Posts Tagged ‘bias’

Donald Trump’s La Raza (‘The Race’) Federal Judge: Why Is It Okay For Racists To Advance Their Race As Long As That Race Isn’t White?

June 6, 2016

You know that saying, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”?  It’s true, of course.  But Democrats love to think that three or four wrongs DO make a right – and so they love to point a finger of blame for “racism” and everyone is supposed to conveniently forget all the fingers pointing back at THEM.

You liberals want to think that all judges are “objective” or “fair”?  Good; then get behind the six month sentence that Brock Turner’s judge gave him for raping a young woman.  Because we very much live in a day when judges are unjust and unfair every single day.  Judge Persky is a graduate of one of the reliably leftist colleges in America (Stanford, which featured a record of having 90% of faculty stating a political party being Democrats); he belonged to numerous organizations that any good liberal would be proud for belonging to.  And he’s one of YOURS.  And so DONT YOU DARE QESTION WHETHER JUDGE PERSKY AND HIS UNIMPEACHABLE RECORD BEING BIASED OR UNFAIR.

I am so beyond SICK of the rabid hypocrisy that IS every single Democrat in America right now.

Okay.  Close your eyes and imagine the bat poop ape crap that the mainstream media would be in if Barack Obama found himself in trouble with a federal judge who belonged to a group called “The White Lawyers Association of Alabama” who had spent his career ensuring that members of the white race and ONLY members of the white race would get a helping hand into the legal profession.

How do you feel about members of the white race determining to advance fellow members of the white race in exclusion of all other races???

How many Democrats have cheered the prospect of a “Congressional White Caucus” the way they have done with the Congressional Black Caucus?  How many liberals find themselves celebrating the “diversity” of a “National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People” the way they have cheered the “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” (a.k.a., the NAACP)???  Do white people get to have a WET channel – White Entertainment Television – and hand out awards exclusively to white entertainers and praising them for exalting the white race the way the other side does with BET???

For that matter, how many reporters are focusing on the racist angle of Hispanics waving Mexican flags, burning American flags, and then chasing down, surrounding, and beating white people at Donald Trump events???  How is it NOT racist when Mexican-flag-wielding Hispanic thugs beat down white people at political rallies they barged into to suppress???

Why is it okay to be a hard-core racist, providing that the race you are working to advance is a member of the Democrat Party race coalition???  Why does “racism” only work one way (i.e. the way that favors and ALWAYS favors the left)???

If you are a liberal you are a hard-core, racist, bigoted hypocrite.  Period.  End of story.  Your political party has been a documented racist enterprise since the Civil War when it fought a vicious war to keep the institution of slavery.  And it doesn’t matter whether it’s black people or Hispanic people or women or homosexuals or what, you have this obscene, perverted way of setting one group against another group and exalting the interests of that group that you are exalting.  And as long as the other side never dares suggest that they should be able to do what you do every nanosecond of your perverted, depraved lives, everything is okay.

This Judge Gonzalo Curiel is a “judge,” a member of the American legal institution, who has actively assisted illegal immigrants – with the emphasis on that word “ILLEGAL” – to violate the laws of our land because of his racist preferences and his lifelong determination to advance the Hispanic race.

Why is that okay???  Why is ANY of that okay???

Judge Presiding Over Trump University Case Is Member Of La Raza Lawyers Group [VIDEO]
Alex Pfeiffer
Reporter
5:32 PM 06/01/2016

United States District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the man presiding over the class-action lawsuit against Trump University, is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego and oversaw the gift of a law school scholarship to an illegal alien.

In his 2011 judicial questionnaire to become a federal judge, Curiel revealed his history with La Raza. GotNews.com originally reported this Tuesday, and The Daily Caller has independently verified.

Curiel lists “La Raza Lawyers of San Diego” as a legal association he has been a part of in the questionnaire. Curiel’s office at the United States District Court for the Southern District of California confirmed to TheDC the judge’s membership in the group.

Curiel reveals more ties to the group in his questionnaire. He has spoken at two receptions held by La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, the most recent being in 2011. Last year, the group also held a reception for Curiel. The description of the event says, “This year we are proud to be honoring Judge Gonzalo Curiel at our reception and recognizing him for his leadership and support to the community and to our Association!”

United States District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the man presiding over the class-action lawsuit against Trump University, is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego and oversaw the gift of a law school scholarship to an illegal alien.

In his 2011 judicial questionnaire to become a federal judge, Curiel revealed his history with La Raza. GotNews.com originally reported this Tuesday, and The Daily Caller has independently verified.

Curiel lists “La Raza Lawyers of San Diego” as a legal association he has been a part of in the questionnaire. Curiel’s office at the United States District Court for the Southern District of California confirmed to TheDC the judge’s membership in the group.

Curiel reveals more ties to the group in his questionnaire. He has spoken at two receptions held by La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, the most recent being in 2011. Last year, the group also held a reception for Curiel. The description of the event says, “This year we are proud to be honoring Judge Gonzalo Curiel at our reception and recognizing him for his leadership and support to the community and to our Association!”

In addition, Curiel served on the selection committee in 2014 for the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego Scholarship Fund. Six of seven of the recipients of these scholarships ranging from $1500 to $1600 were born in Central America. One of them, Ricardo Elorza, described himself as “undocumented.”

Donald Trump has been critical of Curiel, calling him a “hater” over the weekend. “The judge was appointed by Barack Obama, federal judge. Frankly, he should recuse himself because he’s given us ruling after ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative,” Trump said. (RELATED: Trump U Docs: Employee Calls Program A Huge Scam)

“What happens is the judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that’s fine,” Trump added.

“Our organization has not been involved in organizing any of the anti-Trump rallies, much less encouraged our members or anyone to participate in any illegal activity,” La Raza Lawyers of San Diego told TheDC in a statement Wednesday. “We help empower Latino attorneys, judges and law students, and provide services to the greater local Latino community.”

The National Council of La Raza is the largest Hispanic advocacy group in the nation and has taken a strong stance against Trump. They previously called Saturday Night Live a platform for “hate” for inviting on the New York businessman. La Raza translates to “the race” in English.

La Raza Lawyers of San Diego is not a local chapter of the national organization and take offense to the literal translation of the organization’s name. “Translating our name as ‘the race’ is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect. ‘Hispanic’ is an ethnicity, not a race. As anyone who has ever met a Dominican American, Mexican American, or Spanish American can attest, Hispanics can be and are members of any and all races,” the group writes on its website.

This last paragraph is political correctness at work as much as anywhere I’ve ever seen: There is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION that “La Raza” directly translates as “The Race.”  But go and ask somebody who is Mexican what “La Raza” means.  And while they have to agree that it certainly without any question formally and technically means “The Race,” they may well say by means of rhetorical colloquial excuse, “But in Mexico, it is used to say ‘The People.'”  It is used to describe “The Community.”  And that doesn’t necessarily sound so racist.  Not until you start probing a little bit and you start to narrow down how incredibly NON-inclusive “La Raza” truly is: for instance, when you use that phrase, “La Raza,” are you including Central American people?  Do Central Americans get to be “La Raza” in Mexico too?  Are they “The Community” too?  Not on your life, they aren’t.  Well, what about your fellow Norte Americanos?  What about the gringos?  Do they get to qualify as “The People”???  Absolutely not.

