Posts Tagged ‘CNN’

Who Won The Obama-Romney Debate Last Night: A Closer Look At The Post-Debate Poll Shows It Wasn’t Even CLOSE.

October 17, 2012

Here’s an interesting article which has the virtue of laying out the most important facts in a very few words:

CNN Poll: Obama wins overall, Romney wins many issues
Oct 16, 2012
by Carla Marinucci

The major post debate polls are showing most debate watchers think President Obama was the winner — and a typical finding comes in the CNN post-debate poll of registered voters who actually watched the debate. They were 33 percent Democratic and 33 percent Republican — which means it’s weighted a bit to include about 8 percent more Republicans than the voting population as a whole.

Bottom line: by 46-39 percent, the CNN.com poll respondents called Obama the winner. But asked who did the debate make you more likely to vote for, the respondents were tied between Romney and Obama, 25-25 percent.

Still, Romney won in other key areas:
*On who would better handle the economy: 58 percent Romney; 40 percent Obama.
*On who would better handle health care: 49 percent Romney; 46 percent Obama
*On taxes: 51 percent Romney; 44 percent Obama
*On who is a stronger leader: 49 percent Romney; 46 percent Obama
*On who is more likeable: 47 percent Obama: 41 percent Romney
*On who cares more about your life: 44 percent Obama; 40 percent Romney
*On who answered more directly: 45 percent Romney; 43 percent Obama

Okay, first the sampling of Republicans versus Democrats that Marinucci mentions.  It is incredibly interesting to me that CNN is giving Democrats an eight-point advantage in their sampling formula.  Do you know what the balance between Democrat and Republican voting was in the historic Obama wave election of 2008?  It was +7 Democrat.  CNN says it’s going to be +8 this time.  It’s really amazing when you stop and think about it: CNN and the other polling organizations that have such an oversampling formula for Democrats are literally predicting that this election will be even BIGGER for Obama than it was in 2008 when he was the messiah and everybody was blaming Bush and nobody could blame Obama because he promised hope and change.  Is that what you think?  Seriously?  Do you believe that the masses are even crazier for Obama now than they were four years ago?  I sure as hell don’t.

Okay, so the CNN poll shows that by a seven-point margin that Romney blew the doors off in the last debate, “Obama won the debate.”  You might remember that first debate – when Romney destroyed Obama by 50 damn points.

Well, here’s the question, when it’s time to vote, do you believe that voters will ask:

Who won that second debate?  The poll says maybe Obama did.  And the first debate that Romney won by fifty points is meaningless but that second debate was huge.  I’ll vote for Obama…

Or do you think they will ask:

Who will do a better job handling the economy?

If it is the second thing, like every sentient being (sorry Democrats, I know that rules you out) thinks it is, Mitt Romney won last night’s debate HUGE.  Who would better handle the economy?  After watching the debate, people by an 18-point margin chose Romney over Obama.

[Update, 10/17/12: Oh, my.  It’s even worse than I thought it was for Obama.  I found out that the CBS post-debate poll was even WORSE in proving that Obama has no answer for the economy and people overwhelmingly know he doesn’t.  Check this CBS article points out: the American people think that Mitt Romney will do a better job handling the economy than Obama by a 31-point margin (65% to 34%).

The Gallup poll among likely voters out today has Mitt Romney up by six points nationally.  I can’t imagine that Obama even slowed Romney’s momentum down last night.

Advertisements

Romney Now Up HUGE With Independent Voters (Even Enough To Overcome Mainstream Media’s Incredibly Deceitful Democrat Oversampling Models)

October 10, 2012

This is almost as short as it is incredibly sweet and delicious:

Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Romney up huge with independents
Posted by Christian Heinze at 3:53 PM

Fueling his current polling surge, Mitt Romney’s numbers with indies are just getting remarkably good.

a. IBD/ITP poll released today: Romney 52% Obama 34%.

b. Pew poll, released yesterday: Romney 46% Obama 42%.

c. Politico/GW poll, released yesterday: Romney 51% Obama 35%.

d. CNN, released last week: Romney 49% Obama 41%.

e. National Journal, released October 3: Romney 49% Obama 41%.

Now having said that, Romney has done well this entire cycle with independents, but not enough to overcome turnout models that suggested much, much higher Democratic turnout.

But now he’s killing it so soundly that it’s enough to overcome higher Democratic turnout. In fact, in ARG’s poll of Ohio today, Dems are sampled at +9% over Republicans, but Romney wins indies by 20%, which is enough to inch ahead, overall, 48%-47%.

Some of this is a debate bounce, but as I’ve said, one of the most under-reported stories this cycle has been Romney’s continual lead with independents. That always assured this would be a close election, regardless.

In fact, Barack Obama won indies by 8% in 2008. Romney is easily hitting that number in the most recent batch of polls.

The two best pollsters of 2008 – Rasmussen and Pew – both have Romney up nationally.  Rasmussen has Romney up by 2 points.  And Pew has Romney up by four points after having him down eight before Obama came out and told 70 million Americans that he was a chump who had no business being president.  And Gallup has Romney up by 2 points among likely voters.

