Posts Tagged ‘biased’

Disgraced NPR CEO: Anything That Reveals How Pathologically Biased Journalists Are Is An ‘Abomination’

April 7, 2011

Allow me to first point out that the blatant media bias and distortion of news for the sake of ideology (propaganda) has been going on in America for a very long time at the hands of progressives.  As I’ve said before:

As icon of leftwing journalists Walter Lippmann put it:

“News and truth are not the same thing.”

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

As Walter Lippmann 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”???

That same warped elitest propagandist mindset is not only alive and well in “journalism” today; it IS journalism today.  It is in fact the zeitgeist of the mainstream media.  Which is what makes the mainstream media so truly dangerous to our republic and to the experiment in democracy itself.

According to now-disgraced NPR CEO Vivian Schiller, the rest of the elite media establishment is

”terrified” of being the next NPR, Planned Parenthood or ACORN…and speculated that the goal of these stings is to instill fear. “It’s terrifying,” Schiller said, that’s their “objective.”

Schiller the progressive liberal shill also said to a question about how concerned she was about hidden video cameras that could reveal the TRUTH of what is going on inside these corrupt organizations:

Extremely concerned. I think it’s an abomination. I mean, this kind of tactic — for somebody to attach the word, some are calling this a form of journalism, this is not journalism. You don’t ensnare people; you don’t entrap people with hidden cameras; you don’t pretend to be somebody who you’re not. This is, I don’t know what this is, but it’s got nothing to do with anything that resembles the journalism that I know. And it’s very troubling, it’s very troubling and I think, I worry in particular about the impact it will have I think because of this latest ACORN and Planned Parenthood had come before this, I think with this NPR sting, I don’t know what else to call it, uh, I think that now everybody that I have talked to in the media is on the lookout thinking, “Who’s next? Are we next?” And I worry about how that will have an impact on people’s behavior because they are in fear that every conversation, everything they do might be, you know, not what it appears to be. It’s terrifying.

Vivian Schiller is appalled.  And she damn well should be.

Until now, the only legitimate targets of journalism were pretty much conservatives and Christians.  It is a crime against the “journalism that she knows” to target liberal people or organizations.  The media was free to hide its own motives even as it used its power to destroy everyone else by exposing theirs.  And that status quo was how things were supposed to remain forever, as far as shills like Schiller were concerned.

Vivian Schiller indignantly says, “you don’t pretend to be somebody who you’re not.”  And I would agree with that.  Which is why I ask of Vivian Schiller, NPR and every other mainstream media outlet, “How DARE you deceitfully pretend to be “objective” when you were never anything even remotely close to being objective?

Let’s look at the groups that Vivian Schiller said the elite media doesn’t want to join. 

NPR:

The teflon armor protecting NPR as somehow being “objective” began to seriously crack when they fired Juan Williams (the ONLY black man at the virtually all-white NPR, for what it’s worth) for stating his opinion when he said that he got a little worried when he boarded a plane and saw a bunch of Muslims.  Their reasoning against this violation of far-leftwing politcal correctness was that journalists should only state facts, not their opinions.  And Vivian Schiller suggested that Juan Williams needed to see a psychiatrist.

It didn’t matter that there were numerous counter-examples to NPR’s  self-righteous “just the facts” posturing.  An article entitled “NPR’s Double Standard Exposed” has them.  My favorite was this one:

One of the most notorious liberal haters on NPR is Nina Totenberg. She is the legal affairs correspondent. In 1995, she said that is there was “retributive justice” in the world, the late North Caroline Senator Jesse Helms would get AIDS or his grandchildren would get AIDS. She still has her job.

But her liberal expression of hate toward Jesse Helms was clearly “just the facts, ma’am.”  And hers was only one of about ten blatant examples of NPR hypocrisy in its reasoning in firing Juan Williams.

Then there was billionaire über-über hardcore leftist activist George Soros giving $1.8 million to NPR to hire “journalists.”  No sign of bias here, folks.  Please return to your domiciles or we shall be forced to shoot you.

Then there was the revelation that NPR senior executive Ron Schiller had made remarks such as:

During the meeting, Ron Schiller talked about how the Republican Party had been “hijacked” by the Tea Party.

“The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved with people’s personal lives,” he said.

Schiller described that movement as “white, middle America, gun-toting,” and added: “They’re seriously racist people.”

Ron Schiller went on to lament what he called an “anti-intellectual” component of the Republican Party.

“Liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced than conservatives,” he said.

But that’s okay, because you can count on the objective journalists over at NPR to treat the “anti-intellectual” “seriously racist” conservatives the same as those “more educated, fair and balanced liberals.”

And as much as that is, that’s hardly all.  Because there’s also the story about the fact that NPR was willing to accept donations from a terrorist group and help them protect themselves from a federal audit:

New video released Thursday afternoon indicates National Public Radio intended to accept a $5 million donation from fictitious Muslim Brotherhood front group Muslim Education Action Center (MEAC) Trust – and that the publicly funded radio network might have helped MEAC make the donation anonymously to protect it from a federal government audit.

