Posts Tagged ‘media bias’

Proof For All Time Of Unhinged Hypocrisy And Bias From The Pseudo-Journalist Class And The Rank-And-File Democrat

January 30, 2017

So this morning I’m looking through the crappy bird-cage-liner that passes itself off as the newspaper of record on the West Coast, just as I’ve been looking through the same bird-cage-liner every day since Trump announced his candidacy, let alone since he was elected.  And it’s just rabidly unhinged bias day after day after day.

Meanwhile, the same Democrat establishment and the same voters who literally swarmed Obama with fanatic worship when he was elected – who hysterically told anyone who didn’t take the Mark of the Obama that you were a racist, a hater, a traitor, fill in your own blank – rose up in a spirit of rabid, violent hatred against the President of the United States even before he took office.

There was an article about journalism and the “end of democracy” in the previous days’ sanctimonious hate-offering of all things Trump.  Under the title, “The vicious cycle that leads to the end of democracy,” I saw these words:

Does democracy require journalists and educators to strive for political balance? I’m hardly alone in thinking the answer is “yes.” But it also requires them to present the facts as they understand them — and when it is not possible to be factual and balanced at the same time, democratic institutions risk collapse.

Consider the problem abstractly. Democracy X is dominated by two parties, Y and Z. Party Y is committed to the truth of propositions A, B and C, while Party Z is committed to the falsity of A, B and C. Slowly the evidence mounts: A, B and C look very likely to be false. Observers in the media and experts in the education system begin to see this, but the evidence isn’t quite plain enough for non-experts, especially if those non-experts are aligned with Party Y and already committed to A, B and C.

Both psychological research and commonsense observation of the recent political situation (I think you’ll agree with this, whatever side you’re on) demonstrate the great human capacity to rationalize and justify what you want to believe. The evidence against A can be very substantial — compelling, even, from a neutral point of view — without convincing people who are emotionally invested in the truth of A.

The journalists and educators who live in X now face a dilemma. They can present both sides in a balanced way, or they can call the facts as they see them. Either choice threatens the basic institutions of democracy.

If they present balanced cases for and against A, B and C, they give equal time to the false and the true. They create the misleading impression that the matter is still in doubt, that opinion is divided, that it’s equally reasonable to believe either side. They thereby undermine and discredit their own assessment that A, B and C are very likely to be false. This is dangerous, since democracy depends on a well-educated, informed voting public, aware of the relevant facts.

In the long term, journalists and educators will likely turn against balance, because they care intensely about the facts in question and don’t wish to pretend that the evidence is unclear. They understand that they cannot routinely promote false equivalencies while retaining their integrity.

Schwittzoebel blathers on a little longer and then finally concludes,

This is all general and oversimplified. But it’s clear in the abstract and in the real world that knowledgeable people can be forced by the evidence to disproportionately favor one political party over another, creating a vicious cycle of bias and partisan alignment.

We might be entering this cycle in the United States. To fight against it, we must allow journalists, educators and researchers to speak freely. Political leaders and their supporters must not rush to the conclusion that experts who disagree with them — even systematically — are their enemies.

The first thing you need to understand is that, in the “abstract” presentation that he provides, he this “academic” firmly sides with the Democratic Party.  The Republican Party is “abstractly” Party Y – you know, the one that has every single one of its facts wrong because it’s dominated by stupid, ignorant, emotional people – whereas his Party Z is the Enlightened Party that knows all and is struggling to accommodate all of these stupid, vacuous, ignorant, clueless unwashed masses.

Eric Schwitzgebel fails throughout his piece to acknowledge on dirty little factoid, namely that 96 percent of journalists are progressive liberals who supported Hillary Clinton:

In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

What about the academics?  Yeah, he fails to mention the same rabid bias in that group, also.

As an example, in 2012, 96 percent of Ivy League professors’ donations went to Obama.

Does such lightning of bias strike twice?  Yep:

99% of top liberal arts professor campaign donations go to Democrats: report
By Kelly Riddell – The Washington Times – Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Almost 100 percent of the 2016 presidential political donations made by top liberal arts professors went to Democratic candidates, with only one professor giving to a Republican candidate.

Forty-seven professors at the top 50 liberal arts colleges in the country, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, have given to presidential campaigns, according to donations recorded in the third quarter by the Federal Election Commission and aggregated by Campus Reform, a conservative watchdog of higher education.

Of those 47 professors, Hamilton College History Professor Robert Paquette was the only one to give to a Republican — donating $150 to Carly Fiorina’s campaign.

The 46 other professors gave $20,875 to Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and $8,417 to Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders, the report said.

“I do believe these numbers give an accurate representation of the political leanings of faculty on most college campuses, especially allegedly elite liberal arts colleges like Hamilton College,” Mr. Paquette told Campus Reform. Mr. Paquette told the organization he was the “only out-of-closet conservative in a faculty of 200.”

And yeah, once again, the end result for academia was an overwhelming bias for Democrats and an overwhelming rabid bias against Republicans.

The truly frightening thing about Schwitzgebel’s “analysis” is that, for Schwitzgebel, this rabidly lopsided bias probably isn’t even a problem.  After all, he is telling us that journalists and academics HAVE to ultimately choose sides and “present facts as they understand them.”  They have to be able “to speak freely.”

And so they have a RIGHT and even a DUTY to be in Nazi goose-stepping fascist synchronized march toward one political ideology.

And if you are NOT in these elite classes of the Übermensch, you have the right to shut up and mindlessly follow.  Because, that is all they believe you are capable of doing.

In order for Schwitzgebel to have his utopian “democracy” where  we have “a well-educated, informed voting public, aware of the relevant facts,” we have only tow alternatives: the first is to put everyone who supports Party Y in a reeducation camp until they understand that the only acceptable reality is to accept the one presented by the journalists and the academics; and the second is to surgically “correct” the members of Party Y with a full frontal lobotomy and fit them with a drool-collecting prosthetic so that they can be led to the way, the truth and the life according to “the facts” as journalists and academics understand them.

I have to laugh at Eric.  Here is an example of what he claims to believe as the two abiding principles for his particular academic discipline:

two things make a philosopher great: quality of argument and creative vigor

I mean, gee whiz, Eric, “quality of argument”?  HOW ABOUT ANY DAMN ARGUMENT AT ALL???  “Creative vigor”?  I mean, what the hell, when nearly one-hundred percent of your ilk are all marching in lock-step for one side.  I mean, oh yeah, there’s just ALL KINDS of “creativity” going on in your ivy tower and your faculty lounge, isn’t there???

Eric, you are true to your liberal-progressive kind: you are a devout, abject moral hypocrite of the very lowest order.

Allow me to post every single page of the Los Angles Times main section to prove a point:

p1200085

p1200086

p1200087

p1200088

p1200089

p1200090

p1200091

p1200092

p1200093

p1200094

p1200095

There they are: a photograph of every single page of the main section of the Los Angles times for Monday, January 30, 2017

Let me go through every single headline and subtitle of each article in the main page section of the newspaper of record for the West Coast:

  • CONFUSION REIGNS: Trump calls travel ban a success as chaos mounts on many fronts
  • Thousands of protesters turn out at airports, and even top Republicans criticize the directive.
  • GOP’s case of whiplash: Republicans hoped for collaboration between the White House and Congress, but Trump isn’t making it easy.
  • Police wary of new duty: Trump’s order to use local units to enforce immigration laws elicits resistance by some L.A. officers.
  • BONDS MADE CLOSER: Muslim Americans ‘standing shoulder to shoulder’
  • You can’t build a wall on a river: Border fence must be set back from Rio Grande, leaving some Texans on wrong side.
  • Screening under scrutiny: Trump wants ‘extreme vetting,’ but refugees already face tough checks
  • Mexico braces for uncertain era: Trump’s tough talk on cross-border trade threatens to cut off region’s lifeblood.
  • Bernie Sanders of France wins vote: Benoit Hamon triumphs in the Socialist Party primary for president.
  • River poses challenge to wall plan (continuing ‘You can’t build a wall’ story)
  • 5 killed at Quebec City mosque
  • Trump’s powerful political duo: Travel ban signals the intent by advisors Bannon and Miler to reshape the country.
  • New duties would ‘create a wedge’ (continuing ‘Police wary of new duty’ article)
  • Riled veterans leap to Muslims’ defense: Military members offer support to Iraqi interpreters blocked by Trump’s order
  • Are plans for jobs just PR? Trump is taking credit for them, but skeptics say many were already in the works.
  • Travel ban hits a community hard (continuing ‘BONDS MADE CLOSER’ article)
  • A reprise of anxiety, heartbreak (continuing ‘CONFUSION REIGNS’ article)
  • Trump’s actions are blindsiding the GOP (continuing ‘GOP’s case of whiplash’ article)
  • How Trump created chaos at the airports: Not only was his order on refugees unfair and inhumane, but they way it was carried out was a disaster.
  • Leader of the free world [on Angela Merkel, celebrating her leftist immigration policies in contrast to Trump’s]
  • A cruel, illegal executive order

It’s been this way ever since EVER, for the record.

There is not ONE example of objective, impartial journalism in the entire newspaper.  Rather, it is blatantly obvious that the policy of the Los Angeles Times is of echoing and amplifying ALL the criticisms from the unhinged left, while steadfastly refusing to so much as allow for mention ANYTHING that Trump may have done that could even conceivably be good.

