Tag Archives: media bias

A Thank You Note to “Progressive” Hero Dr. Kermit Gosnell

gosnell

Dear Dr. Gosnell,

Before I really get going here, let me just say I’m sorry the “progressives” have abandoned you, that they’re pretending to condemn your bloody work. That must be hard; after all, they supported you for decades until your gruesome activities were brought to the light and started to harm their “babies are parasitic clumps of cells” narrative. Of all the things you so richly deserve, being betrayed by those who continue to support your fetus jihad isn’t one of them.

Anyway. This may sound odd coming from me, as I have spent my entire adult life fighting ferociously for the rights of the lives you so happily exterminated, but I do want to tell you “thank you”. Seriously.

A freezer in Gosnell's clinic stuffed full of human remains.

A freezer in Gosnell’s clinic stuffed full of human remains.

Thank you, Kermie, for showing America the realities of the “choice” many of them support. As you know, the Left works tirelessly to cover up the realities of kill houses like yours. They operate a pro-abortion propaganda machine that rivals anything put out by Kim Jong-Un. And just like the North Koreans, Americans who favor abortion eat up the lies like candy, too brainwashed and blind to notice the foul taste in their mouths. But then your crimes against humanity were brought to light and fence sitters especially were forced to examine exactly what it was they were championing. The far Left, of course, pretends to condemn you while continuing to support exactly what you did and how you did it, but those monsters are unreachable anyway. You’ve opened the eyes of misguided, but otherwise rational individuals. So thank you.

Thank you for demonstrating what thinking people have always known, that the “war on women” comes from the Left. You took filthy gosnelladvantage of poor, vulnerable women in crisis situations. You maimed them. You gave them diseases. You performed medical procedures on them surrounded by filth. You even killed them.  You showed America that abortion isn’t about “womens’ rights”, but about profit at the expense of innocence. Along these same lines, you also showed the many what the few have always known; it’s the Left and specifically abortion proponents who are perpetrators of extreme racism. Not only were the majority of the babies you slaughtered black, but when you had the occasional white patient, you treated her infinitely better than her minority counterparts because, what was it you said? “That’s the way the world works”? Something like that. I’m paraphrasing. But the point is, Margaret Sanger would be proud. The Left is proud. You revealed their true colors. So thank you.

Thank you for being the poster boy of media bias. Your case was hardly a blip on the mainstream media’s radar because the (hopefully) fatal damage you did to the Left’s pro-abortion/anti-life agenda really terrified them. The water they carry for Obama and his brand of far left ideology is already so heavy, and then you came along and added obstacles that may well end up to be insurmountable. So thank you.

Mostly, thank you for finally being arrogant/careless/evil enough to get caught. You are a modern day Dr. Mengle. Yours is the kind of evil that makes Satan himself scratch his head in confused awe. While it took far too long and far too many women and babies suffered and died under your heinous “care”, at least your reign of terror has been stopped and now people are aware of how your counterparts operate. Your loathsome practices may be the wakeup call America needed to begin reversing its cavalier attitude toward the extermination of innocent life. So thank you.

Give my regards to Satan when you’re rotting in hell next to Hitler,

Stevie J. West

 

“progressives” in The Media

George Stephanopoulos

The Edward-R-MurrowAmerican mainstream media has long been sympathetic to the “progressive” cause. For decades they have made subliminal editorial decisions regarding their reportage in favor of “progressive” concepts and candidates. They, along with teachers, professors, Hollywood producers, screenplay writers and actors have slowly, carefully but consistently nudged American thought farther to the left.

Case in point: Edward R. Murrow, who was a member of the John F. Kennedy administration and later awarded the Medal of Freedom by Lyndon B. Johnson. Murrow is best remembered for TV news reports that led to the censure of a pro-America Senator Joseph McCarthy. The memory of Murrow is championed by “progressive” outlets such as Brian WilliamsNewsweek Magazine and NPR. The “progressive” former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann considers Murrow his idol. Members of today’s “progressive” media and “progressive” academia view Murrow’s name as synonymous with journalistic excellence.

By the year 2008, once the nomination of Barack Hussein Obama as the “progressive” Democratic Party’s candidate for president was secured, the “progressive” Party Pravda, also known as the American mainstream media, moved beyond the subliminal (and sometimes not so subliminal) bias they had manifested for decades and entered the realm of advocacy.

Make that “progressive” advocacy.

Media bias against Conservatives and in favor of “progressive” concepts and candidates is nothing new. Look at what they did to Joseph Mcchris_matthewsCarthy, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Dan Quayle and Andrew Breitbart.

However, in today’s world their tactics have exceeded bias and grotesquely mutated into deifying “progressivism” while vilifying Conservatism. Look at what they have done for Barack Hussein Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Look at what they have done and are doing to Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Allen West, Mia Love, Tim Scott, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz and Benjamin Carson.

At each and every available opportunity, the “progressive” Party Pravda has eagerly jumped to wrongly suggest that every violent public occurrence was likely committed by a potentially dangerous, Conservative right wing Tea Party extremist type. For example, take the cold-blooded Gabby Giffords shooting, the tragic Newtown Connecticut murders and the Boston Marathon Islamo-fascist terrorist bombing.George Stephanopoulos

Meanwhile, what did the “progressive” Party Pravda do to truthfully report what happened in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/2012, when four Americans were left to die? Did they level with America and disclose that the Obama administration was involved in a massive presidential election year cover-up or did they knowingly and willfully repeat White House talking points in order to aid and abet Obama’s re-election? How about the Department of Justice’s ill-advised, ill-fated Fast and Furious gun running operation which intentionally put semi-automatic weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, where those weapons were involved in the slaughter of hundreds of Mexican civilians and a U.S. Border Agent? Do Americans know the real unekatie couricmployment numbers and why the reported numbers are artificially low? How many Americans know that the U.S. Senate, under the so-called leadership of “progressive” Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) consciously neglected to pass a budget in four years? Do they know about the gruesomely bloody late term abortion/murder trial in Pennsylvania of Kermit Gosnell? What do they know about the death toll in Syria’s ongoing civil war?

The “progressive” Party Pravda is government controlled media telling the American public what “progressive” politicians want them to think, want them to focus on and where their attention should be directed.

Trusting information disseminated by the “progressive” Party Pravda is a fool’s errand. They are not to be trusted. They are hiding the truth wolf-blitzerabout America’s political system, the federal government’s centrally planned “progressive” controlled academic agenda, the degenerative nature of American popular culture, and intentionally misleading the public about events, facts, figures and the importance of adhering to and restoring America’s exceptional values and historic traditions.

Thanks largely to the “progressive” Party Pravda’s reinforcing wrong headed ideas being infused into the minds of the voting public by academia and pop culture, Americans are seemingly unaware of the shift in America’s political dynamics. They are oblivious to the swing away from the now obsolete century plus old Republican versus Democrat political paradigm.

Watch Episode 1 for free

Progressive rag applauds journalists threatening to quit if Conservatives take over

Marion Doss (CC)

Ahh the Daily KOS, socialist propaganda at best and naive tripe at worst, are giving kudos to  journalists working at newspapers currently owned by The Tribune Company for offering to quit if Conservatives take over their publications.

Amidst news that the Koch brothers are considering purchasing at least five major Tribune Company newspapers — including the Los Angeles Times, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune, Orlando Sentinel and Hartford Courant — the staff at these organizations are starting to fight back.

Here is a case in point. Last week, at an in-house awards ceremony for Los Angeles Times staff, columnist Steve Lopez asked everyone in attendance, “Raise your hand if you would quit if the paper was bought by the Koch brothers.” Fully half of the staff raised their hands.

What DailyKOS is unwilling to report in their naive release is that Tribune just emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy in December of 2012. Under the management of companies that care not about content, the papers are ripe for purchase from someone actually willing to run them. It would also seem that liberal-heavy content is not doing as well as say… the Wall Street Journal. Air America and Newsweek anyone?

The 50% of newspaper journalists that would leave those papers solely on ideology should absolutely do so. They are, by their own admission, biased – not a shock to the rest of the country.

Ana Marie Cox Thinks Breitbart and His ‘Minions’ Are Bad Bad People

Screen Shot 2013-02-28 at 11.41.56 AM

Ana Marie Cox of the Guardian isn’t on our team. That’s fine.  However, to label us the “jackass” wing of journalism only demonstrates the left’s inability to hold their own side accountable. She seems to feel that all of the criticism she outlines in her piece about conservative media are absent on the left.  This Friday will mark the one year anniversary of Andrew Breitbart’s passing, and it seems Cox is frustrated, angry, and perhaps threatened by the legacy he left behind.

Let’s just get this out of the way right up front: Ana Marie Cox built her career on blogging jokes about anal sex at the reprehensible guttersnipe site Wonkette. She presented herself as a rambunctious youngster, but it turned out she was already pushing 30 and just naturally behaves like a annoying, hyperactive juvenile. Both Time and later the Guardian hired her in full knowledge of this colorful journalistic career.

Now that we’ve established Cox’s bona fides as a scribe and scholar…

First, there is no such thing as being “mean” in media. As Breitbart famously said, “truth isn’t mean. It’s the truth,” and sadly that characteristic fails miserably with left-wing journalists.  It’s not mean to point out that Ana Marie Cox built her career on blogging anal sex jokes. It’s just the truth. It’s not mean to point out that Rachel Maddow seems content with airing edited video in order to smear Sen. John McCain’s remarks about gun control.   Good Morning Americaedited First Lady Michelle Obama’s inaccurate statement about the tragic death of Hadiya Pendleton in Chicago because of time constraints.  It was censorship.

Mrs. Obama claimed, “And she was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need.” This quote appeared online, but not on the February 26 interview with Robin Roberts.

[…]

However, when the interview aired on “Good Morning America” on Tuesday, viewers heard the first lady said this:

“She was absolutely right. She did everything she was supposed to do. She was standing in a park, with her friends, in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids grew up, where our house is. And she was caught in the line of fire. I just don’t want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first.”

ABC edited the response visually by using a cutaway in the middle of the answer of Ms. Roberts listening.

Cox wrote that the right-leaning media outlets have an MO that seeks to

 be outrageous, scurrilous and completely unfair. And then, when you get a rise, just shrug and say: “What’s your problem: can’t take a joke?”

But for something to be humor, it has to be funny. And as comedy goes, the Free Beacon’s jokes have all the subtlety of Jackass. The only difference is that instead of creating dubious hilarity at the spectacle of their self-inflicted pain, they’re using equally ridiculous stunts to laugh at yours. Clinically speaking, we call people with that attitude “sociopaths”, but in the political realm, [Michael] Goldfarb’s [founder of the Washington Free Beacon] punchlines – emphasis on punch! – are just the latest iteration of a burgeoning style of discourse whose practitioners have become influential enough to deserve their own designation.

So, editing video to smear – or convey a false narrative – is fair and accurate, Ms. Cox?  To smear James O’Keefe as a racist, who you also criticize in your column, without proof isn’t scurrilous? By the way, Salon.com, who published the piece from left-wing journalist Max Blumenthal, printed a correction stating:

The Feb. 3 “James O’Keefe’s Race Problem” reported that O’Keefe, the conservative activist arrested on charges he plotted to tamper with Sen. Mary Landrieu’s phone lines, helped plan a conference on “Race and Conservatism” that featured white nationalist Jared Taylor. The freelance photographer who attended the event, and snapped O’Keefe’s photo there, now says the right-wing provocateur helped out at the conference,but cannot confirm that he helped plan it. The story has been corrected.

The article also said that O’Keefe was terminated by the right-wing Leadership Institute in 2008, after videos were released of O’Keefe calling Planned Parenthood and offering to donate money to abort black babies. He was let go in 2007. Leadership Institute co-founder Morton Blackwell told the New York Times O’Keefe “wanted to do sting operations that would affect legislation; he made some calls which have been covered in the news media to Planned Parenthood. That was beyond the scope of what we had hired him to do. We are an educational organization. We are not an activist organization.” Blackwell says he told O’Keefe to choose between his job and his activism, “and he said he was committed to the activism,” according to the Times. The date of O’Keefe’s termination has been corrected, and Blackwell’s explanation has been added to the story.

Cox also slams O’Keefe for using “highly selective cuts,” which is the seat of irony.  Besides the examples I listed above, MSNBC was caught editing the recorded testimony of Neil Heslin, whose son was a victim of the Sandy Hook tragedy, on Capitol Hill.  Contrary to what the media reported, he wasn’t heckled during his testimony.

MSNBC has a history of editing video to slam conservatives. In 2009, MSNBC edited out a black man carrying an AR-15 rifle in order to engage in racial commentary about the Tea Party. In 2012, they edited out Mitt Romney’s comments about the perils of too much regulation in business, and cut to him discussing the checkout process at the WaWa Deli in order to portray him as out of touch. Lastly, let’s not forget how NBC edited George Zimmerman’s 911 call to make him sound racist.

However, Cox’s conclusion to her piece that left me aghast.

…the perversity of this post-Ann Coulter generation is that they believe the world is run by nerdy liberal elitists , that their antics are a righteous rebellion instead of an attempt to assert the law of jungle. Perhaps it is true that liberal nerds have made great strides in governing – certainly, our president is one – but the reactionary insurgents’ anti-establishment pose, which goes along with shoving a camera in someone’s face, breaks down when you consider the actual policies advocated by the guy behind the viewfinder. Policies that, say, continue to suppress voting rights of minorities won’t make them punk rock heroes.

The only thing remotely disruptive about the material generated by the Bratbarts is its incivility. In itself, that is simply a style, not an argument or a critique. Incivility can be OK: I am a big believer in disrespecting those in power, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with being flippant – there are times when it is the only proper response to authority. As journalist and defender of the lowbrow Gilbert Seldes put it:

“Comedy is last refuge of the nonconformist mind.”

But confusing satire and hazing? Mixing up muckraking with misinformation? Revelation with subterfuge? Laughter with cruelty? Those are the tactics of would-be authoritarians, not outlaw liberators.

Of course, Cox had to boot-lick Obama towards the end.  It’s a sign of respect for the great one, which ironically comes before she professes her advocacy in disrespecting elected officials.  I’m sure she will be equally harsh on the Obama administration, which has “made great strides” in collecting names for kill lists, convincing the New York Times towithhold information about drone bases, and blowing away Americans abroad with drone strikes. The legality of which is still in dispute.

Lastly, when the liberal media went “birther” on Sen. Ted Cruz (R- Texas), isn’t that a form of hazing?  Isn’t insinuating his Canadian roots a cruel exercise in “revelation with subterfuge?”  Isn’t that “mixing up muckraking and misinformation?  Cruz happens to be a conservative sticking to his principles, and his Canadian roots are an extraneous detail since he was born to an American mother, making him eligible to run for president.  Yes, in 2016, we could possibly see a Cruz candidacy.

So, Cox thinks that we on the right sit at the “mean” table in media.  Then again, if the liberal media didn’t act like “jackasses” themselves – we wouldn’t be so angry.

Obama takes heat for criticizing Fox News, Limbaugh

th_Obama-angry-snearing-re-DirtyTricks

Further showcasing his inability to tolerate dissension, Barack Obama recently made statement calling out media outlets often unsupportive of his leftist agenda.

He claimed Republican lawmakers would generally be open to compromising with their Democrat counterparts but are afraid they will be “punished on Fox news or by Rush Limbaugh.”

Obama made the comments in an interview that never explored the obvious liberal bias held by the overwhelming majority of news outlets.

In fact, he openly embraced what he called “more left-leaning media outlets” for their recognition “that compromise is not a dirty word.” He also suggested he and his leftist cohorts in the Democrat party are more open to “buck[ing] the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done.”

Plenty of media watchdog groups and conservative organizations lashed out at the president for his ill-advised verbal attack on an industry he despises.

Of course, this is far from the first time Obama has targeted a group or individual he deems unfriendly to his worldview. In fact, as author Ben Shapiro pointed out, he has taken aim at the same entities in previous remarks.”He’s d one this before,” Shapiro said, calling Obama “a bully.” He continued, saying the president is “saying the media is not liberal enough. I think he wants people who don’t like him to be quiet.”

A respected Fox News personality, Greta van Susteren, also chastised Obama’s generalization of her network.
Writing on her blog, van Susteren implied Obama is upset because he “wants his usual media pass and Fox challenges his policies,” which she said “happens to be the media’s job.”

She also lambasted the president’s implication that Fox News featured just one viewpoint.“Some Democrats have told me that they want to come on Fox to discuss issues,” she said, “but they get heat from their leadership for appearing on Fox.”

Finally, she pointed out the absurdity of Obama suggesting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is open to compromise.
“He has not allowed a budget to get to the Senate floor for years to even begin a discussion,” she said. “The budget process is where all compromise begins and ends and ended it before it even got started.

The Obama White House, and the president specifically, have called out Fox News on other occasions. While Obama implied the network’s viewers were “a little stubborn” in 2012, his then-spokesperson Anita Dunn described it three years earlier as “opinion journalism masquerading as news.”

Rich Noyes of the Media Research Center summed up Obama’s overarching complaint. “The media has always helped shape the political environment,” he said, “but Democrats object to the conservative media now being able to.” Noyes surmised the prevailing thought among leftists, saying, “It was so much easier for them when the big three networks and The New York Times left out the inconvenient facts.”


Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Justice Alito Stresses Federalism As Refuge from Usurpatory Government

Screen Shot 2012-11-17 at 3.33.49 AM

 

With the Supreme Court and the future of constitutional government in doubt, it’s always reassuring to hear from the voices who espouse those views.  I’m an ardent optimist.  I have faith that the electorate will correct their decisions made on Nov. 6, and constrain this president’s pernicious agenda of implementing a hyper-regulatory progressive state.  The Federalist Society’s 30th Anniversary Gala last Thursday night featured Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who detailed how the legal opinions of those on the left threaten America’s constitutional bedrock: federalism.

To put it simplistically, the federal government is supreme in its sphere, as is the state government in their defined area.  There is overlap – and confusion.  However, Alito gave a robust defense of the doctrine.  While it’s seen better days, federalism in Alito’s view, promotes energetic and productive competition, protects liberty, and encourages experimentation.  He also reiterated that you do not have to buy the various treatises on constitutional law that run over a thousand pages –  and cost a considerable amount of money – to understand that congressional power is limited.  You just have to read the plain text of the U.S. Constitution to understand that point.

He then went on to detail various cases that have threatened this principle of federalism.  From the government being able to attach GPS monitors surreptitiously to your vehicles and calling it a search under the Fourth Amendment to facing the regulatory nightmare of having wetlands being designated in one’s backyard, the fight to keep the Madisonian experiment in limited government, and the principles of federalism un-imbrued continues with fragility.

We have four liberals, four conservatives, with Justice Alito included, and moderate Justice Kennedy on the bench, which isn’t a firm legal defense of the principles conservatives wish to see blemished.  And more fights will come.  One fight in particular that was highly salient – which was described more in depth by Justice Alito, concerned Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.

In this case, Cheryl Perich was hired by the Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and School, taught some lessons, contracted narcolepsy, took a leave of absence, and was subsequently replaced.  She sued under the American with Disabilities Act, however, the ministerial exception gave more latitude to religious institution in terms of hiring and firing processes.  The Court ruled unanimously that such an exception applied here, and therefore, discrimination lawsuits brought against religious institutions aren’t valid.

Well, The New York Times, to no one’s surprise, didn’t take too kindly to the decision.  But, the argument for Perich and The New York Times is disturbing.  Should courts be allowed to review cases, and make decisions based on legal and religious doctrines?  Is it up to a judge and jury to decide a termination?  If accepted, government would have been able to go deep into the dynamics of religious institutions, and the doctrines that guide them.  That’s gross overreach.For jurists to decide cases based solely on church doctrine, if this argument were accepted by the Court, and not law is insane.  As Justice Alito said at the dinner, it’s a “chilling” foray into this plausible episode of government intrusion.

This nation proudly and robustly defends the right to free speech enshrined in our First Amendment.  However, this case, and Citizens United, shows how some people on the left will try to alter the Constitution to fit their model on how they feel government should operate – or feel whole again.  Citizens United, the more controversial of the two cases, was boiled down to the government making the case the speech articulated or disseminated by the privileged few is protected, but isn’t for other parties in the country.  That’s perverse, and it doesn’t stop there.

Justice Alito concluded with a warning about the alternate vision we’re fighting against in the judiciary.  It’s a vision where federalism offers no refuge.  It’s an insufferable progressive state that stomps on religious institutions and freedoms.  It’s a government that can willingly seize private property.  Justice Alito vociferously made the case that the U.S. Constitution wasn’t meant to be malleable with a dependent, entitled society.  It was designed for the citizens operating within a socioeconomic fabric that stressed freedom and independence.  This document embeds certain rights, so that they can’t be easily removed from the political landscape.  Therefore, as Justice Alito alluded to, it’s integral to the survival of our freedom, and our commitment to be an open and prosperous society.

 

Penitentiary President

ADDITION-LIBYA-US-UNREST

Why is Barack Obama about to be sworn in for a second term instead of being fingerprinted and booked into a federal penitentiary?

There are at least three people who may eventually be able to respond to that question.

In a joint press conference, three Republican senators said the only way for Congress to get to the bottom of what happened during the Benghazi terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate resulting in four American deaths, including that of Chris Stevens, the American Ambassador to Libya, was to form a Select Committee.

During the press conference, Senators John McCain R-AZ, Lindsey Graham R-SC and Kelly Ayotte R-NH stated that the bloody 9/11 terrorist attack crosses the jurisdictions of the Armed Services, the Intelligence and the Foreign Relations Committees.   They concluded that a Select Committee was required in order for each investigator to hear all the testimony from administration officials scheduled to appear before those three committees.

Graham included resigned CIA Director David Petraeus among those needing to testify: “I’d like to ask General Petraeus some questions.”  McCain also stated Petraeus would be a “very important witness for a Select Committee.”  In addition to Petraeus, the senators called for Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to appear.

Graham noted there was precedent for setting up just such a committee, reminding the press of similar committees established to investigate the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals.

The three senators will officially introduce a Senate resolution calling for the formation of the committee.

Not surprisingly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid D-NV said he would not support the formation of a Select Committee, but Reid is not the only one intent on obstructing the truth.

An obviously negligent American media has intentionally hidden a string of deliberate lies coming from the Obama administration.  They have willfully propagated the White House’s faux reality about what led to the ruthless slaughter of four Americans.

Why were four Americans abandoned to fate without any attempt to rescue them?  Why the misrepresentations and multiple conflicting stories coming from the State Department, the CIA and the FBI?  Why were Ambassador Stevens and three others callously left to die?  Why were terrorists allowed to hunt Americans down like dogs?

The media malpractice regarding coverage of the 9/11 Benghazi terrorist attack is not the only shameful behavior.

Obama and his administration have repeatedly claimed the attack resulted from a spontaneous demonstration sparked by anger at an anti-Islamic video nobody had heard of, much less seen.  This bogus claim has been made repeatedly.  UN Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows making the phony claim that the best intelligence available up to that point was that the attack was sparked by this unknown video.  If that was not enough, speaking before the UN General Assembly on September 25th Obama blamed the same video six times.

That the administration actively endeavored to squash any notion this could have been a deliberately planned terrorist attack timed for the anniversary of 9/11 is no surprise.  Such an admission would have conflicted with the Obama re-election campaign’s fairy tale narrative that Al Qaeda had been pulverized, terrorism was on the run and his rudderless foreign policy initiatives were making America safer and more respected throughout the world.

Where was the “mainstream media?”

Where was the investigative reporting about the series of attacks carried out in April and June by militants in Benghazi against the U.N., the Red Cross, the U.S. consulate, and the British consulate?  Where were the disclosures about the requests from Ambassador Stevens and others for additional security?  Where was the story about how those requests had been denied?

How could the White House national security team watch the attack in real time, yet neglect to call in back-up support from the U.S. military?  Why did the White House hide the fact that within two hours of the start of the assault they were notified via email that a terrorist group linked to al Qaeda had claimed credit for the attack?

In light of these as yet unanswered questions, a Select Committee is more than appropriate.

If Harry Reid and the so called mainstream media insist on obstructing the truth, they should join members of the current Administration.

Wearing stripes; breaking up rocks in the hot sun.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/penitentiary-president/

Slate Writer: White Guys Voting for Romney ‘In Defiance of Normal Americans’

Screen Shot 2012-11-04 at 3.16.48 PM

Remember when liberals scoffed at the fact that Romney could win more than 60% of the white vote? Not only has Romney successfully tackled that hurdle, and liberals are apparently mad about it. Tom Scocca of Slate Magazine wrote on November 2 about the “tribal appeal” that Mitt Romney has with whites and why “white people think” he’ll be a better president. I’ll give you a hint: It’s R _ C I S M.

After proudly declaring his support for President Obama (and how Slate will traditionally list all its staffers’ votes for the Democrats), Scocca insists they are not in a liberal bubble. He channels the insufferable and dismissive tone American liberalism has successfully monopolized over the past years.  He claims “White men are supporting Mitt Romney to the exclusion of logic or common sense, in defiance of normal Americans.”

“White people don’t like to believe that they practice identity politics. The defining part of being white in America is the assumption that, as a white person, you are a regular, individual human being. Other demographic groups set themselves apart, to pursue their distinctive identities and interests and agendas. Whiteness, to white people, is the American default,” according to Scocca.

He then cited the National Journal piece stating that Obama needs to win 80% of the minority vote to win the election.  Scocca laments “again, why are “minorities” treated as a bloc here? The story mentions no particular plan by the Obama campaign to capture the nonwhite vote. Instead, it discusses how the Romney forces hope to get a bigger share of white voters than John McCain did—by “stressing the increased federal debt” and attacking “Obama’s record on spending and welfare.”  Yes, as if, spending, welfare, and debt are code words for racism.  I wonder if Scocca will share his secret race decoder because Americans don’t have enough time to drink the amount of Ovaltine for a device of their own.

In all, Romney is polling better amongst whites, especially women, which is all due to the racism of the Romney campaign.  This   is based on “the foundation of Republican presidential politics for more than four decades, since Richard Nixon courted and won the votes of Southerners who’d turned against the Democratic Party because of integration and civil rights. The Party of Lincoln became the party of Lincoln’s assassins, leveraging white anger into a regional advantage and eventually a regional monopoly.”  Or, it could be that the economy is bad.  Women are surging in the workplace, therefore, more on the frontlines of the economic decisions in the household – and they don’t like what they see from this president.  It should also be noted that Democrats in the south supported Jim Crow legislation.  Does Gov. Ross Barnett ring a bell?

Nevertheless, Scocca claims there are two races going on right now.

And so we have two elections going on. In one, President Obama is running for re-election after a difficult but largely competent first term, in which the multiple economic and foreign-policy disasters of four years ago have at least settled down into being ongoing economic and foreign-policy problems. A national health care reform bill got passed, and two reasonable justices were appointed to the Supreme Court. Presidents have done worse in their first terms. In my lifetime—which began under the first term of an outright thug and war criminal—I’m not sure any presidents have done better. (The senile demagogue? The craven panderer? The ex-CIA director?)

In the other election, the election scripted for white voters—honestly, I’m not entirely sure what the story is. Republican campaigns have been using dog-whistle signals for so long that they seem to have forgotten how to make sounds in normal human hearing range. Mitt Romney appears to be running on the message that first of all, Obama hasn’t accomplished anything, and second of all, he’s going to repeal all the bad things that Obama has accomplished. And then Romney himself, as a practical businessman, is going to … something something, small business, something, restore America, growth and jobs, tax cuts, something. It’s a negative campaign in the pictorial sense: a blank space where the objects would go. A white space, if you will.

Granted, racism does exist in the United States, but to construe this as the overall mentality of the white electorate is disingenuous, ignorant, and outright nonsensical.  In the world of Scocca, it’s all due to the alleged race baiting.  He noted how it was racist to partake in the “baiting of Obama, throughout his term, for supposedly being unable to speak without a teleprompter.”

More bizarrely, Scocca says that “Republicans predicted, over and over, that the president would be exposed and humiliated in face-to-face debate with an opponent (Newt Gingrich especially fantasized about being that foe). Eventually this led to Clint Eastwood haranguing the empty chair. And then in the first presidential debate, Obama was slack and ineffectual against a sharp Romney. See? It was true!”  Yes, it was true.  He came unprepared, and even The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank made a citation of the president’s debate performance.  Adding that Obama’s lack of press conferences – his last one was in June – contributed to an insular mindset that produced and insipid showing in Denver.  Is Dana Milbank racist?

Concerning the 47 percent comments, Scocca noted how this was a giant race baiting move to court whites.

Here, Romney is speaking fluent White. In white people’s political English, “personal responsibility” is the opposite of “handouts,” “food stamps,” and particularly “welfare,” all of which are synonyms for “niggers.” This was Ronald Reagan’s rallying cry, and it was the defining issue for traumatized post-Reagan white Democrats. Like George Wallace vowing not to be out-niggered again, the Democratic Leadership Council and the New Republic and Bill Clinton made Ending Welfare as We Know It the policy centerpiece of the 1990s.

The actual policy never mattered. Now the Romney campaign is running ads in Ohio saying that Obama “gutted the work requirement for welfare” and “doubled the number of able-bodied adults without children on food stamps.” In mixed company, Romney glosses the food-stamp lines as concern about the country’s economic status, but that’s not why “work requirement” and “able-bodied” are in there. It’s the rusty old Confederate bugle, blown one more time.

So, is this whole get out the white vote is based on coded racism and dog whistling, or is it that Scocca is so frustrated that his favorite in this race isn’t performing as well as he did in ’08?  It’s petulant.  Forgetting the fact that Democrats haven’t won the so-called “white vote” since 1964, Scocca is saying that the whites who decided to leave the president in 2012 are racists.  Therefore, they’ve lost their credibility and their sanity as well.  They’re not “normal.”

If liberals ever get a chance to look in the mirror and ask themselves why they’re so bad at winning elections, they need to go no further than Tom Scocca’s laughable attempt at ‘white people’s studies’.  It seems the seeds of the bitter narrative liberals will hurl against Republicans in a plausible post-Obama defeat have already been laid.

Originally posted on NewsBusters.

Yes, Nate Silver is a Joke

Screen Shot 2012-11-04 at 11.53.59 PM

If you’ve ever gone on Nate Silver’s 538 Blog for The New York Times, you’ll see where reality ends, and fantasy begins.  It was more vividly displayed after the third and last presidential debate where I wrote, in a previous post, for Hot Air that “the headline for his [Silver’s] October 23 post after the last presidential debate read ‘Obama unlikely to get big debate bounce, but a small one could matter.”  Talk about grasping at straws.

Still, with the contest being so tight, any potential gain for Mr. Obama could matter. Mr. Obama was roughly a 70 percent Electoral College favorite in the FiveThirtyEight forecast in advance of the debate, largely because he has remained slightly ahead in polls of the most important swing states.

If Mr. Obama’s head-to-head polling were 2 percentage points higher right now, he would be a considerably clearer favorite in the forecast, about 85 percent. A 1-point bounce would bring him to 80 percent, and even a half-point bounce would advance his position to being a 75 percent favorite in the forecast.

Still, Mr. Obama should not take even that for granted. There have been some past debates when the instant-reaction polls judged one candidate to be the winner, but the head-to-head polls eventually moved in the opposite direction.

[…]

So, since Obama is ahead of Romney within the margin of error, why does that constitutes a win for the president?  I think most analysts would put a 2-4 point lead, for any candidate, in the toss-up column – especially for a battleground state.  Thus, making his 70% prediction of an Obama victory a nonsensical exercise.   Silver has states listed as toss-ups on the blog, but didn’t reference them here.

Furthermore, Silver’s notion that a half point ounce would increase Obama’s probability of re-election to 75%, a 1 point bounce to 80%, and a 2 point bounce to 85% is abjectly senseless.  He is lying and waiting for a miracle to happen.

However, while we shouldn’t expect much from a former Daily Kos blogger, he seems to be keeping liberal spirits high.  As Rosie Gray at BuzzFeed wrote on October 29:

Here in New York, Silver is very much on the tongue of the media and the left-leaning professional elite: Everyone from photographers to the managing partner of a major law firm cops to hitting refresh every hour to stay sane. And out in the Democratic hinterlands, the reaction is much the same.

“I was at a Halloween party last night and it was just kind of funny because we’re down here in South Carolina and none of these people are media people or DC kind of types,” said Teresa Kopec, a substitute teacher from Spartanburg, South Carolina. “And they were kind of whispering to each other, ‘But Nate Silver says…’”

“If people have heard of him down here in South Carolina that’s kind of amazing,” Kopec said.

Furthermore, Gray noted that “some Democrats, meanwhile, concede that their affection for the wonky analyst is less the details of his model than the consistency of his message.”  That being Obama wins – in every projection he runs.

With Silver catching flak it wasn’t long before his allies at The Washington Post, namely Ezra Klein, decided to jump in front of the train for his liberal colleague. “Before we get too deep in the weeds here, it’s worth being clear about exactly what Silver’s model — and that’s all it is, a model — is showing. As of this writing, Silver thinks Obama has a 75 percent chance of winning the election. That might seem a bit high, but note that the BetFair markets give him a 67.8 percent chance, the InTrade markets give him a 61.7 percent chance and the Iowa Electronic Markets give him a 61.8 percent chance. And we know from past research that political betting markets are biased toward believing elections are more volatile in their final weeks than they actually are. So Silver’s estimate doesn’t sound so off,” says Klein in his October 30 post on the WonkBlog.

Klein then goes on to trivialize the whole matter by saying:

…it’s just as important to be clear about this: If Mitt Romney wins on election day, it doesn’t mean Silver’s model was wrong. After all, the model has been fluctuating between giving Romney a 25 percent and 40 percent chance of winning the election. That’s a pretty good chance! If you told me I had a 35 percent chance of winning a million dollars tomorrow, I’d be excited. And if I won the money, I wouldn’t turn around and tell you your information was wrong. I’d still have no evidence I’d ever had anything more than a 35 percent chance.

There are good criticisms to make of Silver’s model, not the least of which is that, while Silver is almost tediously detailed about what’s going on in the model, he won’t give out the code, and without the code, we can’t say with certainty how the model works. But the model is, at this point, Silver’s livelihood, and so it’s somewhat absurd to assume he’d hand it out to anyone who asks

Here’s the catch.  We know his code.  In fact, anyone of us can replicate Silver’s methodology on Microsoft Office.   As Sean A. Davis, COO of Media Trackers, wrote in The Daily Caller on November 1:

Silver’s key insight was that if you used a simple simulation method known as Monte Carlo, you could take a poll’s topline numbers and its margin of error and come up with a probability forecast based on the poll. The effect of this method was to show that a 50-49 lead in a poll with 1,000 respondents wasn’t really a dead heat at all — in fact, the candidate with 50% would be expected to win two-thirds of the time if the poll’s sample accurately reflected the true voting population.

To a political world unfamiliar with mathematical methods that are normally taught in an introductory statistics course, Silver’s prophecy was nothing short of miraculous.

But was it? To find out, I spent a few hours re-building Nate Silver’s basic Monte Carlo poll simulation model from the ground up. It is a simplified version, lacking fancy pollster weights and economic assumptions and state-by-state covariance factors, but it contains the same foundation of state poll data that supports Nate Silver’s famous FiveThirtyEight model. That is, they are both built upon the same assumption that state polls, on average, are correct.

After running the simulation every day for several weeks, I noticed something odd: the winning probabilities it produced for Obama and Romney were nearly identical to those reported by FiveThirtyEight. Day after day, night after night. For example, based on the polls included in RealClearPolitics’ various state averages as of Tuesday night, the Sean Davis model suggested that Obama had a 73.0% chance of winning the Electoral College. In contrast, Silver’s FiveThirtyEight model as of Tuesday night forecast that Obama had a 77.4% chance of winning the Electoral College.

So what gives? If it’s possible to recreate Silver’s model using just Microsoft Excel, a cheap Monte Carlo plug-in, and poll results that are widely available, then what real predictive value does Silver’s model have?

That’s a very good question.   In the meantime, this is Silver’s Electoral College and Election forecasts, which were updated at 7pm on November 4.  Immerse yourself in the ignorant – or delusional – bliss.

 

Parody: MSM Finally Covers Libya

cmn

Special Operations Speaks is a community of retired military and supporters dedicated to raising awareness about the unsafe environment faced by our military and the continued security leaks by this administration.

The following video, while humorous, is meant to show the observed bias in most of today’s media. Does it seem ridiculous and far fetched? Watch the evening news tonight. Are they talking about the breaking news implicating this administration in a cover-up about events in Benghazi? Or, are they talking about how Mitt Romney’s request for hurricane help is just a ploy by him to gain attention?

Special Operations Speaks has a serious message to soldiers, veterans and those who support a military that is allowed to complete its mission without restricted rules of engagement. You can visit their site for more information: SpecialOpsSpeaks

From Russia-With Love

p362044-Moscow-Red_square_and_Kremlin

Have you ever wondered where MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, Newsweek, Time Magazine et al get their talking points?

It is difficult to determine if Chris Matthews is America’s answer to Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey or Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey is Russia’s answer to Chris Matthews.

Pravda.ru, Russia’s online neo-KGB government controlled news site, sounds troublingly like what can be found online at Yahoo News, MoveOn.org the Daily Kos or Media Matters.

Or is it the other way around?

Consider some excerpts from Bancroft-Hinchey’s piece on the upcoming U.S. presidential election.  Quite presumably referring to writers for National Review, The Wall Street Journal etcetera or people who appear on FOX News, he ponders:

“There are those who somehow manage to get their articles printed in reputable international newspapers, claiming that a vote for Obama is a vote for “murder” or “destroying America” or “lack of freedom” but then again there are those who trick their way into the homes of the stupid and gullible selling dreams and promising the Earth in exchange for a pay-check or a pledge to clean the windows once a month.”

Then Bancroft-Hinchey makes a claim that is repeated ad nauseum by “progressive” pundits who actually appear multiple times a day on FOX News:

“They never turn up again, just like the “birther” tsunami which peaked a few months ago and has whittled down to nothing after being shouted down from all sides of the political spectrum. The “birthers” claimed that President Obama was not eligible to stand for office, despite the fact that he would have been vetted by everyone, by every newspaper and journalist, from the day they announced he was a candidate.”

Apparently propagating revisionist history is practiced by both the Russian Pravda and America’s “progressive” Party Pravda.

Of course, as America’s “progressive” Party Pravda does with vigor, Russia’s Pravda relishes bashing Romney with straw-man arguments.  Long a staple of radical fringe left extremists world-wide:

“These same people support Mitt Romney. Who? You know, the gaffe guy, the one who opens his mouth and insults people, or accuses them of things they never did. In short, a foul-mouthed oaf, a wannabe President with no credentials beyond the Governorship level.”

Never mind that Obama’s credentials going in to the 2008 race were being a community organizer, an invisible State Senator from Illinois and a first term junior U.S. Senator who began running for the presidency almost immediately after taking up residence in the Beltway.

Then, in true “progressive” form…wait, this is from Russia.  In true Communist form, Moscow’s Pravda throws up the classic red herring argument by comparing Romney to George W. Bush:

“Mitt Romney, without this competence, without Barack Obama’s skills, wants to be there, and so do those ousted elements from the Bush regime dying to get back in. Rumour has it that Senator McCain is ear-marked for Secretary of State. Ask a Nam Veteran what they think of McCain and then decide whether this Bush regime remnant is the perfect external image of the US of A.

Governor Romney’s position in the Peter Principle is…Governor Romney. Not President Romney. Everyone knows it, the Obama freeze in debate number one gave rise to some flights of fantasy (OK Barack Obama is better at being President than debating maybe, and so?)…and so we can conclude that he is better at handling the extremely difficult conditions bequeathed to him by the Republican Bush regime than at making an idiot of himself in televised debates getting everything wrong, as Mitt the Twit does.”

Mitt the twit? No doubt the likes of George Stephanopoulos or Brian Williams wish they could work for MSNBC or Current TV so they could use such language.  For these proud, card carrying members of the “progressive” Party Pravda, it must be discouraging having to conform to broadcast media standards.

Russia’s Pravda falls short of accusing Republicans of wanting dirty air, dirty water or seeking to leave old people and special needs kids to fend for themselves.  Instead, they choose to attack the GOP in their own unique style:

“Right, same old, same old Grand Old Party. The same Grand Old Party which just four years ago had the United States of America synonymous with sodomy, illegal detention, rape, urination in food, sleep deprivation, murder, torture, water-boarding, concentration camps…”

Then, there is one last swipe at Romney:

“And on a more serious note, would YOU trust a guy who has never had a glass of beer in his life? Or says he hasn’t…”

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/21-10-2012/122517-usa_decision-0/

A review shows that when comparisons are drawn between American news media and Russia’s Pravda, such comparisons are not made in a vacuum.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/from-russia-with-love/

Rage Against the Media

MSM-Pravda

Pelosi, Reid, Obama and other “progressives” called the Tea Party “teabaggers”, “racists”, “astroturf”, “Nazis” ” and “extremists”. The Department of Homeland Security described the Tea Party as “right-wing extremists” and ”insurgents”, saying “Right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities.”

How long before members of Tea Parties are called “killers”?

Hasn’t that already happened? It was more than heavily inferred by the “progressive” Party Pravda after a nut job working solo shot “Gabby” Giffords.

How long before expressing dissent leads directly to arrest and torture?

Bill Ayers’ Weather Underground Central Committee meant to cause the collapse of the United States government. Ayers and his group would deal with resistant Americans by “establishing re-education centers in the south-west”. Those who refused to convert to Communism would be “eliminated”. As in: concentration camps would be used to kill 25 million Americans.

Consider this from Yahoo News, USA Today and ABC News:

“Congress could be least productive since 1947”

The story attacks the Republican House for a lack of legislative success.  This is typical of “progressives” who never miss an opportunity to parrot messages dictated by the George Soros funded Media Matters via Valerie Jarrett and the White House.

It might be statistically true that “Congress is on pace to make history with the least productive legislative year in the post-World War II era,” but to insinuate this is the fault of the House Republican majority is fiction.

The U.S. Senate, under the failed “leadership” of “progressive” Harry Reid, has refused to allow a majority of House passed bills to even come to a vote in the U.S. Senate.

The reason so many believe the House is to blame for this are the lies spread by “progressive” shills like Yahoo News, USA Today, ABC News and their ilk.

Should the 112th Congress come to be “defined by partisan divisions and legislative failures”, the blame will rest squarely on Reid and his “progressive” co-conspirator in the Oval Office.  The “progressive” Senate majority has not even passed a budget in over three years.  They even voted down the one from the White House 97-0.  This is a clear dereliction of duty.

Thanks to the utter failure of their “progressive” policies, the only card left for them to play is vintage Saul Alinsky, blaming the right for problems caused by the left.  This has been the M O of “progressives” since they seized control of the Democratic Party.

The most egregious of lies propagated by the institutionalized “progressive” left is the one spoken by Nancy Pelosi during the TARP debate.  On September 28, 2008 Pelosi laid the blame for the economic collapse entirely on George W. Bush and failed Republican policies.  Sound familiar?  Obama’s using it against Romney daily.

The 2008 financial collapse was a direct result of failed “progressive” social engineering in the U.S. housing market.  For decades the U.S. has had nothing remotely resembling a free market in residential real estate.  Instead, “progressive” big government created monstrosities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac controlled over half of all U.S. mortgages.  For twenty years, Conservatives warned about the systemic risk Fannie and Freddie posed to the financial system but they were constantly thwarted by the left.  To this very day, the institutionalized “progressive” left denies the essential part Fannie and Freddie played in creating the housing bubble and causing the financial crisis.

Whether in the area of journalism or politics, once the facts are in members of the institutionalized “progressive” left prove themselves to be nothing more than bold faced, willfully deceitful psychopaths unfit to serve the public.

Be it Fast and Furious, the Benghazi terrorists, fudging the poll numbers or lying about the rate of inflation and unemployment, the so-called mainstream media is lying through its teeth to protect Obama and help his re-election.  Enough!  It is time to rage against the media!

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/rage-against-the-media/

Liberal on Liberal Violence, MSNBC’s Fineman Calls Lehrer ‘Useless’ and criminally negligent

Screen Shot 2012-10-04 at 1.14.59 AM

MSNBC contributor Howard Fineman lamented how the president was on the defensive concerning his first bout with Republican nominee Mitt Romney last night.  Jim Lehrer, who moderated the October 3 debate, has a history of bias that is usually cloaked with his soporific disposition. However, Fineman seemed agitated to the point of calling Lehrer “useless” and equated his moderating of the debate to “criminal negligence.”  Fineman’s ire seems to be indicative of liberals’ reaction towards Obama’s poor debate performance

This latest incident on liberal on liberal violence could be cathartic for those on the political left as they discover that the president isn’t a very good debater.

 

HOWARD FINEMAN: In terms of debate tactics, Romney was on the offensive most of the time – the president did very well on Medicare, but for the rest of it – and Obamacare – rest of it he did not. He missed many chances to correct the record or to ask questions. Jim Lehrer was practically useless as the moderator.  It was criminal negligence not to follow up on the question – Mr. Romney specifically what tax loopholes or deductions do you want to get rid of – he didn’t ask it. The president should have asked it.  That’s only one example of many and it was clear to everybody in this room tonight what happened in this debate.

 

« Older Entries