In other words, “La Raza” is pure racist.  It’s used in a racist manner by Mexicans on either side of the border.  And while there has never been and will never be a group of people more skilled at perverting the obvious meaning of words than Democrats – who literally coined the phrase, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” yeah, it’s racist.

So let’s talk a little more about the Central Americans that NO Mexican describes as “La Raza.”  Do you know that Mexico deports more illegal immigrants (from Central America) than the United States deports illegal immigrants from Mexico???  By the very standard leftist Mexicans want to punch America in the mouth with – and America-hating Democrats are only TOO happy to help them do – Mexicans are a terribly racist people.  And oh my gosh, when you start learning how discriminatory, corrupt, and abusive the Mexicans are in how they treat their own illegal immigrants, you start to realize just how truly wonderful a man Donald Trump clearly is compared to the people who are pouring hate all over him.  Because, again, to be a liberal means to be an abusive perpetrator of the most vicious kind of giant hypocrite double-standard there is.  In Mexico, illegal immigrants from Central America are far too often robbed, raped and even murdered by the authorities and virtually nothing is ever done about it.

I belong to a few “communities” myself.  For instance, my main “community” is my CHURCH.  It has both an Anglo and a Hispanic congregation.  And ANYONE who knows me at my church knows that I spend every BIT as much time with the members of the Hispanic congregation as I do the Anglo congregation, if not more.  I also belong to the “community” of my gym as a weightlifter.  And I don’t care what color you are or what race you are or what your ethnicity is; if you like lifting weights and you’re at my gym, I’m probably your friend.  And so Democrats call people like me a “racist” because unlike them I don’t dedicate my life to embracing my race or my racial cause or fomenting divisions when we are all created in God’s image.

But you don’t believe in God, liberal: you believe in racism and socialism and sodomy and murdering six out of every ten black babies before they can make it out of their mothers’ wombs.

So you just go ahead and start scooping our your brains, liberal, because to you being “open-minded” means all your cerebral matter has to be on the ground and you have to stomp on it repeatedly to make absolutely certain that every single brain cell is dead.  Because only that way can you possibly believe the garbage that Big Brother tells you to believe.

That’s how Democrats manage to believe every new story that Hillary Clinton tells about her fascist secret email server even after events prove that every previous story she told about it was an outright lie.  Just as that’s how Democrats manage to believe that bringing in millions of unskilled laborers won’t undermine wages for American unskilled labor even though the LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND is as certain as the law of gravity and when you bring in millions more unskilled laborers to compete with the unskilled labor pool already here, what the hell do you think will happen other than what has very clearly happened???  But that’s okay; as long as you’re racist enough you will somehow believe that illegal immigration is good for America as long as those illegal immigrants aren’t white people who would vote Republican.

Or, to put it another way, “How many white kids has ‘La Raza Lawyers of San Diego’ given a scholarship to???  ZERO.  What percentage of scholarships has “La Raza” given to members of the Hispanic race?  One hundred percent.  Fact.  Fact.  Fact.  Game.  Set.  Match.  And get your morally and intellectual idiotic “The Race” doesn’t mean “The Race” cockroach crap out of here.

This judge is a member of an organization known as “The Race.”  That should either bar him from having anything to do with our legal institution, or it ought to make racism fair game in our system.  Anyone who belongs to that kind of organization has NO business being allowed to even be a LAWYER in our legal system, let alone a sitting judge.  We live in an age of moral idiocy where we can have a judge who belongs to a group called “The Race” being fabricated into some kind of victim of the very thing he’s dedicated his life to.  Gonzalo Curiel has made it his mission in life to exalt and magnify the Hispanic race and pit his race against other races in the shell-game we today euphemistically call “our justice system.”

Donald Trump was hardly the first one to drag race into court and question whether a leftist Hispanic judge can fairly examine a Republican.  Let’s consider what Justice Sotomayor has said pointing out that race most definitely and defiantly affects decisions:

(1) “I accept the proposition that… to judge is an exercise of power and because … there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives — no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging, I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.” – Sonia Sotomayor, 2001

(2) “The aspiration to impartiality is just that — it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” – Sonia Sotomayor, 2001 

So they themselves are saying “there’s NO neutrality.”  And they themselves are saying at best neutrality is merely an “aspiration” that they can set aside as they make “different choices than others.”

Furthermore, we have Democrats PROUD of the fact that they OWN the black vote, the Hispanic vote.  The mainstream media crows about the fact that Hillary Clinton dominates nonwhite voters to the tune of 90% among black voters, and over 70% of Hispanic voters.  This Judge Curiel is a member of a race organization CALLED “The Race” who gives scholarship to illegal immigrants who are in this country in violation of our laws that he was supposed to uphold but refuses to because his racism takes priority ABOVE the law.  So frankly how on earth is it “racist” to say, “This person comes from a racial heritage that is partisan to the BONE and I’m on the other side of that partisan bigot and I’m about to get screwed”???

Justice is SUPPOSED to be blind.  But we have a record of leftist racist judges saying they can’t and they won’t be neutral and objective and fair.  The left, the Democrat Party, ripped the blindfold OFF of Lady Justice.  They did it gleefully; they’re GLAD they did it.  They have demanded that “Justice” be FORCED to see what Justice was SUPPOSED to be blind to.  Back when Justice was blind, a black persona and a white person could appear in court against one another and JUSTICE would decide; and if a rich person and a poor person could appear in court and JUSTICE would decide: ACCORDING TO THE LAW.  Because sometimes black people are BAD people and sometimes white people are GOOD people and sometimes poor people are BAD people and rich people are GOOD people.  And vice versa.  But now Democrats have imposed “racial justice” and “economic justice” on us.  And now the justice equation has been turned into a mockery by the left.

So we have a “judge” who belongs to a group called “The Race” meting out “justice.”  And we’re all supposed to pretend he has the capacity to actually be fair and objective.

“Justice” is now a game of “Wheel of Fortune” where you spin the wheel of judges and hope you don’t end up with one who wants to screw you.

This is literally biblical and America is heading for Old Testament-style JUDGMENT as a result:

Why do You make me see iniquity, And cause me to look on wickedness?  Yes, destruction and violence are before me; Strife exists and contention arises.  Therefore the law is ignored And justice is never upheld. For the wicked surround the righteous; Therefore justice comes out perverted.  “Look among the nations! Observe! Be astonished! Wonder! Because I am doing something in your days– You would not believe if you were told.  For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans, That fierce and impetuous people Who march throughout the earth To seize dwelling places which are not theirs.  They are dreaded and feared; Their justice and authority originate with themselves.” — Habakkuk 1:3-5

Just as depraved and perverted liberal “justice” stems from ITSELF rather than from ANY legitimate moral source whatsoever.  And God will bring JUDGMENT on this nation.

This is the world we live in today in America: there is a certain race of people that are being hunted down and beaten in the streets with impunity because the system itself is inherently racist:

10

Their basic rights such as their fundamental 1st Amendment Right to peaceably gather, is being directly undermined and in fact directly threatened by race groups.  But no police are arresting the wicked; no court is prosecuting them; no judge sentences them for their brutal crimes and their violation of civil as well as basic human rights.

