Share
  •  
  • Archives for MSM (23)
  • Page2

PALIN & “TROOPERGATE” – MSM ON WRONG SIDE OF AN ISSUE, AGAIN!

MSNBC, CNN, and ABC News have been trying their darndest to smear Sarah Palin’s record of accomplishments in Alaska by pinning TROOPERGATE, the latest media invention, around her neck.

Not that there was any doubt, but it appears Walt Monegan, who lost his job as public safety director, was a loose cannon who refused to work with Governor Palin. In fact, Monegan behaved as if the rules applied to everyone but himself. Monegan has been crying to the media that he was fired because he refused to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law Trooper Mike Wooten . . . a man involved in a nasty divorce with her sister.

Turns out Trooper Mike Wooten is a bad guy who has admitted to Tasering his 10 year old stepson, has illegally shot moose, and was also known to drink on the job . . . this is the guy the MSM supports! Wooten says, “he may have used poor judgment.” To which my response is, “do ya think?” How dumb do you have to be?

Let’s not forget that Monegan served as a political appointee, and at the pleasure of the Governor. He had a record of insubordination and as is reported on HOTAIR the wonder is he lasted as long as he did.

According to the papers filed by Governor Palin’s legal team Monegan repeatedly tried to go around her:

  • 12/9/07: Monegan holds a press conference with Hollis French to push his own budget plan.
  • 1/29/08: Palin’s staffers have to rework their procedures to keep Monegan from bypassing normal channels for budget requests.
  • February 2008: Monegan publicly releases a letter he wrote to Palin supporting a project she vetoed.
  • June 26, 2008: Monegan bypassed the governor’s office entirely and contacted Alaska’s Congressional delegation to gain funding for a project.

Take a look at the brief filed by her attorneys and ask yourself if there is any question about firing a man who tried to ambush Palin at every opportunity.

Had it been me, I’d have fired his sorry ass a lot sooner!

Share

ABC NEWS DOCTORED PALIN INTERVIEW – NETWORK DEMONSTRATES THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN MSNBC

I‘m angry.

Like many, I thought Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin left a lot to be desired, however, I was willing to give him the benefit of doubt. And,yes, I knew a two day interview had to edited.

Watching Gibson’s condescending, peevish approach to Sarah Palin while peering at her over his glasses was annoying enough, but what I didn’t know was the extent to which ABC Faux News edited the Palin interview to make her look foolish.

Gibson’s “gotcha question” about the Bush Doctrine was poorly stated . . . his definition incorrect . . . Palin’s answer truncated. When you look at the full interview without the edits, the only conclusion one can reach is that ABC intentionally edited Palin to diminish her make her look like a light weight.

When Gibson asked:

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

What you didn’t hear was:

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

When Gibson and Palin discussed Alaska and its proximity to Russia:

What you didn’t hear was:

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska.

We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them.They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

ABC News, the network that Peter Jennings built with his integrity and grit can no longer be TRUSTED to present the news fairly.

If you want to register a complaint with ABC News follow the this link.

While you are at it, it might be time to register a complaint with the FCC. We, the voters of this country, regardless of party affiliation deserve better than this!

Share

HOW OBAMA & THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY LOST THE 2008 ELECTION

The postmortem on how Obama & the Democratic Party lost the November ’08 election is being written 56 days before election day on November 4, 2008.

You can say you read it hear first, the same way moments after McCain picked Sarah Palin for the VP spot, I pointed out it was a brilliant choice.

Obama has lost, you know. You can’t have a 20% swing in the woman’s vote in less than 10 days, with virtually every tracking poll giving McCain the lead and think there was ever a chance.

Hear that hysterical chorus in the background? That’s the sound of the Obamabots, the elitists, the chardonnay sipping, arrugula chomping, supercilious, sanctimonious fools who really believed that “winning by any means” meant winning by tossing out all that the Democratic Party stood for . . . including 18,000,000 of its voters.

It’s not simply that McCain’s addition of Palin to the GOP ticket became a game changer like no other in recent political history. It’s that Obama and his team, and the DNC, together with the MSM (and in particular MSNBC), treated most of the voting public with disdain and derision.

One need only look to their campaign of “toughness against the McCain campaign” and ask what groups of voters didn’t they piss off in the process?

Apparently no one on the Obama side ever heard of the “effect of causal reaction” or understood that attack ads should be focused on the candidates and not tied to habits of potential voters. For example when Obama ran his campaign ads against McCain saying he was too old and technologically inept to vote for, boomers across America said, “stuff it smart ass” on their blogs and in endless messages across the Internet.

