George Zimmeran to Change His Name? (Cartoon) #Zimmerman

Found on Facebook:

Mainstream Media On Board to "Pulverize, Delegitimize" the Republican Party

Thomas Lifson at American Thinker discusses the extreme bias of the Legacy Media (also known as the Democrat-Media Complex).  His column today begins:

The radical leftists who have staffed up the legacy media are losing all pretenses of being neutral reporters, and coming out of the closet as rabid partisans lately. It is one thing to openly swoon over Barack Obama at off-the-record events, which keeps the general public out of the loop, while privately reaffirming media solidarity as partisans. But it is quite something else to put one's name on a publication which argues for delegitimizing opposition to the Anointed One.

Slate online magazine advocates the same thing today:  destroy the GOP.  Remove all barriers to the Left's communization of the nation once known as the United States of America.  With victory in sight, the left is impatient to seal the deal, finish the job:  destroy American liberty and replace it with a collectivist tyranny.

This latest development again underscores the deepening divide between right and left in America.  It could have easily been foreseen that it would come to this.  For years the left has had a near monopoly on information and news reporting, and this monopoly has borne fruit, the biggest of which is Barack Obama.

At this point in our history, I do not see an electoral pathway to preserve the liberties bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.  It may require another American Revolution or civil war.  Possibly the best alternative is peaceful secession of the various states, forming new associations and new unions based on commonly-held values.

I doubt, however, that the left will allow a peaceful solution.  They are all about power and force.  What you or I want is not a concern to them.  We are mere putty to be molded to their will and vision.

Obama More Than Incompetent, May Be Treasonous as Well

As the details of Benghazi continue to emerge, it is more and more obvious that Barack Obama deliberately left Americans to die when they could have been saved.  An article in the American Thinker makes this clear.

The former Navy Seals who died on a roof were killed by terrorist mortar fire.  They gave up their position to the jihadis by laser-painting a target on the mortar nest, expected that their targeting it would be swiftly followed by a US air attack that never came.

The facts about Benghazi are these:

1.  Obama knew of Jihadi activity in the region thirty days before the attack.  He took no precautions and did nothing to improve security.

2.  Obama knew the nature of the jihadi attack in real time as it unfolded but took no action nor gave any orders to the military to take any action to save the embassy staff.  In fact, he ordered the CIA to "stand down," meaning, "do nothing."  This, in spite of the fact that two drones and a helicopter gun ship were overhead.

3.  Obama apparently failed to act on behalf of the embassy staff for ideological and political reasons.  Karen McQuillan, writing at the American Thinker writes:

Obama does not believe in using the military to defend our national security, which he sees as aggressive, Republican, and cowboy. This was Obama's 9/11, not Bush's. He did not see the attack on our embassy as a jihadi attack on American soil. He saw a group of aggrieved Muslim citizens, with good reason to be angry -- the spontaneous mob enraged by an offensive video. He would follow a Democrat policy of promoting peace, not war, in which avoiding civilian casualties is the paramount goal.

The other answer is directly political. It would be damaging for Obama's already weak record to admit that there was a 9/11 attack by al-Qaeda in one of the supposed successes of the Arab Spring. Responding militarily would have made the weaknesses of Obama's foreign policy all too evident. An American military response would have undercut one of Obama's main campaign slogans: "GM is alive and Osama is dead."

In other words, Barack Obama was willing to sacrifice the lives of 37 embassy personnel through inaction and gross negligence, in pursuit of a leftist ideology.  (Due to CIA Agent Tyrone Woods disobeying orders to "stand down," only four were killed -- including Woods.)  If the truth were known, the American people would ride Obama's worthless butt out of DC on a rail.  The mainstream media, of course, will not allow that to happen.

Read the entire article, Why Obama Chose to Let Them Die in Benghazi.