Andrew Sullivan – a career liberal who just can’t acknowledge that he obviously is and always has been a career liberal – has officially panicked with his piece, “Did Obama Just Throw The Entire Election Away?”  It kind of reminds me of SNL’s mock-up of “thrill going up my leg” Chris Matthews being taken away in a straitjacket by men in white coats during his post-debate breakdown.

I can only say thank God my Messiah is Jesus, and so I’ll never have to find out what happens when my messiah spectacularly fails the way the liberals’ messiah just did.

How much of this was the result of the fact that Mitt Romney made Barack Obama look like a drooling imbecile last Wednesday at their debate, and how much is it because the mainstream pollsters figured they’d better start making their numbers appear realistic so they wouldn’t look stupid?  I don’t know.

But what I do know is that if independents vote for Mitt Romney in these percentages, it will be a very long, painful night for Obama and a very good night for America.

Mitt Romney Crushes President Empty Chair In First Debate

October 4, 2012

Some wit had this to offer as the picture that summed up the night in last night’s debate:

That of course being a reference to Clint Eastwood’s takedown of Obama.

Personally, I think the chair may have actually fared better if it had done less talking and more shutting the hell up.  Obama – according to CNN – actually got nearly five minutes of talk-time than Romney had.  For all the good it did him.

A lot of people noticed the difference between Governor Romney and President Empty Chair.  Look at the CNN post debate poll:

CNN Poll: Most watchers say Romney debate winner
October 3rd, 2012
CNN Political Unit

Denver, Colorado (CNN) – Two-thirds of people who watched the first presidential debate think that Republican nominee Mitt Romney won the showdown, according to a nationwide poll conducted Wednesday night.

According to a CNN/ORC International survey conducted right after the debate, 67% of debate watchers questioned said that the Republican nominee won the faceoff, with one in four saying  that President Barack Obama was victorious. – Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

“No presidential candidate has topped 60% in that question since it was first asked in 1984,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

While nearly half of debate watchers said the showdown didn’t make them more likely to vote for either candidate, 35% said the debate made them more likely to vote for Romney while only 18% said the faceoff made them more likely to vote to re-elect the president.

More than six in ten said that president did worse than expected, with one in five saying that Obama performed better than expected. Compare that to the 82% who said that Romney performed better than expected. Only one in ten felt that the former Massachusetts governor performed worse than expected.

“This poll does not and cannot reflect the views of all Americans. It only represents the views of people who watched the debate and by definition cannot be an indication of how the entire American public will react to Wednesday’s debate in the coming days,” cautions Holland.

The sample of debate-watchers in the poll was 37% Democratic and 33% Republican.

“That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is about four points more Democratic and about eight points more Republican than an average CNN poll of all Americans, for a small advantage for the Republicans in the sample of debate-watchers,” adds Holland.

The poll suggests that the debate didn’t change opinions of the president. Forty-nine percent of debate watchers said before the debate that they had a favorable opinion of Obama, and that number didn’t change following the debate.

It was pretty much a similar story for Romney, whose favorable rating among debate watchers edged up just two points, from 54% before the debate to 56% after the debate.

The economy dominated the first debate and according to the poll, and by a 55%-43% margin, debate watchers said that Romney rather than Obama would better handle the economy. On the issue of taxes, which kicked off the debate, Romney had a 53%-44% edge over Obama. And by a 52%-47% margin, debate watchers said Romney would better handle health care, and he had the edge on the budget deficit by a 57%-41% margin.

Debate watchers thought Romney was more aggressive. Fifty-three percent said Romney spent more time attacking his opponent. Only three in ten thought Obama spent more time taking it to Romney. By a 58%-37% margin, debate watchers thought Romney appeared to be the stronger leader.

“Romney’s only Achilles heel may be the perception that he spent more time attacking his opponent than Obama, which may explain why two-thirds of debate-watchers said that Romney did the best job but only 46% said that he was more likeable than Obama,” says Holland.

The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International, with 430 adult Americans who watched the debate questioned by telephone.  All interviews were conducted after the end of the debate. The survey’s sampling error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

CNN Political Editor Paul Steinhauser contributed to this story

CBS’s post-debate poll wasn’t a whole lot better for the failure-in-chief:

Mitt Romney scored a clear victory among uncommitted voters who watched the first presidential debate, saying by a two-to-one margin that the Republican nominee was the winner.

Among uncommitted voters, 46 percent said Romney won the debate, versus 22 percent who said the same of President Obama, according to an online poll of 523 uncommitted voters conducted after the debate by CBS News. That poll found 32 percent said the debate was a tie.

A CNN telephone survey of 430 registered voters who were questioned after watching the contest handed an even more decisive victory to Romney: 67 percent said he won the debate, compared to only 25 percent who said the same of Obama.

The CBS poll also showed Romney making clear strides in improving his likeability, with 56 percent of those surveyed saying their opinions of him had changed for the better. He saw a huge jump – 30 percent – in the number of uncommitted voters who said Romney cares about their needs and problems. Before the debate, 30 percent agreed with the statement. Afterward, that number rose to 63 percent. Sixty-nine percent of those surveyed said the same of Obama, up from 53 percent before the debate.

The CNN poll actually found Romney leading on likeability among the poll respondents, with 46 percent saying Romney was more likeable and 45 percent choosing Obama. Fifty-eight percent also deemed Romney the stronger leader, compared to 37 percent for Obama.

Romney also far exceeded expectations, while the opposite was true of Obama. Among registered voters surveyed by CNN, 82 percent said the former Massachusetts governor exceeded their expectations, but 61 percent said the president did worse than expected.

The one silver lining for the Obama campaign may be that nearly half of respondents in the CNN poll – 47 percent – said that the debate didn’t make them more likely to vote for either candidate. But Romney also won on that measure, with 35 percent saying the matchup made them more likely to vote for him. Only 18 percent  said the same of the president.

Six in 10 respondents to the CBS News poll identify as independents, 22 percent say they are Democrats, and 18 percent identify as Republicans. The margin of error was four points for the CBS poll and 4.5 points for CNN.

Obama was rarely ever able to gin up the courage to look Romney in the eye.  And judging by the amount of time Obama spent looking down, I’m guessing that the people who write the script for his teleprompter took his wristwatch away so the camera couldn’t focus on him desperately looking at the seconds tick by in his asskicking.

Don’t listen to me, though.  Listen to Obama supporter and big Obama donor Bill Maher:

Slate isn’t merely reliably leftist, it is überüberleftist.  But here was their headline on the debate:

Pundits Agree: Romney Wins Round One—and It Wasn’t Even Close

The final paragraph of that piece was this:

And what seems to be, so far at least, the pretty unanimous view that Obama lost the debate may hurt him more than how he actually did at the podium. “Much worse for Obamas than the debate is the media’s harsh verdict on his debate performance,” writes the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein on Twitter.

If you survey the tweets and opinion pieces of liberals, you very quickly realize that if liberals were preying mantises (they’re actually a different kind of insect), they would have literally devoured Barack Obama.

In 2008, John McCain’s performance demonstrated that he did not deserve to be president.  Obama didn’t deserve to be president, either, mind you, but John McCain failed to make a case for himself far more than Obama did.

Last night, Mitt Romney clearly and decisively proved he deserves to be president.  And Barack Obama proved just as clearly and decisively that he does NOT deserve another term.

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

August 16, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[See site for embedded video]

Ali Akbar at Viral Read reported Monday:

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

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

Indeed:

Once blown up, the picture told quite a story:

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

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

It began:

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

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

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

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

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

Bravo, Ali! Bravo!

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

(HT @J_Murf07)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Americans Than Ever Think America Heading Into A Depression (Thanks Obama!)

July 6, 2011

We keep hearing the mainstream media repeat the Obama narrative that Obama saved America.  Really?

He’s made everything WORSE, not better.  And most Americans KNOW it.

Poll: Record-high number think country headed into depression
By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 6/8/11 12:06 PM EDT

A record-high of nearly half the country fears the economy is careening  toward a depression, helping push President Barack Obama’s approval rating down by six points  in just the last two weeks, according to a new poll.

The president’s approval rating stands at 48 percent in the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Tuesday, down from 54 percent in late May in the same poll. His disapproval rate rose three points to 48 percent.

Obama’s approval among Democrats has dropped three percent to  82 percent and is dipped five percent among independents to 42 percent.

Obama’s dropping numbers come as Americans’ fears that the country is headed  into another Great Depression are higher than they’ve ever been in the CNN poll.  In all, 48 percent of those surveyed said another great depression is likely in  the next 12 months, while 41 percent said the same in 2009 and 38 percent said  so in 2008. A slight majority – 51 percent – said they don’t think the economy  will plunge into a deep depression.

But while Americans are voicing concern that the economy is getting worse and  plunging toward a depression, Obama said Tuesday that he’s “not concerned about a  double-dip recession.” Job growth in May totaled 54,000 jobs, far fewer than the  economy has create for several consecutive months, but Obama said it’s not yet  clear if last month was “a one-month episode or a longer trend.”

If it turns out to be a longer trend, it could be detrimental to Obama’s hopes of reelection.

Fifty-one percent of those surveyed said that the economy is extremely important in determining their votes  for president, while 41 percent said it is very important. Unemployment is  second on the list of issues that respondents said are key to their voting  decisions, with 45 percent saying it’s extremely important. Other issues  including the deficit, terrorism and illegal immigration are extremely important  to smaller proportions of those surveyed.

The poll was conducted June 3-7 and surveyed 1,015 adults. The error margin  is plus or minus three percentage points.

Combine the fact that more Americans than EVER BEFORE believe America is heading into a GREAT DEPRESSION with this Gallup finding and explain to me why this fool has any chance whatsoever of getting re-elected beyond the fact that we may have become the nation of sheep and fools that our ancestors feared:

Gallup: In No Month of Obama Presidency Has Majority Believed Economy Improving
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com)Barack Obama has now been president for more than 29 months, yet in none of those months has a majority of Americans believed the nation’s economy is getting better rather than worse, according to the Gallup poll.

In fact, in no month of Obama’s presidency has belief that the economy is getting better exceeded 41 percent among American adults, a peak it reached in April 2010 and again in January 2011.

In the most recent three day-period reported by Gallup—July 1-July 3—only 31 percent of Americans said they believed the economy was getting better. Meanwhile, 63 percent said they believed it was getting worse.

Each day, Gallup asks approximately 500 American adults a simple question: Do they think that economic conditions in the country as a whole are getting better or getting worse? Gallup then regularly publishes the most recent three-day average percentage for each answer, while periodically publishing the monthly averages.