YouTube Preview Image

The Obama people turned off women, white collar and blue collar workers, working moms, small business owners, gun owners “bitterly” clinging onto their religion and weapons, people over 50, independents, long time Democratic voters, people in small towns, Hillary supporters, pro-life supporters, the majority of the country that wants to drill for oil . . . the list is endless!

The truth is, once the McCain machine really got into gear, Obama’s campaign always looked like St. Mary’s JV squad against the New England Patriots. Let’s see, the voters choices were Obama ( with no experience) and his running mate, (open mouth insert foot) Biden or the maverick McCain paired with the maverick Palin. Hands down, the change team was the GOP’s not the Dem’s as soon as Palin joined McCain.

Rather than compete by legitimately discussing issues and legitimately comparing records the Obama camp and its PR firm MSNBC, decided that personally picking apart the 17 year daughter of Sarah Palin, trying to paint Governor Palin as a conservative far to the right of Bush, and trying to make the McCain/Palin ticket a third Bush term was a better tactic. IT WAS ALWAYS A LOSING TACTIC! McCain’s style of politics have never been like Bush’s . . . and saying in over and over doesn’t make it so!

In fact, every time the media in its many forms including NY Times columnists Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Sally Quinn from the Post, Chris Matthews, Rachael Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Jack Cafferty, Wolf Blizter, Campbell Brown etc. etc. etc poked a stick at her family, distorted her record, and hurled a false accusation at Palin another voter left the Dem’s to vote with the GOP.

History will record that when the Democratic Party lost the 2008 election, the eighth loss in ten elections, the loss wasn’t because of Obama’s race. It was because of the hubris and lack of humility of the Dean/Brazille/Pelosi/ Reid neo-con Democrats, The Daily KO’s, HufPo, & many others including the trolling Obamabots.

History will record that never have so few listened to the voices of so many and disregarded them . . . throwing those voices and their votes into the garbage heap and then acted surprised when they lost, AGAIN!

Share

Vetting Experts? Since When?

Is it me? Since when did the talking heads on MSNBC and CNN become vetting experts?

In fact, does anyone remember a time when the media felt so compelled to comment and criticize the vetting process of any political campaign?

Which one of these airheads has worked on a political campaign or served on a committee or group that has actually vetted a nominee? Olbermann? Cafferty? Campbell Brown? Willie Geist? No? How ’bout ole Wolf Blitzer, or Andrea Mitchell? No?

What we are witnessing is the MSM’s “tissy fit” because John McCain led them astray with his foxy choice for VP, Sarah Palin. I mean after all, shouldn’t they have been consulted, OR given a “heads-up”, OR something? OK, all together now, “waaanaa, sob, sob!”

What a bunch of jackasses!

Share

WHAT DO PRESIDENTS BUSH 43, CLINTON, CARTER, AND REAGAN SHARE WITH SARAH PALIN (revised)

They are all governors that ran for the highest office (s) in the U.S. and none of them had any experience in foreign affairs worth noting.

That’s why the question, “How much foreign policy experience does Sarah Palin have?” is so bogus.

  • Prior to entering office Bill Clinton had virtually no foreign policy experience. He was a Governor of Arkansas and like Sarah Palin, he had little experience in foreign affairs. Affairs of the heart, don’t count! (Sorry, the devil made me do that!)
  • The same can be said of George Bush 43 , Governor of Texas. Have we all forgotten, that prior to being elected to the office his only experience abroad was almost non existant. Have we all forgotten why Cheney became VP?
  • Does the name Jimmy Carter ring a bell, Governor of Georgia, also sans foreign policy experience?
  • Ditto for Ronald Regan.

Ronald Reagan was completely inexperienced and had great success: negotiated arms reduction with the Soviets, urged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall, which actually happened during George Bush’s presidency.

The fact is, Sarah Palin governor and commander in chief of Alaska’s National Guard has more experience than Obama. Sarah Palin took a two day tour of Kuwait during July of 2007, a full year before Obama gave his speech in Berlin in front of 200,000 Germans and left without first visiting the troops.

Bush 43, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter were all governors who ran for president (not vice president) and like Sarah they had little experience in foreign affairs to brag about.

This is now an issue because in the “Gotcha game of politics ” the MSM can’t stand the fact that McCain chose a great pick, hit one out of the ballpark, and didn’t tell them … except FOX NEWS, of course!

Hey, tell me again how there’s no double standard for women running for president, no sexism?

Share

MORE PUMA RED MEAT – OBAMA – EQUAL PAY FOR WOMEN! JUST WORDS? YUP!

