Posts Tagged ‘propaganda’

The Boston Globe Jumps the Wrong Shark: Devotes Sunday Edition to Fictional Stories Attacking Trump

April 10, 2016

Oval-Office-Trump-ArtOfTheDealIn the vernacular of American Business, the term “shark” is applied to a successful businessman, who has made his fortune by being both business-savvy and aggressive.

This morning, the Main Stream Media has finally “jumped the shark”, both figuratively and literally, as The Boston Globe has devoted their Sunday Edition to a last ditch effort to attempt to stop Donald J. Trump from becoming the next President of the United States of America.

First, they have written the following editorial:

Donald J. Trump’s vision for the future of our nation is as deeply disturbing as it is profoundly un-American.

It is easy to find historical antecedents. The rise of demagogic strongmen is an all too common phenomenon on our small planet. And what marks each of those dark episodes is a failure to fathom where a leader’s vision leads, to carry rhetoric to its logical conclusion. The satirical front page of this section attempts to do just that, to envision what America looks like with Trump in the White House.

It is an exercise in taking a man at his word. And his vision of America promises to be as appalling in real life as it is in black and white on the page. It is a vision that demands an active and engaged opposition. It requires an opposition as focused on denying Trump the White House as the candidate is flippant and reckless about securing it.

After Wisconsin, the odds have shrunk that Trump will arrive in Cleveland with the requisite 1,237 delegates needed to win the nomination outright. Yet if he’s denied that nomination for falling short of the required delegates, Trump has warned, “You’d have riots. I think you’d have riots.” Indeed, who knows what Trump’s fervent backers are capable of if emboldened by the defeat of their strongman at the hands of the hated party elite.

But the rules are the rules — and if no candidate reaches that magic number, the job of choosing a nominee falls to those on the convention floor.

That’s not a pretty picture. But then nothing about the billionaire real estate developer’s quest for the nation’s highest office has been pretty. He winks and nods at political violence at his rallies. He says he wants to “open up” libel laws to punish critics in the news media and calls them “scum.” He promised to shut out an entire class of immigrants and visitors to the United States on the sole basis of their religion.

The toxic mix of violent intimidation, hostility to criticism, and explicit scapegoating of minorities shows a political movement is taking hold in America. If Trump were a politician running such a campaign in a foreign country right now, the US State Department would probably be condemning him.

Realizing that the party faces a double bind, a few conservatives have been clear-eyed enough to see the need for a plausible, honorable alternative that could emerge from the likely contested convention. Names like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney have come up. If no candidate gets a majority on the convention’s first ballot, such a nomination might be theoretically possible.

This would have no modern precedent: Ordinarily, parties put aside their differences after primaries and rally to the front-runner because they share basic common goals and values. In any other election cycle, anti-Trump Republicans would just look like sore losers. But Trump lacks those common values — not just the values of Republicans but, it becomes clearer every day, those of Democrats.

House Speaker Ryan spoke to the possible long-term damage with which the party is flirting. “Leaders with different visions and ideas have come and gone; parties have risen and fallen; majorities and White Houses won and lost,” he said. “But the way we govern endures: through debate, not disorder.” The problem is that Trump has already crossed lines that a politician with a sincere commitment to democratic norms must never cross.

At some point, after the election, Republicans will also need to ask themselves some tough questions about how their actions and inactions made the party vulnerable to Trump. After all, a candidate spewing anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, authoritarian rhetoric didn’t come out of nowhere; the Tea Party has been strong enough long enough that someone like him shouldn’t be a surprise. Chasing short-term political gains, the GOP missed a lot of chances to fight the hateful currents that now threaten to overwhelm it.

For now, Republicans ought to focus on doing the right thing: putting up every legitimate roadblock to Trump that they can. Unexpectedly, a key moment in American democracy has snuck up on the GOP. When he denounced Trump, Romney said he wanted to be able to say he’d fought the good fight against a demagogue. That’s the test other Republicans may want to consider.

Action doesn’t mean political chicanery or subterfuge. It doesn’t mean settling for an equally extreme — and perhaps more dangerous — nominee in Ted Cruz. If the party can muster the courage to reject its first-place finisher, rejecting the runner-up should be even easier.

The Republican Party’s standard deserves to be hoisted by an honorable and decent man, like Romney or Ryan, elected on the convention floor. It is better to lose with principle than to accept a dangerous deal from a demagogue.

Next, they have gone on to write a series of satirical articles, attempting to damage Trump by predicting his actions, once he becomes president, wrapping them all in a cheese cloth of didactic New England Snottiness, hoping that they will teach us poor simpletons, out here in “Flyover Country”, where we “marry our cousins”, how ignorant we all are, for even thinking about electing Trump as the Republican Nominee and, eventually, the next President of the United States of America.

To the Publisher and the Editorial Board of the Boston Globe:

As the popular meme, featuring Spanky of the Little Rascals pointing his finger at Barack Hussein Obama, so eloquently states,

If stupid could fly, you’d be a jet!

Quite frankly…no one asked you for your opinion.

According to a Gallup Poll, published on January 16th of this year, Conservatives are still the leading Political Ideology in America at 37%, followed closely by “self-described” Moderates at 35%. Liberals remain the Minority Political Ideology in America, comprising only 24% of our population.

That is why I call the actions of these insufferable idiots, like the ones on full display yesterday, “The Tyranny of the Minority”.

So, anyway, here we are…with a bunch of paid and unpaid “useful idiots” telling all of us normal Americans, living out here in the Heartland, how stupid and intolerant we are, for actually holding to Traditional American Values.

If you will look at the last Electoral Map of the contiguous United States, the scope of the Red Area, marking Conservative-voting populations, compared to the Blue Area, denoting Liberal-voting Populations, is like comparing the popularity of the late Merle Haggard to that of the Dixie Chicks.

Same audience, too…but, I digress…

If you will notice in their editorial, the Globe, desperately wants the Washingtonian Status Quo to continue, citing “being reasonable”, as their reason for pushing for a Republican Establishment Candidate, like Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney, to emerge from a Brokered Convention as the Republican Candidate.

Well, duh.

And, I want you guys to nominate Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller.

Nananana boo boo.

The use of propaganda to further the aims of fascist governments is an old and effective method of camouflaging fascism, which Obama’s handlers realize all too well.

One of those strategies, used in a propaganda campaign, is to select an enemy and target them with the aid of a sympathetic press behind you.

During Hitler’s rise to power, the German Press demonized European Jews, betraying them as evil and money grubbing…painting them as being different from normal German citizens. It was this classification of the European Jews as the enemy that almost led to the extinction of them in that horrible attempted genocide, known as the Holocaust.

And, now, those on the Far Left of the Political Spectrum, and their unwitting Dupes, spurred on by their own political ambition, are deliberately, and, with malice of forethought,  are making Donald J. Trump, the object of their attempts to limit our Constitutional Freedom, through a calculated and, at times, manic, demonization of him.

Unfortunately for all of them, Trump is fighting back, which is his Constitutional Right, as an American Citizen.

The leader of the 1918 Russian Revolution, which led to the overthrow of the Czar and the installation of a Communist Government, Vladimir Lenin, said,

It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed. 

Through the actions of these “New Facists”, as demonstrated so vividly, during the Trump Campaign Rallies and, even attacks on college students, who dare to support Trump, our American Liberty, especially our Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech, is now being rationed, in favor of “Democratic Socialism”.

The phrase “Jumping the Shark” is a term to describe a moment when something that was once great has reached a point where it will now decline in quality and popularity.

The origin of this phrase comes from a Happy Days episode where the Fonz (Henry Winkler) jumped a shark on water skis in swim trunks and his iconic leather jacket. This was labeled the lowest point of the show.

That is what the Boston Globe has done by so blatantly moving from objectivity to advocacy on this April Sunday Morning.

Only, this time, the Boston Globe jumped the wrong “shark.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Iowa Caucus Analysis: Winners, Losers, and Unbelievable Spin

February 2, 2016

ss-120102-iowa-01.660;660;7;70;0Alright. As Maureen McGovern sang, “There’s Got to Be a Morning After”.

Now that the dust has settled, what can we learn from the results of the First Event of the Primary Season, the Iowa Caucus, or, as it is called, the “Hawkeye Caucai”?

Edward J. Rollins is a former assistant to President Ronald Reagan, who managed Reagan’s 1984 reelection campaign. He is presently a senior presidential fellow at Hofstra University and a member of the Political Consultants Hall of Fame. He is Senior Advisor for Teneo Strategy.

Rollins, a Fox News Contributor, has submitted the following op ed, analyzing the results of yesterday’s Iowa Caucus on the Republican Side of the Aisle…

It is always interesting to watch democracy in action and Iowa is ground zero.

Many political pundits and media analysts complain about the attention Iowa receives from candidates and the media because it goes first. But it also is a state filled with people who are willing to pay attention, to go to small events and forums (more than 1,500 have been held) and to show up at a caucus on a cold, often snowy night to participate in a ritual few states duplicate.