How do you think this white kid feels as he’s running for his life because he exercised his right to attend a free-speech event where he could exercise his right to support his major party political candidate?  Let’s see, there’s a feral judge who belongs to an organization called “The Race” – and not the kid’s race, mind you – trying to cut him off and hold him as a lawyer from Hillary Clinton viciously attacks him from behind.  And on that lawyer’s heels is the mainstream media hoping for a chance to kick the kid when he’s on the ground bleeding.

And there is no police and no REAL “justice” to protect that white kid.  Because even the POLICE acknowledge that they did nothing to protect that white kid because the racist liberal race mobs out to get him were so rabid they were willing to sacrifice Trump supporters like him rather than make that Hispanic and black mob of thugs even MORE vicious:

On Thursday, June 2, 2016, approximately 300-400 protestors gathered outside a Trump rally in San Jose…  However, officers were confronted by some protestors who became violent, aggressive and began to throw objects in their direction. A majority of the violence occurred at the conclusion of the event.   While several physical assaults did occur, the police personnel on scene had the difficult task of weighing the need to immediately apprehend the suspect(s) against the possibility that police action involving the use of physical force under the circumstances would further insight the crowd and produce more violent behavior.  — San Jose Police Department statement

And the Mayor of San Jose – a Hillary Clinton thug named Sam Liccardo – blamed the violence that HIS OWN PARTY’S NAZI STORMTROOPER THUGS WAGED ON INNOCENT PEOPLE TRYING TO PEACEFULLY EXERCISE THEIR FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY on Donald Trump.  It was like saying that it is YOUR fault your face got in the way of my fist and it’s YOUR fault your head got in the way of my jackboot.

Oh, and this is an interesting factoid: the San Jose Police Chief who instructed his officers to allow the beatings of Trump supporters by Hispanic and black thugs is himself affiliated with – you should have guessed it – La Raza.

Oh, and by the way, now that you mentioned La Raza again, SO IS THE HILLARY CLINTON-SUPPORTING LAW FIRM THAT IS BRINGING THE SUIT AGAINST TRUMP.

And Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s “La Raza” very much considers illegal immigrants members of “The Race” or it’s “community” or however the hell these wordgamers want to politically-correct-phrase their racist organization and it’s racist motives.

It was an abject disgrace and a total perversion of anything resembling “justice.”

There was a time in this country when the Klan – formed as the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party, for what it’s worth – would place a noose around a bound black man’s neck.  And as he stood there looking around at all the white, pointy hats before they kicked the stool away from under his feet, he had this vague sense that somehow the deck of “justice” had been stacked against him.

That is what Donald Trump has now seen about a hundred times over as Nazis storm event after event.  When the one damn time one of his supporters got fed up and hit somebody, the entire mainstream media rushed out to blame HIM for the violence.

This is what it looks like to be a white person living in America right now under the most corrupt, lawless, fascist presidency in American history:

6

A white man being chased down and surrounded by a racist mob of Hispanic thugs and beaten in the street while the police do NOTHING to protect him.

You tell me what would happen if a white mob had chased down and beaten a member of a minority group fleeing in terror from a Democrat Party event.

But rest assured that nothing will happen because that man fleeing to escape a brutal beating was white.  And according to the Democrat Party, the Party in Power, White Lives Do NOT Matter.

But you liberals who keep shouting, “It’s always fascist for thee to do as I do to thee!” is a living, screaming proof that we are truly in the last days and Democrats will very soon be worshiping the beast and taking his mark on their right hands and on their foreheads.

The Democrat Party and their thug fascist muscle is so vile that it is absolutely beyond any sanity.  And yet no one in power says or does anything to help the oppressed victims.  Because we have the same mentality the Nazis had with the Jews: “you deserve to get beaten because we don’t like what you represent.”

We live in a time when black thugs host a “Beat Whitey Night” and for some inexplicable reason the police just can’t figure out whether the attacks in which white people are sucker punched by black kids are “racial in nature.”

We live in a time when the Obama Administration issues instructions to “Never bring a lawsuit against a black.” 

We live in a time when the Obama Administration has been caught red-handed implementing a truly Stalinist effort to target and suppress conservative organizations.  And ordered his Internal Revenge Service to use hundreds of IRS lawyers to hide information from Congress.  And government reports tell us that Obama is still hell-bent on his fascist effort to keep targeting every organization that dares not agree with his warped religious and political views.  And the Obama Administration is still playing the most cynical games imaginable with the law.  Because the Obama Administration is a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization if there ever was one.

But what does it matter when Democrats are the most racist hypocrites who ever crawled across the face of the earth???

We live in an age of race riots such as we’ve never before SEEN in America.  Racist leftist groups such as “Black Lives Matter” (as long as those lives aren’t the sixty percent of black babies whose murder is ignored, the overwhelming majority of murdered blacks who are murdered by other blacks, the black lives taken by drug addiction, etc., etc.,) have launched race riot after race riot across the United States.  They have all but shut down policing across America, such that Democrat cities like Chicago are now as bloody as any war zone on earth.  And these racist liberal organizations threaten to unleash race riot hell if Donald Trump is elected:

“Dear white people if Trump wins young niggas such as myself are fully hell bent on inciting riots everywhere we go. Just so you know.” – Prominent ‘Black Lives Matter’ activist and rapper Tef Poe

If this was NOT a racist society, Tef Poe would have been immediately arrested for inciting violence and convicted for making a terrorist threat.  And he would do hard, HARD time as a counter-example to anyone else who would foment race violence in the land of the free and the home of the brave.  But this IS a racist country with racist policies.

Because the Democrat Party today is very little different today than the Nazi Party was yesterday.  Their vicious Brownshirt thugs are EVERYWHERE.  And just like in Germany during the rise of Hitler, it’s only the OTHER side that gets slandered with hate.

This kind of wicked hypocrisy is going to cause a snap; it’s only a matter of time.  America is and has been the most ethnically and racially diversified culture in the history of the world.  And Democrats are cynically exploiting that diversity and fomenting it against the very culture that provided that diversity.  But it will all come crashing down one day: Jesus told us that in the last days, race would rise against race.  He actually prophesied that and I’ve described it before about this racist presidency.  At some point the white race will join the viciousness that has already been well under way, as racist Democrat blacks riot, as racist Democrat Hispanics riot, to get their way and advance their race against the white race in direct effort to suppress white children and seize from them what their parents worked to give them.  But by then it will have been too little, and too late.  And the only thing that will happen is more and more bloodshed as this country collapses into the racial viciousness that has been the heart of the Democrat Party’s plan for at least the last eight years under Obama.

It Is Truly Amazing And Terrifying How The Political Left At EVERY LEVEL Distort, Deceive And Demonize Our Right To Hear The FACTS

May 23, 2016

I have documented multiple times how rank-and-file Democrats have done everything they could to use every means – including infiltration and outright acts of violence – to prevent Americans from participating in the political process according to their 1st Amendment rights to hear a major political figure offer his ideas at a political rally.  It has become so bad that at times, Donald Trump has been forced to climb walls and truck loading docks to enter venues through rear entrances to avoid violent Democrat “protesters.”  And the same media that was all over Donald Trump when ONE Trump supporter struck a Democrat fascist infiltrator who was trying to prevent Trump from speaking to his supporters have done exactly WHAT to confront Democrat candidates over their continuous violence as they go to Trump events and try to violently stop them???