Talk is cheap, isn’t it. You can’t make this stuff up, can you? The Obama camp talks about treating women fairly but when it comes time for the rubber to meet the road it’s another story. According to a post on HOT AIR, Obama’s campaign pays women less money than men for the same work.

Does Obama pay women less than men?

posted at 11:20 am on June 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama has campaigned on the issue of “equal pay”, casting John McCain as a villain for not supporting federal legislation widening grounds and timing for pay-discrimination lawsuits. Yet Obama may have a fair-pay issue of his own. According to Fred Lucas at Cybercast News Service, women on his staff made $6,000 less than men on average. McCain, on the other hand, has more women in key positions — and the women on his staff average slightly higher salaries than the men:

Not surprisingly, the MSM has completely ignored this. Note the date; written in June of 2008 and not a peep from MSNBC or CNN. Think the same would have been true if this was leveled against McCain? No? Me neither! What is really amazing to me is that the DNC, the Kool-Aid kids, the MSM and moocho others will forgive and ignore just about anything Obama does doesn’t do.

Share

WOULD YOU STILL VOTE FOR OBAMA (aka OBIDEN) IF HE WERE WHITE?

Here’s the question that everyone in the MSM, the Superdelegates, the DNC, the Kool-Aid kids, and all those who have chosen to back Obama despite his thin record of accomplishment, his arrogance, his ineffectiveness as a U.S. Senator. etc. need to ask themselves.

If the answer is no, you hold the answer as to why Obama will loose in November.

Those in the black community should be asking themselves this question, as well. Why? Because when the Obiden ticket is defeated, and it will be defeated, all those who tried to shove BHO down our throats will have to face the fact that the defeat will not be because Obama is multi-racial, black, or any other hue in the spectrum.

This defeat will be because the DNC et. al., (in all their wisdom ) decided to back the weaker candidate. Their decisions, including behaving like the Republicans in 2000, by fixing the process and selecting Obama, by dissing & ignoring Hillary’s 18, 000,000 voters, will be wholly responsible for McCain gaining the White House.

Will someone take the scissors away from these people, they are a danger to themselves!

For months, I’ve been saying that Obama will loose in November. I’m not alone, anyone reading this blog can trace this. A look at my blogroll will show the diversity of dissent against Obama and his Cheney-like choice for VP, Joe Biden.

The truth is, absent some unforeseen cataclysmic event on the horizon for McCain and the Republicans, never before in the annals of political history will so many in a position of power and influence have listened to so few, to produce such a predictable loss.

I’ve said this on more than one occasion. When you become what you say you hate, you have lost your soul. When those leading the Democratic Party decided that the way to win the White House was to behave like the worst (not the best) of Republicans, they lost the soul of the party and in the process they lost most of the 18,000.000 voters who supported Hillary!

And they wonder why this race is a dead heat?!?

YouTube Preview Image
Share

IS OBAMA ELIGIBLE UNDER US LAW TO RUN for THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT

Seems to me that this is a question that needs to be answered once and for all before the election . . . dare I say before the convention in Denver.

I’d ask why hasn’t the MSM jumped on this, but we all know getting news from “them” is a waste of time. More and more we are faced with looking to outside sources and non-traditional outlets for the news the MSM has failed to cover.

The case in point is an article from Canada Free Press

A few days ago I asked whether Obama was ineligible to run for the office of President because it has been reported that he holds dual citizenship. This is different. Quoting directly from the article:

Barack Obama is not legally a US natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth; a law that was in effect between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, when the law was changed.

However, the new law did not preempt the former law in the cases of those born between the above listed dates when the old law was in effect.

Therefore, Senator Obama may very well be disqualified as the Democratic candidate in the upcoming Presidential campaign.

Presidential office requires the person elected to be a natural-born United States citizen if the child was not born to two US citizen parents.

US Law very clearly stipulates: “If only one parent was a US citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.”

Barack Obama’s father was not a US citizen, and Obama’s mother was only 18 when he was born, which means although she had been a US citizen for 10 years, his mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years prior to Barack Obama’s birth.

In order for her child to have been a natural-born US citizen, his mother would have had to be 21 at the time of his birth.

In essence, Mrs. Obama was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic US citizenship.

His mother would have needed to have been 16+5 = 21 years old at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen.

Barack Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office of President under current law.

At best, Barack Obama is only a naturalized US citizen.

Seems to me that this is real simple. Either Obama is ineligible or he isn’t.

Now is the MSM going to do its job or will the media end up with egg on its face, once again. Memo to the MSM you blew the Edwards story, big time. DO YOU THINK YOU ARE CAPABLE OF DOING SOME INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM AND DIGGING OUT THE TRUTH?