Obama Propaganda Belt Opens Up On Romney

Mitt Romney rightly criticized Obama's inept handling of the recent (and apparently, ongoing) attacks on our embassies in the Middle East. Muslim fanatics storm our embassies and kill several Americans, and Obama underlings apologize to the murderers.  The Cairo Embassy apologized:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.

Romney said:

The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached; protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it's a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values; that instead -- when our grounds are being attacked and being breached -- that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. An apology for America's values is never the right course.

And he said this:

It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

This morning the newspapers and pundits, who are little more than a propaganda belt for Democrats, are attacking Romney for this and other, milder critiques he made of the Obama response.  In fact, if you read only their headlines, you would be unaware of any anti-American attacks in the Middle East.  You would, however, be made aware of some horrible, insensitive, inappropriate "opportunist" comment made by Mitt Romney (i.e., the one quoted above).

Here are the journo-whores for Obama and their propaganda efforts (copied and pasted from RealClearPolitics.Com):

Romney's Major Meltdown - Gail Collins, New York Times
Romney Has Mess to Clean Up on Libya - Dana Milbank, Washington Post
Romney's in Trouble, Election Slipping Away - Joe Scarborough, Politico
Romney's Crass Opportunism - Ed Kilgore, Washington Monthly

Notice journalism's joke, Joe Scarborough of Pinko Politico, saying that "Romney's in trouble, election slipping away."  This morning's Rasmussen Poll [the only poll I trust] shows Romney leading Obama 47% - 46%.  The race is still tight, but to say it is "slipping away" is ludicrous, a transparently self-serving attempt to influence  public opinion with gross exaggeration.  If anything, the race is moving in Romney's direction, despite the anti-Romney media propaganda.

Never before in my lifetime has the mainstream media been so nonobjective, biased and agenda-driven. Disgusting!

Media "Fact Checkers" Mostly Biased, Left-Wing Shills

Ann Coulter once wrote about liberal  bias in the news media.  She pointed out how the major networks have so-called "experts" ready to attack any Republican policies or initiatives or arguments with so-called "expert" opinions.  Contrary opinions by other experts are generally not presented.

Using computer search software, Lexus-Nexus, she found that the same "experts" are quoted over and over, from one controversy to another.  The ruse wasn't confined to "experts," but also to the opinion of the common "man on the street."  One "common man on the street" was quoted several times in several different news stories.  Hardly a random choice, the man was someone whose liberal opinion could  be counted on.

It was obvious that the mainstream media are biased and attempt to present a false picture of objectivity in any controversy.  The truth is, they are utterly biased, left-wing shills.  Their object is not to present facts, but to influence public opinion leftward, by any mean necessary.

Today we learn that the so-called "Fact Checkers" in the political campaign of 2012 are again, fake, false and phony.  John Nolte at Breitbart gives this background in his expose of the phony "fact-checkers":

All throughout 2008, I watched as Obama's Media Palace Guards at Politifact, CNN, the Washington Post, and elsewhere, did everything in their corrupt power to blunt criticism of Obama by, at best, spouting their left-wing version of the truth and, at worst, outright lying.

Happily, Mitt Romney isn't so easily manipulated as was the compliant and ineffective John McCain.  False "facts" by the liberal shills in media will not influence his stated opinions nor blunt his attack on Obama's record.  Read it all here.

Will 2012 Presidential Debates Be Fair? All Moderators Will Be Partisan Democrats!

Will the 2012 presidential debates be fair?  It appears all assigned moderators will be died-in-the-wool Democrats, and in a position to influence the debates with their questions.    Will there be hostile questions to Romney and soft-ball queries to Obama?  Will the array of questions be designed to make Romney look bad and Obama look good?

You can bet on it.

Lying Liberal Media Tries to Spin Obama's Vicious Political Ad, "They Both Do It."

Rush has a serious of soundbites this morning by the Democrat Propaganda Machine (formerly "the Mainstream Media").  The soundbites are a collection of media voices claiming that Romney's just as bad as Obama in making lying political ads.  Of course, the propagandists (formerly reporters) don't come right out and say that.  They do it obliquely, by saying things like "Both sides are boiling mad at each other tonight, accusing each other of lying, and they're both right."