Every single article is negative and unrelentingly critical.  For example, the “Police wary of new duty article” subtitled, “Trump’s order to use local units to enforce immigration laws elicits resistance by some L.A. officers” and then titled as it continues “New duties would ‘create a wedge'”: how likely is it that there are not “some L.A. officers” who are FOR this executive order and welcome it as good policy???  But the “some officers” who take the leftist side are the ONLY ones who get to count.  And to the extent that there is any nuance in the article itself, you don’t see anything but unrelenting anger and criticism in the headlines and subtitles that are what most people glance at as they pick up this biased piece of leftist propaganda.

And again, in the “BONDS MADE CLOSER” story: do you think it’s possible that someone with bad intentions might have been blocked?  But no, it’s going to be framed as sobbing mothers and hysterical children.  And that’s all that matters.  Which amounts to an entirely emotionalism-laded framing of this policy from a biased, slanted perspective while our philosophy professor Eric Schwitzgebe lambasts US as the “emotional” ones.

Do you want to see “emotional”???  How about Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer weeping and sobbing at just what a mean, bad, mean old man Donald Trump is???

Donald Trump’s response:

“Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning,” he wrote. “Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage, protesters and the tears of Senator Schumer.”

Have to admit I loved this meme:

liberal-tears

PLEASE, lefties, PLEASE don’t give me this garbage crap about being “emotionally invested” coming from the right.

The media and academia pull this tactic all the damn time: let’s search and search and search until we can find some sympathetic victim that suits our narrative, and then follow the Saul Alinsky strategy: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”  And it is ALWAYS emotional and it is ALWAYS leftist.  But it’s marvelous when they do what they demonize us for doing.  Because to be a liberal progressive is to be an abject moral hypocrite incapable of shame or virtue or integrity or decency or honesty.

The “Trump’s powerful political duo” article where Trump advisors want to “reshape the country” forces me to remember when Obama said he was only days away from “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”  But THAT was wonderful and greeted with cheers and adoration whereas what Trump is doing is utterly evil because somebody who isn’t a beloved liberal ideologue now wants to “reshape the country.”

How about the article on “Riled veterans”?  Does that title give you the suggestion that veterans voted for Trump by a 2-1 margin???  And literally are the ones who gave Trump his swing-state victories that propelled him to the White House???  How about the fact that for career-oriented troops that form the backbone of our nation’s military and our national security, the margin favoring Trump was THREE to one???

No, or to put it more accurately, HELL no: rather, to put it in Eric’s language, “they present the facts as they understand them.”  Or at least “the facts” that they CHOOSE in their BIAS to present.

“Thousands of protesters” are framed as HEROES.  Remember when the Tea Party was demonstrating?  Not ONE SINGLE arrest was EVER made of a tea party supporter – and in fact the ONLY arrests were of unhinged liberal progressives whose fascist souls were filled with hate and rage at the thought that free people had the freedom to demonstrate.  But the mainstream media demonized us like we were burning and looting and raping and rioting.  But then we had first the vile protests of the Occupy Movement where we had acts of terrorism, acts of rape, acts of mass vandalism; then we had Black Lives Matter chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” and “What do we want?”  Dead cops!”  When do we want it?”  “NOW!” which corresponded to an orgy of execution-style slayings of police officers.  And now we’ve got Democrats charged with RIOTING the day Donald Trump was inaugurated.  And the way the mainstream media depicts it it’s all so, so wonderful.

Such as when Democrats were using Nazi-style Brownshirt tactics to physically beat and terrorize Donald Trump supporters for the crime of participating in the 1st Amendment of our Constitution (see my articles documenting this here and here and here).

And you’re actually worried that the mainstream media that ignored the rise of the Nazi Party from within the Democrat Party isn’t being given enough respect, Eric???

Damn near very single story the mainstream media does emerges from the Saul Alinsky tactic: Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  DAMN NEAR EVERY SINGLE TIME.

We have that Time Magazine White House pool correspondent who wrote a post slandering Donald Trump as a racist for removing the Martin Luther King, Jr. bust.  Why did he assume that?  Well, he glanced at where it was and didn’t see it.  Why didn’t he see it?  Didn’t matter to him at the time in his rabid, unhinged, fanatic desire to post it.  It turned out that a Secret Service agent was blocking his view.

Of course, you have to realize that at NO TIME EVER in the last eight years did ANY Secret Service agent EVER ONCE obstruct ANY reporter’s view of the MLK bust: or else we can safely assume that these unbiased purveyors of fact and truth would have immediately reported that Barack Obama had ordered the MLK bust removed.

Amazingly, Zeke Miller STILL has a job in spite of the fact that he just proved that Time Magazine is a nest of poisonous, fanged, venomous vipers who are NOTHING but biased propagandists trying to slander and pervert the truth to suit their ideology and political narrative to harm and undermine Donald Trump and every single voter who elected him president.

Kellyanne Conway is asking the question: when will these lie peddlers be FIRED for “presenting the facts as their slandering bias compels them to understand them????

You go back and look over the disgrace that journalists made of themselves as Donald Trump kept proving that all the crap they were “reporting” was “FAKE NEWS” from a biased perspective: Donald Trump couldn’t win the primary because he was too polarizing and too divisive; Donald Trump could never defeat Hillary Clinton because he was too polarizing and too divisive; Donald Trump was out of contention in all the swing states because he was too polarizing and too divisive.  And all our biased polls prove our foreordained biased conclusion justifying our biased narrative.

THIS is what it means to be a “journalist” today.  THIS is what it means to be an “academic” today.  And if you’re not one of these propagandists, good luck in finding a damn job with them or keeping a job if you already managed to sneak in.

If you are a “journalist” or an “academic” today, YOU ARE THE LIVING EMBODIMENT OF DISHONESTY AND DISGRACE.

On the academic side, what we see is outright psycho-terror for professors whose expertise and scientific analysis tell them that evolution as a “fact” is a load of crap; we see an avalanche in academia of intolerable denials of tenure, denials of promotion, denials of contract renewals, denials of earned degrees, denials of admission into graduate programs”, and other rabid discrimination against a substantial minority of credentialed scientists that disagrees with the prevailing dogmatism of the myth of evolution.

This is “science” to an evolutionist.  Consider the words from Nobel Laureate Dr. George Wald who concedes a great deal in this quote: “One only has to concede the magnitude of the task to concede the possibility of the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.  Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”  Wald talks about billions of years and then concludes, “Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain.”

This is NOT science, it is “magic.”  Billions of years are NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH TIME for “the magic” of evolution to occur if you actually believe in legitimate science.

But “academia” is purging and destroying ANYONE no matter how credentialed or how accomplished that scientist might be who disagrees with “the acceptable narrative.”

And you want to talk about “creativity” and “arguments”???

We’re seeing the same rabid spirit of academic fascism on another front that we have seen for decades in the myth of godless evolution.

Dr. Judith Curry, a climatologist who had held the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, resigned in protest of the modern-day witch-hunt that has become academia today, saying, “A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.”

Do you know what caused the end of the Old Egyptian Kingdom?  It wasn’t the Industrial Revolution, liberal progressive crazies.  It was “climate change” that had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANTHROPOMORPHIC GLOBAL WARMING.  Do you know what caused the collapse of the Mayan Civilization?  It wasn’t SUVs, liberal progressive whackjobs.  It was “climate change” that had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANTHROPOMORPHIC GLOBAL WARMING.  Because our climate just changes; it’s unstoppableIt is a FACT of both science and logic that the hated Bogeyman of CO2 produces less than 0.1 percent of all global warming gases; just as it is a fact that nature creates thirty damn times the CO2 that human beings do.  The left, out of POLITICAL rather than SCIENTIFIC ideology, made CO2 (which is actually essential for life on planet earth) an earth-murdering poison and ignored all the other global warming gases such as water vapor which accounts for NINETY-FIVE PERCENT of global warming gases.  Or to put it another way, IT’S THE WATER VAPOR, NOT THE CO2, YOU DAMN FOOLS.

But what the hell; we’re Nazis and Stalinists masquerading as “scientists,” and so everything we say must surely be “scientific” no matter how UNSCIENTIFIC it clearly is.

Eric wants us to worship rabid leftist bias that is masqueraded as “science” and “journalism” as “fact.”

What we have in both fields is nothing short of intellectual STALINISM.

HERE is an example of a rabid, disgraced FOOL who is BOTH an “academic” AND a “journalist.”  And he disgraced himself on BOTH fronts.  Which is why he was given a Nobel Prize, I suppose.

You have discredited yourselves.  Nobody ought to listen to you who wants the truth or even anything vaguely resembling the truth.  Your “facts” “as you understand them” are carefully selected lies that pimp a false narrative.  You’ve done it over and over and over again.

The bottom line is this, Eric: where were YOU when Barack Obama announced the New Reality: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”  Or to put the New Reality another way, “We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for a ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

WHERE was your outrage, Mr. Schwittzoebel, when Obama was imposing every manner of outrageous, polarizing executive orders and policies and spitting in the eyes of increasingly outraged and alienated Americans???

I wrote this prediction back in 2012:

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.  And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions.  You mark my words.  Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification???  Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage.  You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching.  And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame.My words on June 18, 2012

If you want to get even with the people most responsible for the rise of Donald Trump, then hunt every Democrat who voted for Barack Obama down with dogs and burn them alive.  Because Donald Trump was the result of eight years of FASCISM.

So we get to Trump’s entirely LAWFUL order to limit immigrants and refugees from seven countries that were actually even on Obama’s list as dangerous sponsors of terrorism.  For eight years, Obama gave us lawless executive orders that he himself had previously labeled as the acts of a king, an emperor, arguing that they were unconstitutional and anti-democratic before then  issuing them anyway.  And Democrats smiled and laughed at the abandonment of our Constitution and the tossing out of our laws.