Millions of dollars are spent on TV commercials (over 60,000) and organization that Monday night produced a record turnout.

Iowa doesn’t always produce the eventual winners but it does eliminate the losers. With 17 Republican candidates starting this process, there are really only three or four real candidates now with voter support and sufficient monies to go on to the remaining contests.

With a record voter turnout in Iowa, the winner, Ted Cruz goes on with his extraordinary organization and conservative supporters with a big upset.

Marco Rubio, the best debater, came on strong and gained real momentum. He came very close to coming in second. Certainly he has to be viewed as a very serious candidate and the best bet to become the establishment candidate.

Trump is Trump and his special appeal to new voters and the angry anti-Washington element will go on, too, but with unpredictable results. He also paid a price for missing the last debate and fighting Fox News.

Ben Carson held his 10 percent base, but his candidacy is short lived and beyond Iowa has minimal support.

The biggest losers are Bush, Christie and Huckabee. Bush spent the most money and dropped like a rock.

Christie’s bluster, unlike Trump’s, didn’t sell. He has no money and no future in this race.

And Huckabee, who won this race eight years, and thought he could be a serious challenger against Romney in 2012, was a bottom dweller getting less than 2 percent of the vote. He raised no money and has no appeal and barely has enough money left to buy a bus ticket back to Arkansas. He quickly waved the flag of surrender and wisely quit the race.

One more may make the cut after Iowa, but this is the field now and it will be fascinating to watch.

Monday night’s win is a giant victory for Cruz and his team. He won in spite of a greater turnout than in years past and benefited from the dramatic increase in new voters. And now on to New Hampshire!

So, the Grand Old Party’s cup runneth over, They are seemingly blessed with 3 strong contenders for this Presidential Candidate Nomination.

The problem, as history has shown, is the fact that the Iowa Caucus is not exactly a bellweather by which to determine what will happen in November.

The other problem for the Republican Establishment, is the fact that they absolutely cannot stand the candidates that came in first and second.

Rubio, in the past, has proven to be a useful ally.

Things promise to be interesting in the months leading up to the convention.

Meanwhile, over at Propaganda Central for the Democrat Party and the Clinton Machine, otherwise known as the New York Times, Nate Cohn tried to declare the Queen of Mean, the winner of a VIRTUAL TIE.

Bernie Sanders is right: The Iowa Democratic caucuses were a “virtual tie,” especially after you consider that the results aren’t even actual vote tallies, but state delegate equivalents subject to all kinds of messy rounding rules and potential geographic biases.

The official tally, for now, is Hillary Clinton at 49.9 percent, and Mr. Sanders at 49.6 percent with 97 percent of precincts reporting early Tuesday morning.

But in the end, a virtual tie in Iowa is an acceptable, if not ideal, result for Mrs. Clinton and an ominous one for Mr. Sanders. He failed to win a state tailor made to his strengths.

He fares best among white voters. The electorate was 91 percent white, per the entrance polls. He does well with less affluent voters. The caucus electorate was far less affluent than the national primary electorate in 2008. He’s heavily dependent on turnout from young voters, and he had months to build a robust field operation. As the primaries quickly unfold, he won’t have that luxury.

Iowa is not just a white state, but also a relatively liberal one — one of only a few of states where Barack Obama won white voters in the 2008 primary and in both general elections. It is also a caucus state, which tends to attract committed activists.

In the end, Mr. Sanders made good on all of those strengths. He excelled in college towns. He won an astonishing 84 percent of those aged 17 to 29 — even better than Mr. Obama in the 2008 caucus. He won voters making less than $50,000 a year, again outperforming Mr. Obama by a wide margin. He won “very liberal” voters comfortably, 58 to 39 percent.

But these strengths were neatly canceled by Mrs. Clinton’s strengths. She won older voters, more affluent voters, along with “somewhat liberal” and “moderate” Democrats.

This raises a straightforward challenge for Mr. Sanders. He has nearly no chance to do as well among nonwhite voters as Mr. Obama did in 2008. To win, Mr. Sanders will need to secure white voters by at least a modest margin and probably a large one. In the end, Mr. Sanders failed to score a clear win in a state where Mr. Obama easily defeated Mrs. Clinton among white voters.

Mr. Sanders’s strength wasn’t so great as to suggest that he’s positioned to improve upon national polls once the campaign heats up. National polls show him roughly tied with Mrs. Clinton among white voters, and it was the case here as well. It suggests that additional gains for Mr. Sanders in national polls will require him to do better than he did in Iowa, not that the close race in Iowa augurs a close one nationally.

Mr. Sanders will have another opportunity to gain momentum after the New Hampshire primary. He might not get as much credit for a victory there as he would have in Iowa, since New Hampshire borders his home state of Vermont. But it could nonetheless give him another opportunity to overcome his weaknesses among nonwhite voters.

As a general rule, though, momentum is overrated in primary politics. In 2008, for instance, momentum never really changed the contours of the race. Mr. Obama’s victory in Iowa allowed him to make huge gains among black voters, but not much more — the sort of exception that would seem to prove the rule. Mr. Obama couldn’t even put Mrs. Clinton away after winning a string of states in early February.

Continue reading the main story Write A Comment There’s an even longer list of candidates with fairly limited appeal, particularly Republicans like Rick Santorum, Pat Buchanan or Mike Huckabee, who failed to turn early-state victories into broader coalitions.

The polls this year offer additional reasons to doubt it. Mrs. Clinton holds more than 50 percent of the vote in national surveys; her share of the vote never declined in 2008. The polls say that her supporters are more likely to be firmly decided than Mr. Sanders’s voters.

Back-to-back wins in Iowa and New Hampshire by Mr. Sanders might have been enough to overcome that history. The no-decision in Iowa ensures we won’t find out.

Wow.

I haven’t seen a job of spinning like that since Rumpelstiltskin spun straw into gold. (look him up, kids.)

Mr. Cohn, as we say down here in Dixie,

That dog don’t hunt.

  1. While Sanders’ strength does rely with white voters ( which is funny, because you Democrats are supposed to cherish DIVERSITY, but, I digress…), his base of power lies in the New England States, home of his Millennial Minions and a bunch of those college towns, which you referred to.  And the last time I checked, New Hampshire is located in New England.
  2. Mrs. Clinton’s Voter Base have begun to distance themselves, en masse, from her. She carries more baggage than the image of the late Bob Crane (Greg Kinnear) and his buddy (Willem Dafoe), rolling through the airport, in the Biographical movie, “Auto Focus” …And, she’s just as sleazy.
  3. Momentum “never really changed the contours of the race in 2008”, because it was all on Obama’s side, from the get-go. When you have the ground troops of SEIU and their partner-in-crime, ACORN, going door-to-door for you around the nation, it provides you with an insurmountable lead in “the community”. Hillary does not have access to those ground troops.
  4. BIG QUESTION: What happens if Obama and the Democrat Elites decide that they don’t like what they are seeing, so Obama orders the DOJ to indict Hillary and Crazy Uncle Joe enters the Primaries to “save the day”?

Clinton, no matter what those “smarter than the rest of the country” in the Northeast Corridor may choose to believe, is neither trustworthy nor likable as the polls have shown, time and again. Her Political Accomplishments are all negative, bordering on the nonexistent.

Bill’s coattails can cover up only so much political stain (Ask Monica).

Somebody had better hide all of the sharp instruments at the New York Times. This could get ugly.

Get your popcorn ready.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

Blatant Unprofessional Objectivity Just Cost the Democrat Lackeys at NBC the Republican Primary Debates

January 19, 2016

ModeratorsAs I have related to you before, I was a Radio News Director during college from 1978-1980, with a staff of 20 student reporters, who each received credit for producing and delivering a 5-minute newscast, once a week, on our College Radio Station.

I can remember sitting in the lecture hall of the (then) Memphis State University Journalism Building, listening to Dr. Williams, whom we all swore did the first newscast of KDKA, America’s first radio station, in 1920.  The class was “Introduction to Journalism” and Dr. Van Williams was telling us that the ” key to being a good journalist was objectivity”.

Now, in 2016, one Broadcast/Cable News Organization has become so blatantly objective, that one of America’s two political parties has had no choice but to fire them from hosting their Presidential Primary Candidate Debates.

Breitbart.com reports that

The Republican National Committee (RNC) officially voted on Monday afternoon to sever its business relationship with NBC News for the previously-scheduled Feb. 26, 2016, GOP presidential primary debate, Breitbart News has learned.

The Debate Committee for the RNC met via conference call and after hearing updates from RNC chairman Reince Priebus officially voted to cancel the partnership with NBC, according to sources on the call. The vote was unanimous.

After the October debate hosted by NBC partner CNBC—in which co-moderator John Harwood was roundly criticized for a poor performance—the RNC suspended its relationship with NBC News over that upcoming Houston debate.