I've seen this tactic in every major election.  It's the "both sides do it" gambit, an attempt to lessen the impact of negative disclosures about their candidate's latest shenanigans. The message:  One guy is no better (or worse) than the other.  You can't get mad at our guy when their guy is just as guilty of these improprieties.

Of course, Romney told no lies.  He stated, correctly, that Obama had gutted the welfare reform that President Clinton and a Republican Congress created some years back.  Obama removed the work requirement in order to receive welfare.  When Romney complained about it, the Obama camp exploded in paroxysms of outrage, saying it was all a lie, a gross misrepresentation, etc.  However, no Democrat has yet pointed to the alleged falsehoods,errors or misrepresentation, let alone refute them.  Obama claimed that some Republican governors had asked for waivers, allowing them to give out welfare without a work requirement.  However, no such governors exist.

Obama had simply lied again.  If caught, expect the Democrat media to start another round of "both sides do it."  Be not fooled by this well-worn gambit.  Without the lies, the Democrats would have no arguments at all.

AP's Propaganda Piece Poses as Criticism of Obama, Actually Advocates His Re-Election

Drudge has linked this subtle Obama advocacy propaganda from the Associated Press, "Around World, Obama's Presidency a Disappointment."  In spite of the misleading title, the article is actually propaganda for Obama.  I knew this by the end of the first paragraph. I dissect the article and expose its biases below.

The Associated [Obama] Press gave these reasons for the disappointment in Obama:
1.  He didn't close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay as he promised. [Aha!  So the World is disappointed in the failure to achieve a key leftist objective:  to free terrorists to keep killing infidels.]

2.  He hasn't forged closer ties with the Islamic world in spite of his promise during his Egypt speech [i.e., he hasn't sold Israel down the river yet, imposed sharia, or instituted halal meals in the White House cafeteria.]

3. "In a world weary of war and economic crises, and concerned about global climate change, the consensus is that Obama has not lived up to the lofty expectations." [The key giveaway here is the absurd notion that the world is "concerned about global climate change." Almost no one anywhere is worried about this non-existent threat except leftists, who see it as a way to control the means of production and redistribute wealth.  Also, the phrase "Obama has not lived up to the lofty expectations" is really an indirect indictment of those with the unrealistic expectations -- their fault, not that of Obama.]

4. "Many in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America were also taken aback by his support for gay marriage, a taboo subject among religious conservatives." [Only religious conservatives in third world countries are offended by the idea of gay marriage -- the use of the word "taboo" conjuring up associations with witch doctors and primitive superstitions.]

5. [Now we are getting into the real message of the article, the main point its authors were trying to make all along]: "But the Democrat still enjoys broad international support. In large part, it's because of unfavorable memories of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, and many people would still prefer Obama over his presumptive Republican challenger Mitt Romney." [The World likes Obama because he isn't Bush? Ah yes, it's all Bush's fault...]

More AP propaganda:

6. "America's stature has taken a hit in Japan since the 2008 financial meltdown, which highlighted the excesses of U.S.-style capitalism to many Japanese." [Capitalism is evil. Capitalism caused the melt-down, not (Democrat) governmental interference in the housing market.]

7. "Democrat presidents tend to be a little bit more hesitant to define the world as good and evil, which tends to be more attractive to Australian ears." [The actual message:  Republicans are cowboys, neanderthals who are insensitive to the fine nuances of global  politics and our shared humanity with other peoples (like Al Quaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah) who merely have a different perspective.  If they saw off your head or fly planes into skyscrapers, hey, who are we to judge?  It is this flaky, indecisive, self-doubting inability to take a stand that so appeals to leftists everywhere.] 

Conclusion:  This AP article is a Red Herring. It pretends to discuss the world's disappointment with Obama, but its real goal is to diffuse that disappointment and redirect it towards reelecting Obama. The piece is a textbook study of liberal propaganda in the mainstream media.

The Main Messages of the Mainstream Media (Cartoon)

Did Hollywood Shooter Shout "Alihu Akbar"? Did Lincoln Free the Slaves?

Self-delusion takes many forms, and Americans are hardly immune to replacing reality with myths and fantasies.

Yesterday, some schmuck in Hollywood walked down the street firing random shots from a handgun, wounding one person.  The police arrived on the scene and promptly shot him dead.  (Thank God for the police, who always man the skirmish line between civilization and chaos.)

Now some people are saying the 26 year old man, one Tyler Brehm, was shouting the Muslim war cry "Alihu Akbar" as he fired the shots.  If true, none of the mainstream media are reporting this aspect of the incident.  We have all noted how the MSM filters the news, deliberately omitting facts that could have a bearing on public opinion and the safety of the American people.  Never mentioning the Muslim connection to crimes is at the top of their list.  Many reports still refuse to mention Major Nidal Hassan's radical Muslim ties in the Fort Hood shooting and massacre.  They refer to it as "workplace violence" instead of what it was, Islamic violence based on religious beliefs in jihad.  It was Hassan's belief in Islam that compelled him to commit mass murder.

I don't know if Tyler Brehm was a Muslim or not.  He could very well have been nuts, acting out a scenario he learned from somewhere (probably not the MSM).   However, this latest incident proves that many Americans have an irrational belief in reality-alteration:  if you refuse to admit unpleasant truths, well then they just aren't true after all.  Islam isn't violent unless we SAY Islam is violent, external reality notwithstanding.

Conservatives, as a whole, aren't any better than liberals in this regard.  This was made clear this week when Zo of Zo-Nation, of Pajamas Media, called for the permanent furling of the Confederate flag.  Such foolish comments always set off a round of nasty debates on the Civil War:  who was right?  What was the reason for the war?  The short and sweet answer is that the South was right and the North completely, irrefutably and indelibly wrong.

Many conservatives continue to insist that Abraham Lincoln was the second coming, a great prophet of racial equality, human rights and enlightenment, who had no choice but to fight the Civil War in order to free the slaves, because he was just so darned moral and righteous.  He wasn't.  What he was, was a ruthless politician who hated blacks and loved high taxes and a strong central government.  His rule was a reign of terror.  The mass death and destruction didn't bother him.  He was concerned with the larger questions, like, "Let the South secede?  Who will pay my tariff?"

Lincoln is a historic fraud whose statue in Washington D.C. should be jackhammered into rubble and thrown into the Potomac.  He was the antithesis of everything that conservatives are supposed to believe in, and there's the rub.  We love limited government, the rule of law and the Constitution, yet we worship a man who was the exact opposite of our ideal.

Lately I have been arguing with "conservatives" over at YouTube over Zo's unfortunate claim that it is "time to furl the Confederate flag."  Needless to say, I weighed in, dispelling the Northern myth with facts, only to receive in return some rather vicious, insulting and hateful responses.  "Conservatives," like liberals, get mightily pissed when their shining myths are replaced with the cold and sober truth.  Will that make me shut up?  Not on your life.

Herman Cain Quits Presidential Race

Not surprisingly, Cain quit the presidential race yesterday, stating that he was "suspending his campaign."  He pointed to the cloud hanging over him from sexual misconduct allegations, as well as his inability to raise enough money to be competitive.

The Democrat media found a weak spot and exploited it for all it was worth, and succeeded in removing Cain from the race.  They hanged him, but he provided the rope.

Note how the biased mainstream media operates in the realm of politics.  They search earnestly for any kind of scandal or pseudo-scandal that they can exploit against Republican candidates but are generally silent and protective of Democrat candidates.  Bill Clinton was a horn-dog on steroids, but his encyclopedic sexual peccadilloes were ignored by the mainstream press.  Obama's radical and dope connections have also been ignored by the media.

A scandal is only a scandal if it is reported in the press, over and over again.  A scandal is not a scandal if no one ever speaks or writes about it.

So who is the Tea Party pick for president now?  Or does it matter?  It appears we will be stuck with an establishment, big-government Republican, either Mitt (Socialized Medicine) Romney or Newt (Global Warming) Gingrich.

The Madness of the Mainstream Media: "They Are Owned by Their Hate"

Elizabeth Scalia at The Anchoress has written an excellent, very articulate post on the role of the mainstream media following the Arizona tragedy.  Scalia is spot on in describing the motivations of the mainstream media:  it is hate, pure and simple.  She writes:

Where Sarah Palin is concerned, the mainstream press and the political pundit class are like 14 year olds obsessing over the social order of the cafeteria, and especially that stupid new cootie girl, ewwww.

They are the spiteful, malevolent and immature teenagers in “Carrie,” armed with pig-blood and just looking for any opportunity to pour it.

They are repulsive in their clique; one wants to take them by their shoulders and shake them and say “grow up! GROW UP!”

They are also stupid. They are stupid because they favor instinctive damnation over intellectual discernment. If they had simply reported the horrific story of Arizona’s chaos, without passion, without prejudice, and followed its course, like professional journalists, Sarah Palin would not be on anyone’s mind today. She would not be garnering the sympathetic defenses of people like Chait, or Charles Krauthammer or Alan Derschowitz or even little old me. This event would have transcended Sarah Palin–and all of their hate–as it should have.

But they are owned by their hate. On the furled lip and malicious smear of one small man, the mainstream media let loose the dogs of their own hellish madness; they have exposed themselves, in a shocking way, as unthinking automatons, incapable of reason, interested only in establishing a framework or a narrative that will destroy those whom they hate, and uphold those they love, and there is no middle-ground for thoughtful wondering.

There is only the pig-blood in a bucket, ready to be released or stayed on instruction.

Read Scalia's entire post here.

Hat tip:  Da Tech Guy

French Conservative and Anti-Islamization Movements Ignored by the Press

I received the following message from reader Atikva, who is French but now a citizen of the United States.  It demonstrates that the tactics of the mainstream media are the same in France as in the U.S.:  ignore all events that do not further the leftist agenda.

On June 18, 2010 at a rally in the place de l'Etoile, to protest against the islamisation of France, gathered about 2,000 people. Not one political or famous personality was present, not one. The only reason why it was at all reported by a few media was due to the fact that the municipality's decision to ban the "Apéritif géant" had made headlines the previous days - but they downplayed the number of participants to 800. 

The following day, some 10,000 Chinese living in Paris took to the streets to protest against the attacks by young muslims they have had to endure for too long in the districts where they live - not a peep from the media. Again, a few days later, there was yet another rally of some 15,000 people in favor of Gilad Shalit (he has double nationality, Israeli and French). The media were mum again. 

The French media follow the same leftist tactics than the US media when it comes to any action by "we the people": they ignore it or minimize it, and those who would join the resistance have no way of getting organized. 

It doesn't mean that the French are not fed up and willing to fight to recover their independence, but short of starting a civil war they have no means of reversing the trend - not one valid candidate for whom to vote, no recourse to referendum (vetoed by government), and the dictum of the European Community to hamper any attempt at reversing the deadly trend.

UPDATE:  Atikva describes France's loss of sovereignty (to the European Union) to be a major factor in its continuing demise:

Stogie, there are no frontiers any more between members of the European Union, and the latter has decreed that immigration from "developing countries" was a good thing. Even if the French government wanted to stop the invasion, it couldn't close the country's borders and the immigrants would continue to pour in from other European countries. And the EU has just asked Switzerland, who is not even a member, to ignore the vote of the Swiss people on the erection of minarets, just to show how impossible it has become for the EU members to protect their own countries!

Islam, a Terrorist Ideology and the West's Slow Awakening

In light of the terrorist attempt to bomb a plane on Christmas day, more people are waking up to the Islamic threat.  No, Islam is not a religion of peace.  It is, and always has been, a religion of war, aggression and imperialism.

There are a couple of news items today that support my statement above.

Ralph Peters in the New York Post writes that we are lying to ourselves about Islam.  He writes:

Despite vast databases crammed with evidence, our leaders -- of both parties -- still refuse to connect Islamist terrorism with Islam.  Our insistence that "Islam's a religion of peace" would have been cold comfort to the family members of those passengers had the bomb detonated as planned.

The U.K. Telegraph ran an editorial, a murderous ideology tolerated for too long.  The editorial says 

Jihadist Islamism is also a murderous ideology, comparable to Nazism in many respects. The British public realises this; so do the intelligence services. Yet because it arises out of a worldwide religion – most of whose followers are peaceful – politicians and the public sector shrink from treating its ideologues as criminal supporters of violence. Instead, the Government throws vast sums of money at the Muslim community in order to ensure that what is effectively a civil war between extremists and moderates is won by the latter. This policy – supported by all the main political parties – does not seem to be working. 

Meanwhile, the American mainstream press are trying to engender sympathy for the terrorist of Flight 253, saying that he "was lonely and depressed."  (Awwwwww!)  So it is loneliness and depression that leads to Islamic terror!  At last, we have the key connection!  Terrorists are people who just need a hug!  Idiots!

Lorne Gunter of the Edmonton Journal adds more common sense to the discussion.  He writes that, because of the attempt on the Detroit bound flight, the airlines will devise more passenger tests and taboos to "prevent" terrorism, but it is mostly for show.  With each new ban -- from box cutters to sports drinks, terrorists will simply invent new ways to carry and hide explosives.  Gunter notes that the west will continually engage the PC fiction that all passengers are equal in their potential as terrorists, instead of profiling young Muslim males, who are by far the most likely terrorists.  Profiling would greatly improve security and reduce the risks of a serious terrorist attack.

Read it all at the link above.  (Hat tip:  American Power)

America In Decline

Click on cartoon to see it full size.

Ever notice how the leftwing media loves to portray "America in decline"? I think it's all part of their odd psychology that is largely self-hating and self-destructive.

It will be interesting to see if and how the change this theme now that one of their own is sitting in the President's chair.

Governor Blagojevich: Proof That All Democrats Are Corrupt Crooks?

This past week was interesting. A Democrat Governor, Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, was arrested on corruption charges. Seems he was trying to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder. Amateur! If he was any good at being a crook he would have auctioned off the Washington Monument. In any case, he has greatly embarrassed the mainstream media and the Democrat Party.

When the news first broke I knew at once that Blagojevich was a Democrat. That's because no where in the great spectrum of the mainstream media, in print or online, was there any mention of Blagojevich's party affiliation. This is always a dead giveaway that the culprit is a Democrat. They always broadcast in bold, capitalized, large font letters REPUBLICAN whenever the creep of the week is one of ours. When the creep is a Democrat, his party affiliation is treated as totally irrelevant and clearly not worth mentioning.

Contrast this with that slimy venue know as MSN. They ran a photo of three Republicans, side by side, on the day the Republican National Convention opened last summer. One was Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the other was that gay bathroom footsie guy Senator Larry Craig of Idaho and I forget the other; however, they were all disgraced Republican politicians. The MSN headline was that these were three Republicans who weren't planning to visit the Convention. It was brazen bias and a transparent attempt to besmirch all Republicans with the taint of these three schmucks. The message was clear: whenever you think of the Republican National Convention, think of Stevens, Craig et al. I was so disgusted that I ended, once and for all, using MSN.com as my home page. I made Fox News my home page instead.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I reserve the right to emulate mainstream media reporting techniques. Here goes:

When DEMOCRAT Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois attempted to corruptly and criminally sell Obama's Senate seat, was he sending a clear message that the Democrat Party believes itself above the law? Since Blago was Obama's BFF, or best friend forever, how much did Obama know and when did he know it? What was Obama's take to be in the sordid undertaking? Since Obama admits to using cocaine earlier in life, was his share of the loot to be used to fund drug dealers? Was he planning to fund a cocaine party in the Lincoln bedroom? Is it true that Obama kicks puppies and hates butterflies? Shouldn't he just resign now and spare the country the trouble of impeachment? Should all Democrats be stripped of their US citizenship, assuming they have any, and exported to the nearest banana republic of their choice?

Think about it.

Why the Media Are So Flagrantly Biased

An epiphany!

Michelle Malkin has a post that says the New York Times is nearing "junk bond" status in its credit rating. The leftwing rag is losing money and failing. Malkin foresees a "bail out plea" from the Times, and suddenly it all makes sense. Or so says Mark Steyn.

He writes at the Corner:

The reason the press are going to such shameless lengths to drag Obama across the finish line is because he's their last best hope at restoring the old media environment, including a new Unfairness Doctrine for radio, and regulation of the Internet. The Obama's-already-won-give-it-up-you-GOP-losers stories are intended only to demoralize turnout. Bear in mind, that round about 5pm Eastern on Election Day, they'll be doing those stories at industrial strength, in order to clobber any Republican voters still dumb enough to think it's worth making the trip to the polls.

I get it! The mainstream media are failing financially and want to wipe out the competition, i.e. conservative talk radio and the internet. Their only hope for accomplishing that is to get Obama elected. This election is more than a political preference for them, it is about their long-term economic survival.

I don't feel sorry for the bastards. By creating a monopoly on opinion for so many years, they assured the arise of the competition that is now threatening them. But it does explain why the MSM has become so unprofessional, openly biased and Machiavellian in their reporting. They're desperate. Be sure and vote Republican and help them into their well deserved bankruptcy.

Ask Any Democrat: Politics is War by Other Means

There are all kinds of nasty but true stories circulating on the net today, about how Obama and the Democrats are stealing this election through illegal and unethical means.

First, Obama has received and is still receiving millions of dollars in illegal contributions, both domestic and foreign. See Powerline's article today, "Who Is John Galt?" Obama's website accepts all kinds of suspicious donations from fictitious persons without matching the donor's name to the credit card number given. McCain's website does it legally and will not accept such donations. Obama is breaking the law and McCain is abiding by it.

No one will do anything about it. When Democrats do illegal and unethical things, it's just fine. Laws only apply to Republicans.

Second, the mainstream media is in the midst of a long, slanderous and negative propaganda effort against John McCain. Pew Research Center shows that for the past several weeks, media coverage of McCain has been largely negative while providing positive coverage of Obama. See graph at right.

.

Yesterday, CNN ambushed Sarah Palin with a very negative quote about her that was misattributed to National Review Online. Palin was told that a writer at National Review Online had stated that "I can't tell if Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt or all of the above.” No National Review writer said any such thing. One (Byron York) was describing the liberal media's portrayal of Palin. He was not describing Palin herself nor his opinion of her. CNN had grossly misrepresented the facts and has refused to either retract their assertion or apologize for them.

.

Greta Van Susteren of FOX stated on the air that "CNN was either incompetent or really dirty." Bill O'Reilly said CNN's stunt was "off the chart dishonest."

.

Third, an Obama win will be just the beginning of "Biased Media." Democrats have stated their intention to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" that will effectively end talk radio. The Machiavellian Democrats have no scruples whatsoever when it comes to fairness or balance or free speech. The only kind of speech that matters is the kind that keeps them in power.

..

So say goodbye to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michael Medved and many other Republican pundits. There will no longer be an alternative media to blow the whistle on folks like CNN. If you think I'm overstating the case, see Senator Jeff Bingham (D-NM) at Moonbattery describe his intention to shut down conservative radio sites -- including the one that was interviewing him!