When a man posing as Ibrahim Kasaam asked, “It sounded like you were saying NPR would be able to shield us from a government audit, is that correct?” NPR’s senior director of institutional giving, Betsy Liley, responded, “I think that is the case, especially if you are anonymous. I can inquire about that.”

Which takes us full circle: because how DARE Juan Williams fear terrorists when terrorists might be NPR’s best donors (at least after George Soros)???

That slime like Vivian Schiller would call ANYONE an “abomination” is a sick, twisted joke.  If she wants to see what an “abomination” looks like, she should spend a whole lot less time labelling other people and a whole lot more time looking in a mirror.

Planned Parenthood:

Remember, the people who expose the TRUTH about these totally righteous organizations are “abominations” to someone like NPR’s very recently ex-CEO Vivian Schiller.  Let’s see how “righteous” Planned Parenthood is.

This is the virtuous group whose exposure Vivian Schiller – as the CEO of an objective organization of journalists – believes is immoral to expose:

The Advocate released a transcript of a taped conversation between an actor posing as a white racist and wanting to make a donation, and a woman identified as Autumn Kersey, vice president of marketing for Planned Parenthood of Idaho.

  The transcript reads:

Actor: I want to specify that abortion to help a minority group, would that be possible?
Planned Parenthood: Absolutely.
A: Like the black community for example?
PP: Certainly.
A: The abortion – I can give money specifically for a black baby, that would be the purpose?
PP: Absolutely. If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that the gift was earmarked for that purpose.
A: Great, because I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don’t want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name.
PP: Yes, absolutely.
A: And we don’t, you know we just think, the less black kids out there the better.
PP: (Laughs) Understandable, understandable.
A: Right. I want to protect my son, so he can get into college.
PP: All right. Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I’ve had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I’m excited, and want to make sure I don’t leave anything out.

  Lila Rose said the actor asked each PP branch contacted about lowering “the number of black people,” and none expressed concern about the racist reason for the donation.

  Last spring, in another sting on Planned Parenthood, Lila posed as a 15-year-old seeking an abortion at a PP abortuary in Santa Monica, California.

  Lila was accompanied by James O’Keefe, who acted as her 23-year-old boyfriend. In a recorded conversation, the employee encouraged Rose to invent a birthday to allow Planned Parenthood to avoid reporting a case of statutory rape.

“If you’re 15, we have to report it. If you’re not, if you’re older than that, then we don’t need to,” the employee said. “Okay, but if I just say I’m not 15, then it’s different?” Rose asked. The employee responded, “You could say 16…well, just figure out a birth date that works. And I don’t know anything.”

“Planned Parenthood has been concealing statutory rape and child abuse cases for years,” Rose said. “This video reveals what really goes on behind closed doors in Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics.”

But, of course, you can’t forget that Vivian Schiller fired and then called mentally disturbed her only token black.  So I’m sure you can readily understand just why Vivian Schiller would think a thoroughly racist enterprise such as Planned Parenthood would be so legitimate.  Even if that racist organization also happens to be in the business of protecting child molesters.

And that’s not all there is to say about Planned Parenthood, by any means.  There’s also the fact that they lied and cheated their way into government funding by falsely claiming they performed female health services such as mammograms when in proven fact they don’t.

What was that thing you said about “you don’t pretend to be somebody who you’re not” again, Vivian?  How about pretending to care for women when all you want to do is profit from murdering their innocent babies?  How about pretending to care for women so you can illegitimately suck up government money?  Other than the fact that you are a truly vile human being and a disgrace to genuine journalism, why doesn’t that “pretending” bother you?!?!?

The people who run Planned Parenthood belong in prison for a whole hosts of reasons.

But the only people who are an “abomination” are the people who exposed the moral monstrosity of Planned Parenthood when the “journalists” at NPR would never have dreamed of doing such an “un-journalistic” thing.

The mainstream media needs to demonize those organizations that expose how truly vile and evil outfits like NPR and Planned Parenthood are, so that we can go back to the status quo in which only conservatives and Christians needed to fear having something they did wrong blared all over the planet.

ACORN:

ACORN is my favorite of all these groups.  After all, the fact that they are a criminal voter fraud organization that protects child sex slavery rings has simply got to take the prize.

Two more ACORN officials were fired Friday after a second video surfaced showing staffers in the community organizers’ Washington office offering to help a man and woman posing as a pimp and prostitute acquire illegal home loans that would help them set up a brothel.

The firings came less than 24 hours after another pair of ACORN officials from the group’s Baltimore office were canned for instructing the “pimp” and “prostitute” how to falsify tax forms and seek illegal benefits for 13 “very young” girls from El Salvador that pair said they wanted to import to work as child prostitutes.