DON’T complain, Democrat: YOU INVITED THIS.  YOU DEMANDED THIS.  YOU GOT WHAT YOU GAVE US.

Further, these seven countries are notorious abusers of human rights against Christian minorities, against women, against homosexuals.  But that’s perfectly okay, isn’t it???

Obama has been nothing short of a total disaster for the Democratic Party.  He lost the White House.  He lost the House.  He lost the Senate.  He lost a giant number of governorships.  He lost a giant number of state houses.  He’s a disgrace.  And yet he is the liberal progressives’ god and the  only god with whom they will have to do.

If Democrats had ANY virtue or integrity whatsoever, they would say, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, Trump won.”  They would say, “We Democrats can go for a ride with Donald Trump, but we gotta sit in back.”

The fact that you won’t abide by the rules of your own game that you created is the biggest crisis facing America today.

 

 

 

 

 

Biased Media Coverage Of RNC From Police: ‘when we get there, we have 20 protestors; we probably have 80 people from the media there’

July 21, 2016

Saw the Cleveland police chief on a video statement noting that there were often 20 protesters with 80 media trying to pimp the protest to create that sought-after propaganda narrative of unrest.

Prior to the RNC, I recall the frenzy of leftwing media speculation that the open-carry laws that Ohio has with guns would turn the convention into a massacre zone.  But at the moment this is where it stands:

Ohio’s open-carry provision had raised concerns that large numbers of armed activists might roam the streets, but only a handful have materialized at the main protest sites.

When asked what he thought of the Cleveland Police’s efforts to date for the convention Williams said, “Right now, I think so far, so good,” but agreed that the significant number of reporters at the convention had made the job of police “a lot more difficult.”

“We have more media than protesters,” Williams concluded.

As always, the problem isn’t guns; it’s the leftist propaganda that demonizes guns.  It isn’t guns that commit acts of mayhem anymore than it was a truck that committed that terrorist attack in Nice (where the terrorist managed to get a gun in spite of the toughest gun control laws in the world).

Let’s ban trucks.  Cars, too, just to be safe.  And I’m sure a kid riding a tricycle fast enough could kill an elderly person.  Better ban them.

Have you heard any “mea culpas” from the media about how WRONG they were about the hysteria on the open-carry laws and how they DID NOT RESULT IN THE VIOLENCE THEY PREDICTED???

The crickets are chirping.

But I just want a record of how the media is pimping every scintilla of anything negative they can.

The words of Cleveland Police Chief Calvin Williams:

“Our jobs’ a lot more difficult, yes, yes.  Sorry, I mean, most of the time when we get there, we have 20 protestors; we probably have 80 people from the media there.  And we’re tyring to separate out and get a handle on what’s going on, and we have more media than protestors.”

Just so desperate to get the dirt on Republicans and create their horrible image of the RNC that “reporters” are like hungry goldfish greedily swarming to eat bratty children’s spit at a pond in front of a family restaurant.

Let’s see if the media covers the 20 protesters at the DNC with those kinds of swarms and that kind of coverage.  I’ll just tell you in advance that they won’t.

Because to be a “reporter” today is to be a biased, leftwing ideologue propagandist.

And just consider the protests:

We’ve already seen this crap before as anti-Trump Democrats burn flags and terrorize and beat Trump supporters at other Trump events.  Democrats are traitors to every decent thing this nation has ever stood for; and the way they “demonstrate” has continued to be proof of their treason.

Thank God, now they’re setting themselves on fire when they try to burn the symbol of our nation that far better men gave their lives to defend.

And again, the same police that these same vile vermin target are on the job protecting these people from their own moral idiocy:

“You’re on fire! You’re on fire, stupid!” a Cleveland officer shouted at a protester while firing the extinguishing spray.

That’s why Democrats are so incredibly dangerous: all the stupidity of monkeys without the fear of fire and the corresponding instinct for self-preservation.

You tell me if you hear a speech begin with the words, “blue lives matter!” at the DNC.

Believe me, YOU WON’T.

The media are also hysterical covering the “negativity” of the RNC and how it’s all about tearing down Hillary.  Consider the New York Times story:

From Links to Lucifer to Calls for Execution, Republicans Seethe at Hillary Clinton

The Los Angeles Times says the RNC has ONLY been about:

Unifying a party against Clinton, not for Trump

Again, like the way the media swarmed those 20 protesters with 80 media, you just watch how the hysterical, hateful, anti-Trump rhetoric gets covered at the Democratic National Convention next week.  Because rest assured, IT WON’T BE.

I’m just stating as a simple fact that the mainstay speeches of this RNC convention have been from Donald Trump’s family.  And they have been VERY MUCH “for Trump.”  But the media simply ignore that.

ALL these propagandists will focus on at the RNC is the negative, because as ideologue rodents dishonestly masquerading as reporters, these people cannot and will not notice anything positive about the Republican Party.  It’s just not in their shriveled little roach souls.

We’ve seen this garbage throughout the RNC.  When Melania Trump “plagiarized” a small fragment of Michelle Obama’s DNC speech, I never heard a single balanced report about the fact that Joe Biden plagiarized an entire damn speech and Barack Obama plagiarized one of his most powerful speeches.  But then it was “just words,” I suppose.

Apparently, Michelle Obama invented “hard work” and the phrase that “your word is your bond” the way Al Gore invented the internet.

It would have been nice had “journalists” put Melania Trump’s “plagiarism” in a historical context.  You know, point out that both the Democrat president and vice president did far WORSE, and that Melania, after all, is just the WIFE of a candidate, and NOT THE CANDIDATE.

Just remember the slanted way they covered the RNC and then watch how suddenly everything that was so awful suddenly becomes so wonderful when the same reporters get to the DNC.

The one thing you can ALWAYS count on from the media is to be unfair and dishonest in absolutely every single thing they do and say.

 

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

May 23, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bernays explained his project this way:

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

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

Bernay’s daughter described her father this way:

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

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

And Walter Lippmann who defined “journalism” this way:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Hillary Putin, Vladimir Clinton

April 13, 2016

The moment news of the Panama Papers first came out, I immediately wondered if the name “Hillary Clinton” was involved.

It wasn’t.  Just as the name “Vladimir Putin” wasn’t involved.

It turns out that neither name appears in the files, but rather that BOTH corrupt, fascist leaders have multiple henchmen who ARE in the papers.

You want to know what Hillary Clinton’s presidency would look like?  Just look at Vladimir Putin (sans Putin’s nationalistic desire to advance the power of his country).

Putin has been slammed for the Panama Paper revelations even though his name appears nowhere in them: you see statements such as “…the president’s name does not appear in any of the records” in the media reports; yet strangely Hillary Clinton has NOT been so slammed even though the same evidence that indicts Putin also indicts her.  Because FACT: Hillary Clinton has ties to the Russian bank named in the Panama Papers through several key associates.  And the reason this hasn’t EXPLODED in our media is the same damn reason Putin’s Panama Papers thingy hasn’t exploded in the Russian media: because America under Obama and the mainstream media ideological allies of Obama and the Democrat Party is every bit as much a fascist propaganda state as Russia is:

Russian State Media Mostly Ignore Panama Papers
4/6/2016  by Vladimir Kozlov

Russia’s state-run media almost entirely ignored the recent report by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), more commonly known as the Panama Papers, despite the fact that the released documents mentioned close friends and associates of president Vladimir Putin.

Major free-to-air television networks, such as Channel One, Rossiya, Ren-TV and NTV, didn’t even mention the controversy in their news desks, while state-controlled wire services Rossiya Segodnya and TASS provided only brief discussion of the report.

Oppositionist legislator Dmitry Gudkov demanded explanations for the brief and incomplete coverage of the “Panama Papers” from the state media. Dmitry Kiselev, head of Rossiya Segodnya, responded by saying he had no intention of discussing the organization’s editorial policies with Gudkov.

Other Russian media gave the Panama Papers more coverage, but often focused on foreign personalities implicated in the controversy, including soccer player Lionel Messi and Michel Platini, former president of the European soccer governing body UEFA, rather than examining the Russian angle.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who previously spoke about “an information attack” against Russia orchestrated by the West, said at a news briefing that Putin was the main target of the Panama Papers, even though he was not directly mentioned in the released documents.

Peskov’s statement, in which he accused the West of “Putinophobia,” was widely covered by the Russian media.

Meanwhile, the pro-Kremlin English-language television network Russia Today (RT) dismissed the Panama Papers as poor quality journalism.

“Why is the West so obsessed with focusing its narrow attention span on Putin at the exception of corrupt Western leaders who only get passing mention in these hack pieces?” read a comment published on the network’s web site.

Independent newspaper Vedomosti quoted Igor Yakovenko, head of the foundation Public Examination, as saying that Russians, who have been heavily exposed to Kremlin propaganda across the media, are likely to ignore the controversy.

It’s no damn different here.  We can go back to 2009 when Pravda – PRAVDA – was hysterically laughing at the sheer ridiculousness of American media Obama propaganda.  Obama can literally weaponize the IRS against his political opponents – a truly fascist, Orwellian act that Nixon only CONTEMPLATED but Obama DID – and the media yawns.  It doesn’t matter that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that were already operating as 501(c)(4)s. At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83 percent were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100 percent were right-leaning.  It doesn’t matter that there is direct evidence proving both a political attack and the destruction of evidence to cover-up that political attack.  Hillary Clinton is SO guilty of the scandalous abandonment of US personnel in Benghazi after steadfastly refusing to answer their appeals for help before the attack and then denying it even WAS an attack in the aftermath that it is beyond ridiculous.  Just as her secret personal server created to bypass and obstruct transparency laws and which was used to transmit the most secret information in the entire American system being stored not only in a non-secure location but literally in a Colorado BATHROOM CLOSET is an obvious FELONY that ought to put her in prison.  This goes so far beyond an “email account” that it is insane; NO TOP GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL HAD EVER INSTALLED  A PERSONAL SEVER AND USED THAT PERSONAL SERVER EXCLUSIVELY TO CONDUCT ALL GOVERNMENT BUSINESS AND THEN PURGED IT TO DESTROY EVIDENCE.  Creating a secret, personal server and then using that server in a nonsecure location to transmit top secret classified material is an obvious crime.  But it won’t because as the drug cartel leaders say, “I have protection.”

The only thing Hillary Clinton can hide behind is the “intent” due to the fact that she is utterly incompetent and simply could not understand the ramifications of what she was doing.  But even there the actual evidence explodes on her: because she has been caught red-bloodly-handed ordering her staff “to take ‘secure’ information and ‘send nonsecure’.”  This incriminating event happening after she IGNORED State Department security warnings not to use her Blackberry overseas (see did what the hell she wanted no matter the risks to national security) and after she was warned that her private server was vulnerable to attacks.

Hillary Clinton told so many damn lies leading up to what we now know it is UNREAL.  Those lies began to come out when she first claimed that she set up her private server because she only wanted to use one device for convenience sake – but then was found using multiple devices so that wasn’t it.  She purged her server claiming she had personal emails with her husband (see also here).  Put ASIDE the fact that when SHE chose to combine her personal and public life her personal life thereby became public and all she needed to do was what every other official did and have two accounts.  But that got blown up when husband Bill said he had only sent two emails in his entire LIFE – and NEITHER to his wife.  The same link contains another Hillary lie, that her husband set this server up and she was therefore using a Secret-Service secured server on Secret-Service secured premises.  Only it wasn’t.  Because WHY THE HELL WAS THE DAMN THING FOUND IN SOMEBODY’S BATHROOM IN COLARADO???

Hillary’s lies are so vast and so many and so complex it boggles the mind: her initial claim was that she was using Bill Clinton’s Secret Service secured server at their New York residence.  But that wasn’t really true: because “A staffer who was on the payroll of her political action committee set it up in her home, replacing a server that Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, had been using in the house.”  Which is another way of saying the story was a lie; it NEVER WAS BILL CLINTON’S SERVER.  It was set up FOR her by someone on her political action committees’ payroll.  And then she moved the server which she installed to bypass the law offsite.

There was that moment when President Obama made a joke that really ought to expose how blatant Hillary Clinton’s entire scheme was from the beginning: “Hillary has a server in her house! I didn’t even know you could have one of those.”  Because no public official had ever gone so far to deceive before.

This woman has been a rabid pathological liar her entire adult life.  She lies about everything, little things and big things alike.  Lies are always all around her; her soul swims in lies.

Today she claims she is the living embodiment of defending women; but when it mattered she was laughing over her trick in getting the rapist of a twelve-year-old girl completely off the hook.  When it mattered she was at the head of a campaign to destroy the credibility of all the women who came forward detailing incredibly inappropriate behavior from her husband while maintaining instead that Bill’s disgusting behavior toward woman after woman was “a vast, right wing conspiracy.”

I could literally spend the rest of the article detailing nothing but one massive criminal coverup after another one.  But I’m just screaming in a hurricane.

Because we have the same kind of media here that Russia has.

Even back in the Soviet days, intelligent Russians were amazed at the US media deception and how effective it was here to a gullible public that just ate it up thinking it was actual news the way goldfish in the ponds in front of the doors of family restaurant eat up children’s spit thinking it was actual food.  “A Soviet correspondent once said of the American mainstream media, “I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world — in the field of advertizing — and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency … Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious … I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours … and we tend to disbelieve ours.”

And we are therefore on the verge of electing the same sort of leader Russia has.

And the cases in point are now way, WAY beyond legion.

The Clinton System is as identical as the Putin System could possible by in the American economy.  You have 200 donors to the Clinton Foundation who were at the same time lobbying the Clinton State Department. You’ve got more than a thousand foreign donors whose names were NOT disclosed by the Clinton Foundation.  You’ve got them refilling their taxes after massive, widespread irregularities were discovered. A whopping SIX YEARS’ of tax returns.

Bernie Sanders is making the clearly accurate case that Hillary Clinton gave speech after speech to Wall Street power players who were paying upwards of a quarter of a million dollars per speech. And that if her damn speeches were that great that they were worth that kind of money, well, the world ought to hear her prices wisdom.  But don’t worry; those speeches will NEVER come to the light of day because if they did the candidate these Wall Street players bought and paid for will never get to do their bidding.  Hillary dishonestly says she’ll release the transcripts (I’d prefer the actual recordings anyway for obvious reasons) when her rivals release theirs; so her only opponent Bernie Sanders released all ZERO speeches he’s given to Wall Street.  Because Wall Street doesn’t even WANT to hear what Bernie has to say to them, let alone pay him a quarter million dollars a pop to hear it.

You want to claim that Hillary Clinton actually CARES about poor people with her reptilian heart?  Just consider the pure, unforgivable coldness she demonstrated toward the people of Haiti when her Foundation came in to save the day but in reality set up a pay-to-play system

Development banks are the butt of jokes among economists because while they claim to fight poverty they are mostly good at empire building. The same might be said of the Clintons in Haiti. A few months after Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, Bill Clinton was named the U.N. special envoy to Haiti. That gave the Clintons a lot of power over U.S. foreign-aid decisions in the small country.

They accumulated more influence after the 2010 earthquake, when Bill was named co-chair of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission. The State Department began directing parties interested in competing for Haiti contracts to the Clinton Foundation. Being on the right side of Bill matters if you want to benefit from U.S. foreign aid destined for Haiti.

The scandals are UNREAL.  But to the extent they are even reported at all they are “reported” with an attempt to fabricate a yawn-response by the hopelessly deceived American public.

It is beyond amazing how fascist hypocrite Democrats truly are.  Bernie Sanders is running on a government for the people rather than for the big donors.  And there is literally no human being on earth today who is more FILTHY in crony-capitalist fascist self-benefitting trading of power-for-favors than Hillary Clinton.  But they will eagerly vote for the very thing they will tell you with straight faces that they claim to most despise.

So I saw this and just found it interesting:

The Panama Papers Are Exactly Why Hillary Clinton Can’t Be President
By Robert Tracinski
April 8, 2016

The revelations from the Panama Papers—leaked documents from a secretive Panamanian law firm that helps political elites hide their money—have been hitting home across the world, exposing the widespread corruption of world leaders and their hangers-on.

It ought to hit here, too, because it reminds us of everything that should give us the heebie-jeebies about Hillary Clinton.

The Panama Papers have simply confirmed everything we already pretty much knew. This is just the way things work in much of the world. Clawing your way into high political office means that you have a lot special of favors to give out, contracts to distribute, land and timber and shipping deals to approve, and so on. So you dole them out to friends, relatives, and backers—and they naturally show their gratitude by kicking some of it back to you. And if you don’t officially get rich—well, mi casa es su casa, what’s a little sharing between friends? This has long been Vladimir Putin’s method. “In 2010, US diplomatic cables suggested Putin held his wealth via proxies. The president formally owned nothing, they added, but was able to draw on the wealth of his friends, who now control practically all of Russia’s oil and gas production and industrial resources.” The Panama Papers shed light on the fortune of Putin’s old friend Sergei Roldugin, who has somehow amassed billions as an obscure classical musician. Putin knows how easy it is for corrupt officials to live like kings without officially owning anything, because that’s the way things worked in the good old days of the Soviet Union.

In most of the world, this is known and more or less accepted as the way things work. But not traditionally in the US and in the developed countries of the West, where our governments have been structured, either from the beginning or over many years of civil service reforms, to prevent corruption and conflicts of interest. So when they are exposed, it’s a major scandal. That’s why they’re pretty much ignoring the Panama Papers in Moscow, but in Iceland, crowds swarmed Raykjavik and forced the resignation of the prime minister.

And that confronts us with a question: do we want Panama here?

Because a couple of other names pop up in the Panama Papers, including those of a few well-known associates of Hillary Clinton: longtime Democratic Party fixers John and Tony Podesta and Clinton sycophant Sydney Blumenthal. And why not? Hillary Clinton has been up to her neck in crony deals from the very beginning. All the way back in 1978, for example, she indulged a sudden mania for trading cattle futures, from which she made just shy of $100,000 in less than a year—a lot more money back then than it is now, and a whole lot for a young couple like the Clintons. She has shown no interest in commodities trading since, which is surprising considering how successful she was at it. But maybe not so surprising when you consider that her trades back then were made under the guidance of an attorney who worked for a large company that just happened to be regulated by her husband. Gee, that almost looks like a bribe.

That’s the kind of thing that’s all over the Panama Papers, and it’s what Hillary Clinton has been doing forever. It’s how the Clintons suddenly made $100 million in the first few years after leaving the White House, with nothing to offer the business world but their political connections. It’s why the Clinton Foundation got massive donations from Russian businessmen with deals that required State Department approval.

The problem is wider than Hillary Clinton, of course. Donald Trump has openly bragged about his role in this system from the other end, as the businessman who buys the influence of politicians. Even Bernie Sanders, who has been making hay from the Panama Papers, advocates a much bigger role for government, particularly in regulating international trade—which is precisely the kind of playground for corruption revealed by the Panama Papers. Only Ted Cruz, despite playing footsie with protectionism during the South Carolina primary, advocates a smaller role for government in picking winners and losers in the economy.

The fact is that the reason official corruption is rampant across much of the world is not just that they have insufficient civil service reforms. It’s because their governments have vast, arbitrary powers. Hillary Clinton is one of the most visible reminders of this kind of wheeling and dealing among the global elites—and she presents us with the prospect of bringing the whole sordid system back from Panama and straight into the Oval Office.

As bad as Bernie Sanders would be – Barack Obama didn’t just enrage the American people beyond capacity that he gave us Donald Trump; he broke any and all confidence in the entire system that he gave us OPENLY SOCIALIST Bernie Sanders as well – if the GOP doesn’t win, I hope Bernie does.  Because Hillary Clinton is just nakedly evil in absolutely everything she thinks and does.

I see Hillary Clinton’s campaign slogan –

– And viscerally see that a vote for the Democrat Party isn’t a vote for “Hil,” it’s a vote for HELL.

Hillary Clinton is the very same sort of paranoid, power-hungry, fascist thug that Vladimir Putin is.  She has manipulated her entire life lusting for the power that Putin has.  And she’s on the verge of that power because to be a Democrat today is to be the same sort of pathologically dishonest hypocrite that their mistress has revealed herself to be.

Obama’s reverend for 23 years summed it up beautifully: “God DAMN America!”  You just keep voting for it, America.  Because God Almighty will see to it that you get everything you voted for and then some.

When Most Dishonest, Most Divisive, Most Hypocrite, Most-Fawned-Over-By-Leftist-Press President Denounces Biased Press Who Adored Him

March 30, 2016

The Chinese came up with a curse: “May you live in interesting times.”  The subtle idea was, if things were going well, if there was peace, times would be nice and boring.  The worse things got, however, the more “interesting” they would be.

Which is why things are so damn interesting in our country and in our world now, thanks to the worst president in American history.

It’s just an amazing thing to be alive today, no two ways about it.

So we have Obama – who massively benefited from fawning press coverage when he was running for president as even the leftist HARVARD acknowledged

[M]edia bias seems an obvious and inevitable phenomenon; serious analyses of media bias date back as far as the Lincoln-Douglas days over 150 years ago. But honest and objective analyses clearly indicate that such bias has only worsened.

During President Obama’s 2008 campaign, the overwhelming majority of news media was clearly and unabashedly behind the campaign of hope and change. Time‘s Mark Halperin called it “the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq War. It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.” Los Angeles Times writer Mark Barabak expressed similar sentiments: “I think it’s incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we’re being fair. The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I’ve ever covered, by far.”

Their statements were not only backed by traditional analyses of media coverage, but also by a more revealing statistic: the Democratic Party received a total donation of $1,020,816 from 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks in 2008, while the Republican Party received only $142,863 from 193 donors.

After such blatant and self-admitted media bias in 2008, we might have expected this year’s election coverage to become far more balanced. Instead, news organizations remained blatantly in the bag for the president and his Democratic allies.

The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism recently released its report on the 2012 election, and the numbers are clearer than ever. While Governor Romney and President Obama received approximately the same amount of coverage, the type and character of coverage provided were much different. In evening network news, for example, narratives of President Obama remained approximately balanced, while the negative exceeded the positive by 17 percentage points for Governor Romney. Coverage of Romney was also twice as negative as that of President Obama (23 percent versus 11 percent).

Of course, the go-to scapegoat for liberal critics will be the conservative-leaning Fox News Channel. There is no question that Fox News exhibited a right-leaning bias in its coverage: fully 46 percent of news coverage for the president was negative. However, not only was Fox News essentially the only media organization to not have a leftward skew, the bias in its coverage also paled in comparison to that of MSNBC, where coverage of Romney was 71 percent negative (over one and half times more negative than Fox coverage of President Obama). And perhaps the most telling statistic is from the final week, when MSNBC ran no negative coverage of President Obama and no positive coverage of Governor Romney, the most absolute bias of any of the cable news channels.

Even network television (ABC, CBS, NBC) exhibited an apparent bias for President Obama. While Romney received a roughly even amount of positive and negative coverage during the day, evening coverage (when the majority of viewers tune in to network news) saw a stark change, giving a positive three percent boost to President Obama while Romney received two-to-one negative coverage.

– now demanding that the press does to the other party’s guy what they never ONCE did when he was running???

Then you consider Obama’s unrelenting WAR on a fair and balanced press that had access and the ability to provide impartial coverage, and you just start BARFING.

The leftist website democracynow.org has an article titled, “Barack Obama: The Least Transparent President in History.” Here’s how it begins:

“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.” So wrote President Barack Obama, back on Jan. 29, 2009, just days into his presidency. “Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.” Now, six years into the Obama administration, his promise of “a new era of open Government” seems just another grand promise, cynically broken.

As the news industry observed its annual “Sunshine Week” in mid-March, The Associated Press reported that “[m]ore often than ever, the administration censored government files or outright denied access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act [FOIA].” The AP report continued, “The government’s efforts to be more open about its activities last year were their worst since President Barack Obama took office.”

And on that topic that Obama is THE most fascist and anti-transparent and anti-press president in all of American history both the left and the right agree upon, given the Wall Street Journal’s piece titled, “The Least Transparent Administration: How Team Obama stymies freedom of information requests.”

How about the Associated Press? What do THEY say about Obama?  The AP published the damning results of its new analysis using federal data that finds the Obama administration not just to have failed to be “the most transparent administration in history,” but to in fact be less transparent than any recent administration. Data from the last two years also shows despite the repeated complaints from journalists and news outlets, the administration “has made few meaningful improvements” to its opaque M.O

So it is absolutely astounding that this despicable, vile roach-in-chief would come out and blast the media and blast Donald Trump benefitting in any way, any shape or any form from that media.

And yet that is precisely what the most pathologically dishonest and hypocritical human being in the entire history of the human race did:

WASHINGTON — President Obama delivered a forceful critique on Monday of politicians and the journalists who cover them, lamenting the circuslike atmosphere of the presidential campaign and declaring, “A job well done is about more than just handing someone a microphone.”

Speaking at a journalism prize ceremony in honor of Robin Toner, a longtime political reporter for The New York Times who died in 2008, Mr. Obama said the 2016 campaign had become “entirely untethered to reason and facts and analysis,” a coarse spectacle that he said was tarnishing the “American brand” around the world.

“I was going to call it a carnival atmosphere,” the president said, “but that implies fun.”

“The No. 1 question I’m getting as I travel around the world or talk to world leaders right now is, ‘What is happening in America about our politics?’ ” Mr. Obama continued. “They care about America, the most powerful nation on earth, functioning effectively and its government being able to make sound decisions.”

Mr. Obama’s references to Donald J. Trump, the New York real estate developer turned Republican front-runner, were unmistakable in his criticism of “divisive and often vulgar rhetoric,” frequently aimed at women and at ethnic and racial minorities. But he also turned his fire on the news media, saying it had given an uncritical platform to those pronouncements, in part because of relentless economic pressures that have changed the way news organizations operate.

The president suggested that the news media had not done enough to question the promises made by politicians — an apparent reference not only to Mr. Trump, but also to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the independent who is challenging Hillary Clinton, Mr. Obama’s former secretary of state, for the Democratic nomination. Mr. Sanders has promised free public college education and national health care coverage, ambitious social programs that critics say could never be enacted.

The president denounced what he called the practice of drawing “false equivalences” between competing claims made by politicians. “If I say the world is round and someone else says it’s flat, that’s worth reporting,” Mr. Obama said. “But you might also want to report on a bunch of scientific evidence that seems to support the notion that the world is round.”

You mean like YOU did with all your false ObamaCare promises, just for one example?  Politifact called it “the LIE of the YEAR,” and there are at LEAST 37 instances in which Obama repeated that lie over and over and over and over again.

As we speak, we’re STILL learning just how rabidly dishonest Obama was:

In the latest report to undercut President Obama’s “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” promise, the Congressional Budget Office projects millions of workers will leave employer-sponsored health plans over the next decade because of ObamaCare.

Some will opt to go on Medicaid, but others will be kicked off their company plans by employers who decide not to offer coverage anymore, according to a new CBO report titled,  “Federal Subsidies for Health Insurance Coverage for People Under Age 65: 2016 to 2026.”

“As a result of the ACA, between 4 million and 9 million fewer people are projected to have employment-based coverage each year from 2017 through 2026 than would have had such coverage if the ACA had never been enacted,” the report, released Thursday, said

The Hill reported that 2 million jobs’ worth of hours would be destroyed directly because of this roach law.

People aren’t even bothering to go into the ObamaCare exhanges; there is a giant surge of people pouring into Medicaid way, WAY beyond what Obama or any of his liars told us would happen which is massively increasing the cost.  That is OVERWHELMING an already tottering system.

In fact, try this title on for size: “Ninety-Seven Percent of Obamacare “Newly Insured” Medicaid Expansion Patients.”

FactCheck.org has routinely questioned the “nine million” number, pointing out that while around two million may have elected to pursue an application through a state or Federal marketplace, a large majority of the newly insured were likely adults and children eligible for the expanded medicare benefits, or young, uninsured individuals now eligible to stay on a parent’s plan until they turned 26 – hardly “new”  insurance applicants. According to newly released research from the Heritage Foundation, however, it looks as though an even greater percentage – 97% – of the “newly-insured” are those who benefited from Obamacare’s massive Medicaid expansion.

We were told that 48 million Americans lacked affordable health insurance and something had to be done, but even five years after the passage of Obamacare, 33 million Americans are still uninsured.

If you dig deeper into the actual numbers and realize what really happened with those 9 million “newly insured”, there’s little reason to cheer.

