Tag Archives: AP

Racists Refuse to Let Holder “Be Clear”

holder

Attorney General Eric Holder is in the hot seat today and he seems to be melting. I’ve been watching it for hours so you don’t have to and I’ve condensed his answers into two sentences that will give you the gist of his testimony. And remember, he’s under oath.

“Let me be very very very very very very very very very clear. I don’t know.” Followed by a little, “That was a Bush appointee”.

Bobs

I just summed up like six hours of testimony for you. You’re welcome.

Mostly what we’ve learned today is that Holder does nothing and knows nothing so he can be held responsible for nothing. But we should continue to pay him to do nothing and know nothing because racism. Also, it’s Bush’s fault.

Though it was mostly Holder’s voice on repeat saying, “I don’t know…let me be clear…I don’t know,” there were a few highlights in the testimony. Darrell Issa, having apparently tired of the constant obfuscation, pressed Holder to actually answer a question at which point the Attorney General of the United States collapsed into a full on temper tantrum, saying Issa’s “conduct” as “a member of congress” was “unacceptable and shameful”.

Representative Hank Johnson, when not wringing his hands over the possibility of Guam tipping over, expressed his frustration with the talk of Fast and Furious and Benghazi and wished everyone would focus on “real issues”. Because top government officials being directly responsible for the deaths of Americans isn’t nearly as real as that retarded squirrel Johnson is allowing to grow on his chin.

The greatest question so far came from Congressman Trent Franks. He took on the Left’s love of baby butchery by saying, “[Abortion is a] heartless disgrace that cannot be described by the vocabulary of man”. He then went on to ask Holder, “Have you ever enforced the Born Alive Infant Protection Act even one time? After 18,000 opportunities?” In news that shocks no one, Holder stuttered and stumbled and could not answer the question. In stunning proof of the Left’s anti-life ideology, Holder did manage to sneak in a jab at President Bush, but could not defend his refusal to prosecute any of the 18,000 violations of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Holder is still being questioned even as I type, so while we can call this story “developing”, it’s fairly safe to assume it won’t develop much beyond, “I don’t know”, “Bush’s fault”, and “racism”.

Gosnell to get life in prison without parole

quinn.anya (CC)

quinn.anya (CC)

quinn.anya (CC)


AP reports, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, in exchange for waiving appeals, will be sentenced to two life sentences without parole. The agreement was reached with prosecutors, in part due to Gosnell’s age – at 72, it is unlikely that he would survive to complete the appeals process, and would likely die of natural causes in prison, not lethal injection.

Gosnell’s trial was largely ignored by the mainstream media, until near the end, after constant pressure from conservative media sources. In spite of this, the doctor’s attorney, Jack McMahon, contends that his client only meant to help desperate women seeking late-term abortions, and that the intense media attention may not have helped the situation. His client was found guilty on three counts of first degree murder – the victims were live-born babies that survived Gosnell’s attempts to abort them, and were subsequently killed by “snipping” their spinal cords. He was also found guilty of manslaughter, involving the 2009 death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar of Woodbridge, Va., due to drug overdose.

Testimonies of individuals that had been clients of Gosnell have been featured in the documentary 3801 Lancaster, which was promoted heavily by conservatives in social media, when they were attempting to draw mainstream media attention to the case.

AP Spins Obama's Unanimously Destroyed Budget as GOP Obstructionism

Ridiculously, the Associated Propagandists (AP) have tried to pin the Ø-414 slamming of the $3.4 Trillion “budget” Obama submitted to The House on an obstructionist GOP trying to make political hay in an election year. Oh, they didn’t write that, but let’s “deconstruct” the AP’s headline (via Yay-hoos):

GOP-run House easily rejects Obama budget

Normally, left-wing AP bias is about as unsurprising as a late-season Mets collapse, but in this case we’ll explore it a little further. What is a little surprising is that the AP would expose themselves as being totally in the pocket of the Democrat Party, instead of just being fellow-traveling left-wing ideologues. This is because the outfit is running cover for a president whose bill was shot down in flames by his own party, and yet the AP is trying to blame this solely on the Republican Party.

The intended reader inference from placing “GOP-run House” at the front of the headline is to frame the current event in the context of implied GOP obstructionism. There’s really no other way to read it, because the headline should logically read “House unanimously rejects Obama budget.” This obvious headline would be both more accurate and have around the same number of characters as the AP’s. Thus, there is no reason to cram “easily” in the headline when “unanimously” would convey more accurate information (unless you are an AP reporter with a limited vocabulary, which is entirely possible).

Another interesting aspect of the headline and the story is that the AP is trying to provide political cover to pretend “blue dog” Democrats up for re-election who don’t want to look like “left-wing extremists” unconcerned with deficits and debt spending. As a bonus the AP also gives cover to left-wing insaniacs who think the bill should go even further to restore “economic justice” (a catch phrase for plundering unearned wealth). How is this possible?

It’s possible because if the bill is defeated Ø-414 people will believe that there was a consensus in each party that something was wrong with the bill. But how can it be that some Democrat lawmakers voting against the bill would think that total spending was too high, and others would think that it was too low, while none would think that it was “just right”? The odd voting suggests a strategic public relations maneuver by the Democrat Party.

The Congressional Black Caucus, for example, proposed an alternative budget that sought $4 trillion more, which would be financed by tax increases on the rich (like that will help create jobs, right?).  This was defeated 107-314. So it stands to reason that the 86 Democrats who did not vote for the bill withheld support because they wanted to posture as relatively fiscally responsible to the voters in their district.

Understanding a few basic facts about the voting makes the AP narrative look absolutely absurd. Read the first few paragraphs from the AP piece:

The Republican-run House has overwhelmingly rejected President Barack Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget for next year after a vote forced by GOP lawmakers to embarrass Democrats.

Republicans have opposed Obama’s budget all year, criticizing its tax increases on the wealthy and saying it lacks sufficient spending cuts.

Democrats have defended Obama’s budget priorities but they largely voted “no” Wednesday night.

Let’s take this one at a time in rapid-fire succession. First, Harry Reid has forced votes on the Senate floor countless time. A quick Google search of ‘harry reid forced vote’ yields nearly 8 million hits. If the vote is “embarrassing,” then that makes the bill embarrassing, and the president an embarrassment. Also, the Republicans opposed Obama’s budget “all year”? So they are being obstructionist for still opposing it, even though Obama didn’t submit a balanced budget? Finally, every single Democrat present voted no on the bill, not “largely.” The Democrats who don’t show up, don’t count.

In conclusion, it is hard for an analyst to react to a left-wing media intentionally distorting the news without wishing to resort to satire, though this is becoming increasingly hard to do. The left is notoriously difficult to parody nowadays. In some cases, it is more useful to deconstruct the story.

AP Reports Obama's Jobs Plan Not Paid for as Stated

According to the Associated press, President Obama was not very truthful in several statements during his jobs speech to both house of congress tonight. Boy, it sure didn’t take the AP long to expose the misinformation tonight as their article appeared less than a half hour after the speech ended. Where was Joe Wilson tonight, as his “You lie” statement certainly applies to the latest of Obama’s constant attempts to spread misinformation through another of his long list of speeches being used to lecture the citizenry. From the AP we see this article jump right on Obama’s  jobs speech misinformation:

 President Barack Obama’s promise Thursday that everything in his jobs plan will be paid for rests on highly iffy propositions. It will only be paid for if a committee he can’t control does his bidding, if Congress puts that into law and if leaders in the future – the ones who will feel the fiscal pinch of his proposals – don’t roll it back.

Considering Obama’s recent historic polling lows, coupled with the fact that Republicans control the House and the purse, to say it will be paid for is pretty moronic to say the least. Throw in the fact that  Congress must get right to work on another continuing resolution to fund the government until Oct. 1st, the end of fiscal year 2011, and we see another problem in getting this done right away. Yes, it appears that we will continue to run our government without a budget  for the foreseeable future.

The AP really backhands President Obama for calling a joint session of congress for this jobs speech and then using budgetary gimmickry in it:

Underscoring the gravity of the nation’s high employment rate, Obama chose a joint session of Congress, normally reserved for a state of the union speech, to lay out his proposals. But if the moment was extraordinary, the plan he presented was conventional Washington rhetoric in one respect: It employs sleight-of-hand accounting.  