“I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016,” Priebus wrote to NBC News chairman Andy Lack back in late October. “The RNC’s sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America’s future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.”

In response, NBC News signaled in a statement at the time that it thought the situation could be resolved.

“This is a disappointing development,” NBC News said in a statement. “However, along with our debate broadcast partners at Telemundo we will work in good faith to resolve this matter with the Republican Party.”

This process also sparked an unprecedented meeting of top officials with almost every GOP presidential campaign, in which campaign managers represented most of the 2016 GOP candidates to fight for better representation in the debate process. Donald Trump’s team and Dr. Ben Carson’s team, as well most of the rest of the campaigns, huddled together to wrest control away from the mainstream media—which has been, until now, dominating the process.

Clearly, however, despite NBC’s previous hopes that the RNC would reinstate the network as a moderator of the upcoming debate, the RNC has officially moved forward with formal actions to end the network’s plans for the Houston debate.

NBC News moderated Sunday evening’s Democratic debate between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

The move by the RNC to formally extricate NBC News from the process is sure to seriously harm the media organization’s reputation, and its financial bottom line. Typically, networks make millions of dollars in ad revenue with debate moderation due to the extraordinarily high viewership.

The debate is still on the schedule–it would come after Iowans, New Hampshire citizens, South Carolinians, and Nevadans vote, heading into the all-important SEC Primary of which Texas is a part on March 1–but it’s unclear as of yet who will moderate it or where it will air.

For years, the Main Stream Media has been in bed with politicians and business moguls. While, touting objectivity, they have often fallen way short of that goal.

The Media really came into its own during the 80’s, with the advent of Cable Television, the First Iranian Hostage Crisis, and the ascension and election of President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Their advocacy of all things Liberal became very apparent, as they attacked the greatest president of this generation, mercilessly, giving no quarter.

I believe that Reagan’s election was a wake up call to the MSM. They realized that, if let to their own devices, the American Public would elect a Conservative as president, every time. And, they just couldn’t have that. They were already in too deep to their Democratic, Progressive Masters.

So, America’s Media forsook their objectivity, choosing to help to shape current events, instead of just reporting on them, in an effort to produce outcomes which would be most beneficial to the Progressive Cause.

Now, in 2015, after propping up Barack Hussein Obama and getting him re-elected, their own hubris has given them an exaggerated sense of self-importance, as to their role in our society.

Their Achilles’ Heel , the before-mentioned hubris, blinded them to the potential of the upstart Fox News Channel in informing America’s population in the Heartland, and that has been their undoing, much to Obama’s consternation.

Every night of the week, the Fox News Channel beats the mainstream outlets in popularity. There is a reason for that.

Fox News is exactly what it claims to be: fair and balanced.

The Mainstream News Channels are so far up Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s backsides that they wouldn’t know the truth if it French-kissed them.

Just as it was during the Russian Revolution, when Vladimir Leninn seized control of Russia from the Czar, and just as it was during the era of the National Socialist Party in Germany, when a former altar boy and house painter named Adolf Hitler took over, the first thing that totalitarian governments do is to take control of media, for propaganda purposes.

Through threats, coercion, and promises of reward, that is exactly what Obama did when he took office.

Of course, he did not have to try very hard. The Main Stream Media were already Obama Fanboys, their staffs being made up of a majority of Liberals.

Heck, they were posting fictitious propaganda about Barack Hussein Obama, before he was even elected president.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama is the best thing that ever happened to the Fox News Channel. It has solidified their position as the Leader in Cable News.

And, the thing about it, is the fact that Fox News is not the only source by which average Americans can obtain the truth about Obama and his administration. The New Media, the Internet, has proven to be an invaluable source for dissemination of information.

Principled reporters, such as the late Andrew Breitbart and Michelle Malkin, turned up the heat on both Obama and the MSM, by providing an alternative source through which Americans can receive news, unfiltered by those in the Halls of Power.

All during the Republican PreFsidential Primate Candidate Debates, which they have had the privilege of hosting, the NBC Debate Moderators, while doing the will of their Masters at the Network and the Democratic Party, the self-proclaimed “Broadcast Journalists” allowed the entire country to witness them practice, on live television, their actual jobs: being junkyard dogs and purveyors of propaganda , in service to a political party and ideology, who once stood for the “Working Man and Woman”, but who now stand for the worst kind  of state-sponsored fascism, racial division exacerbated by the Rhetoric of Class Warfare, and greed-inspired socialism.

It was refreshing to actually see the Republican National Committee tell them to go take a long walk off of a short pier.

It is time to take our country back.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Full Story of “Politico’s” Attempt to “Politically Assassinate” Dr. Ben Carson

November 7, 2015

th (46)When I was a Collegiate Radio News Director from 1978-1980, I made sure that my on-air staff, including myself, maintained our objectivity in our reporting.

Since the Carter years,  political ideology has slowly replaced objectivity, among the ranks of America’s Main Stream Media, until, as was demonstrated by http://www.politico.com yesterday, “reporters” don’t even try to hide their loyalty to the Democratic Party, anymore.

Yesterday, Dr. Ben Carson was the target of a failed ‘Hit Piece” by the Liberal Political Website.

Before we look at the details of that attempt at “Political Assassination”, let’s look at his TRUE Biography, first, courtesy of achievement.org

Benjamin Carson was born in Detroit, Michigan. His mother Sonya had dropped out of school in the third grade, and married when she was only 13. When Benjamin Carson was only eight, his parents divorced, and Mrs. Carson was left to raise Benjamin and his older brother Curtis on her own. She worked at two, sometimes three, jobs at a time to provide for her boys.Benjamin and his brother fell farther and farther behind in school. In fifth grade, Carson was at the bottom of his class. His classmates called him “dummy” and he developed a violent, uncontrollable temper.

When Mrs. Carson saw Benjamin’s failing grades, she determined to turn her sons’ lives around. She sharply limited the boys’ television watching and refused to let them outside to play until they had finished their homework each day. She required them to read two library books a week and to give her written reports on their reading even though, with her own poor education, she could barely read what they had written.

Within a few weeks, Carson astonished his classmates by identifying rock samples his teacher had brought to class. He recognized them from one of the books he had read. “It was at that moment that I realized I wasn’t stupid,” he recalled later. Carson continued to amaze his classmates with his newfound knowledge and within a year he was at the top of his class.

The hunger for knowledge had taken hold of him, and he began to read voraciously on all subjects. He determined to become a physician, and he learned to control the violent temper that still threatened his future. After graduating with honors from his high school, he attended Yale University, where he earned a degree in Psychology.From Yale, he went to the Medical School of the University of Michigan, where his interest shifted from psychiatry to neurosurgery. His excellent hand-eye coordination and three-dimensional reasoning skills made him a superior surgeon. After medical school he became a neurosurgery resident at the world-famous Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. At age 32, he became the hospital’s Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery, a position he would hold for the next 29 years.

In 1987, Carson made medical history with an operation to separate a pair of Siamese twins. The Binder twins were born joined at the back of the head. Operations to separate twins joined in this way had always failed, resulting in the death of one or both of the infants. Carson agreed to undertake the operation. A 70-member surgical team, led by Dr. Carson, worked for 22 hours. At the end, the twins were successfully separated and can now survive independently.Carson’s other surgical innovations have included the first intra-uterine procedure to relieve pressure on the brain of a hydrocephalic fetal twin, and a hemispherectomy, in which an infant suffering from uncontrollable seizures has half of its brain removed. This stops the seizures, and the remaining half of the brain actually compensates for the missing hemisphere.

In addition to his medical practice, Dr. Carson has long been in constant demand as a public speaker, and devotes much of his time to meeting with groups of young people. In 2008, President George W. Bush awarded Dr. Carson the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

…Dr. Carson opposed passage of the federal Affordable Care Act of 2010, often called the ACA or Obamacare. After retiring from his position as Director of Pediatric Neursurgery at Hopkins in 2012, Carson began to speak more frequently on other public issues and emerged as a vocal critic of the Obama administration. In the news media and political circles, he attracted considerable attention as a possible candidate for public office. In May 2015, he ended several months of speculation by announcing his intention to seek the Republican Party’s nomination for President of the United States. 

Now, let’s look at the LIE that Politico published online yesterday, in order to attempt to politically “assassinate” Dr. Carson.

Mollie Hemingway, the Senior Editor at thefederalist.com, summarized the whole sorry story late yesterday afternoon…

Politico‘s Kyle Cheney admitted that he fabricated a negative story about Ben Carson. At least, according to his own standards, he admitted the grievous journalistic sin.

In a story published early on Friday, Politico’s Kyle Cheney authored a piece headlined “Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship” with a subhed “Carson’s campaign on Friday conceded that a central point in his inspirational personal story did not occur as he previously described.”

There were at least five major problems with the story:

The headline was completely false
The subhed was also completely false
The opening paragraph was false false false
The substance of the piece was missing key exonerating information
The article demonstrated confusion about service academy admissions and benefits
But other than that, A+++ work, Kyle Cheney and Politico.