Both of the encounters were videotaped on a hidden camera wielded by 25-year-old independent filmmaker James O’Keefe, posing as the pimp — tapes that have ignited calls for investigations of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

That was the “second” such firing of an ACORN official just to show the first one wasn’t a fluke.

And then there was still another example of ACORN officials working to help a pimp and a prostitute illegally obtain government assistance to purchase a house so they could set up a brothel with underage sex illegal immigrant sex slaves.

And, remember, this is a noble outfit to a Josephine Goebbels such as Vivian Schiller; it’s only the people who expose ACORN’s corruption when an NPR would never do so in a billion years who are “abominations.”

And let me remind you that these three incredibly corrupt and immoral organizations had operated for years without the mainstream media so much as trying to turn over one rock to expose these disgusting disease-spreading worms.

It is beyond galling that Vivian Schiller would be angry only at the people who finally exposed them when despicable “journalists” such as the George Soros-bought-and-paid-for media frauds at National Public Radio would never have dreamed of doing so.

Liberals who have come to control the press have for decades used their power to protect their friends and punish their enemies.  And they are beyond outraged that they are losing that power to interlopers such as Fox News and independent citizen reporters who are actually daring to expose the truth that the mainstream media has successfully kept covered up for years and years until now.

Vivian Schiller reminds me of a poem that I now paraphrase:

“They served their god so faithfully and well
That now they see him face to face in hell.”

One day you and virtually every single other mainstream media journalist will burn in hell, Vivian Schiller.  Until then, I hope you all live in absolute terror that people like James O’Keefe and Lila Rose will continue to expose you as the societal maggots feeding on the carcass of America that you truly are.

Advertisements

Newsflash: Wikileaks Verify That Saddam Hussein Had WMD AFTER George W. Bush Invaded Iraq

February 28, 2011

It’s really quite remarkable what the mainstream media gatekeepers somehow think isn’t worth reporting.

I would not have come across this story at all had I not been investigating the site of Questioning with boldness (his article link is here). 

Here’s the story Questioning with Boldess links to (I add the bold font):

WikiLeaks docs prove Saddam had WMD, threats remain
by Seth Mandel
October 28, 2010

WikiLeaks’ latest publication of Iraq war documents contains a lot of information that most reasonable people would prefer remained unknown, such as the names of Iraqi informants who will now be hunted for helping the U.S.

And although the anti-war left welcomed the release of the documents, they would probably cringe at one of the most significant finds of this latest crop of reports: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

“By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” Wired magazine’s Danger Room reports. “But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.”

That is, there definitively were weapons of mass destruction and elements of a WMD program in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq when U.S.-led coalition troops entered the country to depose Hussein.

Predictably, the liberal media did their best to either ignore the story–like the New York Times and Washington Post did–or spin it. It’s not an easy choice to make, since ignoring the story makes you look out of the loop and hurts your reputation as an informative publication, yet spinning the story means actively attempting to confuse and mislead your readers. CBS News chose the latter.

“WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs: No Evidence of Massive WMD Caches” read the headline on CBS News’ online. Here is the story’s opening paragraph:

“The nearly 400,000 Iraq war log documents released by WikiLeaks on Friday were full of evidence of abuses, civilian deaths and the chaos of war, but clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction–the Bush administration’s justification for invading Iraq–appears to be missing.”

There are two falsehoods in that sentence, demonstrating the difficulty in trying to spin a clear fact. The Bush administration’s justification for invading Iraq was much broader than WMD–in fact, it was similar to the litany of reasons the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which specifically called for regime change in Iraq as the official policy of the United States government (Iraq had repeatedly violated international law, Iraq had failed to comply with the obligations that ended the Gulf War, Iraq had circumvented U.N. resolutions, etc.).

“If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow,” President Clinton said in February 1998. “Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”

The second falsehood was the phrase “appears to be missing.” In August 2004, American soldiers seized a toxic “blister agent,” a chemical weapon used since the First World War, Wired reported. In Anbar province, they discovered a chemical lab and a “chemical cache.” Three years later, U.S. military found buried WMD, and even as recent as 2008 found chemical munitions.

This isn’t the first time Iraq war documents shattered a media myth about Saddam’s regime. In 2008, a Pentagon study of Iraqi documents, as well as audio and video recordings, revealed connections between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Called the Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP), the report–based on more than 600,000 captured original documents and thousands of hours of audio and video recordings–proved conclusively that Saddam had worked with terrorist organizations that were plotting attacks on American targets around the world.

One way to identify a media narrative in deep trouble is the naked attempt to draw conclusions for the reader instead of just presenting the story. The CBS report on the leaked WMD documents is a case in point of the reporter telling the reader what they ought to think, knowing full well that otherwise the facts of the case would likely lead the reader to the opposite conclusion.