If this story is true, Mr. Obama will have perpetrated one of the biggest con jobs in US election history AND now I can say, “Go Hillary!” If the story isn’t true, then it’s, “Go McCain!” Hey, I’m not voting for the dude, but I think most of us would like to know the truth!

Share

MSM IGNORES IMPEACHMENT & SEX SCANDALS UNLESS IT INVOLVES THE NAME CLINTON

Ah, impeachment and sexual misconduct by a public official, apparently these warrant little or no coverage by the MSM unless there’s a Clinton involved. How else can you explain what we’re NOT hearing and what’s NOT being reported?

Would someone answer this question, how is it possible the MSM has been virtually silent about former Senator John Edwards 2:30 am meeting with his paramour and love child? Granted, this has been reported by the National Enquirer, but absent a complete and outright denial from Edwards, why no follow-up? BTW, its not as if the Enquirer hasn’t been right in the past, right Rush?

I’m asking this question as a former Edwards supporter who greatly admires his wife’s courage and character. I’m asking this question as someone who always thought the Bill/Monica story was none of our business . . . that this should have always remained a private matter between Bill and Hillary . . . that it was never a story to have trotted out for the world to gawk at.

It has been suggested that one reason for the MSM not covering this story is because Obama is still considering Edwards as his VP. AND, if the MSM looks the other way, this pick could still be possible! Say what? It’s as good a guess as anything. This is a legitimate story. It does not have to be covered with the same heavy-handed partisan way the Clinton/Monica story was, but this needs follow-up, particularly if Edwards is (was?) being considered for the #2 spot on the ticket.

Now, on to impeachment, other than Jonathan Turley’s post here, last week, and an email from a friend, the MSM never brought my attention to this story. Friday afternoon I went to C-Span to see, indeed, hearings were taking place; a surprise given the fact Pelosi had taken the issue off the table 2 years ago. I had to Google this story this morning to get a concise article about what is taking place. Here is part of Friday’s Voice of America article:

US Congressional Panel Hears Testimony on Case for Bush Impeachment


25 July 2008

Robinson report – Download (MP3) audio clip
Robinson report – Listen (MP3) audio clip

A congressional committee has heard testimony about the case for impeachment of President Bush. VOA’s Dan Robinson reports, while majority Democrats have ruled out formal impeachment efforts, they approved the public hearing to examine limitations on presidential powers and arguments about what constitute impeachable offenses.

Critics say President Bush and Vice President Cheney should be impeached because of a range of alleged legal and constitutional abuses.

The list includes administration justifications to Congress and Americans for the war in Iraq, authorization of secret electronic surveillance, approval of harsh interrogation techniques, and defiance of congressional subpoenas.

Granted these impeachment efforts are driven, primarily by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and in some quarters just a mention of his name is “enough said” but is that a reason for the virtual silence. Yes, yes, some outlets have done reporting, but nothing major from the cable outlets.

Surely, what was happening on Friday was more important than the “newsless news” recently reported like, Obama’s plane lands in Germany.

Share

REALITY CHECK – OBAMA WILL LOOSE IN NOVEMBER

Given the extraordinary non-stop continuous coverage Barack Obama has received since his selection as the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee, Obama should be leading McCain by many percentage points, right?

Despite all the manipulation of his candidacy by the DNC, his campaign, and the MSM, most of America isn’t buying what Barack is selling. During Barack’s world tour to beef up his foreign relations credentials, his ratings in the polls went down as McCain’s rose. Ann Richards once said, “You can put lipstick on a pig . . . that doesn’t make it Miss America.”

One need to look no further than Obama’s fund raising efforts in June for further proof that Democratic “party unity” is little more than fantasy. It may exist in the minds of DNC, the MSM, and a host of others, whose political fortunes are tied to Obama, but the reality is, Obama will lose this election because of his own hubris and lack of experience.

He and his campaign and supporters have turned off too many voters off. It just may be that the American voters are a lot smarter than Obama thought, even those of us who continue to support Hillary, who bitterly cling to our religion and guns, those of us who refuse to buy a pig in a poke.

Hey, what color did you say that lipstick is?

According to Newsmax, of the 311 fundraisers who bundled more than $100,000 in donations for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, only eight are on the list of contributors to Barack Obama’s campaign in June.

Their total for the month: just $19,250.

“The fact that fewer than 3 percent of Clinton’s donors have donated any money directly to Obama in his first month as presumptive nominee is likely to raise the eyebrows of some leaders in the Democratic Party who are hoping to see signs of unity,” the Huffington Post observed.

