Muslims and CNN: The Evil, Anti-American, Anti-Christian Network

"Should Fear of Terrorism Outweigh Freedom of Religion" That is the tag line CNN has used forseemingly weeks to "promote" its Sunday "special". The tagline alone is evil stuff, and negates any possibililty of neutrality in the story itself. Did lyou know that NOBODY (I mean absolutely nobody, including the worst anti-Muslim bigot) advocates that FEAR of terrorism should outweigh freedom of religion in this country. Doubt me? Don't. That is a CNN lie--a lie from The Liar Network. Consider this headline: "Should Terrorism Outweigh Freedom of Religioin" That is actually a more neutral headline, but you can see why CNN did not use it (especially since CNN was interested in propaganda and not "truth". My headline could be regarded as sugesting that Muslims are assumed to aid terrorism. But the CNN headline more directly assumes that no Muslims in the United States are committing terrorism, or aiding terrorism, in the United States, which we know to be false (Ft. Hood shooter, Times Square bomber, 9/11 hijackers, and so on)> In fact, CNN condemned Congressman Peter King for merely INVESTIGATING the question of how much Islamic extremism has penetrated into the American Muslim community. Note that Peter King's hearing did NOTHING to "freedom of religiion". We had it before the hearing, and had it afterward. Now is it not part of the EXTREMIS Muslim religioni that Americans (and other infidels) whould be killed? Yes, it is. As I have said before, the problem is that the extremist part of Islam is way to big a part of that religion (much bigger than insane Christian sects, although the anti-Christian bigotts at CNN pay much more negative attention to fringe Christian groups who may do something like picket soldier's funerals or say they are going to bun the Koran/Quran). To CNN, extremist Christians taint the whole religion and the whole country, while extremist Muslims are to be pretty much ignored. I digress. The point of this paragraph is that you do NOT have a "right" to commit, or conspire to commit, a secular crime in the name of your religion. Thus, Muslim terrorists cannot defend themselves on the basis that their religion--in which they believe--compels them to cmmit terrorism. Similarly, if a religion favors human sacrifice, you are out of luck. The CRIME does "outweigh" "freedom of religion". And anyone who wants to STOP Muslims from practicing their religion (as distinguished from saying a mosque at Ground Zero is a bad idea which reflects badly n the Muslims advocateing it, and on CNN and other leftists advocateing it) are not advocateing doing so on the basis of FEAR of terrorism. They have to be advocating that Muslims--the particular Muslims they want to stop--are conspiring to commit terrorism, or some other crime. Otherwise, this is just an example of CNN either distorting "freedom of religioni" (as with the Peter Knng inquiry) or elevating some FRINGE group of people into being representative of the entire United States--where, of course, the federal courts will. step in. Okay, you say, CNN may be as biased as you say, and the tagline you quote is ridiculous (since NO ONE says FEAR of terrorism should outweigh freedom of religion), but you know what CNN is TRYING to say. They are trying to say that the FACTS do not support that Muslims in the United States are terrorists, or suppport terrorism. Actually, I do not know that. CNN is not interested in FACTS. CNN is interested in an anti-American, anti-Christian AGENDA. Furtehr, as stated, it is clear that SOME Muslims in, or who once were in, the United States either or terrorists or aid terrorists. Now I am willing to believe that there is little evidence that mosques in the United States are involved in terrorist activity, but I am certainly not going to ASSUME that is the case if there is evidence to the contrary. Without evidence to the contrary, there is no problem, because our courts--unlike courts in Muslim countries with Crhistians--will step in to protect "freedom of religiion". And it a mosque is a COVER for terrorist activity and support, "freedom of religion" is