I am so beyond SICK of the abject moral hypocrisy that IS the Democratic Party.  Recently, a bunch of thug Democrats turned violent in Las Vegas, Nevada because they have come to realize that the arbitrary way the Democrat Party picks its candidates is quintessentially fascist.  And while these people are perfectly fine with violent fascism, they want THEIR fascism and THEIR fascist candidate.  So they rioted and demonstrated that they “have a penchant for violence.”  So, being fascist thugs, they “shouted down the keynote speaker, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and others they thought were tilting the rules in Clinton’s favor.”  They “shouted obscenities and rushed the dais to protest rulings.”  And they created “a very dangerous atmosphere that ended in chaos and physical threats to fellow Democrats.”

Now, here’s the thing.  The same damn Democrat fascist thugs have been doing AND CONTINUE DOING the very same damn thing to virtually EVERY Donald Trump rally that they did to DNC crony-capitalist fascist mucky-mucks in Las Vegas.  And all of a sudden it’s “violent.”  But these Democrat Party Nazis already proved they are Nazis when they not only refused to call the violent Democrat thugs out but even praised them and turned them into victims when they were engaging in all the exact same tactics against Donald Trump and his supporters at Republican rallies.

By the same vile argument the Democrat Party and the propagandists masquerading as “journalists” offered, the Democratic Party is evil and violent.  Because after all, if Trump was responsible for the violence of these “protestors,” then surely the Democratic Party is just as responsible when these identical protestors “protest” the identical same way they “protested” Trump events.  Thrown chairs. Screaming speakers down.  Brute intimidation of people trying to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.  Leaked cellphone numbers. Substances intended to look exactly like anthrax people mailed to people.  Death threats spewed across the Internet.  You know, all the traditional Democrat Party Nazi thug tactics plus a couple of new ones.

You tell me how many times Hillary Clinton has been forced to low-crawl under a fence to attend a rally because violent rightwingers would attack her???

The answer to that question as well as the one I ended my opening paragraph with is ZERO to the ten thousandth decimal point.  Similarly, why is it that thousands of Democrats illegally blocking traffic at event after event, chaining themselves to cars at event after event, screaming to drown out speakers at event after event, resorting to frequent violence even against the police who are trying to keep the peace at event after event – and frequently doing ALL Of the above under a foreign country’s flag – is okay but when one Trump guy goes over the top trying to stop the fascist madness it’s an indictment of Trump???  Because we live in a society today that the left has shaped to be even more suppressing of truth and facts and objective process in media coverage and fairness in reporting than it was when Joseph Goebbels ran his Ministry of Propaganda for the Nazi Party.

The cat – which is actually a fascist ferret – is out of the bag now.  We can openly see the left’s intent to destroy the 1st Amendment even as they pursue the destruction of the 2nd Amendment and the clearly defined “right of the people to keep and bear arms” which “shall not be infringed.”  At least until fascists take over.  So we have a liberal writing for the liberal Harvard University saying this:

Harvard writer: Abolish free speech
Woman claims First Amendment threatens liberalism
Published: 1 day ago

A student writer at Harvard University is raising eyebrows after publishing her belief that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.

Sandra Korn, a senior who writes a column for the Harvard Crimson newspaper, thinks radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy, and the First Amendment only hinders colleges from brainwashing students with her viewpoint.

“Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice,” states the subtitle of her Feb. 18 column, in which she insists Harvard stop guaranteeing students and professors the right to hold controversial views and conduct research putting liberalism in a negative light.

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?” Korn asks.

“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.”

You don’t have the right to speak unless a liberal agrees with you.  They have the right to shut you down, to shout you down which includes destroying your career, to punch you down, and the ends justifies the means.  Whether it’s Donald Trump or gay marriage or LGBT bathrooms or anything else.

This is now the official attitude of every single Democrat in any position of influence whatsoever.  And bad, wicked people vote for these fascists.

So we just found out that Facebook – one of the largest sources of “news” for young stupid morons who frankly don’t know a damn thing about reality because liberalism is Satanism – is an outright leftist propaganda source:

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News
Michael Nunez
Monday 9:10am
· Filed to: Facebook

Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.

Several former Facebook “news curators,” as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially “inject” selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant inclusion—or in some cases weren’t trending at all. The former curators, all of whom worked as contractors, also said they were directed not to include news about Facebook itself in the trending module.

In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation. Imposing human editorial values onto the lists of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing—but it is in stark contrast to the company’s claims that the trending module simply lists “topics that have recently become popular on Facebook.”

These new allegations emerged after Gizmodo last week revealed details about the inner workings of Facebook’s trending news team—a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the “trending” module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site. As we reported last week, curators have access to a ranked list of trending topics surfaced by Facebook’s algorithm, which prioritizes the stories that should be shown to Facebook users in the trending section. The curators write headlines and summaries of each topic, and include links to news sites. The section, which launched in 2014, constitutes some of the most powerful real estate on the internet and helps dictate what news Facebook’s users—167 million in the US alone—are reading at any given moment.

“Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending,” said the former curator. This individual asked to remain anonymous, citing fear of retribution from the company. The former curator is politically conservative, one of a very small handful of curators with such views on the trending team. “I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz.”

The former curator was so troubled by the omissions that they kept a running log of them at the time; this individual provided the notes to Gizmodo. Among the deep-sixed or suppressed topics on the list: former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was accused by Republicans of inappropriately scrutinizing conservative groups; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge Report; Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in 2013; and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. “I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news,” the former curator said.

Another former curator agreed that the operation had an aversion to right-wing news sources. “It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is,” said the former curator. “Every once in awhile a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn’t as biased.”

Stories covered by conservative outlets (like Breitbart, Washington Examiner, and Newsmax) that were trending enough to be picked up by Facebook’s algorithm were excluded unless mainstream sites like the New York Times, the BBC, and CNN covered the same stories.

And fat chance of that because the New York Slimes, BBC and Clinton News Network are every bit as biased as Facebook with the same sort of arrogant, self-righteous Ivy League liberals running them that are running Facebook.

Oh, the fascist leftist propagandists deny this ideological and outright dishonest suppression of truth has been going on.  But we have Zuckerberg himself on the record demonizing Trump every bit as much as the most rabid Clinton staffer, and we have Facebook’s own internal communications in which they ask, “What responsibility does Facebook have to help prevent President Trump in 2017?”

Yeah.  It’s not like the site that 140 million Americans get their “news” is rabidly BIASED or anything.

To answer the Facebook question above, how about NONE?  Because if you’re reporting as a NEWS SOURCE, you have a moral and ethical DUTY to merely REPORT the facts according to your own established objective criteria rather than play shenanigans and distort the record with your bias???

Easily proven leftist ideologue Mark Zuckerberg hired leftist ideologues as his “journalists” who then put their thumbs on the scales of every story they weighed to see if it was “trending.”  That’s what happened.

Then there’s the Washington Post, one of the two leading flagships of quote-unquote “journalism.”  We just learned that the leftist WaPo assigned a literal ARMY in journalistic terms of TWENTY REPORTERS to dig up dirt in every phase of Trump’s life:

Woodward: Washington Post Assigns 20 Reporters to Dig Into Trump’s Past
By Greg Richter   |    Wednesday, 11 May 2016 06:56 PM

The Washington Post has assigned 20 reporters to look into every aspect of Donald Trump’s past as the presumptive GOP nominee seeks to become the next president of the United States, famed Post associate editor, Bob Woodward, said Wednesday.

“There’s a lot we don’t know,” Woodward told the National Association of Realtors convention, according to The Washington Examiner. “We have 20 people working on Trump, we’re going to do a book, we’re doing articles about every phase of his life.”

Woodward himself is looking into Trump’s real estate deals, he said, saying that “The New York real estate world is more complex than the CIA.”

Woodward said Jeff Bezos, the Post’s publisher and a Democratic Party donor, has urged the paper to cover all of the candidates thoroughly.

“He said, ‘Look, the job at The Washington Post has to be tell us everything about who the eventual nominee will be in both parties, 15-part, 16-part series, 20-part series, we want to look at every part of their lives and we’re never going get the whole story of course but we can get the best attainable,'” Woodward said.

Woodward, who first exposed the Watergate break-in with fellow Post reporter Carl Bernstein, told the group that the Post also is working to get the “essence” of Hillary Clinton, the expected Democratic nominee. But he said he doesn’t believe Clinton purposely tried to use her private email server to send classified information when she was secretary of state.

“I don’t think anyone feels that there was intent on her part to distribute classified information in a way that was illegal or jeopardized security,” he said.

It’s amazing how subjective bias plays into their “objective” thinking.  And how these self-professing geniuses are too morally stupid to realize what they are doing.  Objectively, Hillary Clinton not only broke but SHATTERED every damn law on the books in her paranoid and fascist determination to establish a secret personal server so she could bypass all public transparency and reporting laws and bypass all security national laws.  And for the damn record, “intent” is totally irrelevant according to the law here, just as “gross negligence” is not a defense.  The question is merely, did Hillary Clinton put classified information on a nonsecure nongovernment device?  And if the answer is “yes,” she committed a federal crime.  Even the leftist Daily Kos – which albeit obviously is rooting for her opponent Bernie Sanders – acknowledges this objective fact.  But what do liberals do?  Let’s put aside the objective facts and focus on the most subjective element of all.  I mean, did they ever give Mitt Romney the benefit of the doubt in terms of his “intent” on ANYTHING they blasted him for???

Consider the Washington Post is trying to tell us that Donald Trump is somehow a new figure and they need to vet him.  Did they assign 20 reporters to dig up every shred of dirt on the totally unknown Barack Hussein Obama in 2008???  Nope.  Have they ever assigned 2o reporters to investigate ANY of Hillary Clinton’s vast conspiracies?  Benghazi?  The secret server?  The hundred million dollars the Clintons siphoned off from the world’s worst human rights abusers?  The fact that Bill Clinton just got caught giving $2 million dollars described for the IRS as “charitable contributions” to a “friend” he is in all likelihood having sex with?  The fact that the Clinton’s have a rather longstanding pattern of giving the VERY SCANT “charitable contributons” from their corrupt Clinton Foundation to political allies?  Keep in mind it is a documented FACT that the Clinton Foundation – officially for tax purposes a charity organization – gives only TEN PERCENT of the billions it is raising for “charity.”  And now we’re finding it goes to whore friends and crony friends.

These are just the very most RECENT facts that we’re learning.

We’re now learning that Hillary Clinton had a longstanding, regular and documented pattern that “show Hillary Clinton could not care less about the security of her communications.”  We’ve got her on the record saying send what by definition was secure information “nonsecure.”  strip the identifying headers saying “classified” all over the top of the page out first, mind out.  To the damn extent that “intent” even matters, how the hell does that not show her INTENT to break the law???  Especially when she was briefed and told and signed her acknowledgement that she was briefed and told what the damn law was.  And broke it over and over and over again anyway???

Now we’ve got Hillary Clinton caught red-handed in the damn act of lying to the American people yet again for like the fifty-trillionth time.  She has steadfastly maintained that she is NOT under FBI investigation but that this is all just a “security inquiry.”

Hillary Clinton for months has downplayed the FBI investigation into her private email server and practices as a mere “security inquiry.”

But when asked Wednesday by Fox News about Clinton’s characterization of the bureau’s probe, FBI Director James Comey said he doesn’t know what “security inquiry” means — adding, “We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do.”

It’s in their damn NAME.  The last I heard it was the “Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION.”  Hillary Clinton is under criminal investigation by the FBI and both she and the damn media are so pathologically dishonest we can’t even be told the damn truth about THAT.

But where the hell are your twenty damn reporters covering the past of Hillary Clinton when there are so many rotting and fresh bodies, so much toxic waste, so many crimes, it is beyond UNREAL???

The same place they’d be if the Washington Post was part of Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda during Hitler’s day.  Nowhere.

This exchange reveals the essence of modern “journalism” and the despicable bias that masquerades as “reporting”.  And how they will go after Republicans tooth and nail and then fascistically back-flip on what they had just sworn was their divine duty the moment a Democrat gets elected in favor of a different objective:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that —

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!

MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

Matthews wasn’t done with his odd new job description . . . An incredulous Scarborough kept pressing, astonished at such a complete 180 from Matthews’s repeated insistence during the Bush presidency that he had to hold the government accountable.

SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?

MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.

Matthews will hardly be alone in that sentiment. Once Obama assumes office, the “speaking truth to power” line we’ve heard so often during the past eight years will be a thing of the past.

It’s so damn dishonest and hypocritical, but to be a liberal, to be a Democrat, means having a soul that SWIMS in dishonesty and hypocrisy.

The thing that makes me so viscerally angry about this is that liberals spent – from the very outset when they tried to delegitimize Bush’s very election as president – eight vicious years savagely undermining every aspect of the Bush presidency, and now react in horror that a conservative would even think of doing the same thing to an Obama presidency.

You go back to the pioneers that liberal journalists built their field upon, such as Edward Bernays:

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

Bernays explained his project this way:

“the very essence of the democratic process” is “the freedom to persuade and suggest,” what he calls “the engineering of consent.” If the freedom to persuade happens to be concentrated in a few hands, we must recognize that such is the nature of a free society.

UNLESS of course a conservative gets to say anything.  THEN he should be shouted down.  Because to be a liberal is to be a fascist hypocrite who lied and said it was a level-playing field when they were so slanting the field that it was beyond unreal.

Bernay’s daughter described her father this way:

“Democracy to my father was a wonderful concept, but I don’t think he felt that all those publics out there had reliable judgment.. that they very easily might vote for the wrong man, or want the wrong thing. So that they had to be guided from above. It’s enlightened despotism in a sense. You appeal to their desires and their unrecognized longings that sort of thing. That you can tap into their deepest desires or deepest fears and use that to your own purposes.”  Ann Bernays said, ““Anyone who disagreed with him, he used the word dope and stupid over and over.  And the masses, they were stupid.”

That’s what we get today from the elite media who call Republicans and especially Trump voters as ignorant and uneducated and stupid and worse.

And Walter Lippmann who defined “journalism” this way:

Walter Lippmann described a “revolution” in “the practice of democracy” as “the manufacture of consent”

Lippmann – the “journalist” par excellance, has a terrifying definition of his profession which could come right out of Lenin:

It follows that two political roles must be clearly distinguished, Lippmann goes on to explain. First, there is the role assigned to the specialized class, the “insiders,” the “responsible men,” who have access to information and understanding. Ideally, they should have a special education for public office, and should master the criteria for solving the problems of society: “In the degree to which these criteria can be made exact and objective, political decision,” which is their domain, “is actually brought into relation with the interests of men.” The “public men” are, furthermore, to “lead opinion” and take the responsibility for “the formation of a sound public opinion.” “They initiate, they administer, they settle,” and should be protected from “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders,” the general public, who are incapable of dealing “with the substance of the problem.” The criteria we apply to government are success in satisfying material and cultural wants, not whether “it vibrates to the self-centered opinions that happen to be floating in men’s minds.” Having mastered the criteria for political decision, the specialized class, protected from public meddling, will serve the public interest — what is called “the national interest” in the webs of mystification spun by the academic social sciences and political commentary.

