller, in citing the statement by the embassy, provides the official link.  The Obama cowards who run the government have now scrubbed that link so the statement is no longer officially available.  Nothin’ to see here, folks.  Because under Obama the 1984 “Ministry of Truth” is now itself a truth.  That’s how despicable that statement was.

The “news” was not about the fact that Obama denounced the same statement that had motivated Mitt Romney to come out as the White House finally – FINALLY!!! – issued a statement saying that the Embassy had not cleared the statement before issuing it.

I provide the timeline in an article here that itself has PLENTY to slam about Obama’s pathetic failure.  At the time Romney spoke the embassy statement above was the only official US government statement.  As you can see by looking at the timeline, the initial embassy statement came out around noon EST, and there had been no other statement other than a subsequent statement from the embassy confirming its initial gutless statement documented above.  Romney’s statement came out at 10:25 pm EST; Obama disavowed that embassy statement – 11 hours after it had been issued – at 11:04 pm EST.  And then at 12:11 AM EST the very same Obama who disavowed the statement that Romney attacked and the very same Obama who purged the despicable thing from the internet has the tiny little balls to demonize Mitt Romney for being the first man who wants to be president to repudiate it.

So Mitt Romney comes out and attacks a despicable, weak, pathologically gutless statement that had been the ONLY official statement for half a day while Obama continued to campaign.  And the mainstream media want to make the story – the “news” - about Mitt Romney being the only man to show any kind of presidential leadership whatsoever.  Particularly given that since Romney made the statement, his prescience has only been confirmed.  Because the disaster that he correctly saw on Tuesday is FAR, FAR worse than any of these insipid liberal turds thought it was.  We’ve got the murder of an American ambassador. 

Now, when you consider the fact that an AMERICAN AMBASSADOR WAS MURDERED IN A PLANNED ATTACK, does that statement from the United States Embassy in Cairo look strong or does it look WEAK????  Do you know that information and STILL think that we ought to be criticizing an American citizen for exercising his right to make a stupid Youtube video or do you think that maybe some outrage to be directed at the murderers of our ambassador???

As stated, we now know that the Youtube film had NOTHING to do with the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya where our ambassador and four other Americans were murdered.  We now know that what happened was a deliberate, planned, carefully coordinated attack timed to correspond with the 9/11 anniversary that employed the AstroTurf mob as a diversion.  And we now know that Libyan government officials were complicit in the murder of the US ambassador and literally told the murderers where to find him after he relocated to escape the compound.

Does that development make the embassy statement that Romney rightly attacked look bolder, or does that development make it look all the more gutless and cowardly???  Which one???

For the mainstream media to try to make the story about Mitt Romney – who again exercised LEADERSHIP – in attacking the utterly indefensible – is the most blatant and most snivelling and most desperate act of media propaganda that I have ever seen.  And you can search over my blog and see that I’ve documented a BUNCH of media propaganda.

This was Mitt Romney’s statement on a statement from the US Embassy in Cairo that became official Obama policy by his sheer failure to issue anything to replace it with:

“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Now, who should have come out and issued a statement immediately denouncing that gutless, weak, frankly un-American statement from the US Embassy in Cairo?  It should have been the president.

But instead it was Mitt Romney who exercised presidential leadership.  But the media chose to attack him in a coordinated “gotcha” moment with the pretense and pretext that somehow unlike candidate Obama when HE was running for president Romney doesn’t have the right to criticize the president’s foreign policy.  THAT is what the media chose to focus on to make “the news.”

Did they make the news about the fact that Obama chose to continue campaigning as if nothing had happened?

Obama’s Going to Las Vegas
By Fred Lucas
September 12, 2012  

(Update: In a second schedule update issued around 10:42 a.m. on Wednesday, the White House indicated that President Obama would continue with his campaign trip to Las Vegas after issuing a statement on events in Libya and Egypt in the Rose Garden.

The only change in the updated schedule is this: “Shortly after (the Rose Garden statement), the President and Secretary Clinton will visit the State Department in Washington, DC. This visit is closed press.” The updated schedule still states that “In the afternoon, the President will depart the White House en route Las Vegas, Nevada.”)
 
(CNSNews.com) – On the day after the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi, the White House on Wednesday morning released a schedule showing that President Obama would continue with his planned campaign trip to Las Vegas.
 
Before he leaves, the schedule indicated, Obama will “deliver a statement” in the White House Rose Garden at 10:35 a.m., the White House said.

As bad as that is, even THAT story turns out to fail to reflect just how cynical and disinterested Obama is in the unfolding disaster involving our embassies/consulates in Libya, Egypt, Yemen and all across the Middle East.  Because it turns out that Obama chose to skp the intelligence briefing, too:

Unreal: On Day Following Libya Assassinations, Obama Skips Another Intel Briefing
Guy Benson, Political Editor, Townhall.com
Sep 13, 2012 03:11 PM EST

Is anyone surprised by this revelation? Our Commander Campaigner-in-Chief has made his priorities crystal clear:

How long had it been since President Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting in the lead-up to the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Egypt and Libya? After all, our adversaries are known to use the anniversary of 9/11 to target the United States. According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 — a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli. The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department — as well he should. But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign. One day after a terrorist attack.

On Monday the same Washington Post columnist, Marc Thiessen, reported that the president has missed 62 percent of his daily in-person intel briefings in 2011 and 2012. President Bush almost never missed a briefing after 9/11. I recognize that a president’s schedule is extremely demanding, especially in the teeth of a campaign, so passing on these meetings occasionally would be understandable. I cannot, however, fathom how the president could justify canceling and not re-scheduling his intelligence briefing the day after an active US Ambassador was murdered in the line of duty, and as an international crisis continues to spread. The White House offers a two-fold defense on this: First, make snide remarks about President Bush, then insist that Obama is so sophisticated that he doesn’t need experts to brief him:

As the article title says, this is positively UN-FREAKING-REAL. 