The number of Americans with health insurance increased by 9.25 million in 2014, the first year that two key provisions of Obamacare took place: the subsidies for coverage purchased through the exchanges and Medicaid expansion. And according to recent research by The Heritage Foundation, out of that 9.25 million, “the vast majority of the increase was the result of 8.99 million individuals being added to the Medicaid rolls.”

In other words, over 97 percent of last year’s newly insured Americans were from Medicaid expansion.

Medicaid is designed to assist people who lack the capacity to work, thus making them unable to access employer-provided insurance options, and those who are too poor to afford individual private health care plans. The Obamacare program, however, has expanded those parameters to include the young, the able bodied, and those who are capable of working but choose not to, exploding Medicaid’s ranks and taxing (pun intended) an already at-risk program running straight into bankruptcy. As Kristina Ribali of Uncover Obamacare points out, each dollar spent on those Medicare isn’t designed to serve is a dollar taken away from those who Medicare was designed to help: the truly poor and needy.

Of course, a Medicare expansion isn’t anywhere near ideal – in any way – but it’s interesting that the Obamacare program can, essentially, count as it’s only success a Medicare expansion, something that could have been accomplished without passing a multiple-thousand-page Federal law that has had such a disastrous impact on the way health insurance functions in America. According to the Heritage report, even the parts of the ACA that were supposed to help those in need have failed: while Obamacare counts 4.79 million new enrollments, the same program forced 4.53 million people off their employer-provided insurance, meaning a whopping net 260,000 people were actually served by Obamacare.

I can do all the same things on the subject of illegal immigration, where Obama is not merely a proven, vastly-documented liar without shame, honor or decency, but a facist roach according to his own statements in which he said he’d basically be a Nazi to do what he then turned around and did.

And here we have Obama – our Roach-in-Chief Par Excellence – at it again as he cynically uses federal tax dollars to weaponize non-citizens into voters to use against the American people.

Put those two things together: remember how a Republican congressman was vilified by Obama who postured like a martyr and by the most dishonest media machine since Goebbels when he shouted, “You lie!” at Obama during a State of the Union speech?

I pointed out who was telling the truth and who was lying at the time:

Joe Wilson’s ‘You Lie!’ Over Illegal Immigrants Most True Statement During Obama Speech

When Joe Wilson Shouted ‘You Lie!’ At Obama, IT WAS BECAUSE OBAMA WAS LYING

And so with that history in mind let’s look at a few article titles and see WHO WAS LYING LIKE HELL:

Senate Report: Illegals Benefited From $750 Million in ObamaCare Subsidies

Dem Congressman: Obamacare for All Illegal Immigrants: “The goal is to make integration and inclusion real.”

Hillary Clinton: Illegal Immigrants Should Be Allowed to Get Obamacare

There is a world where Joe Wilson is smiling and every single Democrat is screaming in the agony of eternal hell fire.  Fortunately that world is coming.  Because everybody who cares one flying DAMN about the truth knew where this vile ObamaCare law was going.  And Democrats lied about it like the future citizens of hell that they truly are.

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that even Politico – which was one of those propaganda mills for Obama when he was running in 2007-2008 – broke with this fascist lying weasel and said things like this:

  • “The last person in the world who should be lecturing journalists on how to do journalism is President Barack Obama. Yet there Obama was last night at a journalism award ceremony, yodeling banalities about the role of a press in a free society, moaning over the dangers posed by “he said/she said” reporting, and—to the delight of the assembled audience—attacking Donald Trump in every way but name. The press-heavy crowd, convened by Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications to give the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting to Alec MacGillis, clapped at Obama’s 30-minute address, encouraging his best Trump-baiting lines about “free media” and the dangers of “false equivalence.”What they should have done is bombard Obama with rotten fruit or ripped him with raspberries for his hypocrisy.How do we hate Obama’s treatment of the press? Let me count the ways. Under his administration, the U.S. government has set a new record for withholding Freedom of Information requests, according to a recent AP investigation. FOIA gives the public and press an irreplaceable view into the workings of the executive branch. Without timely release of government documents and data, vital questions can’t be answered and stories can’t be written.Obama’s “Insider Threat Program“ has turned employees across the government—from the Peace Corps to the Social Security Administration to the Department of Agriculture—into information squelching snitches. If this isn’t Trumpian behavior, I don’t know what is.“Obama hates the press,” New York Times national security reporter James Risen said not long ago, “and he hates leaks.” Associated Press Washington Bureau Chief Sally Buzbee has decried the “day-to-day intimidation of sources” by the Obama administration, judging it worse than the Bush administration on that score. And in a 2013 piece, Politico’s Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen documented Obama’s mastery of “limiting, shaping and manipulating media coverage of himself and his White House.””
  • “The deeper you study Obama’s relationship with the press, the more you want to ask what business he has giving out a press award. Was Trump himself busy that night?”
  • “Shame on the Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications for allowing Obama—a documented opponent of the press—to pontificate on journalistic practice. The only press award he has any business awarding is special commendation to Trump, thanking him for making Obama look like a free-speech radical by comparison.”

The title of the above piece is “Spare Me Your Hypocritical Journalism Lecture, Mr. President.”  It is very much worth reading.

The only difference is that I knew Obama was like that eight damn years ago.

Donald Trump owes his rise to one loathsome, despicable man – and that man is Barack Hussein Obama.

Again, I TOLD you a Trump was coming.   My words on June 18, 2012:

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.  And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions.  You mark my words.  Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification???  Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage.  You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching.  And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame.

Obama set out to break the Republican Party.  And now this demon-possessed man claims that he’s in no way responsible for the party that he broke by imposing tyrannous executive orders that split a GOP desperately trying to react to outright fascism as Obama used the media in ways described above to distort and warp public opinion.  If a group of thugs breaks into a gathering by a group of decent people and starts slapping people, kicking them, punching them in the face, some people will want to fight back and others will want to call the police and still others will want to cowardly negotiate with their attackers.  That’s exactly what Obama did to the GOP with his sweeping tyrannous actions.  And all the while he divided America by race, divided America by income, divided America by gender, divided-divided-divided so he could conquer no matter how small the margin was.

The result was tens of millions of people – basically half the nation – who are rabidly enraged at Obama and literally ready to do what Democrats have done – first with their vile Occupy Movement and then with race riots and now with Black Lives Matter and fascist Brownshirt violent attacks against Trump rallies – and begin burning and rioting.

And so we have that until now bottlenecked rage incarnated in the rise of Donald Trump.  Right out of the toxic soul of Obama.

I can even show you with numerous headlines how Obama uses the same damn TACTICS that Trump uses to mock opponents and label them:

Obama Mocks GOP

You click on that and you see 6,220,000 results of “Obama mocks Republicans.”

Is that presidential?  It sure is now, in the age of Obama (and the type Obama created, Donald Trump).

Obama made it a politically omnipotent tactic to demonize people – you know, the way he did when he claimed that Republicans were people who want dirtier air, dirtier water and children born with Down Syndrome and autism – and divide people and win by division – why shouldn’t a Trump learn from that and play ball the way Obama and Democrats play ball???

Obama as candidate: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”  But OH the hypocrisy when the left covers Trump!

Obama demagoguing race and saying to Latinos, “Punish your enemies!”

And I only WISH George W. Bush had personally demonized Barack Obama the way Obama is now publicly demonizing Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, there’s the historical lesson of the Nazis using thug tactics to break up their opponents’ political rallies while they were rising to power; and you’ve got the Nazis using the system to crush all opposition once they attained power: and you’ve got the Democrat Party simultaneously doing BOTH when it comes to their fascist, and yes NAZI tactics against Donald Trump.

When you have this kind of garbage such that a student at a university somehow doesn’t have a right to support a major candidate for president, you have the return of Nazism.

But what do you expect from the liberals who have literally called for open destruction of free speech???  What do you expect from Democrat-supporting “journalism” professors who teach their students how to call for “some muscle” against reporters trying to actually do their damn job and report liberal fascism???

The only reason there is a Donald Trump is because liberals spawned him.

Trump is to angry, pissed off white people EXACTLY what Obama was to the people he won over by preaching hate the same damn way his vile “reverend” for 23 years preached hate.

Is Donald Trump anything other than a despicable human being?  No.  But there are only TWO PEOPLE IN AMERICA who are even MORE despicable than Trump: Hillary Clinton, who belongs in prison and already would have been shoved into her cell and the cage slammed shut behind her had it not been for the other winner of “most despicable”: Barack Obama.

It’s that VERY RAGE that a roach like Obama can just defy justice and thwart the law that has enraged the electorate to the point of Trump.

At least the GOP establishment is trying to keep the despicable candidate from winning: versus the Democrat Party that openly celebrates the only two people on earth who are vastly more despicable.

 

 

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

February 15, 2013

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

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

“FOX News makes me cringe.”

Political Science Professor Stephanie Wolfe West Liberty University

poly sci lib teacher Stephanie Wolfe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Campaign Donor Scandal Doesn’t ROCK Obama Campaign, It’s ONLY Because Mainstream Media Is Too Dishonest To Do It’s Job And Report It.

October 9, 2012

This should make you angry.  Mind you, a LOT of things the media has basically refused to report – such as the increasingly scandal and cover-up in the terrorist attack on the US compound in Libya that resulted in the murder of a US ambassador and several other Americans – that should make you angry.