The second role is “the task of the public,” which is much more limited. It is not for the public, Lippmann observes, to “pass judgment on the intrinsic merits” of an issue or to offer analysis or solutions, but merely, on occasion, to place “its force at the disposal” of one or another group of “responsible men.” The public “does not reason, investigate, invent, persuade, bargain, or settle.” Rather, “the public acts only by aligning itself as the partisan of someone in a position to act executively,” once he has given the matter at hand sober and disinterested thought. It is for this reason that “the public must be put in its place.” The bewildered herd, trampling and roaring, “has its function”: to be “the interested spectators of action,” not participants. Participation is the duty of “the responsible man.”

Which is to say that you have the right to shut up and stand aside if you are not hysterically screaming the same vileness that our elite, godless masters are spouting.  This has – as Noam Chomsky put it – “an unmistakeable resemblance to the Leninist concept of a vanguard party that leads the masses to a better life that they cannot conceive or construct on their own.”

Elsewhere Chomsky has this brilliant observation about the nature of the intellectual left:

Hume was an astute observer, and his paradox of government is much to the point. His insight explains why elites are so dedicated to indoctrination and thought control, a major and largely neglected theme of modern history. “The public must be put in its place,” Walter Lippmann wrote, so that we may “live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd,” whose “function” is to be “interested spectators of action,” not participants. And if the state lacks the force to coerce and the voice of the people can be heard, it is necessary to ensure that that voice says the right thing, as respected intellectuals have been advising for many years.

The end game of the left, of its’ “journalism,” of its’ twisted definition of “tolerance,” is this as I have defined it:

Political correctness is not just a leftist way to make overly-sensitive people feel better. It was designed by early Marxists in Russia and the left continues to execute the Orwellian tactic today: if you can control words, you can control thought; if you can control thought, you can control actions.  “PC” is an enormous, sophisticated and highly-coordinated effort by elitist intellectuals to “fundamentally transform” Western culture as we know it by  redefining it – by shaping the “acceptable” language people are allowed to use – and thereby dictating the parameters of cultural arguments.  And people with incredibly radical agendas have been exploiting this tactic for decades and it has succeeded.

Ultimately what these “respected intellectual” will advise will lead to this:

It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. — Revelation 13:16-17

The unwashed masses are being betrayed by these elites who profess themselves to be wise, but are fools (Romans 1:22).  We were warned by the Word of God, “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ (Colossians 2:8).  But these deluded fools hate the Word of God with a rabid passion.  And that is why they impose abortion when Psalm 139 among other passages clearly teach that the unborn babies that are being murdered are innocent human beings created in the image of God and literally formed by God in that womb.  That is why they impose homosexuality when Romans chapter one could not be more clear that any society that does this is demanding that the wrath of a holy God be poured out upon it.

We are now learning that THOUSANDS of emails that were just hanging fruit on Clinton’s unsecured server are now in the possession of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR).  They are hoping that the American people are stupid enough and wicked enough to elect Hillary so they can blackmail her into betraying the United States.

We are on the verge of actually electing a president who will be blackmailed into selling the soul of the United States of America to Vladimir Putin and Russia.  And NO ONE is talking about how Hillary Clinton betrayed America.

But don’t worry.  If Donald Trump every so much as tied his shoes improperly, you’ll know all about it on every television program, every newspaper and every magazine.

 

 

The Leftist Hypocrite Train Continues Chugging Along, Destination Fiery, Agonizing Hell.

November 9, 2015

Rest assured I will get to the Ben Carson story that is all over the place.  Let me warm up to it.

So Carly Fiorina appeared on the View to hold the liberal witches on that program accountable for their shrill attacks against the Republican woman running for president in which, among other things, her face was attacked as a “demented Halloween mask.”

Here was how the View characterized the vicious personal attack against a Republican woman by shrews who have made it abundantly clear that they rabidly hate Republicans:

Co-host Joy Behar was visibly upset that her comments about Fiorina’s face were offensive to the female Republican presidential candidate.

“I don’t get why any candidate is exempt from my comedic jokes,” Behar.

Well, here’s what I don’t get, Behar: why do YOU believe that YOU should be exempt from your awful partisan ideologically rabid attacks???

I don’t have a transcript, but I can accurately sum up Behar’s position thus: she’s a COMEDIAN, you see.  And while Donald Trump should be viciously attacked for saying the SAME EXACT THING that the View said, he’s NOT a comedian.

We call this a double-standard.  We also call it a fascist passive-aggressive tyranny trip by a loathsome jug of fecal matter.

The same View that believes – you know, because they believe they’re “funny” and the rapidly shrinking audience of “the toxic environment” that is The View agree with them – believes that Donald Trump should be shouted down.  I mean, he’s had his own television program that was a hell of a lot more successful than The Poo, but Whoopie Cushion Goldberg and Joyless Behar have decreed that they are funnier than him regardless of what a far larger audience than theirs thinks.  So off with his head.

Do I have the right to speak out about the wickedness of homosexuality?

What if I speak what they call my hatred in a “funny” way.  Do I then?

NO! they shriek.  Absolutely NOT.  This “comedic exemption” where only true “comics” (as defined by the ideological left) means that you’ve got to be funny only in the politically correct manner.

There is no comedic exemption to your fascist views against actual free speech, ye cast of feminist warthogs.  Either we ALL have the right to say what we want to without being attacked for it, or NONE of us do, most especially if you sit on a show that should have been cancelled five years ago.

For the record, Donald Trump is a “comedian” too.  He’s supposed to host the comedy program Saturday Night Live, which proves it.  One of the reasons his attacks against the other Republican candidates work so well is that he pulls them off with a comical flair and brilliant comedic timing.

Donald Trump is a better comic than Whoopie Cushion Goldberg or Joyless Behar have EVER been: his enormous wealth proves it.

But when Donald Trump espouses what he considers “The View,” does he get to say his spiel without criticism?  Not from ideological liberals and not from YOU, Joy Behar, you rabid hypocrite.  Where’s his comedic exemption to the left’s criticism the way you propose you ought to be exempt from the right’s criticism?

But of course, that’s just one of the many examples of stops the Rabid Hypocrite Liberal Choo-Choo makes.  Here’s another one:

The media is going after allegedly false statements that Ben Carson has made about his life the way a type-A personality terrier who thinks it smells a gopher digs holes in the back yard.  The gleeful report from Reuters is “Carson LIED.”

The reality is much more nuanced than the story reveals.  In fact, Ben Carson was “the top ROTC student in the City of Detroit.”  He met with General William Westmoreland, who was one of if not THE most powerful general in the Army, having just returned from command of all US forces in Vietnam.  And according to Carson, Westmoreland promised “the top ROTC student” that if he applied, his application would most certainly be granted.

So the headlines trumpeting Carson “admits fabricating” kind of skip a lot of facts that kind of at least help you understand why Ben Carson would say that he was “accepted” at West Point when all he had to do to have that status was turn in an application that he decided to pass on.

Politico demonstrated to any objective follower of media that it is blatantly partisan in its hithobs.  It walked the story back without every having the decency to admit it got the story wrong or even WAS walking it back.

It’s called “Gotcha.”  And the media plays it best against conservatives, and rarely ever plays it at all against liberals.

Now even Politifact – and you need to understand that while Politifact DOES do good work, it generally “fact checks” from a leftist perspective – acknowledges that Ben Carson is the honest one and Politico is the dishonest one.  They rank his defense as “mostly true” which means that Politico has to be at LEAST “mostly false.”

You find that Politico and much of the left-wing media that reported this story flat-out LIED about what Ben Carson said in order to dishonestly frame him as a liar.  Carson never SAID he’d been admitted to West Point; he never said that he’d been accepted at West Point; what he said was that he was “offered” a full scholarship and the dishonesty the media used to slander him is amazing.

The same Reuters that joyfully trumpeted the “Carson Lied” article called Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi very real pile of dishonesty and lies “the zombie scandal.”  Which is precisely why Marco Rubio in that leftist assassination attempt also known as the CNBC debate caricatured the mainstream media as “the biggest and most powerful super PAC of all” working for the Democrat Party.

I’ll give a couple of examples of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton NEVER being similarly scrutinized for FAR WORSE deceit in their academic careers.  But let me work on another aspect of Hillary Clinton and the mainstream media caught covering for her first.

Hillary Clinton got caught dead-to-rights, red-bloody-handed, smoking-gun-in-her-gunpowder-residue-tested-hands LIE over Benghazi.  There is absolute NO QUESTION AT ALL that Hillary Clinton said one thing to the victims over the caskets containing the murdered bodies of their loved ones one thing and her own daughter and the foreign minister of Egypt another thing.  As part of an overall incredibly cynically dishonest campaign strategy of the Obama administration to lie about what was very clearly a TERRORIST ATTACK AGAINST THE UNITED STATES by “fundamentally transforming” it into a “spontaneous demonstration.”

Let’s look at the timeline:

At the day and time of the attack in Benghazi, literally AS the TERRORIST attack was underway against the US compound, Hillary wrote:

Lied1

Hillary Clinton’s exact words the day of the attack, literally as the attack was underway:

“…there is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as-Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility for.”

The very next day after the attack, Hillary wrote to the Egyptian foreign minister and categorically stated:

Lied2

Again, Hillary Clinton’s EXACT WORDS: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.  It was a planned attack — not a protest.”

And later that same day, Hillary wrote to her daughter and said:

Lied3

Her exact words again: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda-like group.”

So what did Hillary say to the families of the victims literally over the victims’ dead bodies when they returned to America on September 14, 2015:

Tyrone Woods’ father (who took notes about their meeting): “I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand. And she said we are going to have the film maker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son…’She said — the filmmaker who was responsible for the death of your son’…”

Sean Smith’s mother: “She’s absolutely lying. She told me something entirely different at the casket ceremony. She said it was because of the video.”

Sean Smith’s uncle
: “Mrs. Clinton really has a problem embracing the truth.”

Glen Doherty’s sister: “When I think back now to that day and what she knew, it shows me a lot about her character that she would choose in that moment to basically perpetuate what she knew was untrue.”

THREE FAMILIES out of the four murdered men specifically claim and have consistently claimed from DAY ONE that Hillary Clinton told them that it was a damn Youtube video and NOT the terrorist attack that it is now documented as FACT that she KNEW was the truth.

Now let’s look at some more emails from the State Department the same damn DAY that Hillary Clinton was saying what she KNEW to be an incredibly cynical and depraved LIE to the murdered victims’ families literally over their dead bodies:

It turns out, three days after the Benghazi attack, on Sept. 14, 2012, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli specifically warned the State Department in an email not to promote the idea that an anti-Muslim YouTube video was the cause of the attack.

The embassy issued this warning for two reasons: one, it was not true. And two, by calling continued attention to the video, anti-American sentiment in Libya was inflamed, where the video had not been a factor to any significant extent.

“[O]ur view at Embassy Tripoli is that we must be cautious in our local messaging with regard to the inflammatory film trailer, adapting it to Libyan conditions,” wrote an embassy official whose name was redacted from the Sept. 14, 2012 email.

“[I]f we post messaging about the video specifically, we may draw unwanted attention to it,” the official said. “And it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence.”

Let’s continue with the unraveling White House timeline and the fact of the most wicked lie imaginable as it unfolded:

In this light, it is worth recalling how many times members of the Obama administration promoted a narrative that was not only apparently a concoction, but also potentially a match set to a tinderbox of anti-American hatred.

September 12: Clinton and President Obama issue statements condemning both the video and the attacks.

September 13: Press Secretary Jay Carney condemns video and violence at a news conference.

September 14: The bodies of slain Americans return to Andrews Air Force Base. Obama again blames the YouTube video.

September 16: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appears on Sunday talk shows and says the attacks were provoked by the video, exclusively.

September 25: Obama appears at the United Nations, denouncing “a crude and disgusting video that sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”

September 27: The “Innocence of Muslims” film-maker Mark Basseley Youseff is arrested and denied bail for a “probation violation.”

Why did the administration go to all this trouble? A memo, sent by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said that one of the “goals” of Rice’s appearances was “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not in a broader failure of policy.”

Yet, as noted by Pete Hoekstra, former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in his new book, “Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya,” the attack in Benghazi was “the culmination of a foreign policy on Islamic terrorism that was grounded in wishful thinking and self-delusion.”

With every revelation, this tragic policy failure is becoming ever clearer.

It is frankly EVIL the way the mainstream media has flocked around Hilary Clinton and said that the day of her testimony before Congress in which her greatest ignominy was factually established was “actually” the greatest day of her political career.  And it is EVIL that the Washington Post subsequently did a quibbling “fact check” about Marco Rubio’s claim that “Hillary Clinton lied” when it is in FACT a FACT that she DID lie.  As it is easy to demonstrate as I just did above.

Hillary Clinton lied and directly participated in a campaign of lies by the most dishonest administration in the history of the republic.

I submit that Marco Rubio’s claim not only exposed the vicious dishonesty of Hillary Clinton but also the vicious ideological propaganda that masquerades as the face of “journalism” today when he said during the vile media hitjob “debate” (there’s NO debate that the CNBC debate was unfair).  Rubio pointed out during that communist show-trial masquerading as a “debate”:

“I know the Democrats have the ultimate Super PAC, it’s called the mainstream media,” Rubio said. “Last week, Hillary Clinton admitted she sent emails to her family saying ‘Hey, this attack in Benghazi was caused by Al qaeda-like elements.’ She spent over a week telling the families of those victims and the American people that it was because of a video. And yet, the mainstream media is saying it was the greatest week in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It was the week she got exposed as a liar. […] But she has her super PAC helping her out: the American mainstream media.”

Rubio declared the mainstream media the ultimate Super PAC.  And thank you, Washington Post, thank you, Reuters, thank you, CNBC for proving it is true.

But Ben Carson’s so-called “lie” matters to these LIARS????  Again, to put it in credit-card offer terms, from Ben Carson’s perspective, had he turned in an application, he was already pre-approved for an appointment to West Point based on his ROTC-award status and based on a four-star general’s assurances.  So a brilliant young black man who had already shown his stuff in the military universe through ROTC would certainly get.  But he decided not to go, so he didn’t fill out the application.  But he “lied” or “fabricated” because what he said wasn’t completely technically true, screamed the mainstream media.  Even though it turned out that in actual fact Ben Carson HAD NEVER ACTUALLY claimed that he had been admitted to West Point – he merely claimed that he had been offered a full scholarship (which any appointment automatically would have essentially been). And any unbiased reader can readily understand why he would have explained it in that common parlance of “offered a scholarship” versus “offered an appointment.”  It was the MEDIA that lied about this story; not Ben Carson.  But Hillary Clinton’s outright lies about coming under sniper fire when it is a FACT that she lied about that, her outright lies about her family history that all four of her grandparents were immigrants when in FACT only one was, her lie about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary when there is simply no way that could have been true given that when Hillary Clinton was born/named, Sir Edmund Hillary was a nobody, her lie about her daughter being at ground zero on 9/11 when it is a FACT that she was not, etc, none of those lies matter to our elite media class.

How about this one given the fact that supposedly Ben Carson’s “scholarship” is such a travesty of truth: Hillary Clinton actually claimed that she had tried to enlist in the Marines.  And then with NOTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT SHE HAD EVER TRIED TO DO SO, Team Clinton switched the story from Marines to Army.  But there’s no reason to buy that load of manure, either.  But so what if Hillary lies on a far more egregious basis in the span of a single afternoon than Ben Carson ever has in his entire life combined?

What about Barack Obama’s college days?  What about the fact that there is no possible way that a stoner like Obama says he was with the poor grades Obama said he had NEVER would have got into Ivy League schools such as Columbia and Harvard without some kind of serious shenanigans.  And we’re talking about ILLEGAL shenanigans.  What about the fact that Obama’s time at Occidental took place during an incredibly awful grade-inflation scandal?  What about the fact that Obama’s college records are STILL sealed and the media has refused to investigate any of it???

Why is it the same damn leftist propaganda media that is going tooth and claw after Ben Carson has steadfastly stood against any attempt by any body to see or hear the tape of Obama at an incredibly controversial event where PRO-TERRORIST CAUSES were clearly espoused???  The Lost Angeles Slimes has repeatedly now said that we would only find out the truth about Obama over their dead bodies.

How can this same media that is so rabid to protect Obama against the truth being revealed be so rabid to destroy Carson by fabricating their story?

I’ve documented this before, and so only need to copy-and-paste, but leftwing journalists of today come from a very uber-defined belief that they are NOT charged with merely reporting the facts – because they’ve been taught to believe that the unwashed masses are far too stupid to be trusted with the facts – but that their role is to shape mass culture and mass opinion with their superior perspective as our masters:

As icon of leftwing journalists Walter Lippmann put it:

“News and truth are not the same thing and must be clearly distinguished.”

Which of course allows the mainstream media to misrepresent the truth in the guise of reporting “the news” in order to stimulate the public to act “responsibly” NOT out of truth and any true “picture of reality,” but rather out of the journalists’ opinion of what we need to know in order to think or do what the journalist believes the public ought to think or do.

As Walter Lippmann believed:

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.

Which gives the mainstream media elite who stand above the rest of us mere mortals the right to serve as “gatekeepers,” and prevent the people from learning anything that might otherwise cause them to discover that conservatives have it right and liberals have it dead wrong.

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

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

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

We live in an age just before the coming of the beast where a spirit of fascism is determined to use the unholy power of wicked government to take over and dominate our lives.  And there are a lot of people who are functioning as priests of this new unholy religion of Government as Savior and Lord and Master.

There are only two paths that this nation can now take: the Auschwitz train ride to hell on earth as we follow the media to Democrat Party fascism and totalitarianism, or literally to hunt down every single Democrat down with dogs and burn them alive.  We’re most definitely not going to do the latter, and so therefore the former is ultimately going to be our fate and the cause of our national doom.  We can’t rid our nation of the living disease that Democrats are, and so like a virus they will continue to infect the host organism of America with cancer until that host collapses and dies an awful death.

The beast is coming.  The beast, a.k.a. the Antichrist, is identified both in Old Testament prophecy (Ezekiel and Daniel) as well as in the New Testament.  There are things going on RIGHT NOW that tell anyone with wisdom that we are truly IN the very last days that these Books prophetically and staggeringly described.  We are in the time just before the War of Gog and Magog described in the last days prophecy of Ezekiel 38.  The two nations described as leading this demonic end-times attack against Israel have NEVER both been where the Book of Ezekiel said they would be – until TODAY as both Russia AND Iran are in Syria to the north of Israel.  I’m not playing games with renamed nations: When Russia was Scythia and when Iran was Persia, these nations were never where they are right now before in all of human history.  But they’re both there together now.  Just as the Bible said would happen in the very last days when it prophesied that these two nations in the last days would lead an all-out attack against Israel leading a host of nations that today are ALL Islamic republics.

The Antichrist will be a “master of dark sentences,” “a master of intrigue.”   This according to the Book of Daniel that prophesied the coming of Alexander the Great a full 200 years before his birth in such terrifyingly accurate prophetic description that skeptics are forced to say that the Book had to have been written after the fact when there is NO evidence that it was and great evidence that it wasn’t.  As just one example, the record of antiquity documents that Alexander somehow read the very prophecies that the skeptics claim weren’t written until after his conquestAlexander became a friend to the Jews whose prophecies had inspired him and given him the confidence that he would in fact succeed in the most grandiose conquest in all of human history, and invited them to Alexandria when he built that city in 331BC.  It was in that very city that the Septuagint – the translation into Alexander’s Greek of the Hebrew Old Testament – was completed.  Getting back to the coming Antichrist, he WILL be the ultimate big-government tyrant that Democrats are so eagerly seeking; he will be the fulfillment of all of their dreams.  Because he – like all liberals – will believe the end justifies the means, he will be the ultimate craftsman of lies and deception.

I actually believe that Ben Carson – who has been one of the three Republicans I have most hoped would emerge as our eventual nominee along with Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz – will probably be destroyed by this revelation of his less-than-perfect honesty.  Even though, when you look at the whole story, you ought to be able to understand why he said it the way he said it.  The reason is not merely the unholy attack by the mainstream media, but ultimately because Republicans care about honesty and integrity and the truth the way that no Democrat has in very nearly my entire lifetime.  Conservatives don’t put up with dishonest people the way liberals do.  Democrats at this point in this incredibly degenerate party’s history not only don’t mind liars, they DEMAND them.  Their is no honesty or integrity or virtue or decency in their shriveled souls whatsoever.  They have no God; they have only Government to worship.  Jesus said He came to testify to the truth, and everyone who was of the truth listened to Him; Democrats responded with Piss Christ  –

piss fax

And they are STILL responding that way as they piss on The Word of God that Jesus as the Word revered and commissioned.  If Jesus believed it, Democrats believe the exact opposite; if Jesus stood for it, they stand against it.  They are as determined to advance their god – the State – as much as the Islamic radicals are determined to advance their god Allah.  And both gods are the one and same unholy person: the devil.

Hell is coming.  And if you’re a Democrat, if you’re a mass-murdering sodomy worshiper, you’re on the train taking you right to it and right through its gates.

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).


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 629 other followers