Once again we see a supposed economy- boosting jobs plan to be paid for by an IOU that will have to be approved by future members of Congress. Obama says he will send the proposal to the new super committee that is charged with finding budget savings. What happened to the fact that all spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives? Is this what the super committee was really created for? ( bypassing our 535 elected officials and putting our money into the hands of a select 12 people?) Not only is this jobs plan looking like just another stimulus scam for Liberal wealth redistribution like the last one, it also appears to be unconstitutional as is proven here.

The AP also exposed the blatant propaganda of when President Obama claimed that everything in his jobs plan has had bi-partisan support:

  THE FACTS: Obama’s proposed cut in the Social Security payroll tax does seem likely to garner significant GOP support. But Obama proposes paying for the plan in part with tax increases that have already generated stiff Republican opposition.

As expected,  Barack Obama also proposes once again to eliminate the so-called Bush tax cuts. That bird won’t fly with Republicans, as it is in fact a tax increase, and Republicans do not support raising taxes during the current recession in no way, shape or form. Obama went on to say his jobs plan will not add to the deficit. Looking back at all of  Obama’s supposed economy increasing plans such as the failed stimulus plan that was also said to not increase the deficit by creating millions of jobs, we all now know what  a waste of $800 billion tax dollars that scheme turned out to be.  Just how did we increase the national debt by over $4 trillion dollars since Barack Obama took office with all these spending programs said to not increase the deficit?  2012 just can’t get here fast enough.

 

 

 

 

CBS and Time Already on Hope N Change Redux 2012 Obama Campaign

       The 2012 Presidential elections are  20 months away,and while we see our Congress locked in a massive budget brawl that looks like it will end up in a government shutdown later on this week, CBS followed Obama’s early campaign announcement lead by starting their own version of Barack’s get out the vote campaign immediately, with the following false headline posed as an honest question:

    ”  How Good are Obama’s re-election chances ? “   I suppose working on Obama’s re-election campaign is the utmost priority over at CBS and Time, considering the fact that they both spent the bulk of their airtime/ print space promoting him in 2008.  In reading this campaign ad, er.. I mean article, I was hoping to find signs that CBS might actually see the danger Obama and the democrats pose today to everything American, and come to their senses. As you can see here from the above linked article, CBS and Time are already trying to make Americans believe that no matter who runs against him in 2012, Barack will win a second term:

 ” So it’s a good time to ask: how good are his chances – at the moment, at least – to win a second term? The short answer is: Pretty decent.”  And as Time’s Michael Scherer notes, even those who disagree with Mr. Obama tend to like him – a crucial factor in winning the independents who broke from the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. The fact that 84 percent of Americans (according to an Associated Press poll last month) call Mr. Obama a likeable person speaks to his advantage among the casual voters who may not go to the polls in a midterm year but will cast ballots in 2012.” (emphasis mine)

    This is why I personally, do not take anything Time, CBS, and the AP say/print/report today seriously.  America is approaching $15 trillion dollars in debt, gasoline prices are now at $3.65 a gallon (as opposed to $1.84  when Obama took office), food prices are skyrocketing, federal revenue is shrinking ,with the fact that they are lying to themselves about the Unemployment numbers today and that will expose this very soon, we are now engaged in a 3rd war in Libya that has already cost us $600 million dollars, and CBS and Time want us to think that Obama will be re-elected because he is likeable ?  That is not news reporting there, that is campaign propaganda, period.

   That CBS/Time Obama campaign ad masquerading as a news piece also goes on to try to make it look like the Teaparty/GOP split will make the primaries such a difficult battle that it will alienate the swing voters, thus enabling Barack to win a second term. They are trying to suggest that swing voters will ignore the $15 trillion dollars in debt that Obama’s Liberal Democrats are refusing to take action on in passing the GOP proposed serious budget cuts, and re-elect the man who directs those actions?  These people are in for a rude awakening in 2012 that will make the 2010 election beatdown of the Democrat’s Liberal Socialist agenda pale in comparison.