It could take all day to parse the problems with Kyle Cheney’s now-somewhat-cleaned-up hit piece on Carson, but let’s just look at his original introductory claims:

“Ben Carson’s campaign on Friday admitted, in a response to an inquiry from POLITICO, that a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated: his application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. The academy has occupied a central place in Carson’s tale for years. According to a story told in Carson’s book, “Gifted Hands,” the then-17 year old was introduced in 1969 to Gen. William Westmoreland, who had just ended his command of U.S. forces in Vietnam, and the two dined together. That meeting, according to Carson’s telling, was followed by a “full scholarship” to the military academy. West Point, however, has no record of Carson applying, much less being extended admission…When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

Roughly none of this is true. Ben Carson’s campaign did not “admit” that a central point in his story “was fabricated.” Quite the opposite. The central point of the story is falsely described by Cheney/Politico as being that he applied and was accepted at West Point. Carson, in fact, has repeatedly claimed not to have applied. So any claim regarding the absence of West Point records of such an application would not debunk Carson’s point. And, again, Carson’s campaign never “conceded” the story was false at least in part because the story, as characterized by Politico, is not one he told. Further, Cheney is unable to substantiate his claim that Carson told this story. Nowhere in the article does he even explain, with facts, where he came up with the idea that Carson has ever made this claim.

Politico stealthily edited the inflammatory headline and lede, after the damage was done. They made changes without adding a note about what was corrected. They didn’t update the piece or add an editor’s note. The new headline is very much toned down to “Exclusive: Carson claimed West Point ‘scholarship’ but never applied.” This is a claim not exclusive to Politico and not newsworthy in the least. Carson himself broke this news 23 years ago when he said he was offered a scholarship to West Point but never applied. The cleaned-up story still says that Carson “conceded that he never applied nor was granted admission to West Point.” To concede is to admit that something is true. But, again, Carson himself made this claim more than two decades ago, so he’s not conceding the point to Kyle Cheney or Politico simply because Kyle Cheney and Politico misread him.

The Washington Post‘s Dave Weigel, who immediately expressed skepticism about the significance of the Politico hit that was taking everybody by storm, has a balanced take on the kerfuffle here. He also noted (on Twitter):

daveweigel ‏@daveweigel 15 hours ago

“Also, taking “fabrication” out of that headline is like taking uranium out of an A-bomb.”

One other quick point to make about Politico and Kyle Cheney’s piece. The original story claimed that Carson also lied by claiming he was offered a full scholarship to West Point since the service academy is entirely taxpayer funded. Or, as Politico put it: “indeed there are no ‘full scholarships,’ per se.” The only problem with this is that the academy itself describes this benefit as a “full scholarship.”

Ben Carson was a brilliant student who had already shown an interest in the military and had demonstrated leadership skills. It would be weirder if West Point hadn’t tried to recruit him than tried to recruit him. This doesn’t happen to we journalists, for obvious reasons, but exceptional students are recruited by top colleges and universities all the time.

Now, as for Kyle Cheney’s concession that he fabricated his piece on Carson. He didn’t. That’s how I’m interpreting his decision to stealthily edit his piece to remove much of the error. But Ben Carson didn’t “admit” or “concede” to fabrication and he’s been tarred by Cheney as if he had. So I’ll keep the headline.

Other critiques of Cheney and Politico are available from across the political and media spectrum here, here, here, here, and here.

At a time when the media need to demonstrate good faith efforts to cover Republicans and conservatives with even a modicum of fairness, Kyle Cheney and Politico have done a tremendous disservice to their brands.

Indeed.

Last night, Dr. Carson showed why he is one of the top two Candidates for the Republican Presidential Nomination, as he let the assembled members of the Main Stream Media know how he felt about their “lack of subjectivity”.

Mediaite.com reported that

Ben Carson faced some combative reporters during a press conference in Florida tonight about the various issues in his background that have been raised this week.He dismissed Politico‘s report about him not being formally offered a West Point scholarship, simply insisting it was relayed to him that he could get one with the kind of accomplishments in his background.

He declared, “There is a desperation on behalf of some to try to find a way to tarnish me… Next week it’ll be my kindergarten teacher who said I peed in my pants.”

As the reporters at his Florida presser continued to press Carson, he got pretty steamed and denounced the “witch hunt,” saying, “I do not remember this level of scrutiny for one President Barack Obama.”

In a very mocking voice, Carson brought up a lot of issues from the president’s past before turning the tables on the reporters and asking them point-blank why they’re not interested in Obama’s sealed college records.

The assembled reporters kept pressing Carson and he told them, “My job is to call you out when you’re unfair.”

Yesterday afternoon, before Politico admitted to lying, Rush Limbaugh, the Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio said the following on his program:

I think what we have here is an electronic lynching.  We have an electronic lynching being conducted against a Republican African-American candidate by a majority white, mainstream American liberal media where — if you’re not a good liberal and a good African-American on their plantation — they are gonna take you out.  And we are witnessing it.  It’s the same thing, folks, that happened to Clarence Thomas back in 1990 I believe it was. Again, back in 1990 there wasn’t any Fox News. There wasn’t a blogosphere.There were just the beginnings of the conservative presence on the web — and there was me, talk radio. But there was nothing else.  This is the kind of thing they used to get away with. This used to be the standard way news happened.  This is not character assassination.  This goes way beyond character assassination.  This is an attempt to destroy Carson’s reputation, his political future, his career, his credibility, all of it.  This is intended to destroy him.  Like just told our liberal caller: It’s the only way these people can win.  They think Carson’s a lunatic and they still can’t — or are not comfortable taking him on in the arena of ideas.  They have to character assassinate and destroy. 

This is despicable, despicable stuff.  

Yes, it is.

The Democratic Party and their Liberal Minions are desperate to somehow stop the momentum of America’s Political Pendulum, which is in the process of swinging execrably to the Right, or Conservative side.

We witnessed it with the debacle that was the Republican Candidate Debate on CNBC, in which the Junkyard Chihuahuas, that are the Min Stream Media, were loosed on the Republican Candidates, a laughable attempt, just like yesterday’s slander of Dr. Carson, which failed miserably. 

The thing about it is: We still have a year to go before the Presidential Elections.

How much more “yipping at the heels” of those who dare oppose “The Old White Folks From the Northeast” who comprise the Democratic Presidential Hopefuls, are the Junkyard Chihuahuas of the Liberal Main Stream Media capable of?

How much food can Rosie O’Donnell put away at an all-you-can-eat buffet?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Republican Candidates Fight Each Other…and the Moderators…at CNBC Debate

October 29, 2015

republican-debate-20161There were fireworks at the Republican Presidential Candidate Debate on CNBC, last night. However, a lot of the fireworks were not the kind that the network hoped for.

Realclearpolitics.com has the story…

At the Republican debate hosted by CNBC in Boulder, Colorado Wednesday night, presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz lambasted the moderators, particularly John Harwood of The New York Times, and the media for their treatment and characterization of himself and his competitors.

“The questions asked in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media,” Cruz at Wednesday’s Republican debate. “Everyone home tonight knows that the moderators have no intention of voting in a Republican primary.”

Cruz later went tete-a-tete with Harwood, a CNBC contributor, for cutting him off and wanting to move on.

“Congressional Republicans, Democrats and the White House are about to strike a compromise that would raise the debt limit, prevent a government shutdown, and calm financial markets of the fear that a Washington crisis is on the way. Does your opposition to it show you’re not the kind of problem-solver that American voters want?” CNBC anchor Carl Quintanilla asked the presidential candidate.

“Let me say something at the outset,” the Senator from Texas said. “The questions asked in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media.”

“This is not a cage match. And you look at the questions — Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues,” Cruz said to commanding applause from the audience.

“Do we get credit for this one,” Quintanilla asked Cruz?

“And Carl, I’m not finished yet. The contrast with the Democratic debate, where every thought and question from the media was, which of you is more handsome and why?” Cruz asked and then paused to cough.

“You have 30 seconds left to answer should you choose to do so,” Quintanilla told the candidate.

“Let me be clear,” Cruz said. “The men and women on this stage have more ideas, more experience, more common sense, than ever participant in the Democratic debate. That debate reflected a debate between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.”

“Nobody believes that the moderators have any intention of voting in a Republican primary,” Cruz said.

“The questions being asked shouldn’t be trying to get people to tear into each other, it should be what are your substantive solutions to people at home,” Cruz said before getting cut off.

“I asked you about the debt limit and got no answer,” Quintanilla said.

“You want an answer to that question?” Cruz asked. “I’d be happy to answer your question.”

Cruz was interrupted this time by John Harwood who said “we’re moving on.”

“Senator [Rand] Paul, I’ve got a question for you,” Harwood said in his attempt to move on.