The Washington Post reported that a total of 2,200 individual Clinton donors — as distinct from the big-money fundraisers tracked by The Huffington Post — became first-time donors to Obama’s campaign in June. They contributed $1.8 million, or just 4 percent, of the $52 million the campaign raised last month.

Share
«page 2 of 3»
hillary ‘n me

No Domestic Drones;Drawing a Line in the Sand

Privacy is produced by exercising control of information about ourselves!  Jim Harper Cato Institute  May 15, 2012  Enough is enough! As a friend of mine is fond of [more]

Is Obama Building a Case for War with Iran?

We've been down this road before haven't we, only last time it was Bush and Iraq playing cat and mouse. We said they had weapons [more]

Obama; Vote for Me or My Daughters Will Have to Change Schools

The Onion gets Obama's election rhetoric spot [more]

The Cain Smear Campaign & the Elitist Cabal that Benefits

There's only one question to ask as we watch the latest assault on a political candidate that isn't the choice of the Elitist Cabal. Who has [more]

Why Are the Feds Turning Off All TV & Radio Communications on November 9th?

Why do the Feds need to test a COMPLETE communications [more]

Cain forgot to read his I'm black & I'm oppressed card

Why do black liberals and "Progressives" fear and hate Herman Cain? You tell me! MSNBC, CNN, the LSM are spending hours of programming time tearing Herman [more]

Cain Hit Piece by Politico Predictable and Unintensionally Funny

OK, I'm trying to figure out what that kind of physical gesture that wasn't overtly sexual, could be. If Cain whipped "it" out and placed it [more]

Louisiana Bans Cash Sales; Why the Government Wants to Take Your Cash

The headline screamed, "Louisiana Bans Cash!" When I heard this two days ago I thought it was a joke, but this isn't funny and it's [more]

REVOLVER

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

George Orwell.

besides…

Herman Cain can become the Peoples President. Unlike Obama, Cain’s grassroots support is real not manufactured.

THE PEOPLES PRESIDENT 2012

Herman Cain crushed the so-called first tier candidates Mitt Romney (aka mittens) and Rick Perry in yesterday’s Florida straw poll. Cain’s win is important enough to bring international interest, with the International Business Times calling it a new race.

Surprise, surprise. surprise, (not!) the Sunday talk shows are chattering about Cain defeating Romney and Perry in the Florida straw poll.

What is left unsaid is that the real surprise to them is that the voters are not following the MSM & GOP elites narrative on who is likely to run against the fraud Obama.

Their narrative has no room for Herman Cain and so they barely/rarely cover him. Why bring attention to a man who can really turn this country around, right? And so they speak his name in whispers or not at all! All of that changed yesterday.

One of the lessons to be learned in the 2012 election is name recognition isn’t everything. It’s the message that counts! Simply put so even a Progressive “journalist” can understand, the truth will out!

What the GOP elites and the MSM fail to realize, is that they have made themselves increasingly irrelevant to the voters of America. They are as tone deaf to the voters as Obama is to capitalism.

A Cain victory over Obama is payback by the Birthers and independents for the GOP’s failure to tell the truth about Obama’s ineligibility. It is payback for knowingly leading the nation astray. Obama’s a fake and everyone knows it, with the possible exception of the most rabid Obots.

Even worse than Obama’s fraudulent presidency (Born a Brit, not Legit) has been his clear inability to perform the tasks at hand. BHO likes the pomp and circumstance. but the work needed to truly be the POTUS. God, he is such a waste, such an empty suit!

Unlike Romney (picked by Rove) and Perry (said to be NWO), Cain is not a  bought man, and that boys ‘n girls is like a breath of fresh air.  Unlike Obama, Cain thankfully is not a Progressive!

Over at American Thinker the question was posed, “Is the Cain win an anyone but Romney vote?”  I think not. Cain is the real deal, and he’s Obama’s worst nightmare!

 

 

Share
sandstone - September 25, 2011 - (4)
 
May 2012
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  
OBAMA BORN A BRIT NOT LEGIT
Let's be clear. The eligibility requirement for POTUS is natural born citizen, not naturalized citizen, not native born citizen, not citizen of the United States.
Each type of citizenship has a legal definition and is very specific despite the attempts by Team Obama, the co-conspirators in the judiciary, Congress, and the MSM to conflate the terms and bastardize the Presidency.
PANCREATIC CANCER
What if pancreatic cancer strikes your family? Your donation will help fight this deadly disease.
Increase your website traffic with Attracta.com
EXTREME TRACKING
eXTReMe Tracker
copyright

MyFreeCopyright.com Registered & Protected


Welcome , today is Monday, May 21, 2012
This blog is monetized using Are-PayPal WP Plugin SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline