Statistically, the polling of “zero” for Mitt Romney doesn’t even make any sense. Even if only one black person, say, Thomas Sowell, planned on voting for Mitt Romney, the statistic should be represented as <1%.

Apparently the poll “was conducted of 1,000 registered voters (300 reached by cell phone) from Aug. 16-20, and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.” Did the “professionals” at NBC/WSJ even leave their own office buildings to conduct this poll? Who on earth were they polling? The White House Press Corps? The results of this poll say a lot more about NBC and WSJ then they do about Black voters. It’s one thing to take the poll, it’s quite another to publish it. NBC should have scrapped that garbage the second they got the results. As much time as the talking heads at MSNBC spend degrading Black conservatives, they OUGHT TO KNOW BETTER! Even just one view of my viral video response to their own Touré would be enough to prove that poll is complete bunk.

Sonnie Johnson, Alfonzo Rachel, Star Parker, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams…these are just a few Black Americans who support Romney. They are the more well-known names but there are thousands of us, too many to mention here. Most aren’t even political pundits. Many are folks who voted for Obama in ’08 and have been disappointed with his leadership or turned off by his public statements on issues that are important to the Black community, like illegal immigration and gay marriage; and one need not even look very hard to find these people!

Is there any more question as to the reliability/integrity of the mainstream media?

Also, my weekly Sunday Night Predictions!

Tune in tonight at 10pm ET, 7pm Pacific on the CDNews Network on Blogtalk Radio.

UPDATE: Listen to the full replay of Tuesday’s show right here.

MSNBC’s Toure:
I know it’s a heavy thing to say, I don’t say it lightly, but this is niggerization. ‘”You are not one of us and that you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akjGAy1u4lk

Off to crazy town

Matthew Balan of Newsbusters posted a very curious/nauseating story about left-winger and 9/11 truther Touré Neblett’s new theory surrounding why Romney really wanted to address the NAACP this week.  Apparently, Romney purposely wanted to be booed to”elicit an emotional reaction from white voters.” In Touré’s absurd piece in Time magazine, he states:

Why would he bother going to the NAACP convention to get booed? Because the real audience wasn’t in the room. He wanted to be booed by that black audience so that white conservatives — who still don’t see him as one of them — and white undecideds would see that he’s unafraid to talk down to black people, to offend them, to be their villain, to make them boo. The result is that he comes off looking tough or gains sympathy. Either way, he gets a soundbite that will bounce through the cable news echo chamber and elicit an emotional reaction from white voters. Romney’s performance wasn’t intended to win more black votes, it was intended to help win more white votes.
Tim Alberta of the conservative-leaning National Journal read Romney’s performance in heroic terms rarely applied to this candidate. “With the critical eyes of the political world resting squarely upon him, Romney marched defiantly into the lion’s den and delivered a speech that was direct, assertive and dispassionate,”  Alberta wrote. So blacks, in this analogy, are ferocious wild animals who should be feared, only tameable by the most fearless of men, which, Romney supposedly proved he is by facing them down and talking tough.

In the words of Piers Morgan, “what a load of fatuous nonsense.”

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/07/12/911-truther-tour-s-new-wacko-theory-romney-tried-win-more-white-votes#ixzz20TBCgnhE

Krystal Ball of MSNBC’s The Cycle

The day before the Supreme Court ruled ObamaCare’s individual mandate constitutional — as a tax, not as an exercise of the commerce clause — the mostly-liberal panel at the brand-new 3 p.m. program The Cycle explored the question of what, in the view of the panelists, that government should consider making Americans do against their will.

For her part, panelist Krystal Ball insisted that America should be more like Australia, which forces its citizens to vote in it federal elections or else to pay a fine. Unsurprisingly, Ball’s fellow liberal panelists Toure Neblett, and Steve Kornacki were sympathetic to the proposal, with only conservative panelist S.E. Cupp denouncing it as antithetical to the notion of political liberty.

Salon.com’s Steve Kornacki agreed stating that it will lessen the nasty side of campaigning which seeks to turn out voters who are favorable to your side while discouraging voters favorable to your opponent. Toure, the inimitable 9/11 truther, also agreed and said that Election Day should be a national holiday and that voter registration should be mandatory as well.

Cupp was the only voice of reason stating that apathy isn’t nor should be a crime. Conservative columnist  Jonah Goldberg agreed. In response to former Obama budget director Peter Orszag, who holds the same position, Goldberg wrote in the National Review on June 27 that:

One of the chief benefits of coerced voting, according to Orszag, is that it increases participation. Well, yes, and kidnapping drunks in pubs increased the ranks of the British navy, but it didn’t turn the conscripted sailors into patriots.

There was also an inane notion that a lottery and cash prize for people to incentivize them to vote was a free market initiative.

Goldberg slams this and the utopian mindset that this mandatory voter participation would create a more “representative democracy.”  In fact, as Goldberg states, “… fining people, say $15, if they don’t vote and using the proceeds to set up a lottery to bribe reluctant voters. If the old line that lotteries are taxes on stupid people is correct, then the upshot of this proposal is that the cure to what ails democracy is an influx of large numbers of stupid voters.”

Sorry Krystal, but incentivizing people to vote with the carrot of a lottery and the stick of a fine doesn’t make it a free-market initiative, because free markets by definition are marked by freely-contracted exchange, not government coercion and subsidy.