Why isn’t THAT the “news”???  Other than the fact that this is the most propagandistic media since Joseph Goebbels ran the “news” for his buddy Adolf???

Here are some MORE “Why isn’t THAT ‘news’” questions:

Why isn’t it “news” that NO Marines were guarding the United States Consulate in Libya where US Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdered IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THERE WERE DOCUMENTED AND CREDIBLE THREATS??? 

Why isn’t it “news” that Obama’s and Hilary Clinton’s State Department had forbidden the Marines at the United States Embassy in Cairo, Egypt from carrying live ammunition – again, in spite of documented and credible threats???

Why isn’t it “news” that due to Obama’s pathetic failure to protect American assets in spite of documented and credible threats, a US Ambassador was raped BEFORE being murdered???

Why isn’t it “news” that the safe house that the ambassador fled to devoid of any Marine guard???  Not that it would have mattered if they couldn’t have live ammo.

Whyisn’t it “news” that Egypt warned Obama on September 4 of an attack against the US Embassy???

Why isn’t it “news” that Obama said that Egypt – a country that had been an ally for going on forty damn years before Obama toppled Mubarak – was no longer a US ally?

President Obama says the U.S. would no longer consider the Egyptian government an ally, “but we don’t consider them an enemy.”

Why isn’t it “news” that the US State Department almost immediately issued a correction saying the president of the United States is an idiot fool and that yes, Egypt is in fact contrary to what the dumbass in chief said, an “ally.”

(CNSNews.com) – State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland confirmed that Egypt remains a U.S. ally, despite a statement from the White House that the country is not an ally.

“Yes,” Nuland said during a news conference Thursday, when asked if Egypt was still a U.S. ally.

Why isn’t it news that the Obama Administration frantically tried to put their idiot president’s babbling tongue back into his fool head by doing their own blathering and saying:

“‘Ally’ is a legal term of art.”

The distinction by the White House was so byzantine in trying to argue that Obama WAS TECHNICALLY NOT AN IDIOT that their own language would rule out ISRAEL as an ally:

As Politico’s Byron Tau points out, that would mean other designated major non-NATO allies — including Israel — aren’t technically “allies,” at least according to Obama’s “legal term of art” definition. Complicating matters further is the fact that the term “ally” is in the title of the designation.

Which makes the entire White House idiots.

Why isn’t the Obama acts of dhimmitude (his apologize for America tour, his bowing down before the King of Saudi Arabia, and his increasing the payment to Egypt to $2 billion a year AFTER that country elects the Muslim Brotherhood, and his refusing to cut off that aid even as they openly piss on America “news”???

The MSM had over ten minutes of “coverage” on the “wrongness” of Mitt Romney’s statement versus 20 seconds of “analysis” of Obama’s Middle East policy, Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center reported last night on Hannity.  It is beyond amazing.

The US embassies in Egypt, in Libya, in Yemen, and in much of the Arab world were well-known to be particularly at risk during the period around the 9/11 anniversary.  But Obama was too damn busy campaigning to protect them.  He was too damn busy campaigning to bother to show up at critical intelligence briefings after they were attacked.  We find that Obama was instrumental in the undermining and overthrow of American ally Hosni Mubarak and that he stupidly declared first that the Muslim Brotherhood would not take over and later that it would not be a bad thing that they had.  Which is to say that the REAL “news” is that Obama should be wearing this ensuing disaster like an albatross around his skinny little weasel neck.

THAT would certainly be the story if George Bush or any Republican were president.  And it would be the story if the mainstream media hadn’t become a pathologically dishonest propaganda machine.

While all this is going on, Obama has refused to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu – and then lied about refusing to meet with him – during a period when Israel is just about to be forced to attack Iran because Obama failed to deal with their nuclear program in any way, shape or form.

I remember well when Obama was constantly demonizing Bush as “the bogeyman” on the one hand and constantly promising that under his messiahship there would be “a new beginning” on the other.  Obama was going to make our enemies love us with his lofty words by repudiating the Bush doctrine of confrontation through strength against America’s enemies.  It’s past time to ask as we look at the entire world erupt into flames how that messianic Obama doctrine is working.  It sure doesn’t seem like it to me.

Even JOURNALISTS Are Admitting It Now: The Mainstream Media Is Feverishly Working To Slant ‘News’ To Benefit The Obama Campaign

Two different observations from two different journalists says quite a bit that needs to be said:

The first came recently from Mark Halperin:

Mark Halperin: ‘The Media Is Very Susceptible to Doing What the Obama Campaign Wants’
11:57 AM, Aug 18, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

“The Obama folks clearly know they’ve found some traction on this tax return issue with Romney,” said NBC’s Lester Holt. “And then of course late in the week comes this challenge–’give us a little more and we won’t complain anymore.’ Has this issue come to the point it’s jumped the shark?”
 
“I think the press still likes this story a lot, the media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on this,” said Halperin.

The mainstream media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants.  True dat.

The second comes from Jake Tapper, and becomes even more relevant when you consider Halperin’s observation:

Jake Tapper: Media Is Failing The Country
August 21, 2012

Truer words were never said.
 
Jake Tapper of ABC News is one of the last honest men in the business. In an interview with Laura Ingraham on her radio show today, Tapper pointed out what’s obvious to so many Americans.
 
The media was and is in the tank for Obama…

In an interview with Laura Ingraham, White House reporter Jake Tapper said that the media is failing the country.

“A lot of people are hurting out there. Unemployment is 8.3 percent. That doesn’t even take into account the underemployed,” he said, arguing that too much time has been spent not talking about the economy.
 
Tapper also criticized the media for not giving enough attention to the war in Afghanistan.
 
“We are spending a lot of time in the last few weeks, those of us in the political world, political journalists and also politicians, talking about things other than the economy,” said Tapper. “[A] lot of people are hurting out there. I’d like to see more action taken and more emphasis given to this issue.”
 
Tapper also said he relates to Mark Halperin’s recent comments about the media. Over the weekend, Halperin said, “I think the press still likes this story a lot, the media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on this.”
 
“I have said before… [that I] thought the media helped tip the scales. I didn’t think the coverage in 2008 was especially fair to either Hilary Clinton or John McCain,” Tapper said.
 
On the 2008 coverage, he noted, “Sometimes I saw with story selection, magazine covers, photos picked, [the] campaign narrative, that it wasn’t always the fairest coverage.”

 Listen to audio from Real Clear Politics…

Speaking of Hilary Clinton and 2008, it is a fact of history that the Clinton campaign and Hillary Clinton herself said that Fox News gave them fairer coverage than any other news outlet:

Hillary Clinton: “There Were A Lot Of Times When I Appreciated” Fox News During Primary
Huffington Post
First Posted: 10-14-08 12:09 PM   |   Updated: 11-14-08 05:12 AM

Hillary Clinton appeared on “Fox & Friends” Tuesday morning, where she discussed sexism with co-host Gretchen Carlson and took the opportunity to say that she “appreciated” Fox News’ balanced coverage of her campaign.

[...]

“We did call them on it at Fox, in fact I think you went on record saying that Fox was the most fair and balanced place during the time when you were running,” Carlson said.

“There were a lot of times when I appreciated the commentators and reporters on Fox who did step up and make that clear,” Clinton responded.

Clinton also said that Sarah Palin is facing the same sort of sexism that she faced.

I wish a major polling organization would do a poll on registered Democrats and ask the question, “Do you believe Hillary Clinton would have done a better job governing the country than Barack Obama has?”  I truly believe that most Democrats would respond, “Hell yes!”

Fox News was fair and balanced when all the other mainstream media “news” outlets were in the tank swooning in adoration with their legs tingling for Obama.

Barack Obama has profoundly damaged America.  And either John McCain OR Hillary Clinton would have done a HELL of a lot better job than this failed turd.  And the only network that gave either of those candidates any chance at all is the Fox News network which also happens to be the ONLY NEWS NETWORK WHOSE ANCHORS WEAR AMERICAN FLAG PINS ON THEIR LAPELS.  Because unlike ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc., Fox News actually gives a flying damn about America rather than sanctimoniously considering themselves above America and “citizens of the world” the way all the other propaganda outlets do.  There’s a reason that a story came out that ABC banned their journalists from wearing American flag pins - because nobody the hell was WEARING ONE.  Rather, the mainstream media are following their “citizen of the world-in-chief” Barack Obama.

Fox News is different from Obama and all the other mainstream media “citizens of the world.”  They actually give a damn about their country.  Which is why they wear American flag pins when others won’t and which is why they gave fair coverage to Hillary Clinton and John McCain when others wouldn’t.

Hillary Clinton ought to finally understand what it’s like to be a Republican.  Because the mainstream media treated her like a Republican until it was time for them to swivel their guns to take aim at John McCain.

Doctrinaire liberal “journalist” Evan Thomas of Newsweek birdcage-liner fame once said this in a candid moment:

July 18th, 2008
Press worth more than fifteen points for Obama?

Query:

If, as Evan Thomas of Newsweek said in a moment of unguarded candor:

The media, I think, want [Democratic presidential candidate John F.] Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and [running mate John] Edwards…as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points…”

—then how much is Obama’s press worth?

I’d say about double that.

And aren’t Evans’ remarks even more on target as a description of the Obama mystique than they ever were for Kerry/Edwards?

Keep in mind, Evan Thomas was the guy who infamously said of Obama:

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”

So when a guy like Evan Thomas says that basically the Republican has to win by MORE than fifteen points because that’s what the media is going to give to the Democrat, you get a sense of how desperate we are in these last days of America as a Joseph Goebbels press runs amok with reality.

And, yes, as Jake Tapper indicates, there are ALL KINDS of big stories that the news media ought to be focusing on like a laser beam – which is EXACTLY what they would be doing if the incumbant were George Bush rather than Barack Hussein.

So to Jake Tapper’s big questions that the media are refusing to cover: does the Obama campaign want to talk about the economy?  How about HELL NO:

Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville have released a striking new report arguing in stark terms that some key voting groups now reject President Obama’s claim that the economy is improving — and may well reject Obama himself in November.

Democracy Corps, the political consulting group run by Greenberg and Carville, showed several Obama campaign commercials to focus groups in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Several of the group members, who were “all independents or weak partisans and ticket-splitters” and included both Obama and McCain voters from 2008, became irritated when shown Obama ads touting economic improvement. They don’t see that improvement in their own lives, the report says, and they don’t believe Obama when he claims things are better.

The fact of the matter is that Obama CAN’T talk about the economy because he has wildly and spectacularly failed - and in fact has wildly and spectacularly failed according to his very own rhetoric.

How about Afghanistan?  Does Obama want to talk about how he’s done in Afghanistan?  Let me quote myself from a comment I made before writing this:

It truly is stunning. If you examine the casualties in Afghanistan, you find that fully damn HALF of them occurred just during the last 27 months of the failed Obama presidency. Keep in mind, this is a war that Bush fought all eight years of his presidency … with a total of 630 American KIA during those eight years. The other 1,472 dead – seventy percent of all the casualties of the entire war – are all on Obama during less than HALF the time.

And where are all the damn liberals and the Cindy Sheehans crying over the dead soldiers when we really need them???

Do you believe that the Obama campaign wants to talk about Obama’s failure in Afghanistan and how Obama is working on being the first loser since the last Democrat war debacle in Vietnam???

THAT’S why the mainstream media isn’t talking about this stuff, Jake.  Because Obama doesn’t want them to and Obama is the mainstream media messiah as no one else has EVER been.

The Obama campaign wants to talk about Mitt Romney as a “vampire capitalist” who outsourced jobs at Bain.  So they talk about Bain the way Obama wants them to even though Mitt Romney built up 8 out of 10 of the failing businesses he rescued, even though all of the examples of “outsourcing” occurred AFTER Romney left Bain and in fact WHILE Obama’s top bundler was the head of Bain, and even though OBAMA is a FAR bigger outsourcer.  The Obama campaign wants to talk about Mitt Romney’s taxes, so the media have fixated on Mitt Romney’s taxes

The one thing you can absolutely guarantee is that the mainstream media will do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IT CAN DO to ensure that this campaign isn’t about the central issues facing the nation – because if it was Obama would lose in a landslide.

Obama Camp Says Romney An Animal Abusing, Tax Dodging Criminal Who Kills Women With Cancer While Plotting To Reinstitute Slavery. Media Says Romney To Blame For Negative Campaign

There are stupid people.  There are truly stupid people.  There are pathologically stupid people.  And then there are liberals who literally use what little brains they have to become even MORE stupid.

Look Who the Press Is Blaming for the Ugly Campaign
Posted 06:58 PM ET

Media Bias: What a surprise. Mitt Romney finally throws a counterpunch to a series of outrageous Obama campaign lies, and the press accuses Romney of going negative. The media’s pro-Obama bias is a wonder to behold.

For months, the Obama campaign has offered the public nothing but lies and distortions about Romney’s record and his position on the issues.

In a series of ads, statements and comments to the press, Obama and his backers labeled Romney an outsourcer, a felon and a tax cheat. They said he wants to “gut Medicare,” outlaw all abortions, even in the case of rape and incest, and put people “back in chains.”

And then an Obama super-PAC ad blamed Romney for causing a woman’s cancer death.

There’s no evidence to back up any of these claims, and most have been thoroughly debunked. But they just keep rolling them out.

So on Tuesday, Romney forcefully hit back at Obama for “wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the presidency . .. President Obama knows better, promised better and America deserves better.”

So which candidate is the press complaining about?

In a front page story on Wednesday, the Washington Post attacked Romney, not Obama, for adding “an even uglier tone” to the campaign.

Romney “lashed out” with the “harshest rhetoric of his campaign,” it said. He’s “ratcheted up his criticism” and is using “increasingly hot language.”

The story went on to complain that, largely thanks to Romney, any hope that putting Paul Ryan on the ticket “would elevate the conversation… has not come to be.”

And it quoted an Obama campaign official about how Romney’s comments “seemed unhinged.”

But you will search that Post story in vain for any reference to the series of bogus claims made by team Obama about Romney’s tenure at Bain. You won’t find a mention of Sen. Harry Reid’s completely unfounded accusations that Romney didn’t pay taxes for 10 years.

There’s no mention of the Obama campaign’s repeated false claims that Romney opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest — which earned a “pants on fire” rating by Politifact for being so blatantly false.

And while it mentions that despicable Obama superPAC ad, the Post story fails to explain it was wrong on all the key facts, or mention how Obama campaign aides lied about knowing about the ad before it aired.

Let’s see if we’ve got this straight. Obama hurls character-assassinating lies at Romney for months and is greeted with media yawns. But when Romney calls Obama on it, the press accuses Romney of going negative?

And the mainstream press still wants to claim that it’s impartial?

This reminds me of the Obama who has now tried to incite black people and Hispanics to hate white people, poor people to hate rich people, women to hate men, gays to hate straights, workers to hate employers, illegal immigrants to hate citizens, etc. etc. saying, “I don’t think anyone would suggest I’ve tried to divide the country.”  When he is in fact the most polarizing and the most divisive president in American history bar NONE.

And what we are seeing – and have been seeing – from the mainstream media rivals Stalinist Russia or Maoist China in its sheer determination to hide the truth and spread propaganda.

‘Journolist’ Soledad O’Brien Caught Red-Handed Desperately Searching Left-Wing Talking Points To Argue With Romney Adviser

For the record, no, I did not misspell “journalist,” I merely point out that a) Soledad O’Brien fails to qualify for that term and b) remind you of the disgrace in which “journalists” participated in a leftist campaign to influence the “news” while posing as “objective.”

This is kind of like me running to my Bible to argue with an opponent, only it’s Soledad O’Brien racing to her left-wing talking points.

One thing I will guarantee you – and I DEFY any liberal to show me otherwise – that Soledad O’Brien has NEVER been caught furiously and desperately searching through Rush Limbaugh transcripts to find ammo to try to refute Obama advisers.  I DEFY YOU.

Which is another way of my saying that Soledad O’Brien is a dishonest, disgraceful, lying propagandist hack:

Soledad O’Brien Caught Reading Liberal Blog During Heated Debate With Romney Adviser
By Noel Sheppard | August 13, 2012 | 22:31

Can CNN’s Soledad O’Brien make her sources any more apparent than she did Monday night?

While filling in for Anderson Cooper, O’Brien was actually caught on-screen looking at an article from the left-wing website Talking Points Memo to assist her in a heated debate with Romney campaign senior adviser Barbara Comstock (video follows with commentary):

[See site for embedded video]

Ali Akbar at Viral Read reported Monday:

During her interview with Virginia House of Delegates Republican member Barbara Comstock, O’Brien became visibly flustered and was actually caught doing finger stress exercises as she attempt [sic] to insert editorial commentary while her guest, a former skilled Republican operative, defended the House GOP budget, designed by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan.

Accidentally, a cameraman captured O’Brien furiously flipping through notes, only to cut out seconds later.

Indeed:

Once blown up, the picture told quite a story:

What she’s reading from is a TPM article titled “The Myth Of Paul Ryan The Bipartisan Leader” published Monday at 6:08 PM only a few hours before this program started.

[Editors Note: Did you know that President Obama has actually boasted about how he wants to cut Medicare and Social Security? The truth you won't see in the media.]

It began:

Mitt Romney has been talking up Rep. Paul Ryan’s bipartisan credentials since he unveiled the congressman as his running mate early Saturday. But the mild-mannered Wisconsinite’s record reveals a near-total absence of Democratic support for his many ambitious proposals, very few of which have won enough support to become law.