not applicable (on the "human sacrifice" principle). Still doubt me? Consider the Catholic Church. The people of CNN are clearly anti-Catholic bigots (unless lyou are not really a Catholic, like Nancy Pelosi). But that is not exactly the point here. Consider this headline (and it is not that far fetched): "Does Fear of Pedophilia Outweigh Freedom of Religioin" Yes, CNN---among many others, including me--criticized The Catholic Church for HARBORING (mainlly) homosexual priests who took advantage of young men and boys. Is pedophilia worse than terrorism? On this level of evil, comparisons make little sense. But I submit terrorism is at least as bad as pedophilia. IF a Muslim group is protecting/harboring terrorists, or aiding them, then I have no problem going after those groups. I realize that people did not actualy get rid of Catholic churches, or stop them from being built--that I am aware of--but Caholic churches were certainly INVESTIGATED. And people were looking into a COVER UP by the POPE. I think there were calls to PROSECUTE bihshops, and maybe some suggestions that the Pope had committed a crime. I am talking about prosecution of the cover up/harboring. No, don NOT tell me that CNN is interested in this kind of story with regard to Muslims. The next investigation by CNN of Muslim extremism, and toleration of terrorism, will be essentially the FIRST. Have I told you that the people of the mainstream media are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth? I know I have. No, I don't think we should PREVENT mosques from being built--even at Ground Zero, unless we can prove a mosque is just a cover for a terrorist cell (almost, I think, impossible). But what if mosques in the United States are oppressing women? Homosexuals? Abusing people who do not fit their orthodoxy? The idea that Muslims are IMMUNE from criticism and investigation is simply absurd. Ask the Catholic Church, which did avoid a certain amount of scrutiny in the name of freedom of relision, but paid a heavy price in media and public condemnation. Remember those pedophile pritests. And the industrial grade hypocrites, and anti-Catholic biogts, at CNN even raised the alleged "hypocrisy" of Peter King because he had once met with the IRA. Yes, the IRA was heavlily associated with Irish Catholics, although the IRA did not act in the NAME of their religion based on supposed religious doctrine. This was sheer biogry, and sophistry, on the part of CNN, since the IRA has nothing to do with whethr Muslims in the United States are supporting terrorism. And is CNN saying we should not have investigated American support of TERRORISTS in the IRA, even though the IRA never did much in the U.S.? Back to pedophile priests. I will make this flat statement: There are MORE Islamic extremist clerics in the world supporting terrorism--including the entire theocracy of Iran--than there are pedophile priests in the world. And the pedophile priests are clearly not acting in the name of their religion. But, you sputter, there are no such clerics supporting Muslim terrorism IN THE UNITED STATES. How do you know? YOu are not going to know from the Obama Administratiioin, which refuses to condemn Muslim extremism. You are not going to know from CNN, or the mainstream media. Peter King's hearing was pretty much sabotaged before it ever began--by CNN and other leftist Democrats. Want more evidence of the hypocrisy of CNN. Remember Sarah Palin---the 2008 campaign, I mean. CNN made a point of the PENTECOSTAL chruch to which Palin ONCE belonged, as did so many on the left. Talk about religiious BIGOTRY--the "speaking in tongues". Yes, I am willing to make another flat statement: "Speaking in tongues" is NOT as bad as Muslim extremism, much less terrorism. In fact, I have no reason to believe it is bad at all. And then there is the bigoted Associated Press--see my article during the campaign), which did a story about how Mitt Romeny's GREAT GRANDFATHER was a polygamist--an attempt by the AP at anii-Mormon bigotry. Of courfse, MUSLIMS have long practiced polygamy more than Christians--more than Mormons after Mormons officially condemned it in the 19th Century. In fact, Obama's GRANDFATHER probably practiced polygamy. Yep. These are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. Yes, the official name of CNN is "The Evil, Anti-American Network". Nicknames include "The Liar Network" and "The Bigoted Network". What is anti-American about this CNN story/headline? Well, I essentially tell you above. But, in case you work for CNN or the mainstream media, I will lay it out for you. CNN is saying Muslims are PERSECUTED in the United States, and their "freedom of religion" denied, when that is simply not true. And that has the potential of getting Americans KILED. It is anti-American, because it labels us all by "guilt by association", and deliberatelly confuses "freedom of religion" with "freedom from criticism". CNN is silling to cirticize a fringe Christian minister in Florida as representative of the entire United States, and all Christians, while CNN is willing to call criticism of MUSLIM EXTREMISM as "anti-Muslim" and a violation of "freedom of religion". Yes, there may be ISOLATED "persecution" of Muslims, and violations of freedom of religion, in the United States. But we have REMEDIES. For CNN to keep sayhing that these isolated items are typical of the Unnited States, or a major danger to freedom of religion in this country, IS anti-American. It is also EviL, because it tends to JUSTIFY Muslims in the idea that Americans are just as bad as they are (taliking here about MODERATE Muslims, since there is almost no Muslim country in the world that gives the kind of freedom of religion to Christians that we give to Muslims, and everybody else). Yes, I repeat, CNN is committing EVIL, and may well be responsiblie for KILLING AMERICANS. Can it get worse? Yes, with the anti-American CNN it can. I saw the main public face of the CNN "secial" promoting her program. Lest you doubt that I have pegged the anti-American CNN exactly correctly, let me try to give you a picture of what she said. She said that she thought pro-democracy PROTESTORS in the Arab world are giving Americans a better impression of Muslims--virtually stating that Americans are too prejudiced against Muslims. And note hnow STUPID that statement is. Nope. "Pro-democracy" protestors do NOT give me a better view of Muslims, and they should not. In th efirst place, it is CNN PROGANGA that you are condemning all Muslims if you conndemn MUSLIM EXTREMISTS who gave rise to al-Qaida and Iran in the first place. Further, those "protestors" in the Arab world are MOBS composed of many people--some good and some bad. I will have a better view of SOME MUSLIMS if those MOBS in the Arab world actually succeed in creating a DEMOCRATIC REPUBIC. No, even Indonesia and Turkey are hardly models of tolerance and religioius freedom, although they are better than most Arab countries. IF we can reach a point where some NON-MUSLIM (already going to Hell, by definition) can print CARTOONS OF MUHAMMAD and not have riots in Muslim areas across the world, TEHN I will really start getting a better opinion of Muslims. Note that CNN has no trouble associating Muslims overseas with Muslims here. Of course, the terrorist Muslim cleric out of Yemen was onece an American. But I am willing to believe that AMERICAN Muslims are better than the Muslim extremists, and many intolerant "moderates", that we find in so much of the world. CNN evidencely considers Muslims all the SAME, and that criticisms of any of them violates "freedom of religion" because of "fear". Q.E.D. CNN IS The Evil, Anti-American Network. It IS The Liar Network. It IS The Bigoted Network. And CNN continues to be my stand in for the whole mainstream media, where they are all just about as bad. P.S. Nope. No proofreading or spell checking (eyesight), as usual. P.P.S. I hate Google, and Computors. I just noticed that Google--probably some wrong button I pushed--has CHANGED the paragraphing from what I saw on the screen when I composed the last two articiles. In other words, there are no paragraphs. Let it be a challenge to you. I don't know that I can see well enough to correct it. Sorry about that (as I always knoew I could be Maxwell Smart).

VCU and ESPN

Yes, I like VCU, which just earned its way to the NCAA Final Four basketball tournament (nope--no recognition of the woen's tournament, because it is nottant, except to the participants, sort of like a men's lower division tournament). (The title, if you had not guessed, applies to ESPN and not anyone connected with VCU.) No, I don't like VCU because of the aggresive way it plays, or becuase it hs been the underdog. No, I don't like VCU just because it is from a "non-major conference. No, I don't like VCU because of a choach that really seems to know what he is doing (and hopefully will not quickly skip to a bigger, more "important" school, although it is hard to blame someone for bettering himself). Yes, VCU deserves credit for choosing such a young, impressive coach (as UTEP once chose a young Don Haskins, who never left to coach elsewhere--perhaps the most admirable thing about him). No, I don't like VCU because I am from Virginia, as I have spent almost alll of my life in El Paso and the surrounding area. I like VCU primarily becuase it has stuck it to the stupid--really, truly stupid--people on ESPN. See my previoius article on the subject. You will remember how the people on ESPPN--almost all of them--excoriated the selection committee for letting VCU into the tournament--the same ESPN people who were LOBBYING for 11 teams from the overrated Big East conference. Richmond, Virginia got as many teams into the "seet sixteen", the "elite eight" AND the Final Four as the overrated Big East (Connecticut sneaking through because it has the ONLY exceptional player from the Big East). The stupid people of ESPN compounded their stupidity by--many of them--saying that it did not prove them wrong if VCU won a game or two, since they just did not "deserve" to be in the tournament. ESPN people kept talking like performance in the tournament has NOTHING to do with whether a team should be there. That is crazy. Sure, Marquette--like Villanova--should not have been in the tournament. And Marquette won two games---although one hardly counts since it was against another overrated Big East team. But performance is EVIDENCE--just not conclusive evidence--that a team deserved to be there. And it is CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE when a team makes it to the Fianl Four. You stupid people at ESPN can argue against this all you want. It merely proves you are stupid, and that is why I really like VCU. Yes, VCU has VINDICATED by previoius article--including my evaluation of the stupidity of the people lat ESPN. I was again proven right, in foresight rather than hindsight. No, this is not because VCU has advanced fruther than I thought they would, or because VCU was so convincing doing it (the MOST confincing of the fur teams which made it to the Final Four, which is not a prediction VCU will win but a prediction they CAN win). The reason I have been vindicated is because of my assertion that "non-major" conference schools deserve a CHANCE to be in the tournament, in place of overrated "major" conference schools who finish in the BOTTOM HALF--or below .500--in their own overrated conferences. Think of the excitement VCU has brought to the tournament, with its vibrant young coach. A lesser team from the Big 12 would not have brought that excitement. What is wrong with my proposal--merely an extension of the present "automatic" bids--that teams like VCU have the chance to PROVE they belong, instead of the 9th, f10th, and 1llth teams from the Big East? It appears that VCU has PROVEN me right. I bet you did not think, if you read my previous article, that my proposal could be PROVEN right? But it happens over and over with this blog, including in the most amazing and timely ways. Yes, you and I both know that ESPN dumped on VCU so hard because they looked STUPID with all of their "bracketology"--as if they were "experts" on what the NCAA would do. Further, many of those ESPN people said they had SEEN VCU play. I had not. But, I am sorry, I don't see how you could see this team play--and see their coach in action--and not even METNION VCU as a possible tournament team. The NCAA selection people are obviously not as stupid as ESPN people. Their seeding on teams like Notre Dame and Texas was also proven correct, if not too high. Their major mistake--perhaps influenced by the ESPN propaganda--was to take too many Big East teams, and seed them too high. Sure, I am rooting for VCU. Failing them, I will root for Butle. Isn't it nice that ONE of those teams will make it to the championship game? P.S. Again, no proofreading or spell checking (eyesight). Notice, however, that it is probable that the people at ESPN can't even READ, and NEVER COULD (as distinguished from me, who once could better than most).

Obama and Libya: Living Within Our Means

One of the consistent, Orwellian Big Liews pushed by Obama has been this statement: "The Federal Government must learn to live within its means, just like the ordinary family has to do." NO ONE (and I mean no one) believes that Obama means this. It is just something he says because he thinks it makes people FEEL better about him (even as they don't believe he means it). He also knows that the mainstream media will not cricuify him on these obvious lies--often contradicted within the same speech--since Obama counts on the media to promulgate pro-Obama propaganda rather than attack his obviously false statements.

What does this have to do with Libya? See my previous article, where Obama did not even go to Congress to get approval for his military action in Libya. This includes a failure to request SPENDING approval for the extra money being spent on the Libyan operations. Obama evidently intends merely to take the money out of "slush funds" in the present defense appropriations--rather than present a supplemental funding measure. This should tell you how much FAT there is in ALL government appropriatiions, as should the Democrat/Obama assertion that CUTTING funding for Planned Parenthood, NPR, earmarks, etc. will NOT "save" any money (because the federal bureaucrats will just spend the money somewhere else). We SHOULD, of course, be determining , EVERY budget, what money should be spent based on specific budget items/requests, and NOT letting every federal agency have massive discretionary funds to move around as they see fit.

And we have not even gotten to the main point of this article. It appears--this came from an item I saw on Fox News, but feels right and is the kind of thing that usually gets reported correctly--that Obama's budget for next year contains money FOR LIBYA (Gadhafi). Yes, I assume that Gadhafi will no longer get such money, although who knows about Libya (or some favored group or groups in Libya). Yes, even though Gadhafi was supposedly "helping" us on terrorism, it is absurd to be giving money to Libya at a time we are supposedly learning to "live within our means". Nope. I am sorry. It is absurd. I can see Egypt--although I might question the amount. I can see Saudi Arabia. Libya, Syria, etc. are absurd (no information on Syria, by the way, but why not?).

Again, the point is that Obama, and the Democrats (not to mention the mainstream media) should be going through the budget LOOKING for areas to CUT. It seems obvious that there are many areas we could do without. We should NOT fund Planned Parenthood and NPR (CPB). Let George Soros and George Clooney do it. And we should REDUCE the budget of the agencies involved by those amounts. We should AGREE (that is, Congress shoud vote for) on what we are willing to spend money on, and we should NOT spend momey (because spending is all in a few bills that control the whole government) on items on which we cannot agree. In other words, every spending item should require a VOTE, and not continue unless we can break a filibuster or override a veto (based upon the EXTORTION of a government shtdown if spending is "cut". Spending should be AUTHORIZED, and not continue unless "defunded". Think of it. Those funds for Egypt and Libya MIGHT be included in these massive "continuing resolutions", if only because no one has bothered to delete them.

Unless we require our people in Congress to justify every item of spending, rather than to justify every CUT, we will never "leearn to live within our means, like an ordinary family". In the ordinary family budget, you have to allocate SPENDING to fit your income (item by item, setting priorities), and you cannot do that if you set your spending at twice your income and then require the whole family to agree on EACH CUT. That is insane, but it accurately describes where we are as a country.

P.S. Nope. No proofreading or spell checking (eyesight).

Obama and Libya: U.N., Congress and George W. Bush

You remember George W. Bush? he went to the U.N. about Saddam Hussein--a dictator at least as bad as Gadhafi (although, admittedly, at this level of evil it hardly matters who is worse). Saddam Hussein was certainly a greater threat generally in the region, and to the United states (although Gadhafi MAY have instigated more direct terror attacks against Americans directly).

The point is that President Bush went to the U.N. and got a resolutioin. But, unlike President Obama, President Bush did not stop there. He then went BACK to Congress and sought a direct aughorization from Congress to go to war. That is why Democrats insisted that President Bush had "misled" them, because they voted FOR war in Iraq (much more definitely than the U.N. has voted for the present operatioin in Libya--the U.N. resolutoion being a case study in VAGUENESS). Obama has lied about the operation in Libya more than President Bush ever lied about weapons of mass destruction (which the U.,N. and everyone else thought Saddam had). But Obama has avoided the entire problem of lying to Congress--or being accused of "miseleading" Congress--by simply NOT ASKING FOR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION. Obama, of course, was at the forefront of attacking this kind of "igh handed" action by a President to take us to war (that is, in Iraq, even though Bush seemingly went the extra mile to get "authority" for the Iraq War). Obama, as usual, is being as NON-TRANSPARENT as he can p0ssibly be--"transparency" being an Orwellian Big Lie by Obama on many fronts.

Yes, leftist Democrats, including the mainstream media, remain the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. Yes, I know that SOME leftists (e.g. Michael Moore and Ralph Nader) are atttacking Obama on Libya. For the mainstream media, and most leftists, however, it is a matter of finding a way to defend Obama--a way to say Obama is better than Bush (who also put together a "coalition" to enforce U.N. resolutions agaisnt a murderous madman, except that Bush at least went to Congress. It was ONLY because Bush made such a case against Saddam Hussein in the U.N> AND in Congress that the "issue" of Bush misleading" people even comes up. As stated, Obama avoided this by simply NOT making the case for any specific policy in any specific detail. Transparency!!!!!????

The worst thing about what Obama has done is represented by part of the "defense" put forward by his political supporters in the mainstream media (where a CNN host, by the way, even asked a DEMOCRAT whether everyone should not simply support the President in this kind of action, whatever your private views--CNN expecially being composed of the worst hypocrites who ever have walked the Earth, ignoring that Obama, Reid, Democrats and the mainstream media did not even raise that questioin as to the Iraq War) as follows: "At least Obama has EMPHSIZEWD a "multinational" approach to problems, where we are following the lead of the rest of the world instead of arrogantlly asserting that we know what is best."

Translatioin (and this is BAD): Obama does not want to LEAD (see previous article), and doees not want the U.S. to assert a leadership role in the world Worse, Obama wants to cede decisions on when to use the U.S. military to the U.N., NATO, and almost anyone else. Worse still, if the "Arab League", or almost anyone else, opoposes military action on our part in any porrioon of the world in which they assert an "interest", then we should pretty much comply with their wishes.

In other words, the mainstream media is aplauding (sort of, as even they have to acknowledge the confusing messages Obama is sending) the idea that the WORLD should have more say in the use of our military than our own Congress (especially, of course, if Congress has a lot of those evil Repubicans in it).

This is all terrible stuff, but it is what happens when we have a coward and a liar as President (see the previous article). Obama has no coherent policies or principles on using our military, except a reliance on FEELLING (either his own or what he thinks other people are feeling) and WORDS (here definitely his own, but where the owrds are jsut meant to appeal to the emotions and avoid responsibility, rather than truly lead).

Our president is a piece of work. Who could possibly trust him? Only our enemies, who may think they can trust him to be WEAK. That perception is how really bad things happen.

P.S. Note, as usual, that the above has neither been proofread nor spell checked (eyesight).

Obama and Libya: Liar-in-Chief

The problem with President Obama, and it really is sad for this country, is that he is incapable of either telling the truth or really getting out front on an issue--in other words, really incapable of LEADING. His main talent is reading WORDS off of a teleprompter--words that change from day to day, and never seem to represent a coherent POLICY that will nott be contradicted by differenct words tomorrow. You only have to remember how many times Obama has said--"eloquently" and passionately--that the Federal Government HAS to learn to "live within its means", just like the ordinary family. Often, Obama contradicts that one within the same speech, and alwys contradicts it within a day or two. In fact, his entire Presidency makes a mockery of that statement--his OWN statement made time and again as if he means it (which he does not). Words. Mere words, wihout real meaning (especially to Obama himself).

Libya is a classic case study of Obama as Liar-in-Chief. First, when it might have done some good, Obama refused to condemn Gadhafi (or Khadafi, or one of some 17 other spellings). In fact, when Obama BELATEDLY (see my article about Wolf Blitzer and CNN LIES on that speech) condemned the Libyan government, he NEVER mentioned Gadhafi by name. We have both a coward and a liar for a Presaident. He simply will never get out front, without "cover" (so he can blame a bad result on somebody else). On both his "signature" health care bill and the budget, Oama has left it up to Pelosi and Reid to fight the actual Democratic battles, while Obama sits back and basically watches. Do you realize that Obama is merely continuing his successful tactic in Illinois, and in the U.S. Senate? How can Obama say he "inherited" the Bush "mess", and did not realize what he faced in Washington, when Obama was PART OF THE MESS. He acts like he was not even elected to the Senate in 2004, but he was. Where is the evidence he did anything to LEAD--especially when Democrats took control of the Congress in January of 2007? That evidence does not exist. Obama let others take the point, while he laid back in the wees--making speeches, writing books, and running for President.

Obama obviously hoped that he would not have to DO anything in Lilbya. He let Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Gates make all of the "policy" statements" (contradictory as they were, making Gates look like a total fool talking about how "tough" it was to impos a "no-fly zone" in Libya). The rebels in Libya advanced, and it looked like Gadhafi would be forced ut. President Obama (what COURAGE--not) finally said "Gadhafi must go", as Gadhafi "fired on his own people" as he looked to be on his way out. Obama had done the same thing in Egypt--BELATEDLY saying that: "Mubaraq must go". However, in Egypt, Obama waited until he was sure we had signals from the Egyptian military (withou whom people in our military had contact and influence) that Mubaraq would be forced out, if necessary. Again, what COURAGE--not. We just, by the way, had an admission from the Obama Administration that we do not even have a contingency plan for YEMEN.

Obama had waited until he thought he was safe to demand that Gadhafi go (undre pressure). FRANCE had taken the lead pushing for a "no-fly zone" in Libya, as Gadhafi began to bomb his own people from the air. But it was NOt the "air" that was the worst problem (although it was a problem). Gadhafi's forces began to rally on the ground, with superiror MILITARY organization, tanks, artillery, and owther weapons. Obama had a window when he could have assured a rebel vicotry (admittedly without knowing what kind of "government" would result), but he missed that window. When the rebels were "approaching" Tripoli, and Gadhafi was still trying to control Tripoli, Obama could probably have brought about a rebel victory merely with a few WORDS. If Obama had merely talked as tough as French President Sarkozy, It would probably have been enough. All Obama had to do was THREATGEN Gadhafi. If that had failed, all Obama had to do was launch a FEW Tomahawk missles at Gadhafi's compound, and at Gadhafi forces, and it almost surely would have been enough to topple Gadhafi (or scare him into a "deal" for a "graceful" exit). Gadhafi, after all, is an ENEMY and killer of Americans. Why so timid? We have a President who is a coward.

The rebels began to LOSE. Gadhafi began to WIN. This was AFTER Obama had said: Gadhafi must go." "Sanctioins" (lol--as if they ever had a chance) were not going to stop Gadhafi. Obama was about to be made to look like a cowardly FOOL (unless he were willing to face the consequences of his supposed "principles"). But Gadhafi made the mistake of being so blunt about what he intended to do that it gave Obama, under prodding for people who were not willing to see Gadhafi win and murder tens of thousands of people, an opportunity to obtain a BELATED resolutioin from the United Nations (since no one really wanted to let Gadhafi WIN, if anyone were willing to try to stop him, and the French and British were).

Yes, even as Gadhafi was WINNING, Obama was STILL unwilling to take the lead. He left that to the French President, and the British. Even though American weapons were going to provide lthe major firepower for the initial strikes, and the initial military comand and control, Obama obtained a promise from the French and the British that THEY would take responsibility for the whole operation as soon as possilbe. What COURAGE--not. Even as this is written, the Obama Administration is desperately trying to transfer command to the French and/or British.

That is partly because this WAR is based on an obvious LIE. Obama "justified" the military actioin as a "humanitarian" action, to save civilians. Oh, in the short run it may save quite a few people from Gadhafi reprisals, but we are KILOLING people (and will have to continue killing people). Further, Gadhafi AND the rebels are now going to continue fighting, and killing people. Who knows whether more or less people will ultimately die? And we are KILLING people (Libyan military personnel, and surely some peole who just happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time) who have never--unlike Gadhafi--done anything to us. They may be no more our enemies than a lot of the rebels--maybe less our enemies than a lot of the rebels.