While 41 percent is the highest percentage of Americans who told Gallup they believed the economy was getting better during any month of the Obama presidency, there have been some three-day periods in which a somewhat higher percentage told Gallup they believed the economy was getting better.

However, since the three-day period ending on Oct. 15, 2009, according to day-by-day data released by Gallup, the percentage of Americans who said in any three-day period that they believed the economy was getting better peaked at 46 percent on Dec. 30, 2009-Jan. 3, 2010.

The last time as many as 40 percent of Americans said they believed the economy was getting better was in the three-day period that ended on Feb. 16, 2011.

In June, belief that the economy was getting better never rose higher than 34 percent in any three-day period.

That’s right.  There has never been so much as a SINGLE month that the American people have EVER believed Obama was making the economy better.

This is truly the days of the Failure-in-Chief.

Obama is the most cynical demagogue since Hitler.  If he manages to get re-elected, it will be for one reason and one reason only: the American people have become depraved and perverted, and depraved and perverted people believe lies and cannot understand the truth.

Taken In By Gay Girl Amina: And How Media Fooled By Every Leftwing Lie That Reinforces Their Bias

June 16, 2011

Do you know why the release of tens of thousands of pages of Sarah Palin’s emails resulted in a media feeding frenzy – along with numerous “respected” newspapers such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post actually calling upon their readers to help them dig up any possible dirt – was a huge story, and the one about giant public pension (read as “liberal union”) outfit CalPERS has simultaneously been deleting all their old emails to destroy evidence barely raises eyebrows?

I mean, yes, California’s public pension is only a $500 billion – yes, you read that correctly: $500 BILLION – black hole of corrupt unfunded liability that will necessarily ultimately bankrupt the state as soon as all the gimmicks are exposed and Californians finally get a chance to stare into their open graves.  But so what?  That exposes the absolute corruption of liberalism, and that isn’t a project the mainstream media is particularly interested in.  Much better to target Sarah Palin in a three-year-and-counting unrelenting campaign of frothing, rabid media hatred.  Who CARES about CalPERS’ emails when we can look through Sarah Palin’s trash cans???

This, of course, the same corrupt media that crucified Sarah Palin because she couldn’t produce a “long form” of newspapers and magazines she’d read to Katie Couric – with the asinine but media-generated narrative that she was somehow too ignorant to read.  It’s the same media that is simply appalled at the ignorance of Sarah Palin’s alleged misunderstanding of the role of Paul Revere in his midnight ride, combined with their correspondingly indignant defense of Barack Obama believing that he’d visited 57 states with one more left to go.

The mainstream media has become a fascist propaganda arm of the fascist Democrat Party.  They aren’t fair; they aren’t capable of being fair.  They wouldn’t be fair if they could.

We see over and over again examples of the fact that the mainstream media swallows hook, line and sinker every single load of crap that is fed to them – as long as that load of crap reinforces their liberal biases and presuppositions.

Taken in by ‘Gay Girl’
The ‘Gay Girl in Damascus’ hoax is worse than a lie. It’s propaganda.
By Jonah Goldberg
June 14, 2011

I’d barely followed “A Gay Girl In Damascus” until last week, when Daily Beast columnist Peter Beinart posted something to Twitter: “This is really important — this woman is a hero,” with a link to a story about Amina Abdallah Arraf, a Syrian American woman and the author of the blog “A Gay Girl In Damascus.” According to the story, Amina had been seized by Syrian security forces for her dissident writing.

Quickly, Amina’s arrest became a new Internet cause. Even the U.S. State Department joined the effort.

And soon thereafter, the whole thing fell apart. Amina never existed. The author of “A Gay Girl In Damascus” was in fact a 40-year-old straight dude from Georgia living in Scotland. Rather than the sexy young lesbian in the photos (stolen from the Facebook page of a Croatian expat living in London), the photo of him in the Washington Post shows a man who looks like the bearded comic-actor Zach Galifianakis — in a Che Guevara T-shirt, naturally.

Tom MacMaster was raised to be a peace activist. When he was a kid, the family trekked to the Pentagon to hand out origami doves to commemorate the bombing of Nagasaki. He’s the co-director of Atlanta Palestine Solidarity and claims to have visited Baghdad on a “student peace mission” to deter the Iraq war.

In an “Apology to Readers” posted on June 12 from his vacation in Istanbul, MacMaster writes, “While the narrative voice may have been fictional, the facts on this blog are true and not misleading as to the situation on the ground.”

He explains that as a white guy with an Anglo name, people wouldn’t take him seriously in online discussion groups. So he made up Amina and her countless fictional experiences in Syria and America.

At first it sounds a bit like the old jokes swirling around the publishing industry: Lincoln sells. Medicine sells. Dogs sell. So let’s put out a book about Lincoln’s doctor’s dog! It’ll be a bestseller!

Except McMaster’s ploy really worked. People desperately wanted to believe in this “hero”: a saucy, sage, left-wing member of the LGBT community who likes to wear the hijab, can’t stand Israel or George W. Bush and who parrots every cliche about the romantic authenticity of the Arab people and their poetic yearning for democracy, peace and love. Whereas no one cared about McMaster’s “Anglo” arguments, Amina’s assertions succeeded with little effort. For instance, “she” writes of the Palestinians’ need to return to their homes in Israel: “It’s simple but, maybe, you have to be a Levantine Arab to get this. It makes perfect sense to me.” Of course it does!