“At this point,” CBS reporter Dan Farber desperately pleads, “history will still record that the Bush administration went into Iraq under an erroneous threat assessment that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing and hoarding weapons of mass destruction.”

That’s as close as the liberal mainstream media will get to admitting they were wrong. It’s their version of a confession. The myth that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was WMD-free has met its demise.

And these weapons couldn’t simply be the lost scraps of Saddam’s attempts to destroy the stockpile, as Ed Morrissey points out.

“Had Saddam Hussein wanted those weapons destroyed, no lower-ranking military officer would have dared defy him by keeping them hidden,” he writes. “It would have taken dozens of officers to conspire to move and hide those weapons, as well as a like number of enlisted men, any and all of whom could have been a spy for the Hussein clique.”

But now that we’ve answered the question of whether there were actual weapons of mass destruction in Iraq–there were and are–we may have a more significant question to answer: Who has possession of these weapons now?

“But the more salient issue may be how insurgents and Islamic extremists (possibly with the help of Iran) attempted to use these lethal and exotic arms,” Wired reports. In 2006, for example, “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons were brought in from Iran.

“That same month, then ‘chemical weapons specialists’ were apprehended in Balad,” the Wired report continues. “These ‘foreigners’ were there specifically ‘to support the chemical weapons operations.’ The following month, an intelligence report refers to a ‘chemical weapons expert’ that ‘provided assistance with the gas weapons.’ What happened to that specialist, the WikiLeaked document doesn’t say.”

Seth Mandel is the Washington DC based correspondent of Weekly Blitz.

Figures.

Given the fact that Saddam Hussein obviously had WMD prior to the invasion (it is a documented fact of history that he used them against Iran in their war, and it is a documented fact of history that Saddam used WMD on his own people in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1988).

It is also a fact of history that prior to George W. Bush invading Iraq in 2003, inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq by Saddam for over four years, having been expelled by Saddam Hussein in 1998 during the Clinton administration.

Given the simple fact that Iraq is a country the size of Texas, and given the fact that Iraq knew full well exactly when US and allied satellites passed over their country, and given the fact that Saddam Hussein’s own generals believed that Iraq in fact did possess WMD –

March 13, 2006
NY Times: Saddam’s generals believed they had WMD to repel US
By Jim Kouri

The New York Times reports that just prior to the United States lead invasion, Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein informed his top generals that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons three months before their war plans meeting.

According to the Times report, the generals all believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were counting on the WMD to repel the oncoming coalition invaders.

While reporting on this story, Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly said he is not surprised that the CIA and other nations believed Saddam had WMD since Hussein’s own generals believed they had them. He said that this proves President Bush did not lie and that he believed what Saddam’s own generals believed — that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD.

O’Reilly also rhetorically asked when the Democrat Senators Reid, Kennedy, Durbin and others would apologize for calling President Bush a liar about WMD. He also asked when liberals such as Barbara Streisand, Jessica Lange and other would apologize to Bush for calling him a liar. […]

– you will explain to me how we know that Iraq didn’t have WMD how, exactly???

I mean, you dug up the entire country, did you?

Given the type of murderous crazy dictator thug Saddam was, and given the fact that he clearly had possesed WMD, and given the fact that he had in fact kicked out all the weapons inspectors from a country the size of Texas for more than four years, it would seem a no-brainer that the burden of proof clearly rested with the side that claimed that Saddam Hussein had entirely abandoned his WMD arsenal and program.  Which pretty much proves my contention that liberals truly don’t have any brains.  They are people who literally will themselves to be truly stupid; they determine to believe a depraved and asinine worldview that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality by sheer brute force of will.

That explains why so many American university professors continue to be Marxists (nearly one in five!!!) even though Marxism couldn’t have been proven to be more completely wrong and immoral both as an economic and as a political system.

Liberals are people who live in a bubble-world.  They live in a world of their own theories, and hate the real world.  And if the facts don’t fit their theories, well, they dominate the media and get to write the news stories, don’t they???

It is a good thing that journalists are atheists, because that means they don’t have to worry about the fact that one day they will burn in hell forever and ever for their rabid bias and dishonesty.

Katie Couric Demonstrates How Moral Idiot Left Will Surrender America To Sharia

January 6, 2011

Glenn Beck (and yes, I know I’ve already lost most liberals, who believe that no matter how factually true something is, if it comes from Fox News or a Glenn Beck, it can be demonized and disregarded) had the following to say about renowned profoundly progressive journalist Walter Lippmann from his book Phantom Public:

In fact, the media is engaged in open propaganda for this administration. Not merely bias — what are you, nuts? They’re following a proud heritage of propagandists before them that began, as you might expect, if you’re a regular watcher of the show, around the time of — oh, I don’t know — what is his name? Woodrow Wilson.

One of Wilson’s close advisors was this guy, Walter Lippmann. He is a journalist who considered himself an icon among the liberal media, and the liberal media agrees. His methods and ideas are taught in college to our journalism students to this today.

You should read some of his books. I wonder if the people in his college that love him so much have actually read — oh, I don’t know — this is an original. This one is “Phantom Public.” You should read it. Spooky!

But what they teach in college is public opinion. These are things that these journalists are taught as a good thing. Quote, “News and truth are not the same thing.”

And quote, “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.”

In other words, you’re just too stupid. You don’t know it’s bad for you so we need a group of guys like this. Who has a big head and he can explain everything so we know it’s all for our own good.

Thank you very much. In fact, he believes that most citizens — and you’re going to love this, quote, “are mentally children.” Did you say that? Or barbarians. I can’t imagine why the journalists don’t just think this is guy is awful.

Things are starting to make sense now, aren’t they, about why you see journalists report the things that they do and treat the American people the way they do. Yes, they needed to be guided by intellectuals such as Walter Lippmann.

And hence the origin of the mainstream media class of journalistic snobbery; they’re better than you, they’re liberal as hell (and hellish as liberals), and whatever they think is right merely because they think it.  And of course they’re better than the 80% of the country who don’t share their values.

Katie Couric And Mo Rocca Show Us Why We’re Going To Lose Our Freedom To Sharia
Posted on January 1, 2011 by John L. Work

With thanks to Doug Powers over at Michelle Malkin’s site Hey.  Want to know why we’re headed toward losing this War against the forces of Islam – the same ones that declared eternal war on the World of Infidels way back in the 7th Century?  Watch this CBS video clip, featuring Katie Couric as the host, with Mo Rocca as a guest, in a discussion on the alleged terrible bigotry and hate that Katie says America has exhibited toward Muslims (I removed their stuttering in my transcription):

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/31/katie-couric-maybe-we-need-a-muslim-version-of-the-cosby-show/

KC:  I also think sort of the chasm between, or the bigotry expressed against Muslims in this country has been one of the most disturbing stories to surface this year.  Of course, a lot of noise was made about the Islamic center – mosque down near the World Trade Center.  But I think there wasn’t enough sort of careful evaluation of where this bigotry toward one point five billion Muslims world-wide, and how this seething hatred many people feel for all Muslims, which I think is so misdirected and so wrong, and so disappointing.

MR:  And you know one thing, I don’t know about you or either of you guys, but I’m pretty smart, and I cannot tell you…

KC:  (interrupts) We’ll be the judge of that, Mo.

MR:  …I mean I went to really fancy schools.  I cannot tell you five things about Islam.  I know almost nothing about a major world religion that sits at the intersection of so many issues that are undeniably relevant to all of us.  And I’m embarrassed.  I mean I know nothing about Islam.

KC:  Maybe we need a Muslim version of The Cosby Show.

MR:  Interesting.

KC:  I know that sounds crazy, but the Cosby Show did so much to change attitudes about African Americans in this country and I think sometimes people are afraid of things they don’t understand.  Like you, Mo.  You know, you’re saying you don’t know that much, your not afraid of it, but that you’re sort of, don’t have enough knowledge about it, but maybe if it became more part of the popular (inaudible)…

MR:  (interrupts)  Well, I think that religion should just be taught as an academic subject in public schools…

KC:  (interrupts)  I totally agree with you.

MR:  …much more.  The fear of it, it’s so misguided and the interpretation of separation between church and state

KC:  Alright.  Let’s change the subject in something a little less heavy.

End of clip

I rest my case.  For years this is what we’ve been force-fed by our media and by our elected officials about Islam.  Mindless apologist pabulum.  Ignorance.  Abject denial of reality.  Obstinate refusal to do a little homework and study.  If these so-called media icons had any real grip on the actual doctrines and practice of Sharia in Muslim states, they’d be damned afraid of it taking over here in the U.S.A.

Better to die free than to submit to Sharia.

It doesn’t really matter what the issue is; the mainstream media is waaaayy to the left of the rest of the nation’s values in its “reporting.”

So, for example, we can take the very issue that Katie Couric is lecturing America on – the Ground Zero mosque – and we can take her own CBS network’s polling.

From CBS:

NEW YORK (CBS 2) – Most Americans are against building a controversial mosque near Ground Zero, a CBS news poll has found.

According to the poll results,  only 22 percent of Americans surveyed think it’s appropriate to build the mosque and cultural center two blocks away, on Park Place.

On the other hand, 71 percent who responded said they think it’s not appropriate for the facility to go up so close to the World Trade Center site.

But, don’t you see?  “Most Americans” are QUOTE “mentally children,” and  so your beliefs and values can be disregarded.  And if the Katie Courics of the world simply have to flat-out lie to you, well, you’re too freaking stupid to understand the truth anyway.  And, as the great progressive big government bureaucrat Pontius Pilate famously asked, “What is truth?” (John 18:38), anyway?*

And public opinion needs to be managed by that “specialized class” of liberal elites.  Because, after all, liberal progressives have replaced God with themselves and with their superior ideas.  Just ask them.

Fellow progressive elitest “god-complexer” Bill Maher put the mindset well:

MAHER: Right, right. Uh, but, yeah, I mean, you know, they’re talking about 60 votes they need. Forget this stuff, 60…. You can’t get Americans to agree on anything 60 percent. Sixty percent of people don’t believe in evolution in this country.

He just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said, they’re stupid. Just drag them to this.  Get health care done, you know, with or without them. Make the Gang of Six an offer they can’t refuse. This Max Baucus guy? He needs to wake up tomorrow with an intern’s head in his bed.

That’s the amazing thing about liberals.  They are totally fascists; but they are such complete moral idiots that they don’t KNOW they’re fascists.

It would actually be funny, if these people weren’t so dangerous, and hadn’t amassed so much power and control which has enabled them to decide who wins and who loses.

And so they constantly lecture the right even as they do the above, and even as they try repeatedly to impose their oxymoronically-named “Fairness Doctrine,” and even as they now impose their again oxymoronically-named “Net Neutrality” to gain control over the internet.

But getting back to Sharia: it’s not that the left hates religion (atheism itself is a religion, you know, and “state atheism” is the religion of communism); it’s that the left despises Judeo-Christianity and everything it stands for.  And the left agrees with radical Islam that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  Hence the left is all but openly aligning itself with radical Islam and sheltering the movement by demonizing anyone who would criticize it.  Why?  Because Islam becomes another device by which the left can demonize their more hated enemy, Judeo-Christianity, by depicting it as “intolerant” and “hateful.”   And after Christianity is undermined, liberals believe (naively and stupidly) that they can somehow reason with or appease the Islamists.

Which, again, is something only a true moral idiot would think.

I’m certainly not the only one who has perceived a liberal love affair with radical Islam; and I’m not the only one who has seen a liberal-Muslim axis.  And while liberals are too morally moronic to see themselves in this violent power-worshiping movement, all I have to do is say things like “Weather Underground,” “Black Panthers,” “Students for a Democratic Society,” all I have to do is name liberal icons such as “Che Guevara” or Charles Manson (as I once demonstrated to a particularly rabid liberal jerk once).

The fact of the matter is that liberals love violent revolutionary movements.

It’s funny.  General Eisenhower very prominently used the term “Crusade” – that came right out of Christendom – to describe the Allies’ war with and defeat of the evil forces of socialism (Nazi = National Socialist German Workers Party).  The fact of the matter is that Christendom has been the backbone that has allowed the West to stand up and fight its enemies since the first Crusade.

Which is to say that the day “progressivism” supposedly “wins” in its war on Judeo-Christianity, it will lose itself and all the values such as individual liberty that it never deserved in the first place.  And then progressives will get the totalitarian-tyrant they have always truly deserved.

As I’ve pointed out before, the beast is coming.

Keith Olbermann Demonizes Fox News As Biased; Gets Caught Donating Max Amount To Über-Liberal Democrats

November 6, 2010

Fox News is biased.  It’s advocacy journalism.

But don’t believe me.  Believe Keith Olbermann.  Now there’s a fair-minded journalist for you.

Oops:

Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats
By SIMMI AUJLA | 11/5/10 6:00 AM EDT Updated: 11/5/10 6:22 PM EDT

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely without pay after POLITICO reported that he made three campaign contributions to Democratic candidates.

MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement Friday: “I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.”

Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress and failed Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway ahead of Tuesday’s election.

Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show.

NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions — considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover.

The network originally announced that Chris Hayes, the Washington editor for The Nation, was going to fill in for Olbermann. But the network announced late Friday that Hayes would not be the substitute host, after Hayes’ previous donations to two Democratic candidates in 2008 and 2009 came to light. […]

Olbermann is one of MSNBC’s most recognizable faces, and has emerged as one of the country’s most prominent liberal commentators. A former ESPN star, Olbermann’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” started in 2003 as a traditional news show but evolved into a left-leaning opinion program – and in some ways, led the network into its new identity as the cable-news voice of the left and an attempt to be a counterweight to Fox News. […]

Inside MSNBC, employees were shocked at the news of Olbermann’s suspension. Despite a reputation for a prickly personality off-air, Olbermann was given wide berth inside the network because of his stature – and his ratings. […]

In addition, Olbermann has been a critic of the political donations made by Fox News’s parent company, News Corp., which contributed $1 million each to a pair of organizations trying to defeat Democratic candidates.

You’d think that Olbermann’s head (and the heads of every liberal) would explode from trying to contain all the hypocritical contradictions.

I must point out that this story about Olbermann follows the revelation that “journalists” at a CBS affiliate actively sought to find stories damaging to Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller out of an obviously blatantly partisan and ideological mindset.

As for the News Corp. donation, Keith Olbermann, objective journalist extraordinaire, railed as follows:

Oct. 7 — On his MSNBC show, “Countdown,” Olbermann went after News Corp. and Fox News, highlighting the political donation and describing the network as “a national cable news outlet that goes beyond having a point of view … and actually starts to donate to partisan groups of one party.”

What’s it like to walk around without a single honest bone in your entire body, Keith?

And which Democrats did Keith Olbermann choose to give to?  Was it those decent, moderate Democrats?

Nope.  Rabid, rabid liberals.

Meet Raul Grijalva:

It is well-documented in this space that Raul Grijalva is known for stealing his political opponents’ yard signs, even back in the early days when he ran for school board and Pima County Board of Supervisors.

So should it surprise us that his congressional campaign uses the same dirty tricks?

Read the KGUN 9 story and watch their news report below:

Gabby Mercer, a naturalized American citizen from Mexico, went with a few other military wives to Raul Grijalva’s campaign office to ask Grijalva about his stance on the wars.

What she found shocked her: In the trunk of the car owned by Ruben Reyes — Grijalva’s chief of staff and husband to city councilwoman Regina Romero — was a stack of Ruth McClung signs that he had stolen. So she filed a police report.

Here is page one, page two, and page three of the police report.

Here is the Arizona Daily Star’s write-up:

A campaign volunteer for several Republican candidates filed a Tucson police complaint Wednesday, alleging theft of Ruth McClung’s campaign signs by a staff member of U.S. Congressman Raúl Grijalva.

Gabriela Mercer, 46, said she saw two political campaign signs in the back of district director’s Ruben Reyes’ vehicle.

Mercer, who has a daughter serving in the Marines on her second tour in Afghanistan, had visited Grijalva’s congressional office with a small group of military parents to ask for information about his stance on war. She and two others then headed to his campaign office, hoping to speak with him there.

As Reyes approached them to tell them their issue was being resolved, he opened the back of his sports utility vehicle, where two yard signs were visible.

Mercer, who has volunteered for both Republican congressional candidates McClung and Jesse Kelly, said when she asked why he had them, Reyes became defensive and eventually said he was going to “put them up.”

She said she found it “unbelievable” that a high-ranking staffer would steal a political opponent’s signs.

And what happened to Gabby Mercer?  She came out of a speaking engagement to find a rock had been thrown through her back window.

In addition, this noble candidate who is getting Keith Olbermann’s money was caught committing widespread voter fraud.

And Grijalva is the kind of race-baiter who is not above using racism to attack his Caucasian – or should I say “white bread” – opponent.

Jack Conway?  How about his “Aqua Buddha” ad that was so vile it probably derailed his entire candidacy.  Even the liberal New Republic characterized Conway’s vicious attack piece as “The ugliest, most illiberal political ad of the year.”

As for Gabrielle Giffords, all I have to say is “Nancy Pelosi.”  Giffords has been described as a Pelosi protegee, and was a doctrinaire liberal who voted with Pelosi 94% of the time.

You can see why Keith Olbermann would support such toad.  Because lowlifes flock together.

For a personal note, I don’t mind journalists donating to political causes or to politicians.  In fact, I’m all in favor of it.  It’s not like these “journalists” don’t have political opinions merely because of some network policy against political donations.  I prefer knowing where these people are coming from to having some bogus facade of “objectivity.”

CNN, Media WILL NOT Be Fair In Attacks On Sarah Palin

October 22, 2008

Journalists are slightly above pedophile priests but substantially below cockroaches in my view.  Joseph Goebbels would be so proud of the rabid little vermin filling the ranks of the American media today.  History has shown that propaganda works, and our media today is pushing propaganda to the limit in the name of “objective coverage.”

Sarah Palin has been the target of some of the most unbalanced, unfair, and frankly vicious attacks that any political figure has ever endured.  The media will NOT be fair to her.

Sarah Palin and John McCain HAVE to go on the media to get their message out, even though they know that they will be treated unfairly.  Sarah Palin goes on CNN for an interview and gets this:

GRIFFIN: Governor, you’ve been mocked in the press, the press has been pretty hard on you, the Democrats have been pretty hard on you, but also some conservatives have been pretty hard on you as well.  The National Review had a story saying that, you know, I can’t tell if Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt or all of the above.

PALIN: Who wrote that one?

GRIFFIN: That was in the National Review.  I don’t have the author.

PALIN: I’d like to talk to that person.

GRIFFIN: But they were talking about the fact that your experience as governor is not getting out.  Do you feel trapped in this campaign, that your message is not getting out, and if so who do you blame?

What you will see if you take a moment to look at the facts was that Drew Griffon was patently unfair.  He took a quote out of context in a way that shockingly misrepresented its intent and used it to attack Palin.  National Review has come out and called attention to CNN’s shocking lapse of integrity and objectivity.

If you actually bother to read the National Review piece that Drew Griffon cited to attack Palin, you will see that Byron York offered a marvelous positive piece on her integrity, her intelligence, and her leadership.  It couldn’t have been a more fraudulent representation of York’s words.  CNN and Drew Griffon know that most people are ignorant lemmings who will NOT read the National Review story, and will believe what they are told to believe as the media selectively shapes the narrative.

This is the paragraph that Griffon cites:

Watching press coverage of the Republican candidate for vice president, it’s sometimes hard to decide whether Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, backward, or — or, well, all of the above. Palin, the governor of Alaska, has faced more criticism than any vice-presidential candidate since 1988, when Democrats and the press tore into Dan Quayle. In fact, Palin may have it even worse than Quayle, since she’s taking flak not only from Democrats and the press but from some conservative opinion leaders as well.

Notice that the National Review isn’t saying ANY of the stuff that CNN attributes to it.  That is a complete distortion.  Rather, Byron York is saying that the unfair unbalanced PRESS COVERAGE is saying it.  And then Drew Griffon comes out and proves that Byron York and the National Review are completely right.  They can not be fair, they will not be fair.  They will deceptively and deceitfully take every single piece of information out of context in a way intended to hurt and attack Sarah Palin.  They prove themselves to be the very sorts of rodents that York says they are!

This is what Byron York – who is represented by CNN as saying, and I quote – “The National Review had a story saying that, you know, I can’t tell if Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt or all of the above” – REALLY says about Sarah Palin:

Still, it’s fair to say that overall, Palin’s time in office, from her swearing-in until the moment John McCain picked her to be his running mate, has been a success. And from her handling of the issues she has tackled, it’s possible to see a pattern in the way she approaches governing.

First, she hires well. “There was a pretty good team of people assembled right away to come in and start with her big-picture principles and develop a process and legislation to carry that out,” says Joe Balash. “I would say that her management style is to give her staff, her cabinet, a pretty long leash, but with very high expectations — and she’s not afraid to tell you that you didn’t get it right.”

Second, she is involved with details on some big things, but not on everything. “When it comes to issues that she cares about, that she knows the public cares about, she’s got all kinds of time and prioritizes things in a big way,” says one insider who has worked with her and asked not to be named. “For the mundane tasks of government . . . say, regulations for the Kenai River, she instead looks for recommendations from her cabinet and the regulatory agencies, but she’s not going to get in and argue specific details.”

Third, she is dead set on fulfilling campaign promises. “There was this absolute expectation that if it was an issue that had been talked about during the campaign and there was a particular commitment that she had made, then we had to live up to it, no matter how difficult,” says Balash, “because her big thing was restoring the confidence of the public in state government.”

It should be noted that none of that makes Palin unerringly conservative. Yes, she calls herself a conservative, and she seems dedicated to reducing the size and cost of government when she can, but she’s also perfectly happy to raise taxes on a big, unpopular (oil) company, if that’s what voters want. Her conservatism comes with a substantial portion of populism.

Still, Palin’s record in office has quieted many of those who said she simply did not have the experience or ability to serve as governor. “She’s been in office for two years now and has been fairly successful,” says Gene Therriault, a Republican state senator and an ally of Palin’s, “which either belies the argument that she was not prepared or is an argument for the fact that she is a quick study.”

MSNBC – another haven for cockroaches – piles on, claiming that her negative numbers are way up and saying:

Now, Palin’s qualifications to be president rank as voters’ top concern about McCain’s candidacy – ahead of continuing President Bush’s policies, enacting economic policies that only benefit the rich and keeping too high of a troop presence in Iraq.

Do you get that?  She’s an even BIGGER drag on McCain than George Bush is according to MSNBC!  That is a preposterous and frankly psychologically unhinged thing to say.  Her negative numbers are up because a hysterical liberal media has engaged in a vicious attack campaign against her that has repeatedly broadcasted every single negative thing it could find or invent about her while utterly refusing to provide any kind of positive information.  They want to destroy her, and they don’t care how they do it.

Liberal journalists invented a story that someone had shouted “kill him!” about Barack Obama, and argued that Sarah Palin fanned the fires of hate.  It was picked up by ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, the Associated Press, the New York Times – you name it.  Even Barack Obama personally claimed that that statement had been made, and that Palin and McCain were irresponsible for not containing such hate.  And it was an outright lie.  The Secret Service – which does not tolerate death threats against Presidential candidates – did a thorough investigation.  And reporter David Singleton made it up to hurt Sarah Palin and John McCain.

We are seeing something truly terrifying.  The media – which was empowered by the Constitution to serve as an objective official keeping the political process honest – has entered the political process on the side of one party which is about to take total control due primarily to their own propganda efforts.

With the White House, the Senate, the House, and the media all firmly under the control of liberals – with NO ONE to watch them – we are on the verge of a disaster the likes which have never been seen.