Obama is raking in close to a billion dollars for his campaign.  While incredibly deceitfully presenting himself as the poor oppressed candidate fighting against the obscenely greedy corporate stooge Romney.  But when we find out that terrorist murderers such as Nidal Hasan can make contributions – no questions asked and all safeguards removed UNLIKE THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN – people ought to start getting pissed off:

Is a donor scandal about to rattle the Obama campaign?
posted at 4:59 pm on October 6, 2012 by Matt Vespa

As Katie Pavlich posted on October 5, the Obama campaign is about to get rocked by a fundraising scandal involving “taxes and foreign donors.”  Pavlich wrote that since “billionaires like George Soros support him and considering Hollywood is partially controlled by European money, naturally Obama has foreign support. Obama’s economic philosophy is also similar to European style resdistribution of wealth, which is why French President Francois Hollande supports him.”

This development comes after Obama raised $181 million dollars for the month of September.  As Allapundit noted yesterday, that’s a lot of donors.  If there wasn’t anything to hide then why is the campaign trying to put a kibosh on the story.

Back in April, I stumbled upon a video that recorded an anomaly with respect to donating to Obama’s campaign online.  As the man in the video donates online, he notices that “the Obama campaign does not have the universal 3-digit security code feature for credit card transactions on their website. It appears that anyone, anywhere can donate to President Obama’s re-election campaign, all you need is a credit card number.”

He tried the same thing with the Romney campaign, but the donation was denied since it wasn’t verified.

Nidal Hasan…big Obama supporter

Donation successful!

Paul Bedard of The Washington Examiner wrote on October 4 that:

According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws.

The Obama campaign has received hundreds of millions in small dollar donations, many via credit card donations through their website. On Thursday, the campaign announced a record September donor haul of $150 million. [$181 million]

At the end of the 2008 presidential campaign, the Obama-Biden effort was hit with a similar scandal. At the time, the Washington Post reported that the Obama campaign let donors use “largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity.”

The bottom line is this: a foreign donor can give to the Obama campaign without the full disclosure that is required on any HONEST OR LEGITIMATE CAMPAIGN SUCH AS MITT ROMNEY’S.  If you want to buy an Obama IS America flag at the Obama store, you’ve got to enter the security code on your credit card; if you are a foreign terrorist who just got through murdering Americans and you want to help make sure that Obama gets reelected so you won’t pay for your terrorism, you DON’T have to enter that security code.

The Obama campaign is specifically asking for donations for $190 in order to avoid the $200 threshold that involves more inspection.

You ought to be pissed.

Let me get back to the terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Libya.  When you find out that the Obama administration removed two security teams prior to the terrorist attack that the Obama administration covered-up by claiming it WASN’T a terrorist attack, and removed those teams even as the now-murdered American ambassador was BEGGING for more security, and when you find out that the Obama administration denied the requests to improve the chances of the ambassador and his staff being able to escape the attack that the Obama administration exposed the ambassador to in the first place, well, you can kind of understand why Obama now has to monkey with his campaign donations so that Nidal Hasan can give to Obama, can’t you?

Well, there’s more coming.  How about Obama being owned by a bundler with ties to the Chinese government?

Bombshell: Obama.com Owned by Bundler in Shanghai with Business Ties to Chinese Government
by Wynton Hall 8 Oct 2012, 5:14 AM PDT

In an explosive report set to send shockwaves through official Washington, the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) released a 108-page GAI investigation into the threat of foreign and fraudulent Internet campaign donations in U.S. federal elections (visit campaignfundingrisks.com to download the full report).

Breitbart News obtained an advance copy of the bombshell report which reveals that the Obama.com website is not owned by the president’s campaign but rather by Obama bundler Robert Roche, a U.S. citizen living in Shanghai, China. Roche is the chairman of a Chinese infomercial company, Acorn International, with ties to state-controlled banks that allow it to “gain revenue through credit card transactions with Chinese banks.”

There’s more.

The unusual Obama.com website redirects traffic directly to a donation page on the Obama campaign’s official website, my.barackobama.com, which does not require donors to enter their credit card security code (known as the CVV code), thereby increasing the likelihood of foreign or fraudulent donations. The website is managed by a small web development firm, Wicked Global, in Maine. One of Wicked Global’s employees, Greg Dorr, lists on his LinkedIn page his additional employment with Peace Action Maine and Maine Voices for Palestinian Rights. According to the GAI report, 68 percent of all Internet traffic to Obama.com comes from foreign visitors.

And still more.

In 2011, Mr. Roche obtained one of the most sought-after pieces of real estate in Washington, DC: a seat at the head table for President Obama’s State Dinner for Chinese President Hu Jintao. How Roche—a man whose infomercial company hawks fitness equipment, cell phones, and breast enhancement products—landed a seat alongside Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, Sen. John Kerry, former President Jimmy Carter, and Chinese President Hu Jintao remains unclear.

Since 2009, White House Visitor Logs list the name Robert Roche at least 19 times, despite the fact Mr. Roche’s primary residence is in China.

Mr. Roche, who is originally from Chicago, is a co-chair of the Technology Initiative for the Obama campaign.

According to Acorn International’s prospectus, the success of Mr. Roche’s company hinges on maintaining access to state-run media and “preferential tax treatments and subsidies” doled out by the People’s Republic of China (PRC):

Our business depends on our access to TV media time to market our products and services in China….PRC law is vague and is subject to discretionary interpretation and enforcement by PRC authorities…Loss of these preferential tax treatments and subsidies could have material and adverse effects on our results of operations and financial conditions.

In addition to the Obama.com redirect revelation, the Government Accountability Institute report—America the Vulnerable: Are Foreign And Fraudulent Online Contributions Influencing U.S. Elections?—exposes myriad gaping online security holes that stand to threaten the integrity of House, Senate, and presidential elections.

Stay tuned to Breitbart News for continuing coverage…

Headline image: Obama 2012-themed credit card cover product image.

ON BREITBART TV

I’ve said it again and again on this blog: the Democrat Party is the official party of dishonesty in America.  Liberals are determined to cheat in absolutely every way imaginable in order to gain more and more power and control over the American people in the guise of giving us a socialist nanny state.

P.S. The Daily Beast also has an expose on the dishonest Obama fundraising machine.

The Media Propaganda And Obama Class Warfare LIE That Romney Pays Less Tax Than Middle Class. And The Reason And Proof Why Low Capital Gains Taxes Are GOOD.

September 26, 2012

The degeneration of the media is astonishing.  Yes, the media always had a liberal bias; you could count on it.  But there was a time when we had journalists who fact checked.  Then we got journalism PLUS fact checking to correct the lies of the journalists.  And now we’ve  fact checkers correcting the lies of the fact checkers.

If I meet somebody who tells me, “I’m a journalist,” I know that there is an overwhelmingly statistical likelihood that that person is a) a doctrinaire liberal; and b) a biased doctrinaire liberal who insinuates his or her ideology, bias and prejudices into most of his or her reporting.

You need to understand how pathologically dishonest and biased the mainstream news media have become.  A couple of recent examples:

So this really isn’t that surprising.  Journalists are professional liars.  You can trust them to be dishonest.

And so here we go again:

ABC’s Karl Dissembles on Romney’s Tax Rate, But NBC Points Out He Pays Higher Percent Than Middle Class
By Brent Baker | September 22, 2012 | 14:09

Repeating a common mythology that a person’s federal income tax rate equals the effective tax rate they actually pay after deductions, ABC’s Jonathan Karl on Friday night forwarded the canard that Mitt Romney’s 14.1 percent rate is lower than what a $75,000 earner pays. NBC’s Peter Alexander, however, correctly noted “the average middle class American family pays roughly 13 percent.”

On World News, Karl reported that Mitt Romney “made $13.7 million last year and paid nearly $2 million in taxes. His effective tax rate, 14.1 percent.” Then, without citing any source, Karl asserted: “That’s a lower rate than an auto mechanic who made $75,000 in pay.”

Wrong. As USA Today noted in January, Romney’s 14 percent income tax rate is “a higher tax rate than the majority of taxpayers” pay and “the average effective tax rate for taxpayers with AGI of $1 million or more is 25%, according to the Tax Foundation analysis.”

In “Tax bracket vs. tax rate: They’re two different things,” reporter Sandra Block explained: “The average effective federal tax rate for American taxpayers is 11%, according to an analysis of 2009 IRS data by the Tax Foundation, a non-profit research organization. For individuals with adjusted gross income of $50,000 or less, the average effective tax rate is less than 5%, according to the Tax Foundation….”

More in my NB post: “Nets Use Romney’s Taxes to Advance Obama’s False ‘Fairness’ Narrative,” which included a table showing those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 pay an average effective income tax rate of 7 percent, 8 percent for those taking in $75,000 to $100,000 and 12 percent for those between $100,000 and $200,000.

From the start of Karl’s September 21 story, closed captioning corrected against the video by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth:

The most interesting thing about these tax returns are that even though Mitt Romney paid a low tax rate, he actually voluntarily paid more in taxes than he had to. The bottom line on Mitt Romney’s taxes: He made $13.7 million last year and paid nearly $2 million in taxes. His effective tax rate, 14.1 percent. That’s a lower rate than an auto mechanic who made $75,000 in pay. Although he made almost $14 million, not one penny came from wages or salary. Instead, his money came largely from investments, which are taxed at the much lower capital gains tax rate…

Peter Alexander on Friday’s NBC Nightly News:

It has been a rough couple of weeks for the Romney campaign, now trailing in the polls. And by putting out Romney’s tax returns today, the campaign is hoping it can put this issue to bed so it doesn’t have to deal with any more negative headlines closer to the election.

Campaigning in Las Vegas today and under pressure for months to be more transparent about his personal finances, Mitt Romney released his 2011 tax returns, revealing that he and his wife Ann paid nearly $2 million in federal taxes, on income of nearly $14 million, largely from investments, a tax rate of 14.1 percent. That’s slightly more than the 13.9 rate the couple paid in 2010. The average middle class American family pays roughly 13 percent…

So on top of the dishonesty that we saw from the rest of the mainstream media, CBS’s 60 Minutes piled on with the dishonesty in its interview with Mitt Romney:

Pelley: Now, you made on your investments, personally, about $20 million last year. And you paid 14 percent in federal taxes. That’s the capital gains rate. Is that fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?

Romney: It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35 percent.

Pelley: So you think it is fair?

Romney: Yeah, I think it’s the right way to encourage economic growth, to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work.

Scott Pelley’s question was a) biased and b) based entirely on a false premise.  Because he gets his “facts” COMPLETELY wrong and proceeds to beat Romney over the head with a dishonest conclusion from those false “facts.”  In fact, Mitt Romney does NOT pay a lower rate than the guy who earned $50,000.  In FACT Romney pays more than TWICE as high of a rate – 14.1 percent versus 7 percent – as the guy who earns $50,000 a year in the adjusted income tax rate that actually matters (as the rate you actually pay taxes at).

There are so many ways that the media lies: they lie in deciding which stories to cover and deciding which stories will not get any coverage; they lie about what aspects of those stories they cover will get covered or ignored; they lie in salad picking their “experts” or witnesses in order to cherry pick the point or conclusion they want the audience to draw.  They further lie in how they edit and package the story.  And there are other ways they lie in production.  But now we’re to the point where the media lies by simply dishonestly inventing “facts.”

The fact that Pelley lied and made up bogus “facts” gave Barack Obama to exploit those lies in his own demonization of Mitt Romney.

The question “is it fair” about low capital gains taxes is as naive as it is idiotic.  Keeping capital gains taxes low encourages investment and encouraging investment increases jobs.  How is it “fair” to gut job creation?

I would ask if it’s fair for journalists and for the current president of the United States to make up their own facts and attack Mitt Romney with lies.

The best way to document that fact is to point out that Bill Clinton was the man who cut capital gains taxes and benefitted enormously from doing so:

American Thinker points out that the Clinton income tax hike of 1993 did NOT bring in ANYWHERE NEAR the revenue Democrats had predicted:

The Clinton years provide lessons on the effects of tax increases and decreases. The American left attributes the successful economy of the Clinton years to the former and ignores the impact of the latter in order to justify their appetite for the increases they would have us believe will provide additional tax revenues today.
 
The effects of increasing taxes on Treasury receipts can be seen in the Clinton and Democrat-controlled congressional tax increase of 1993, one of the largest in history. Despite a more robust job market following a recession, the 1993 tax increase didn’t accomplish what Democrats expected. The tax increases added very little to treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree.

In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn’t occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates.

So what did both Clinton’s and later George Bush’s capital gains rate cuts do?  Let’s pick up where the article left off:

The Clinton tax policies of the early ’90s were based on rate increases and luck — the luck provided by a normal growth cycle that began in 1992 as America emerged from a mild recession and a communications revolution. It was tax relief that improved receipts following the disappointing outcome of the 1993 tax hikes and made the Clinton economy successful. The 1997 rate reduction on capital gains unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to more than triple by 1998 and double again in 1999. Treasury receipts for this category of tax obligation increased dramatically. Without tax relief and the internet/communications revolution, the second Clinton term would likely have seen tax revenues decline in a lagging economy.

There is no reason to believe that tax increases will perform any differently this time under a different aggregation of hopeful Democrats.

To find a pure, easily illustrated example of tax decreases boosting the economy and Treasury receipts, one need only look at the current rates on capital gains and dividends. When Congress passed the 15-percent tax rate on capital gains in 2003, and again following the 2006 extension, Democrats protested that large deficits would result.

The new leadership in Washington and those who support them would allow this tax cut to expire to “generate revenue” for the federal government. Based on data from Congress’s own budgetary agency, they should consider whether expiration will have the effect they desire.

For anyone willing to read it, the January 2007 Congressional Budget Office annual report settles any debate. Citing the original CBO forecasts of capital gains tax revenue of $42 billion in 2003, $46 billion in 2004, $52 billion in 2005, and $57 billion in 2006, Democrats who opposed the rate reduction in 2003 claimed that the capital gains tax cut would “cost” the federal treasury $5.4 billion in fiscal years 2003-2006.

Those forecasts were embarrassingly wrong. The 2007 CBO report revealed that capital gains and dividends tax collections were actually $51 billion in 2003, $72 billion in 2004, $97 billion in 2005, and $110 billion in 2006, the last two years nearly doubling initial forecasts.

In other words, forecasts in earlier CBO reports were low by a total of $133 billion for the four-year period. This tax rate reduction stimulated enough additional economic activity to more than offset forecasted losses.

Reductions in tax rates for capital gains were arguably the most successful fiscal initiatives of the past thirty years.

You will find that when George W. Bush cut the tax rates across the board, TAX REVENUES SHOT UP DRAMATICALLY.  And even the uberliberal New York Times was forced to acknowledge that Bush INCREASED tax revenues following his tax cut:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Here are the numbers following Clinton’s signing the Republican-sponsored and passed capital gains tax rate cut in 1997:

Capital gains taxation revenues collected by the federal government:

1996  –  $66 billion
1997  –  (capital gains tax rate cut goes into effect)
1997  –  $79.3 billion
1998  –  $89.1 billion
1999  –  $111.8 billion
2000  –  $127.3 billion

Dick Morris – who was Bill Clinton’s primary political adviser at the time and engineered Clinton’s successful triangulation strategy that won him reelection – wrote it up this way:

When Clinton took office he did all the wrong things. He raised taxes sharply, hiking the top bracket from 35% to 39.6% and raised taxes on gasoline. The result was that the economy, which had been recovering, staggered. GDP growth dropped to 0.7% in Clinton’s first quarter (down from 4.3% in Bush’s last quarter) and stayed around 2% for the rest of 1993. Personal income rose 6.3% in 1992 under Bush but slowed to 4.1% under Clinton in 1993.

The tax increases Clinton passed failed to generate the revenue he had expected. The tax paradox set in. Martin Feldstein, former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, summed it up in his Wall Street Journal article, “What the ’93 Tax Increase Really Did,” published on October 26, 1995. He said taxpayers reduced their incomes when they saw the tax hikes coming. Feldstein writes that “the Treasury lost two-thirds of the extra revenue that would have been collected if taxpayers had not changed their behavior.” Because of Clinton’s tax hikes, real personal income fell by $25 billion. High income taxpayers, facing the prospect of a tax increase reported 8.5% less taxable income in 1993 than they would have if their tax rates had not changed. The tax paradox!

Then Clinton got wiped out in the Congressional elections of 1994, losing control of the Senate and the House – the first time the Republicans had run the House in forty years!

Clinton suddenly saw the error of his ways and began to hold down spending and push for a tax cut. In 1997, he and the Republican Congress combined to cut capital gains taxes from 28% (the rate to which Bush had increased it) to 20%. The result was electrifying! Real wage growth was 6.5% in the four years after the tax cut compared to minuscule wage growth of 0.8% over the four years after Clinton’s tax increase!

And the tax paradox was again evident: lower rates produced higher revenues! In 1996, the year before the capital gains cut, the tax collected revenues of only $66 billion. In the four years after the cut, they averaged $100 billion a year. But, what was more important was the surge in economic activity that the capital gains tax cut generated. In 1996, before the tax cut, there were $261 billion in capital gains in America. In the three years after the cut, capital gains rose to an average of $440 billion. The increased tax collections and the greater economic activity were such that they pushed the budget into a surplus for the first time since the 1950s.

Is it “fair” that I’m not as handsome as Brad Pitt?  Is it “fair” that I’m not as good of a swimmer as Michael Phelps or as fast a runner as Usain Bolt?  Is it “fair” that I’m not as smart as Albert Einstein?  Is it “fair” that I’m not as creative or talented as Robert Plant or Jimmy Page?  Obviously (and rather unfortunately!) I could go on and on and on with this ad naseum.  Instead, read this on the danger of “fairness.”

I’m sorry to be the one to break your bubble of idiocy, liberal: NOBODY SAID LIFE WAS FAIR.

And I just wish that evil demagogues would quit trying to stir up bitterness and envy by constantly trying to artificially and frankly cynically trying to impose a radical and Marxist doctrine of “fairness” on the world.  Because it does the exact OPPOSITE of what they say it will do.

The bottom line is patently obvious to anyone but a fool: keeping low capital gains rates means that more people will invest more money because they will have the obvious incentive of actually being able to keep what they risk their money to earn – A PROFIT.  If there is more investment, there will be more economic activity and in turn more job creation.

An interesting exchange between ABC News anchor Charles Gibson and Barack Obama during a debate shows us where Obama is:

You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.”

It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

You can reward wise practices or you can punish them. You can reward individual initiative or you can punish it. Obama is the latter even though the former is far and away the best for society.

If you think it’s “fair” to punish society – including the poor who benefit from the jobs that are created for them so that they can take care of themselves and their families and move up the economic ladder to a better life – just to punish rich people, you are the one with a huge mental and frankly moral problem.

But that mentally and morally deranged form of Marxist psychosis is exactly where Barack Obama and the radical left is.

What is interesting is that the middle class that Obama keeps pretending he’s helping KNOW that he and his media propaganda machine are liars.  Which is why Obama is getting crushed by the middle class vote which favors Romney by FOURTEEN POINTS.  Obama and the media liars aren’t trying to appeal to the middle class who know better; they’re trying to persuade the unfortunately ignorant that their lies are the truth and that the truth is actually a lie.

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

September 24, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 0bumugabe Rally

What 18,000 person crowd looks like

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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