CNN interviewed “her” — by email — for a story about gay rights and the Arab Spring. “She” said things were going great for gays. The feedback, even from Muslims, for her blog was “almost entirely positive.”

But the CNN story troubled her. The outlet encouraged the sin of “pink washing” — a term used by some anti-Israel critics to decry any attempt to compare Israel’s treatment of gays with that of Arab states. Israel is tolerant, even celebratory, of gay rights (Israel recently launched a gay tourism campaign with the slogan “Tel Aviv Gay Vibe — Free; Fun; Fabulous”). Syria punishes homosexual activity with three years in prison (In Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iran, the punishment is death).

Who cares, Amina angrily responds. In fact, how dare “advocates of war, occupation, dispossession and apartheid” use Arab and Muslim hostility to gays as “‘evidence that the primitive sand-people don’t deserve anything other than killing by the enlightened children of the West.”

Besides, “she” has never been harassed by Arabs for being gay. But in America, “she” has been “struck by strangers for being an Arab” and “had dung thrown at me” for wearing the hijab.

Except that is a lie.

Worse, it’s propaganda. McMaster’s fake-but-accurate lesbian was perfectly pitched to Western liberals desperate to alleviate the pain of cognitive dissonance. No longer must you think too hard or make tough choices if you’re, say, anti-Israel and pro-democracy or pro-gay rights and in favor of the self-determination of Muslim fanatics. Heck, you can even stop worrying and love a lesbian feminist who sees no big deal in wearing a religiously required sack over her head.

Of course she was a hero. Of course she didn’t exist.

If this “Amina” was writing as a fundamentalist Christian instead of a leftwing lesbian ideologue, this story never would have gotten off the ground.  Because unrelentingly skeptical “journalists” would have exposed “her” as a fraud even if she was actually for real.

Let me assure you, the Daily Beast is über liberal.  I can state that from personal experience: in an article entitled, “Hunting the Obama Haters,” (somehow I missed their “fair and balanced” piece on “Hunting the Bush Haters”), the Daily Beast referred to yours truly as “one particularly unhinged culture warrior.”

Ironically, some wingnuts on the right are blaming Democrats’ techniques on their newfound commitment to tear down the next President of the United States. Take one particularly unhinged culture warrior, Michael Eden of TheAmericanSentinel.com, who writes: “Barack Hussein Obama and his Democratic lackeys get to wear the bullseyes on their foreheads for the duration of the next election cycle…don’t let a bunch of appallingly blatant hypocrites tell you that you owe Obama one more iota of respect than they gave Bush… It’s time to start burning down their houses and salting their fields.”

I actually liked that “one particularly unhinged culture warrior” part; not only did they spell my name correctly, but that was a rather catchy phrase they followed it with.  But there is no question that the “wingnuts on the left” who were completely comfortable with eight years’ of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” were self-righteously outraged and appalled that someone would actually dare suggest that the right treat Obama the same way the left treated Bush.

I got a chance to mock back in a piece I wrote here.  Now, of course, I get another one.

And of course “CNN” is a synonym for “Communist News Network.”  There are repeated examples (why, here’s one!  And see the ultimate conclusion of the anchor involved in that bogus and demagogic story here) of CNN suffering from “confirmation bias,” in which they believe exactly what they want to believe, while refusing to believe what they don’t want to believe.  CNN would believe a lie from the devil himself if it hurt a conservative; they will likewise believe a lie from the devil himself if it reinforces their liberal biases.

Both the Daily Beast and CNN (along with numerous other lefty sources, I’m sure) were fooled because they are fools who want to be fooled so they can in turn fool the American people.

These are profoundly stupid people, no matter how smart they think they are or now many college degrees and elitist positions they’ve given to one another.  They aren’t stupid because they have low IQs; no, they are stupid because they have willed themselves to be stupid by sheer brute force of will by rigidly committing themselves to a completely false and depraved view of the world.  They despise God, refuse to accept the God’s-eye view of the world as revealed in His Word and His Son, and therefore believe a hodgepodge of disproven leftwing theories which they constantly try to impose and reimpose on a world which they will never comprehend.  Even as they make that world worse and worse and worse with each new iteration.  Thanks to these people and their “theories,” our culture has become a gigantic reciprocating engine that makes us more and more morally stupid with every downward stroke.

I have nothing but naked contempt for these sneering self-congratulatory “wingnuts.”  And frankly I’m glad that they know it.

Mainstream Media Tyranny-Helpers: Reuters, CNN Allow Themselves To Be Human Shields To Protect Libyan Command/Control Center

March 21, 2011

Here’s one: Gaddafi is a tyrant, and mainstream media “journalists” apparently don’t mind helping him stay in power as they pursue their own tyrannous agenda:

EXCLUSIVE: Libyans Use Journalists as Human Shields
By Jennifer Griffin & Justin Fishel
Published March 21, 2011
| FoxNews.com

 EXCLUSIVE:  An attack on the compound of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi on Sunday had to be curtailed because of journalists nearby, Fox News has learned.