“So you don’t actually want to hear the answer, John?” Cruz called out the anchor. “You don’t want to hear the answer, you just want to incite insults.”

“You used your time on something else,” a dismissive Harwood said.

“You’re not interested in an answer,” Cruz scolded.

“I’m interested in an answer from Senator Paul,” Harwood retorted.

Sen. Cruz was not the only one who was not pleased with the blatant hostility and bias of the CNBC Moderators…as businessinsider.com reports…

The audience at the third Republican presidential debate booed CNBC’s moderators Wednesday night when one challenged retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson about a controversial association.

Carson has been tied to Mannatech, a nutritional-supplement company based in Texas. He appeared in a promotional video and spoke at two conferences hosted by the company, whose supplements have come under fire.

“This is a company called Mannatech, a maker of nutritional supplement, with which you had a 10-year relationship. They offered claims that they could cure autism, cancer. They paid $7 million to settle a deceptive marketing lawsuit in Texas. And yet your involvement continued, why?” CNBC’s Carl Quintanilla asked Carson, also questioning whether it spoke to his “vetting process or judgment.”

Carson dismissed the question.

“That’s easy to answer. I didn’t have an involvement with them. Total propaganda. I did a couple speeches for them. I did speeches for other people — they were paid speeches. It is absolutely absurd to say that I had any kind of relationship with them. Do I take the product? Yes. I think it’s a good product,” he said.

The moderator then pointed out that Carson was on the company’s webpage. Carson said he didn’t give them permission to do that.

After the audience loudly booed the follow-up question, Carson simply said: “They know.”

The audience cheered.

For years, the Main Stream Media has been in bed with politicians and business moguls. While, touting objectivity, they have often fallen way short of that goal.

The Media really came into its own during the 80’s, with the advent of Cable Television, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and the ascension and election of President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Their advocacy of all things Liberal became very apparent, as they attacked the greatest president of this generation, mercilessly, giving no quarter.

I believe that Reagan’s election was a wake up call to the MSM. They realized that, if let to their own devices, the American Public would elect a Conservative as president, every time. And, they just couldn’t have that. They were already in too deep to their Democratic, Progressive Masters.

So, America’s Media forsook their objectivity, choosing to help to shape current events, instead of just reporting on them, in an effort to produce outcomes which would be most beneficial to the Progressive Cause.

Now, in 2015, after propping up Barack Hussein Obama and getting him re-elected, their own hubris has given them an exaggerated sense of self-importance, as to their role in our society.

Their Achilles’ Heel , the before-mentioned hubris, blinded them to the potential of the upstart Fox News Channel in informing America’s population in the Heartland, and that has been their undoing, much to Obama’s consternation.

Every night of the week, the Fox News Channel beats the mainstream outlets in popularity. There is a reason for that.

Fox News is exactly what it claims to be: fair and balanced.

The Mainstream News Channels are so far up Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s backsides that they wouldn’t know the truth if it French-kissed them.

Just as it was during the Russian Revolution, when Vladimir Leninn seized control of Russia from the Czar, and just as it was during the era of the National Socialist Party in Germany, when a former altar boy and house painter named Adolf Hitler took over, the first thing that totalitarian governments do is to take control of media, for propaganda purposes.

Through threats, coercion, and promises of reward, that is exactly what Obama did when he took office.

Of course, he did not have to try very hard. The Main Stream Media were already Obama Fanboys, their staffs being made up of a majority of Liberals.

Heck, they were posting fictitious propaganda about Barack Hussein Obama, before he was even elected president.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama is the best thing that ever happened to the Fox News Channel. It has solidified their position as the Leader in Cable News.

And, the thing about it, is the fact that Fox News is not the only source by which average Americans can obtain the truth about Obama and his administration. The New Media, the Internet, has proven to be an invaluable source for dissemination of information.

Principled reporters, such as the late Andrew Breitbart and Michelle Malkin, turned up the heat on both Obama and the MSM, by providing an alternative source through which Americans can receive news, unfiltered by those in the Halls of Power.

With their performance last night, the CNBC Debate Moderators, while doing the will of their Masters at the Network and the Democratic Party, the self-proclaimed “Broadcast Journalists” allowed the entire country to witness them practice, on live television, their actual jobs: being junkyard dogs and purveyors of propaganda , in service to a political party and ideology, who once stood for the “Working Man and Woman”, but who now stand for the worst kind  of state-sponsored fascism, racial division exacerbated by the Rhetoric of Class Warfare, and greed-inspired socialism.

It was refreshing to see them called out by both the candidates and the audience.

It is time to take our country back.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Irving “Clockmaker” Comes From a Family of Muslim Activists

September 24, 2015

th (29)Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive! – Sir Walter Scott

Breitbart News reported yesterday that

Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne appeared on The Blaze and was interviewed by Glenn Beck on Tuesday. During the interview, Beck put forward the idea that the incident involving the clock might be part of an orchestrated conspiracy of creeping Islamist jihad. He likened the incident to a dog whistle event for jihadists around the world. He speculated the incident could be part of Democratic efforts to turn Texas blue or for Muslims to have a “boogeyman” to gin up, Mediate reported.

The Irving mayor would not quite sign on to that theory but questioned the rapid attention the incident garnered from the White House.  “In fact,” Van Duyne responded, “I don’t even think the picture of the hoax bomb was released before [President Obama] tweeted out, ‘Cool clock, kid.’”

Jim Hansen with the Center for Security Policy sided with Beck and questioned why Ahmed would bring the clock to school in the first place.

Van Duyne implied there is more to the story than has been released. She said the Mohamed family should allow the school to release all of the information related to the incident. “This is one side of the story,” the mayor said, “but the other side of the story is not coming out.”

Beck asked Hansen if there was “Any doubt in your mind that this is really kind of the final throes of weakening us to the point to where we don’t ask any questions, to be ready for final confrontation? Total confrontation?”

“No,” Hanson replied. He continued, explaining that Mohamed was a “pawn” who had been put up to creating the incident.

Mohamed’s clock has been the subject of skeptical criticism, even from members of left media icons like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins, according to Mediaite. On his show, Real Time with Bill Maher, the host became the surprising voice of reason, saying, “”Could we have a little perspective about this? Did the teacher really do the wrong thing?”

“What if it had been a bomb?” Maher continued, “So the teacher is supposed to see something that looks like a bomb and go, ‘Oh wait, this just might be my white privilege talking? I sure don’t want to be politically incorrect, so I’ll just let it go?’”

Breitbart Texas contacted the Irving Police Department. Spokesman Jame McLellan responded that the case surrounding the controversial clock is closed and no charges will be filed.

Why have the hairs on the back of this ol’ Southern Boy’s neck been standing up since the start of this convoluted mess?

Perhaps, it is just my old reporter’s instincts.

And, this time they paid off.

Last week, Pamela Gellar  reported that

In what has become one of the most egregious of the faked hate narratives, the bomb hoax clockster has a family with a history of supremacist stunts.

“One of the earliest instances of the standout citizen making national news was in 2011, when he sensationally stood up to an anti-Islamic pastor and defended the Koran as its defense attorney. That mock trial at a Florida church ended with the book’s burning, to ElHassan’s claimed shock. In an interview with the Washington Post at the time, the devoted Muslim said he’d take on Rev. Terry Jones’ challenge because the holy book teaches that Muslims should engage in peaceful dialogue with Christians.”

Also in 2011, ElHassan debated Robert Spencer on “Does Islam Respect Human Rights?” Clearly, he was trying to score against a famous “Islamophobe” and thus win a name for himself.  ElHassan has been looking for publicity and chances to fight against “Islamophobia” for a considerable period. Now he has seized it, going so far as to claim his son was “tortured” by school and law enforcement officials.

In February of 2015, the local mosque in Irving, Texas, set up a Sharia Law Tribunal, insisting that Sharia Law would trump Texas State Law in any case which they heard. Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne stood against them, refusing to allow that to happen in her city.

During all of this, on February 23, 2015, the North Dallas Gazette reported that

Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, born in Sudan in 1961 but long time resident of Irving, has announced plans to run for President of the African nation Sudan. The oldest of nine boys, he is now the father of seven children.

Mohamed’s journey in America has taken him from selling hot dogs on the street corners of New York City to driving cabs in Dallas before he went on to own a cab company. The company grew to 200 drivers in the ranks before he sold Jet Taxi to Yellow Cab.

His childhood in the African village was filled with hardships and struggles, but Mohamed aspired for more and gained his degree from Cairo University in Khartoum in philosophy.

Education has it’s benefits, but it is not a magic bullet to solve all problems, Mohamed shared, “My struggle did not decrease, but my ambition increased. I worked at Khartoum International airport as an employee of assistance clearance customs until I became the director of clearance customs, and the president of workers. Once I realized my dream was bigger than what Sudan had to offer I immigrated to America in the mid-1980’s.”

Unfortunately his degree was not accepted in America so he found himself selling hot dogs, candy, and newspapers in Manhattan.

“I realized this wasn’t enough for me, and I packed my bag and moved to Dallas, Texas y’all,” Mohamed shared.

And then, there’s the fact that his sister got suspended from school for threatening to blow it up.

According to Robert Spencer at judicialwatch.org

“I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with…I got suspended and I didn’t do anything about it and so when I heard about Ahmed, I was so mad because it happened to me and I didn’t get to stand up.”

She had nothing to do with the threat and yet did nothing about being suspended? Where were her parents? If I had a child in school who was suspended over a false accusation, I’d be at the principal’s office in a matter of minutes. And would the school really suspend her on a hearsay accusation from one other girl — even in what The Daily Beast hysterically calls “a hotbed of Islamophobia”? It is unlikely, given the risk of complaints and even litigation from the parents, that they would have taken such a step without substantial evidence.

And so the plot thickens further. Why didn’t Ahmed’s father exploit this accusation in his ongoing quest to fight “Islamophobia”? Could it be because the accusation was true?

“‘Man, I Went Viral’: My Day With Ahmed Mohamed, the Most Famous Boy on Earth,” by Randy R. Potts, Daily Beast, September 17, 2015 (thanks to all who sent this in):

…After the MSNBC segment, Eyman and I sit down in the hallway where she says the same thing happened to her as Ahmed.

“I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with.”

Eyman talks with the slightest lisp, almost imperceptible, but it becomes stronger as she gets emotional.

“I got suspended and I didn’t do anything about it and so when I heard about Ahmed, I was so mad because it happened to me and I didn’t get to stand up, so I’m making sure he’s standing up because it’s not right. So I’m not jealous, I’m kinda like—it’s like he’s standing for me.”

Eyman said her suspension was in her first year of middle school, “my first year of attempting middle school in America. I knew English, but the culture was different, the people were different.”

This part of Texas is a hotbed of Islamophobia. Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne in March claimed Muslim clergy were “bypassing American courts” by offering to mediate disputes between worshippers according to Islamic law. Residents of Farmersville last month fought against creation of a Muslim cemetery in their town. Garland was the site of a “draw Muhammad” contest hosted by anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller that was subsequently attacked by two gunmen inspired by ISIS….

So, what does all of this mean?

As I’ve written before, this was a setup.

The young clockmaker’s father is a Muslim Activist, with a long history of getting his mug in front of the cameras. Add to that, the fact that Barack Hussein Obama sent his congratulations tweet out before the photo of the actual device made the national headlines, is suspicious at best, and condemning at worst.

This would not be the first stunt like this that Obama has pulled, in order to make the American public more comfortable with Muslims living among us.

However, this sort of covert White House-sponsored charade seems to be happening more and more, as Obama’s tenure as president draws to a close, and, thanks to the World Wide Web, it is not as easy for him to pull the wool over Americans eyes as it used to be.

Unfortunately, for all of those involved, this propaganda stunt has been revealed for all to see.

And, unfortunately, for the Dhimmi-in-Chief, the truth of the matter is, it does not make Obama look open minded and magnanimous, rather, it makes him look close minded and duplicitous.

Americans are a very accepting people, but that acceptance hinges on those coming into our society, pledging their loyalty to our nation, and having respect for our Traditional Values and American Way of life.

Obama’s attempt to turn the Great American melting pot into the Tower of Babel, in the name of “diversity”…and Democratic Voters….is beginning to fail more every day.

And, that is a good thing.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama Vs. Fox News: Government-Controlled Media Vs. Freedom of Information

May 13, 2015

obamabillofrightsObama, through the recent powers granted to the Federal Communication Commission, is already trying to seize control of the Internet.

Now, he wants to seize control of Fox News.

According to Fox News,

At the Georgetown University discussion on Tuesday, Obama lamented how, sometimes, the poor are cast as “sponges” who don’t want to work. 

“I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu — they will find folks who make me mad,” Obama said. “I don’t know where they find them. They’re like, I don’t want to work, I just want a free Obama phone or whatever. … And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress — which is much more typical — who’s raising a couple of kids and is doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills.” 

Obama went on to call for a change in not only how GOP leaders in Congress “think” — but how the news media cover these issues: 

“We’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues and how people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy looks like, and how budgets connect to that. And that’s a hard process because that requires a much broader conversation than typically we have on the nightly news.” 

The remark, while perhaps an off-the-cuff moment, only revived concerns about the federal government taking an uncomfortable interest in how the media reports. 

“No matter what bias you feel exists in any news outlet, the president, nor any other elected official should feel they have the right or ability to censor the media,” said Joseph Desilets, Republican strategist and managing partner at the D.C.-based political consulting firm 21st & Main. 

“Had George W. Bush made the same assertion, it would have been considered tyranny. The president doesn’t get to tell the media how to do its job. That’s outrageous,” said Tim Graham, director of the conservative Media Research Center and executive editor at NewsBusters. 

Only a year ago, the Federal Communications Commission scrapped plans to pursue a controversial study of American newsrooms. 

The study as originally proposed would have sent researchers into American newsrooms across the country to ask what critics called intrusive questions about editorial judgment and practices. The FCC eventually acknowledged some of those questions “overstepped the bounds of what is required,” and shelved a pilot study. The initial proposal for the study called for looking into issues like “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.” 

Graham, referring to Obama’s comments Tuesday, also said, “Obama can go after Fox because other news outlets don’t see it as an attack on them.”

For years, the Main Stream Media has been in bed with politicians and business moguls. While, touting objectivity, they have often fallen way short of that goal.

The Media really came into its own during the 80’s, with the advent of Cable Television, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and the ascension and election of President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Their advocacy of all things Liberal became very apparent, as they attacked the greatest president of this generation, mercilessly, giving no quarter.

I believe that Reagan’s election was a wake up call to the MSM. They realized that, if let to their own devices, the American Public would elect a Conservative as president, every time. And, they just couldn’t have that. They were already in too deep to their Democratic, Progressive Masters.

So, America’s Media forsook their objectivity, choosing to help to shape current events, instead of just reporting on them, in an effort to produce outcomes which would be most beneficial to the Progressive Cause.

Now, in 2015, after propping up Barack Hussein Obama and getting him re-elected, their own hubris has given them an exaggerated sense of self-importance, as to their role in our society.

Their Achilles’ Heel , the before-mentioned hubris, blinded them to the potential of the upstart Fox News Channel, and that has been their undoing, much to Obama’s consternation.

Every night of the week, the Fox News Channel beats the mainstream outlets in popularity. There is a reason for that.

Fox News is exactly what it claims to be: fair and balanced. The mainstream news channels are so far up Obama’s backside that they wouldn’t know the truth if it French-kissed them.

Just as it was during the Russian Revolution, when Vladimir Leninn seized control of Russia from the Czar, and just as it was during the era of the National Socialist Party in Germany, when a former altar boy and house painter named Adolf Hitler took over, the first thing that totalitarian governments do is to take control of media, for propaganda purposes.

Through threats, coercion, and promises of reward, that is exactly what Obama did when he took office.

Of course, he did not have to try very hard. The Main Stream Media were already Obama Fanboys, their staff being made up of a majority of Liberals.

Heck, they were posting fictitious propaganda about Barack Hussein Obama, before he was even elected president.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama is the best thing that ever happened to the Fox News Channel. It has solidified their position as the Leader in Cable News.

And, the thing about it, is the fact that Fox News is not the only source by which Americans can obtain the truth about Obama and his administration. The New Media, the Internet, has proven to be an invaluable source for dissemination of information.

Principled reporters, such as the late Andrew Breitbart and Michelle Malkin, turned up the heat on both Obama and the MSM, by providing an alternative source through which Americans can receive news, unfiltered by those in the Halls of Power.

For the president of United States to engage in a personal battle against those who provide information which is detrimental to his plans, is not only petty, but totalitarian in nature.

Just as Barack Hussein Obama’s wife’s mask slipped off recently to reveal the racist underneath, during these last couple of years of his Presidency, Obama’s own mask of Political Moderation, has completely fallen off to reveal a Far Left Socialist, intent on changing America from an exceptional Constitutional Republic to just another Democratic Socialist Country, where all of our American Freedoms, including the Freedom of Information, will be sacrificed for the good of the State.

Until He Comes.

KJ

Rolling Stone Lied About UV “Rape” Story

April 5, 2015

 

 

Media Bias MeterHonesty…is such a lonely word. – Billy Joel

The New York Times reports that

Rolling Stone magazine retracted its article about a brutal gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity after the release of a report on Sunday that concluded the widely discredited piece was the result of failures at every stage of the process.

The report, published by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and commissioned by Rolling Stone, said the magazine failed to engage in “basic, even routine journalistic practice” to verify details of the ordeal that the magazine’s source, identified only as Jackie, described to the article’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely.

On Sunday, Ms. Erdely, in her first extensive comments since the article was cast into doubt, apologized to Rolling Stone’s readers, her colleagues and “any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article.”

In an interview discussing Columbia’s findings, Jann S. Wenner, the publisher of Rolling Stone, acknowledged the piece’s flaws but said that it represented an isolated and unusual episode and that Ms. Erdely would continue to write for the magazine. The problems with the article started with its source, Mr. Wenner said. He described her as “a really expert fabulist storyteller” who managed to manipulate the magazine’s journalism process. When asked to clarify, he said that he was not trying to blame Jackie, “but obviously there is something here that is untruthful, and something sits at her doorstep.”

The Columbia report cataloged a series of errors at Rolling Stone, finding that the magazine could have avoided trouble with the article if certain basic “reporting pathways” had been followed. Written by Steve Coll, the Columbia journalism school’s dean; Sheila Coronel, the dean of academic affairs; and Derek Kravitz, a postgraduate research scholar at the university, the report, at nearly 13,000 words, is longer than the 9,000-word article, “A Rape on Campus.”

After its publication last November, the article stoked a national conversation about sexual assault on college campuses and roiled the university.

The police in Charlottesville, Va., said last month they had “exhausted all investigative leads” and found “no substantive basis” to support the article’s depiction of the assault. Jackie did not cooperate with the police and declined to be interviewed for the Columbia report. She also declined, through her lawyer, to be interviewed for this article. She is no longer in touch with some of the advocates who first brought her to the attention of Rolling Stone, said Emily Renda, a rape survivor working on sexual assault issues at the University of Virginia.

Mr. Wenner said Will Dana, the magazine’s managing editor, and the editor of the article, Sean Woods, would keep their jobs.

Since the 1960s, America’s newsrooms have been overwhelmingly staffed by Liberals.

However, nowadays, a Conservative watchdog organization keeps an intense watch on the antics of the Main Stream Media:

The Media Research Center, headquartered in Alexandria, VA, began modestly with a handful of employees, a black and white TV, and a rented computer. The first order of business was to organize a research operation second to none. For years, conservatives could only present the anecdotal evidence of liberal journalists’ bias — a question in this interview, a statement in that report. However, anecdotal examples of bias do not prove a liberal agenda. Only through thorough, comprehensive, and ongoing analysis based on quantitative and qualitative research can one document liberal bias in the media.

From a $339,000 initial annual budget, the MRC has grown to be the nation’s largest and most sophisticated television and monitoring operation, now employing 60 professional staff with a $10 million annual budget.

The result of the MRC’s work is a mountain of evidence to use in combating the undeniable bias. The key to the MRC’s effectiveness is the ability to prove bias by using scientific studies and word-for-word quotes from the media.

For example, the MRC reports that:

In May 2004, the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press (in association with the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Committee of Concerned Journalists) surveyed 547 journalists and media executives, including 247 at national-level media outlets. The poll was similar to ones conducted by the same group (previously known as the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press) in 1995 and 1999. The actual polling was done by the Princeton Survey Research Associates.

KEY FINDINGS:

Five times more national journalists identify themselves as “liberal” (34 percent) than “conservative” (just 7 percent). In contrast, a survey of the public taken in May 2004 found 20 percent saying they were liberal, and 33 percent saying they were conservative.

The percentage of national reporters saying they are liberal has increased, from 22 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2004. The percentage of self-identified conservatives remains low, rising from a meager 4 percent in 1995 to a still-paltry 7 percent in 2004.

Liberals also outnumber conservatives in local newsrooms. Pew found that 23 percent of the local journalists they questioned say they are liberals, while about half as many (12 percent) call themselves conservative.

Most national journalists (55 percent) say the media are “not critical enough” of President Bush, compared with only eight percent who believe the press has been “too critical.” In 1995, the poll found just two percent thought journalists had given “too much” coverage to then-President Clinton’s accomplishments, compared to 48 percent who complained of “too little” coverage of Clinton’s achievements.

Reporters struggled to name a liberal news organization. According to Pew, “The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.” Only two percent of reporters suggested CNN, ABC, CBS, or NPR were liberal; just one percent named NBC.

Journalists did see ideology at one outlet: “The single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance — either liberal or conservative — is Fox News Channel,” Pew reported. More than two-thirds of national journalists (69 percent) tagged FNC as a conservative news organization, followed by The Washington Times (9 percent) and The Wall Street Journal (8 percent).

The way the Main Stream Media views themselves is quite different from the way Americans view them.

On July 25th of 2011, thehill.com published a poll focusing on voters’ perceptions of Media Bias:

A full 68 percent of voters consider the news media biased, the poll found. Most, 46 percent, believe the media generally favor Democrats, while 22 percent said they believe Republicans are favored, with 28 percent saying the media is reasonably balanced.

The share of voters who believe the media are too friendly with politicians is almost twice as large as those who find their coverage of politicians appropriate. Forty-four percent of voters assert the former; only 24 percent believe the latter.

The picture is not much brighter on the general question of ethics. Fifty-seven percent of voters think of the news media as either somewhat or very unethical, while only 39 percent see them as somewhat or very ethical.

With more and more news stories, such as this one, turning out to be outright lies, it has become very apparent that, the Main Stream Media’s “broadcast journalists” don’t feel that they have to feign objectivity anymore.

The majority of the “News Operations” in our country long ago sold out to the Democrat Party and their own Liberal Ideology. Sensationalism, propaganda, and toeing the Party Line, have replaced Journalistic Ethics and objectivity.

And, all too often, as in the case of the Duke Lacrosse Players and, almost, these young me from the University of Virginia, the Main Stream Media can irreparably damage people’s lives.

…And, shape the destiny of a country through lies, innuendo, and cover-up.

“And, that’s the way it is, April 6th, 2015.”

Until He Comes,

KJ

Little White Liars, Bald-Faced Liars, and Brian Williams

February 7, 2015

Brian Williams 1Lies, lies
I can’t believe
A word you say
Lies, lies
Are gonna make
You sad someday – The Knickerbockers, 1966

The New Orleans Advocate reports that

NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who apologized on the air Wednesday night for lying about an experience covering the Iraq War, is now facing scrutiny over his gripping accounts of Hurricane Katrina, the disaster that burnished his nightly news bona fides almost a decade ago.

Williams’ account of seeing a body float by in the French Quarter — which remained largely dry — and even a claim of catching dysentery from drinking Katrina floodwaters have raised eyebrows among bloggers and elsewhere since he took it on the chin this week over a claim that he rode in a helicopter that was downed by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq.

“I was instead in a following aircraft. We all landed after the ground fire incident and spent two harrowing nights in a sandstorm in the Iraq desert,” Williams said Wednesday. He painted his earlier description as a “bungled attempt” to thank an Iraq War veteran.

The online feeding frenzy quickly turned to the 55-year-old anchor’s signature assignment: covering Katrina from before it made landfall, when he spent the night of the storm with refuge-seekers in the Superdome and then reported on the harrowing days that followed.

“When you look out of your hotel window in the French Quarter and watch a man float by face down, when you see bodies that you last saw in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, and swore to yourself that you would never see in your country,” Williams said in a 2006 interview.

And last year, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, the man he replaced in the anchor chair at NBC, Williams said:

“My week, two weeks there was not helped by the fact that I accidentally ingested some of the floodwater. I became very sick with dysentery, our hotel was overrun with gangs, I was rescued in the stairwell of a five-star hotel in New Orleans by a young police officer. We are friends to this day. And uh, it just was uh, I look back at total agony.”

But the French Quarter, the original high ground of New Orleans, was not impacted by the floodwaters that overwhelmed the vast majority of the city.

A spokesman for NBC did not immediately respond Thursday to questions about those comments, the hotel to which Williams referred, whether Williams stands by the claims or whether the network is reviewing them.

Williams has described his experiences during Katrina as personally transformative, and he has returned to the city and the topic numerous times since.

“I saw fear, I saw death, I saw depravity, I saw firearms being brandished, I saw looting,” he told the Los Angeles Times a year after Katrina made landfall.

He also recalled the danger of the moment in a 2007 interview on C-SPAN.

“We had to have men with guns behind me one night because I was the only source of light downtown, was the lights that were illuminating the broadcast,” Williams said. “We were told not to drink our bottled water in front of people because we could get killed for it.”

Other accounts have Williams curled up in the fetal position between his on-air reports from a bad bout with dysentery.

A spokeswoman from the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals said dysentery is not one of the reportable diseases the agency tracks but that contaminated water sources are possible “transmission points” for dysentery.

Dr. Brobson Lutz, a former city health director who manned an EMS trailer that was set up in the 900 block of Dumaine Street, a block from his house in the French Quarter, said he was a fan of Williams but dubious of his claims.

“We were never wet. It was never wet,” he remarked of the conditions in the city’s most historic neighborhood.

As for dysentery, “I saw a lot of people with cuts and bruises and such, but I don’t recall a single, solitary case of gastroenteritis during Katrina or in the whole month afterward,” Lutz said.

As for Williams saying he accidentally drank floodwaters, Lutz added, “I don’t know anybody that’s tried that to see, but my dogs drank it, and they didn’t have any problems.”

In his interview last year, Brokaw praised Williams, saying that with his reporting during Katrina, Williams “took ownership, if you will, of the anchor chair” following a longtime stint as Brokaw’s understudy.

Since then, Williams has become well known for his sharp-witted comic turns on the late-night talk show circuit. And he has continued to check in on a city that he has said “is always going to be a part of me.”

Questions about Williams’ recollections of his experience during Katrina weave into a larger tapestry of erratic, and sometimes downright erroneous, journalism that emerged from the chaos of the storm and its aftermath.

Why do members of the Main Stream Media, like Brian Williams,  feel so compelled to lie about their experiences, “embellishing their resumes”, and acting like a poor man’s Geraldo Rivera?

First, Let’s look at the make-up of our nation, in terms of political ideology.

Per gallup.com…

38% of Americans are Conservative.
34% of Americans are Moderate.
23% is Americans are Liberals.

These numbers prove that Conservatism remains the strongest political ideology in America, followed closely by Americans who consider themselves to be “Moderate”.

Liberalism remains the smallest (albeit most vocal) political ideology in America, still mired in the low 20s, in terms of that ideology’s percentage of our population.

The disconnect between CNN and MSNBC and the American Viewing Public occurs because the political ideology of the Main Stream Media is overwhelmingly Liberal.

A while back, the Media Research Center reported that:

In May 2004, the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press (in association with the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Committee of Concerned Journalists) surveyed 547 journalists and media executives, including 247 at national-level media outlets. The poll was similar to ones conducted by the same group (previously known as the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press) in 1995 and 1999. The actual polling was done by the Princeton Survey Research Associates.

KEY FINDINGS:

Five times more national journalists identify themselves as “liberal” (34 percent) than “conservative” (just 7 percent). In contrast, a survey of the public taken in May 2004 found 20 percent saying they were liberal, and 33 percent saying they were conservative.

The percentage of national reporters saying they are liberal has increased, from 22 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2004. The percentage of self-identified conservatives remains low, rising from a meager 4 percent in 1995 to a still-paltry 7 percent in 2004.

Liberals also outnumber conservatives in local newsrooms. Pew found that 23 percent of the local journalists they questioned say they are liberals, while about half as many (12 percent) call themselves conservative.

Most national journalists (55 percent) say the media are “not critical enough” of President Bush, compared with only eight percent who believe the press has been “too critical.” In 1995, the poll found just two percent thought journalists had given “too much” coverage to then-President Clinton’s accomplishments, compared to 48 percent who complained of “too little” coverage of Clinton’s achievements.

Reporters struggled to name a liberal news organization. According to Pew, “The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.” Only two percent of reporters suggested CNN, ABC, CBS, or NPR were liberal; just one percent named NBC.

Journalists did see ideology at one outlet: “The single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance — either liberal or conservative — is Fox News Channel,” Pew reported. More than two-thirds of national journalists (69 percent) tagged FNC as a conservative news organization, followed by The Washington Times (9 percent) and The Wall Street Journal (8 percent).

Since Pew conducted their research, 10 years ago in 2004, the Liberal Political Bias, present in America’s Newsrooms, has steadily become worse, to the point of being unwatchable, due to their slavish devotion to the “First Post-Racial President”and their decidedly Liberal slant to every single news story, including the shootings of Strong Arm Robbery Suspect Michael Brown, Earl Gardner in New York City, and all of the politically-funded “protests”.

The brilliant Conservative Economist, Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote,

…Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the world envisioned by today’s liberals is that it is a world where other people just passively accept whatever “change” liberals impose. In the world of Liberal Land, you can just take for granted all the benefits of the existing society, and then simply tack on your new, wonderful ideas that will make things better.

Liberal Ideas always cost taxpayer money…and they never make things better for the average American.

The Main Stream Media firmly believes that it is their job to serve as a Propaganda Arm for both the Democrats in Congress and President Barack Hussein Obama and his Administration, no matter how costly their programs might be to the American People.

President Ronald Reagan once famously said, 

It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.

Which explains the gross overestimation by “Broadcast Journalists”, such as Brian Williams, of their own intelligence and potential popularity through their subjective coverage, aimed at a Liberal audience.

In clear and concise terms (in deference to any Liberals who may be reading this), the reason that Fox News kicks CNN’s and MSNBC’s hindquarters week after week, and is actually more respected than the Broadcast News Operations, is because their programming and news-reporting philosophy more accurately reflects the political ideology of the average American.

When I was a Collegiate Radio News Director from 1978-1980, I made sure that all 21 students on my on-air staff, including myself, maintained our objectivity in our reporting.

In Main Stream Media Newsrooms now, 35 years later,  ideology has replaced objectivity.

And, that is why they fail.

…And, why Brian Williams felt compelled to lie…and lie….

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Incendiary Nature of Liberal “Compromise” and Conservative Truth

January 22, 2015

AFBrancoVoting Results111514I’m “incendiary”.

I did not know that until recently, when I was told that by an individual on a political Facebook page. Hold on, I take that back. I was told this by a friend in a private message after I was banned by the Facebook Page I just mentioned.

You see, it happened this way: a good friend of mine suggested that I join a Facebook Page which was made up of both Conservatives and Liberals, and which was supposedly created in the spirit of compromise.

Well, I soon found out, that just like in the real world, the word compromise to American Liberals, means that you compromise, as a Conservative, your morals, values, and opinions, to be just like theirs. In other words, they want you to be a part of the hive mind.

Now, I’m no stranger to conducting online chats with Liberals. I first became attracted to political talk on the internet, when the great Conservative Political Pundit, Michelle Malkin, still owned the Conservative website, www.hotair.com.

While on that website, which I joined shortly before the November 2008 presidential elections, I became friends with a poster who had the handle of, believe it or not, Manly Rash.

“Manly”, soon after the failure of John McCain in the presidential elections, began his own website, manlyrash. com. I started to hang out over there a little bit, and he soon asked me to be a contributor, writing a weekly blog to be featured on his site.

What started out as a weekly thing, soon turned into a daily thing.

In April of 2010, I began this website, and since then, I have written everyday, rain or snow, in sickness and in health.

I didn’t do it to be intentionally incendiary, whatever that means.

The reason I took up blogging, is because I enjoy writing. I always have had the gift of gab, having been a smart aleck since birth, a gift I inherited from my dear Daddy, who was funny as a stitch and a great salesman.

I was raised in a Conservative Christian household, and that is the way that I view things. I have always viewed things that way and don’t intend to stop it now.

What I have found out though, is that nowadays, American Liberals do not want to hear the truth, and they have very thin skins.

American Liberals want to tell you your opinion, they do not want to hear it. Because, if they were forced to hear it, then they would have to accept the reality that Conservatives are still the political majority in this nation.

Additionally, they would have to accept the fact that Americans, who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, constitute 75 percent of our country’s population.

These simple truths are just too much for the narrow mind of the Modern American Liberal to bear.

That is why you can see them on Political Websites, posting repetitively and attempting to monopolize any conversation that they are in.

It is not that they are not intelligent, quite a few of Modern American Liberals actually are. It’s just the fact that they have allowed their feelings to control how they rationalize things and thus, their entire world view.

Beginning with the campaign of Barack Hussein Obama, (And yes I included his middle name, his parents weren’t ashamed by it, why should you Liberals be?), Liberals have been so idolatrous  over their “messiah” that they have lost all their common sense.

Liberals, just as they do in the real world, seem to believe that if they can speak louder and more often than anybody else, that that makes their view the correct one. That is why you see them attempt to rewrite history over and over again, as they did in the failed movie “Selma”, where they attempted to portray President Johnson as an enemy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., when in reality they were friends.

I often find myself getting frustrated over the direction of the country, especially since January of 2009. This blog allows me to vent my spleen and keeps me from punching a hole in the wall.

I suppose I am incendiary, if that means that I am on fire for Christ and that I’m fueled by the Torch of Liberty.

Without being anchored on the Solid Rock, America would have been a failed experiment, assigned to the dustbin of history, years ago.

That still, small voice which resides within each one of us, has led Americans to do great things, in service to their country and the concept of American Freedom, as personified by Lady Liberty, standing so majestically in New York Harbor.

The Founders of our country were strong Christian Men with a fire in the bellies to fight for their freedom in the cause of liberty for all.

My Daddy was a strong Christian man who landed on the beaches of Normandy, as I have related several times over the years on this blog.

God gave us this nation, ensconced in the concept of “Liberty and Justice for all”.

By His Grace, we will keep it.

You know what?

I am incendiary… and proud of it.

As long as a Divine Spark burns within me, I will bask in the glow of the Flame of Liberty and write about God and Country.

So help me, God.

Until He Comes,

KJ


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,725 other followers