.

Politics is "war by other means." The Democrats know this and have pursued a scorched earth policy on Republicans for years. Nevertheless, this election has to be the dirtiest, most ruthless and most corrupt in American history.

"Kill Him" Story Proven Bogus

As an old saying goes, "A lie will travel half way around the world before truth can get its boots on."

The bogus "vicious Republicans" story that went viral is proven to be a lie. However, that didn't stop the mainstream media from broadcasting it far and wide in an effort to slander Republicans. Now that it has been shown to be false, you can be assured that they will make no mention of it whatsoever.

SCRANTON – The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Obama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him."

News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.

Read it all here.

I've described the Dem strategy before and I will recap it once more: the Dems create an outrageous lie about Republicans; Democrat politicians pick up the story and denounce Republicans as if the story were true; the mainstream media broadcasts the accusations to the skies from the rooftops; and Barack Obama repeats the accusation at a presidential debate (like he did last night). The accusation, of course, was a lie all along. But it was such a useful lie for the Democrats, who by now have planted it in the minds of voters far and wide. It no longer matters if it's true because many will believe it anyway. It has done its work and the Dems who spread the lie are satisfied with their success.

Democrats are not about "democracy." To them, politics is war, the end justifies the means, and anyone who stands in their way of power are "fair game" for personal destruction. That is exactly why they should not be elected.

Gibson's Attempted Mugging of Palin

I'm a bit disgusted this morning over Charlie Gibson's attempted mugging of Sarah Palin in an ABC Inquisition (otherwise described as an interview). Gibson implied that if one prays for success in war then he must be fighting a "holy war." Never mind that General George Patton often prayed for success during World War II, as well as every other President and general in American history. Gibson made a complete ass of himself. We all remember how well that worked last election when Chris Matthews bullied Michelle Malkin on his TV show "Hard Ball."

Gibson also asked Palin a simple question about a complex subject. He asked "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine"? He gave no context in which an answer could be framed. The Bush Doctrine about "No Child Left Behind"? The "Bush Doctrine" as defined by the Democrat Party, i.e. starve the poor, impose a Christian theocracy, fight wars for oil, carry out massive conspiracy theories, etc. ?

She finally got Gibson to clarify the very broad and ambiguous question and she gave an informed and reasonable answer. But an answer isn't what Gibson really wanted, he wanted her to look confused, uninformed and unprepared. What better way to do that than with an overly-broad, ambiguous question?

The Jawa Report, however, has posted Charlie Gibson's softball questions to Democrats, showing the difference in how the MSM treats Democrats as opposed to Republicans.

Some possible questions for Charlie to use on subsequent interviews of Palin:

1. What do you think of Newton's Third Law of Gravitation? Provide an algebraic formula that expresses the concept. Support your answer with footnote citations from Grey's Anatomy, particularly with reference to Chaos Theory.

2. Explain Calhoun's policy of nullification before the Civil War and how it relates to the Monroe Doctrine. Provide a table that cross references cotton production in the Old South with the rate of manumission and its implication for the ex post facto law of the 14th Amendment. Provide a graph that relates the judicial ramifications as a factor of Abraham Lincoln's hat size.

3. Describe the evolutionary path of a baby harp seal as it was influenced by the gravitational pull of the moon and its impact on the price of tea in China with expected fall out from Mt. Vesuvius during periods of global warming.

Some expected questions that Charlie may use on subsequent interviews of Obama:

1. Is the smiley face icon the proper shade of yellow? Should be it more orange?

2. What's better, fuzzy warm puppies or fluffy white bunnies?

3. Do you enjoy tucking your little girls into bed at night? Do you prefer cheek or
forehead goodnight kisses? Is it difficult to decide on bedtime stories?

Don't worry, Sarah Palin will be ready. I'm not so sure about Obama. What if the teleprompter breaks?