British sources confirmed that seven Storm Shadow missiles were ready to be fired from a British aircraft, but the strikes had to be curtailed due to crews from CNN, Reuters and other organizations nearby. Officials from Libya’s Ministry of Information brought those journalists to the area to show them damage from the initial attack and to effectively use them as human shields.

The curtailment of this mission led to a great deal of consternation by coalition commanders, sources told Fox News, but they opted to call off the mission to avoid civilian casualties.

During a Pentagon briefing on Monday, coalition commanders said the huge compound was targeted due to its air defense systems on the perimeter and a military command and control center. It was not targeted to kill Qaddafi, commanders said.

Meanwhile, U.S. military officials said on Monday that Qatar is sending six planes to Libya to participate in support missions, becoming the third Arab nation to send aircraft to the African nation. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) also announced on Monday that its role in Libya is “strictly confined” to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Libya.

In coordination with Turkey, the United Arab Emirates has sent a ship loaded with medical and humanitarian aid to Libya — in addition to two UAE planes sent to the country last week.

The U.N.-approved no-fly zone over Libya is working and will soon be expanded to Tripoli as aircraft from additional coalition countries arrive in the region, the head of U.S. Africa Command said on Monday.

U.S. Army General Carter Ham told a Pentagon briefing that coalition air forces were continuing missions to sustain the no-fly zone and that Libyan ground forces were moving south from rebel-held Benghazi showing “little will or capability” to operate.

Ham said U.S. and U.K. forces launched another 12 Tomahawk cruise missiles over the past 24 hours at sites controlled by Qaddafi. The targets included regime command and control facilities, a surface-to-surface missile site and an air defense station, according to Ham, the operation commander who added that there was no direct coordination among allies and anti-Qaddafi rebels.

Once again, Fox News demonstrated it’s “right wing bias” by refusing to send a reporter to a location at the invititation of Libyan officals.  The senior Fox News reporter on the ground (Rick Leventhal) suspected the Libyans were trying to use him for propaganda, if not as a human shield.  This behavior by Fox News is quite unfortunate.  They really need to listen to icon of progressive journalism Walter Lippman (according to liberal intellectual Noam Chomsky):

The intelligent [elite liberal] 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.

As journalist great Walter Lippmann saw it:

Adherents of democracy, he wrote back in 1925, “encourage the people to attempt the impossible”—that is, to exercise sovereignty, and this can only result in their “interfering outrageously with the productive activities of the individual.” This must at all costs be avoided “so that each of us may live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd.” Even earlier, in his Public Opinion, Lippmann seized on the behaviorism of J. B. Watson (his book, Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist appeared in 1919) to bulwark his attack on democracy. For the mechanical behaviorist view of thinking as pure stimulus and response of the human brain as a mere switchboard—was the source for Lippmann’s invention of the concept of mental “stereotypes.” With this, Lippmann reduced the “reality” of democracy to the manipulation of the “herd’s” mind by the propagandistic conditioning conducted by the elite. Similarly, psychoanalysis and pragmatism appealed to Lippmann—as did eugenics for a time—as scientific demonstrations of the irrational and amoral nature of man, as clinchers that the masses, in Mencken’s phrase, were the “booboisie.”

Then, of course, there are the great words of another fellow who has profoundly shaped American progressive journalism, 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”.

And Fox News, of course, just isn’t living up to this tradition of wise and benevolent propaganda at all.  Unlike the heroic journalists who placed themselves in harms way to get the story and to prevent the hated West (because until they are fully socialized they remain the greatest enemy) from undermining the wise and benevolent leadership of Jeremiah Wright’s and Louis Farrakhan’s esteemed friend Muammar Gaddafi.

Jeremiah Wright was Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for about 23 years, so he’s clearly a profoundly spiritual and wise man.  And Louis Farrakhan is black, and therefore the virtuous victim of white bigotry.

But Wright’s relationship with the controversial Farrakhan extended far beyond an award.  In 1984, Wright personally accompanied Farrakhan to Libya to meet with Muammar Gaddafi in Tripoli. In 2008, Wright even predicted his association with Farrakhan and Gaddafi may cause political headaches for Obama’s presidential aspirations: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit [Gadhafi] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell,” he said.

And, of course, it almost certainly would have.  Except the “intelligent minorities” understood that revealing the truth would have outraged the ignorant “bewilderned herd.”  Fortunatey, the tremendous journalists from Reuters and CNN were on hand to prevent that from happening.

Just as they were fortunately on hand to prevent the evil American and British pilots from taking out Gaddafi’s primary command and control facility.

Of course, if you are a true believer in mainstream media journalism, you are an atheist.  But even though you obviously can’t thank God for the presence of the media, you should thank somebody (Big Brother Obama, perhaps?) that mainstream media outlets like CNN and Reuters were on the scene to keep manipulating the bewildered herd’s mind through the construction of propagandistic condition.

Liberal Ian Murphy Who punked Wiscosin Gov. Scott Walker Is A Vile Punk Himself

February 25, 2011

You’ve undoubtedly heard about liberal Ian Murphy “punking” Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in a prank phone call.  Even though Walker didn’t say anything that was truly embarrassing in a conversation he thought he was having with a powerful supporter, you’d think by listening to the mainstream media coverage that liberalsim just hit a grand slam home run.