Inside the piece was the very quote from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Or.) that O’Brien read to her guest:

“I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.’ I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare. Several months after the paper came out I spoke and voted against the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget. Governor Romney needs to learn you don’t protect seniors by makings things up, and his comments sure won’t help promote real bipartisanship.”

So, a CNN anchor with her own daily program used a far-left website for her show prep before talking to a Republican guest.

Do you need any more evidence of just how far to the left the self-described “most trusted name in news” is or why its ratings continue to tank?

Bravo, Ali! Bravo!

Amusingly enough, O’Brien got some truth to power today when Mitt Romney surrogate John Sununu told her she ought to “put an Obama bumper sticker on your forehead.” One wonders what he’d have said had he seen the photos above!

(HT @J_Murf07)

Meanwhile, the anchor Soledad O’Brien was substituting for just came out of the closet as a homosexual – which means that he is statistically almost CERTAINLY a raging liberal.

For the record, Anderson Cooper’s “fiance” just got caught french-kissing another man (don’t click on this without a barf pale because it contains close-ups of said homosexual french-kissing) to further prove the fact that homosexuality means an out-of-control addiction to depraved sex with any man who will do whatever the disgusting hell that homosexual men do for each other.  Which is another way of saying that homosexual men don’t want marriage or monogamy; homosexual men want to force people like me to morally validate their depraved “lifestyle.”  But I digress.

If you wonder why CNN is having the worst ratings in twenty freaking years, it is because CNN is a dishonest and disgraced bunch of propagandists and average people KNOW it is a network of dishonest and disgraced propagandists.  But like all fools, CNN is unable to recognize its problem and therefore concludes, “We’re not doing well because we have failed to worship our Dear Leader enough.”

You don’t have enough tinfoil on your helmets, either.

Yesterday I was at the Veterans Administration hospital and couldn’t help but get into an argument with a liberal who stated that nothing I said was valid because I got it from Fox News.  In doing this, realize, he refused to make the argument about the actual facts and instead made the argument all about Fox News after I had pointed out the fact that tax cuts increase revenues; they have ALWAYS increased revenues.  He didn’t want the conversation to be about facts; he wanted the conversation to be about his demagoguery.  Aside from that bait and switch, number one, he didn’t have a CLUE where I got my facts from; and number two his accusation is the epitome of one of the most pathetic fallacies in all of logic (you cannot refute an argument by demonizing the source – if Adolf Hitler were to say it was raining only a fool would argue that if Adolf Hitler said that it was raining it therefore could not possibly be raining).  When I pointed that fact of logic out and asked him where he got his news from, he ignored my question and said that “everybody knows that Fox News is propaganda.”  So we went from mindless demagoguery to even more mindless demagoguery.  I asked him to give me an example of Fox News spreading propaganda and he said “Sean Hannity.”  I pointed out that Sean Hannity was a person’s name, not an example of propaganda and asked him to give me one example of Fox News spreading propaganda.  This time he said, “Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.”  So that’s two people’s names and zero examples of Fox News spreading propaganda.  I asked him if he’d ever heard of Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews or Andrea Mitchell (and now add Soledad O’Brien).  And pointed out that by his own stupid standard I just gave him twice as many examples of liberal propaganda as he’d given me conservative propaganda.

I didn’t bother to point out that “Fox News” – like many other news channels – consists of both NEWS and OPINION.  And the fact that Sean Hannity is an OPINION guy has nothing to do with the NEWS of Fox News.  I didn’t bother to point out to him that Fox News does a better job of keeping their opinion and news sections SEPARATE than just about any other network – as Andrea Mitchell and NBC just proved with her highly slanted op-ed commentary.  You DON’T see the journalists in the Fox News NEWS side pulling that kind of crap out of their butts.

I didn’t point out that Fox News has consistently rated as either THE most balanced or the second most balanced news network of all in study after study.  Fox News has NUMEROUS liberals on their network to provide that balance: people such as Geraldo Rivera, Tamara Holder, Alan Colmes, Julian Epstein, Ellis Henican, Leslie Marshall, Juan Williams, Marc Lamont Hill, Susan Estrich, Ellen Ratner, Bob Beckel, Michael Brown, Joe Trippi and Kirsten Powers among many others.  And in fact I defy liberals to find a news network that has as many conservatives on their payroll as Fox News has liberals.  The fact of the matter is that critics don’t hate Fox News because it’s NOT the most balanced; they hate Fox News because it IS the most balanced and allows a point of view to be aired that they hate irregardless of the fact that they allow BOTH sides to be heard.  I still vividly recall the debate I had with a different man who said that presenting the conservative viewpoint was actually inherently biased because it was tantamount to giving the viewpoint that the earth was flat credibility; such that the conservative viewpoint should be suppressed from news coverage.  And I said that was spoken like a true goose-stepping Nazi.

Anyway, I didn’t bother to do those two things because it was about this point in the argument that I realized that I was arguing with a genuine fool.  And it is a waste of time to argue with a fool.  Proverbs 26:4-5 teaches that we should refute fools so that other people realize that they are fools, but not waste too much time with fools lest those people begin to think we are fools, too.

I included the above story: 1) because it seriously pissed me off; and 2) as an example of just how inoculated much of our culture has become against the truth.  This is no longer a nation of truth and facts and reality; it is a nation of demagoguery and bias and propaganda.

In the aftermath of Joe Biden literally going before an audience that was primarily black and telling them that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will put you people in chains, we can just watch the same media defend Team Obama and recognize the hell these propagandists would have poured on Team Romney for using such a blatantly racist attack to see that America is drowning in propaganda.  And media propaganda is what will ultimately cause the death of this nation.

ABC Continues Its Leftist Propagandist Hack Ways With Its Biased Distortion Of News And Its Sloppy Journalism

A Nexis database search reveals that there are at least 18 individuals in the Aurora, Colorado area named “James Holmes.” Yet Brian Ross managed to pick out just one of these 18 to cite—the one who is a member of the Tea Party—without first checking to see if this was the same person as the shooter.

What are the odds of that?

You need to understand: ABC didn’t google “James Holmes Aurora”; they googled “James Holmes Aurora tea party”.  They NEVER would have googled “James Holmes Democrat” or “James Holmes OWS” and ran with that connection if one turned up (there actually WAS a registered Democrat named “James Holmes,” for what it’s worth).

The dishonesty of the media is beyond parallel unless you go to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. 

Was the error corrected?  Yeah, and it didn’t even take that long, thanks to the fact that today, unlike in the fairly recent past, we’ve got Fox News and we’ve got a lot of dedicated bloggers who at least try to correct the avalanche of lies the mainstream media tells in the guise of “reporting.”  But this is like the sixth time the mainstream media has falsely charged the Tea Party with some awful crime.  And they know how the game works: it doesn’t matter if the story is true and it doesn’t matter if the story has to be “corrected”; what matters is that over and over and over the media insinuates that the tea party is somehow “dangerous” and the fecal matter that they keep throwing at it sticks in the public perception. That question by the falsely accused, slandered man, “Which office do I go to get my reputation back?” is what the press is banking on.  Because part of the infamous “Big Lie” strategy was to tar their targets with such a climate of doubt that, even if each individual accusation proved to be untrue, the professional propagandists knew that the sheer weight of negative attack would ultimately culminate in affecting the perception of the people.

Shameful, ABC NEWS (Brian Ross & Stephanopoulos) Do No Investigative Journalism But a Google Search, But Jump to Conclusion that Datk Night Shooter James Holmes Linked to Colorado Tea Party Patriots … Never Contacted Tea Party, Gets it Wrong, ABC News Backtracks & Apologizes

SHAMEFUL, SIMPLY SHAMEFUL BUT WE HAVE BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO IT FROM THE LIBERAL, BIAS MSM …

Exactly what part about investigative journalism do Brian Ross and George Stephanopoulos not understand? The liberal lame stream media was so quick to jump to a conclusion that James Holmes, the ‘Dark Night’ shooter who killed 12 movie go’ers last night and injured 70 while going on his shooting rampage in Aurora, Colorado. So if ABC News did not know it was the same Jim Holmes and did not try to confirm it, why would they have reported it? Can you say liberal irresponsible journalism?

 

ABC News has suggested that James Holmes — the suspect in today’s shooting in Aurora, Colorado — may have a connection to the Tea Party.

ABC’s Brian Ross reported this morning that there is “a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site… talking about him joining the Tea Party last year.”

“Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes,” Ross cautioned “but it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.”

Great investigative journalism ABC, how difficult could it really have been to have called the the Colorado Tea Party to confirm that it was the same Jim Holmes? But no, you media hacks were salivating and wanted to believe it was a Tea Party member so that you could rail against them. Do you people have any conscience? Obviously you have no journalistic integrity. This is the extent of ABC News investigation, a google search that got them the following web page. Not one call or email to the Colorado Tea Party Patriots to confirm that it was the same individual. Nope, no second source by ABC, they just went to the accusation hoping they were correct. As stated at Breitbart.com. what else would we expect from a corrupt media complex with a political agenda?

On Good Morning America, ABC News’ Brian Ross and George Stephanopoulos suggested that the Tea Party might be connected to the mass shootings early this morning in an Aurora, CO theater during a screening of the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises. The mainstream media attempted to blame the Tea Party for the Tuscon shootings in January 2011, shortly after Republicans swept the midterm elections. Now, in the critical 2012 elections, the mainstream media seems poised to do the same–and ABC News has led the way.

Here is the exchange between Brian Ross and George Stephanolpoulos:

Stephanolpoulos: I’m going to go to Brian Ross. You’ve been investigating the background of Jim Holmes here. You found something that might be significant.

Ross: There’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.

Stephanolpoulos: Okay, we’ll keep looking at that. Brian Ross, thanks very much.

So what was the result of ABC’s irresponsible journalism … they made 54 year old Jim Holme’s life a living hell. They never once attempted to contact him on his web page to see if they had the wrong person. That would have been too much effort. Why know they truth when you can smear the Tea Party?

What kind of idiot makes that kind of statement?” Holmes told TheDC. “Really, seriously, how do we take a journalist seriously when it’s pretty clear they really haven’t done any sort of check on their facts?”

Holmes has the unfortunate coincidence of sharing a similar name with James Holmes, the 24-year-old accused of going on a rampage during a midnight showing of the “Dark Knight Rises” in Aurora, Colo., early Friday morning.

Because of this, ABC News reporter Brian Ross, appearing on “Good Morning America” on Friday, suggested the suspect could be a member of the tea party, citing the fact that “there’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea Party site.”

But Ross had the wrong guy: The tea partier he was referring to is this 52-year-old former law enforcement officer. ABC News was forced to apologize online.

Holmes told TheDC that ABC News didn’t call him before going to air and he still hasn’t heard from them or received a direct apology. “No, not a thing,” he said.

ABC News would later apologize for their rush to judgement and poor reporting. However, their initial apology was hardly one at all. ABC News stated, tried to spread the blame around to “social media” and “members of the public”.

An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. Several other local residents with similar names were also contacted via social media by members of the public who mistook them for the suspect.

Wait, after the firestorm from their screw up, ABC finally admits their fault of outing the wrong Jim Holmes and that they never vetted the story. It’s not that you failed to vet a story, you creating journalistic malpractice.

Editor’s Note: An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.

Wanna see what happens when you use ABC’s Brian Ross methodology of investigative journalism? From Glenn Beck come brilliant satire … Why does ABC New have employed an individual arrested for murder and sending sexually explicit photos and tests to teen girls? Hmm?

Charge one: Chris Davis was brutally killed and murdered he was found facedown in his pool. Brian Ross has been arrested for the killing of Chris Davis

Charge Two: Brian Ross sent explicit photos and text messages to two teenage girls

I looked the last two charges up.  It’s true.  Brian Ross really DID send explicit photos and text messages to two teenage girls:

FONTANA: Random texter asked little girls for photos and sex, police say
BY RICHARD BROOKS The Press Enterprise STAFF WRITER
Published: 19 March 2012 11:46 AM

Explicit photos and text messages to two girls has landed a 37-year-old Mentone man in jail on suspicion of sex-related charges, according to Fontana police and jail records.

Brian John Ross was arrested at 5:35 p.m. Thursday at Sierra and Merrill avenues in Fontana and booked on suspicion of contacting a minor and arranging to meet with a minor via the Internet for the purpose of having sex, jail records show. His bail is $50,000.

On March 13, a 10-year-old Fontana girl received a text message from a man who would later identify himself as a 38-year-old named “Brian,” police said in a written statement.

Brian sent the girl a face shot along with a photo of himself exposed, according to the statement.

“Brian asked (the girl) to send him pictures of herself,” according to the statement.

Similar text messages were sent to the girl’s 13-year-old cousin from Redlands.

And, yes, it seems that it Brian Ross is not just a child molester, but a murderer:

5 arrested in connection with St. Albans pool death
Posted: Jun 28, 2012 8:02 AM PDT Updated: Jul 01, 2012 2:01 PM PDT
By Matt Henson

ST. ALBANS, Vt. – Thursday morning, St. Albans Police started rounding up suspects in the death of Christopher Davis, 22.

“Chris grew up with all of these people, they were friends his whole life, he trusted them,” said Samanthajo Assisi, Davis’ girlfriend.

Police say on March 21, Travis Bugbee and Brian Ross, both 23, of St. Albans, lured Davis to the city swimming pool in a plot to rob him. When Davis arrived, the two men allegedly kicked and beat him, took Davis’ money, drugs and other items he was carrying.

“He might have owed people some money for drugs, not these people, and that might be common knowledge,” St. Albans Police Chief Gary Taylor said.

Davis’ body was found in the pool a few weeks later.

ABC’s Brian Ross ought to be fired – either for being a murderous child molester or maybe just for being a sloppy propagandist posing as a “journalist.”  George Stephanopoulos – who began his career as a Democrat media spinmeister – ought to be fired for his key participation in Brian Ross’ “journalism.”

There have been at least 7,379 Occupy arrests (see also here).  Versus basically ZERO for the Tea Party.  And yet the media long ago “decided” that the Tea Party was dangerous and the Occupy Wall Street movement was NOT dangerous out of their leftist propagandist bias.

“ABC News” is an oxymoron.

The Price Tag For Obama’s Being Able to Boast Is Hundreds Of Thousands Of Taxpayer Money For Every Chevy Volt Sold

Just imagine for a second if George Bush had this giant of an albatross hanging off his neck.  Good thing it’s Obama’s complete policy and worldview failure so the mainstream media can “spin” failure into magnificent success:

Media Fail: Chevy Volt Makes NO Money, Costs Taxpayers Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars Per Car
By Seton Motley | July 17, 2012 | 09:54

The Jurassic Press is missing much in their reporting on the $50 billion bailout of General Motors (GM). The Press is open channeling for President Barack Obama – allowing him to frame the bailout exactly as he wishes in the 2012 Presidential election.

The President is running in large part on the bailout’s $30+ billion loss, uber-failed “success.” And the Press is acting as his stenographers. An epitome of this bailout nightmare mess is the electric absurdity that is the Chevrolet Volt. The Press is at every turn covering up – rather than covering – the serial failures of President Obama’s signature vehicle.

The Press has failed to mention at least five Volt fires, myopically focusing on the one the Obama Administration hand-selected for attention.

The Press has failed to mention that the Volt fire problem remains unsolved. Is it the battery? Is it the charging station? Is it the charging cable? All of the above?

GM and the Administration don’t know. And the Press ain’t breaking their necks trying to find out.

In more recent news, the Press has almost as one hailed the June Volt sales increase.

GM’s Volt Sales Up in June

Surprising June Sales for Volt

Chevy Volt Leads US Plug-In Car Sales

Chevy Volt Sales Increases

Volt Records Second-Best Sales Month

The Press has for the most part failed to mention how pathetic this “second-best sales month” actually is. And even when one Dinosaur does, the unwarranted enthusiasm is palpable.

GM sells 1760 Volts in June, double from 2011

Wow. Huge number.

The Press also fails to put this pathetic tally in perspective.

The Chevy Cruze is basically a Volt without the dead-weight, flammable 400-lb. electric battery. Which makes it $17,000, rather than the Volt’s $41,000.

Chevy in June sold 18,983 Cruzes – more than ten times the number of Volts. And that’s down 1/3 from last June’s 24,648.

But that feeble Volt tally has the Press all revved up.

And speaking of the Volt’s ridiculous $41,000 sticker price:

According to multiple GM executives there is little or no profit being made on each Volt built at a present cost of around $40,000. Furthermore, the $700 million of development that went into the car has to be recouped.

Get that? GM makes “little or no profit” on the Volt.

So it makes perfect sense that GM would spend millions of dollars advertising it, does it not? No ideological or campaign intent there, eh President Obama?

Look, I get it, it’s fun. I just spent $1 million – of your money – advertising free air. On which my profit margin is just as good as GM’s is on the Volt.

Only my ads didn’t have a song, or a dance. We just aren’t as cool as the Volt.

I mean, it’s so cool – it can travel back in time to inspire the production of cars before it even existed.

I mean, it’s so cool – it can travel back in time to offer the exact same technology as a car from 1991. And the exact same electric battery range as a car from 1897.

We’re talking retro-grade cool.

But wait – there’s so much more.

(A)dd $240 million in Energy Department grants doled out to G.M. last summer, $150 million in federal money to the Volt’s Korean battery supplier, up to $1.5 billion in tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives, and some significant portion of the $14 billion loan G.M. got in 2008 for “retooling” its plants, and you’ve got some idea of how much taxpayer cash is built into every Volt.

Speaking of those “tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives” – as of November of last year that tally all by itself was $250,000 per Volt sold.

And that excruciating pain is ongoing. Again, a Volt sold makes GM no money – but costs We the Taxpayers a $7,500 bribe – I mean “incentive.” Oh – and President Obama wants to jack that bribe to $10,000 per.

I guess it’s good news after all that Volt sales remain so anemic.

And with GM’s new 60-day return policy, it looks like you can buy a Volt and cash the $7,500 bribe check. Then return the Volt – and keep the $7,500 bribe cash. How’s that for Taxpayer coin stewardship?

Keep all of this outrageousness in mind when next the Jurassic Press joins with the Obama Administration in celebrating the Chevy Volt.

But it (allegedly) helps President Obama get reelected. And nothing would make the Press happier – and for that there’s (almost?) nothing they won’t do.

Pardon me while I go get myself $7,500 of free money by “renting” a Volt long enough to cash my Obama bribe check. 

It’s the least I can do to help destroy America while helping re-elect Obama – which ironically also means destroying America.

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

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.

If Evil, Orwellian Republicans Come To Power, They Will Force Terrorists To Drink ‘Ensure’ – And Mainstream Media Asks How Can That Not Be Evil?

This bit is almost as funny as it is revealing about just how psycho and how radically propagandist your average mainstream media “journalist” is:

Lesley Stahl Insulted to No Longer Have a Monopoly on the News
May 07, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This is gonna be close to my all-time favorite or this is close to my all-time favorite. I can’t say it is my all-time favorite ’cause I don’t remember them all, but this is clearly in the top five. On April 29th, Lesley Stahl, 60 Minutes, interviewed Jose Rodriguez who is the chief interrogator of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed at Club Gitmo. And I love this bite because, as I listen to it, I firmly believe that Jose Rodriguez knows exactly who he’s dealing with and is having fun with her and she doesn’t know it.He knows he’s talking to somebody who thinks raising your voice at somebody is torture. He knows he’s dealing with somebody who thinks that he committed atrocities and crimes. So he describes the harmless activities he engaged in with Sheikh Mohammed as “dire techniques,” these “dire techniques.” That’s my favorite line in this bite: “Oh, yes, it was one of those dire techniques.” Here it is, her question. “So what happens? Did the Sheikh break down? Does he cry? Does he fall apart after your waterboarding?”RODRIGUEZ: No. He gets a good night’s sleep. He gets his Ensure. By the way, he was very heavy when he came to us and he lost 50 pounds.STAHL: What, his Ensure? You mean like people in the hospital who will drink that stuff?RODRIGUEZ: Yes. Dietary manipulation was part of these dire techniques.STAHL: So sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation, I mean, this is Orwellian stuff. The United States doesn’t do that.RODRIGUEZ: Well, we do.

RUSH: “Well, we do.” (laughing)

“Dietary manipulation was part of these dire techniques.” Dietary manipulation! Ensure. A product that keeps cancer patients alive in the hospital considered “torture” by Lesley Stahl. And I think Jose Rodriguez knew it and when he calls “dietary manipulation … part of the dire techniques,” he was taunting her and she didn’t even know it! So I pointed this out. We played it two or three times, maybe more. We played it again just now. This past Thursday in New York City at the New York Historical Society, they had a panel discussion there about the 2012 presidential race. The moderator… (interruption) Snerdley, stop screening for a minute. You gotta listen to this in case we get phone calls about it. New York Historical Society on Thursday, Lesley Stahl moderating a panel discussion on the 2012 presidential race, said this about the campaign and the media…

STAHL: Here’s something that’s happened over the last couple of years that’s frustrating to me, and that is when you say “we, the press” and then the press is this big salad bowl, and who’s in the press? It’s Rush Limbaugh is in the press. Fox is in the press. MSNBC. I mean, all these people who are devoting themselves to little slices of the pie are in with the so-called “mainstream media.” We’re all the same thing now to the public. We’re not the same thing.

RUSH: Awww. See, they used to have a monopoly. And now the monopoly is gone. And I’m now considered to be in the same business as Lesley Stahl. I can’t tell you how insulted I am. That’s right: A little slice of the pie. All these people have little slices of the pie. I would dare say that the EIB Network rivals CBS News, CBS Evening News. I’d say our audience is larger than the CBS Evening News is. I don’t think there’s any question about it if you want to start talking about slice of the pie.

But that’s not the point.

The point is, I am the turd in the salad bowl. That’s what the point is. I am the [Baby Ruth] in the swimming pool at Caddy Shack. And she just can’t stand it because the salad used to be pure and clean and now, ladies and gentlemen, their monopoly has been destroyed. And it’s no longer ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post manipulating the minds of the American people. Now there’s too much freedom in the media. But I guarantee you I got mentioned first because I keep playing this sound bite with Jose Rodriguez that “dietary manipulation” is part of their “dire techniques.”

I love it.

I just love it.

END TRANSCRIPT

My personal favorite segment:

RODRIGUEZ: No. He gets a good night’s sleep. He gets his Ensure. By the way, he was very heavy when he came to us and he lost 50 pounds.

STAHL: What, his Ensure? You mean like people in the hospital who will drink that stuff?

RODRIGUEZ: Yes. Dietary manipulation was part of these dire techniques.

STAHL: So sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation, I mean, this is Orwellian stuff. The United States doesn’t do that.

RODRIGUEZ: Well, we do.

The actual terrorists love Lesley Stahl, mind you.  And given what she thinks about how evil it is to give terrorists “Ensure,” you can kind of understand why.

Lesley Stahl joins Andrea Mitchell in showing us how “journalism” has become an outright disgrace of leftist propganda.

Hopefully, you agree with me that mainstream media “journalists” ought to be regarded with contempt and suspected of being liars and propagandists unless and until they prove otherwise.