The worst shot Murphy got was in suggesting to Walker – posing as conservative donor David Koch – that he infiltrate the crowd.  And Walker said, “We thought of that,” before saying that Republicans had NOT done it.

I’m thinking, “What’s wrong with infiltrating the crowd?”  Ian Murphy doesn’t seem to think infiltrating is wrong; that’s precisely what he did with his phone call.  And liberals don’t seem to mind infiltrating tea party crowds.  It is a documented fact that they did precisely that.  So why would it be such a terrible thing if Republicans do what Democrats already did?  Other than the fact that Democrats are vile hypocrites, of course?

I remember when conservative activists actually caught ACORN and then later Planned Parenthood literally trying to help pimps who prostituted underage girls.  And all Democrats could muster outrage over was that the calls had been recorded in possible violation of the law.  Now a liberal does the same thing – and gets no dirt at all, unlike the moral filth that conservatives caught liberals in the act doing – and Murphy becomes a hero of the communist people just for trying.  But, oh well.  Democrats are wicked people, and you can’t expect anything more than wickedness from them.

CNN, ever the blatant propagandists that they always have been, called Ian Murphy “the most intriguing person of the day.”  MSNBC also had him on there network as an honored and esteemed guest.  He’s just that kind of wonderful guy.  He’s a hero for punking a governor who is the current subject of a torrent of leftwing hate.

Here’s the liberal hero of the hour’s words about soldiers.  My apologies in advance for the profanity.  But I’ve got to show his words.  And he’s a liberal, so he’s a vile, degenerate cockroach.  What else do you expect from such people?

FUCK THE TROOPS
A Beastly Opinion


By Ian Murphy

So, 4000 rubes are dead. Cry me the Tigris. Another 30,000 have been seriously wounded. Boo fucking hoo. They got what they asked for—and cool robotic limbs, too.

Likely, just reading the above paragraph made you uncomfortable. But why?

The benevolence of America’s “troops” is sacrosanct. Questioning their rectitude simply isn’t done. It’s the forbidden zone. We may rail against this tragic war, but our soldiers are lauded by all as saints. Why? They volunteered to partake in this savage idiocy, and for this they deserve our utmost respect? I think not.

The nearly two-thirds of us who know this war is bullshit need to stop sucking off the troops. They get enough action raping female soldiers and sodomizing Iraqi detainees. The political left is intent on “supporting” the troops by bringing them home, which is a good thing. But after rightly denouncing the administration’s lies and condemning this awful war, relatively sensible pundits—like Keith Olbermann—turn around and lovingly praise the soldiers’ brave service to the country. Why?

The ranting article goes on.  But I don’t have enough barf bags to post it all.  You can read the filfth in its entirety here.

Now, we’ve got a question: who’s the hero in this?  Walker or Murphy???

Democrats are the sort of degenerate rat filth who think the piece of slime who wrote an article titled, “Fuck the Troops” is a hero.  Which is why they make me sick.

And it’s a good example of why Democras are the kind of rabid rats who have to be destroyed. 

We have to stand up in Wisconsin and anywhere else liberals want to fight.  Because they are genuinely evil. 

Like I’ve been saying: Obama gave us “God damn America.”  And God will damn America like you’ve never seen if “Fuck the Troops” wins out over Governor Walker.

CNN Digs Furiously But Fails To Find Single Egyptian Willing To Give Obama Credit For Protests (Not That Reality Stops Them)

February 15, 2011

This was something else.  Anybody who thinks that the American mainstream media has any objectivity in it whatsoever should have to explain this.

From Yahoo Answers:

Did you have LOL at that CNN reporter digging for Egyptians to praise Obama for the revolution but couldn’t?
find any??? They all were like “Obama did nothing, we would have done this no mater who was President of your country” others were like “Obama did nothing in this revolution, if anything he just switched sides.” Then at the end the reporter gave up and signed off like, “It’s clear to say Egyptians have grown so excited now that Obama has thrown his support behind their cause” LOL it was pathetic

And one of the comments was:

I did! He tried over and over and over to find even one Egyptian who would praise the liberal messiah but found none. They could care less about him. He’s just as irrelevant there as he is here.

Someone else said:

That’s liberal journalism at its finest. lol First Obama tried to take credit for telling Mubarak to leave and when no one bought that the journalists have to jump in and try and save him.

Rush Limbaugh has a lot more to say about this (of course!).

I haven’t found the Youtube of this Nic Robertson piece yet.  I can imagine CNN hopes no one EVER finds it.  But when I do, I’ll post it here as an update.

What I DID find was the CNN transcript of this “breaking news” report.  Look the following over, read what Rush says about it, and then you tell me if Rush Limbaugh is mischaracterizing it in any way, shape or form:

CNN Breaking News, Aired February 11, 2011 – 15:00  ET

HALA GORANI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Are you able to — I don’t know if those in the square are aware that President Obama spoke about them and told the world, Egyptians have inspired us today.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, let me, let me — Hala, let me to talk to a couple of people who are with me right now.

Ahmed (ph), you have been down here on the square for many days. The United States, the international community just listened to President Obama say that he will support, America will support Egypt if it wants help and assistance and hopes that there will be a good transition for jobs for the young people.

What would your message be for President Obama?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Actually, we’re very sad from Obama’s actions that he sometimes support the government, sometimes support the people.

We cannot actually (INAUDIBLE) his support. He serves for his own purposes. And for the youth, and we and the Egyptian people seek for our freedom and democracy. Any democratic country should seek for the best for the people, not for its own purpose.

ROBERTSON: And right now, President Obama is saying that he will give Egypt and the young people of Egypt whatever assistance they want if they want it and if they ask for it. Do you need assistance from the United States?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For sure at the start of our revolution to build up the country again from the (INAUDIBLE) by the bad people here. We surely would need support for the first time, first year at least. But then I think we will be a country that depends on itself, and even should give support to other countries.

ROBERTSON: Thank you very much.

Just one moment again.

Mustafa (ph) — Mustafa is joining me now.

Mustafa, you’ve been a doctor in the hospital here. We have just heard President Obama say that he wants to extend support and assistance to Egypt and Egyptians if they want any, and he hopes that there are more jobs for young people in the future.

What is your message for President Obama?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, my message for President Obama is just, we started this revolution without any outside help, and we are going to finish it also without any outside help.

Of course, I’m thanking him for his spiritual support, but we don’t need any other extra support from him. I just want to say that this is just the beginning of the revolution. If everyone stayed for the next six months until the next presidential election, with this spirit (INAUDIBLE) here in the square, that means we are going to finish the road the right way.

We have seen everyone here in the street for the last two weeks. It was just marvelous. Everyone is doing (INAUDIBLE) job, doctors, workers, even little children who cleans the street. Everyone was supported by their own feelings. So, we can continue, and this is just the beginning.

ROBERTSON: And President Obama, especially important, said it was important that it went — had been peaceful mostly so far, and that it’s important that it continues peacefully, this revolution. Can it continue peacefully, do you think?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, that only depends on who is going to — who is going to be in charge here. The military is in charge. The military is having to use assistance from the Egyptian people.

So I think if the military kept being in charge for only the next six months, that would be great. Other than that, it’s going to be chaos. There’s one thing I’m afraid of is that, yes, in Tahrir Square, everything was perfect. But we lack leadership. I’m sorry to say this, but that’s the truth. We lack leadership. And right now, we need to develop some leadership, which is going to take us to the road of democracy for the next six months.

ROBERTSON: Where are you going to find those leaders? You’re young people. You came together through the Internet. You’ve been inspired. You’ve shown solidarity, support here. But where do you find those leaders?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I’m afraid we have to find them. They are available, but for the last decades, there was no political scene in Egypt, so every leadership was demolished. So, that’s the problem we’re having right now. And that’s why we need this conditional six- month period for anticipation that this is only a transitional period.

ROBERTSON: Are you pleased that President Obama has come out however now and said he supports this change and supports the people and supports the young people and what they have done?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, actually, President Obama’s views were kind of conflicting during the last weeks.

But now that he’s saying that he is supporting the change, that’s a good thing after all. I’m sure that, after all, he’s pro-democracy. After all, he just can’t be pro anything else.

ROBERTSON: Mustafa, thank you so much.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

ROBERTSON: And, hopefully, no more casualties in your clinic —

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

ROBERTSON: So, Hala, the view from here is one of very happy now to hear that President Obama has swung s behind the people here.

“The view from here” that Nic Robertson is talking about is the view of a man with his head shoved as far up his own ass as it can possibly go.  Sorry to be crude, but I’m just saying.

Do I even need to ask the question if CNN would be out furiously digging for Egytians willing to praise the president if that president’s name were, oh, George Bush?  Or name your Republican?  Rather, you know that the mainstream media would be crawling around like cockroaches searching for any scene that denounced Bush.  It’s the script.  It’s what CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC et al do for a living day in and day out.

Joseph Goebbels must be furious with CNN as his corpse spins demonically in the grave.  They are not good at their propaganda craft, even in spite of all their years of practice.  Rather, CNN has drank so much of its own Kool Aid that they just blithely assumed that the Egyptian people would be as eager to give Obama credit for the uprising as the mainstream media was.  And then they put a couple of people in front of the camera, trusting in their progressive liberal assbackward view of the world that these men would sing a beautiful operatic sonnet about how magnificent Obama is, and they’re like, “Why are you wasting our time asking us questions about this useless turd?”

If Goebbels’ “news media” had done a story on, say, how the people of Poland loved and welcomed their new fuhrer, they would have known that the people of Poland despised their new fuhrer.  And so as they grabbed some poor Pole out of the crowd, there might have been a few kidney punches to encourage him to tell the world how wonderful the Fuhrer is and all that.  But again, CNN just guzzled down their own Kool Aid and just ASSUMED that surely the people of Egypt must adore the Hussein as much as CNN does.  And what they say happens when you “ass-sume” remains true.  Because those Egyptian people rather clearly made a real ass out of CNN.

The Antichrist, the beast, is coming.  And the mainstream media will adore him even more than it adores Barack Obama.

P.S. For all the mainstream media’s glorified depiction of the Egyptian uprising as a bunch of George Washington’s heroically fighting for freedom while gratefully singing praises to Barack Obama for making the whole thing possible, the actual reality continues to be a very different thing.  Case in point: the female CBS reporter who was badly beaten and sexually assaulted in front of Egyptian women and members of the Egyptian military.

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

January 19, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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