We only got in this position because Obama is a COWARD. When the rebels were advancing, before Obama failed to make it plain to Gadhafi that we would not accept massive attacks on the rebels, Obama could probably have stopped Gadhafi with WORDS. He surely could have stopped Gadhafi with a FEW planes and missles. Instead, Gadhafi was allowed to kill all kinds of people. You can argue that OBAMA is responsible for the death of THOUSANDS, or tens of thousands, of people (although, again, we don't know the long-term result). "Humanitarian"? How many people do we let die by the acts of a madman before we act? Do we have a "trigger"? 100,000? 200,000? 3000,000? As a "policy", his is absurd, and Obama and our military know it. At best, this is a POLITICAL "standard": We intervene when the pressure of public opinion (in some form, whether a majority or not) can't stand letting the killing go on. But, in any even, tis is NOT the real reason we intervened.

Yes, Obama LIED to the U.N. worse than George W. Bush ever lied to the U.N. The "no-fly zone" is itself a lie, as the really effective attacks have been on the Gadhafi GROUND FORCES from the air (taking out tnaks, artillery, etc.). In fact, now that the "no-fly zone" is fully in effect, witho no air opposition, the news today is that attacks are concentrating SOLELY on Gadhafi ground forces (obviusly, except for any suppression of anti-aricraft fire that may be indicated). .The U.N. resolution itself was worded in such a way as to "authorize" ANY military action we, or the British land French, wanted to take. Yet, Obama continued to say that we are merely "protecting" civilians, even after Gadhafi's compound was hit in an obvious attempt to kill him. Obama even had the nerve to say that it is the SANCTIONS (lol) that are supposed to back up his words of "Gadhafi must go", while the military action is only to protect civilians. Geor W. Bush would have been crucified for LIES this obviuos. Yes, you might say it is acceptaqble military propaganda, except the lies are so obvious and more intended for the American people than anything else.

Bottom line: The purpose of the military action is Libya--and EVERYONE knos it--was to KEEP GADHAFI FROM WINNING. And if Gadhafi "goes", it will be because of military action. Yes, the mlitary actiino IS intended to force Gadhafi out. We could have done this easily several weeks ago. But that is still the obviious GOAL of this BELATED military action. Any other conclusion is absurd. The "killing of civilians", and soldiers, is going to continue until Gadhafi is gone (and maybe after that). .

Do I suuprt removing Gadhafi? Yes, I do. But I do NOT support Obama's ridiculous, cowardly POLICY toward Libya over this sequence of events. IF we were going to do something, we should have done it when it would obviously have WORKED--at little cost. IF we knew we were unwilling to let Gadhafi win, and slaughter hs people, then we needed to make sure he LOST at the time we could have made sure that happened. Instead, we let thousands of people die, and Gadhafi get in a position where he again controlled most of the country--on the verge of winning back the entire country. This is not hindsight. I said as much in this blog. No, I would NOT have waited on the U.N.--pretty much a FICTION in any event. We simply got U.N. "permissioni" for what we wanted to do, and everyone knows it (even if it is shamefully obvious that the FRENCH PRESIDENT has more courage to lead than our own President on this).

Why do I think we should have made sure Gadhafi was forced out when we had the chance? Easy. It is the same reason I favored forcing out Saddam Hussein. Gadhhafi is a MADMAN, and ENEMY of AMERICANS> He has KILLED AMERICNAS (including the Lockerbie bombing, where Obama made no real effort to stop Scotland from releasing the actual bomber to return to Libya). We need a world in which "leaders" like Saddam Hussein and Gadhafi do not exist, and we need to take any opporunity to make that happen--including military action. The first President Bush made that mistake in Iraq in the Gulf War--the Obama mistake of puttting "authorization" ahead of doing what needed to be done. Yes, the first President Bush is MORE reponsible for our travails in Iraq than the second.

But do I favor the present military action, realizing that we did it WRONG, but not being able to go back and do it right? Mildly. The reasons for getting rid of Gadhafi remain. But I am unable to stongly support the present military action when it is so obviously based on a LIE, and on a "policy" doctrie so vague and stupid as to be criminal. Wehn do we take military action on "humanitarian" grounds and when do we not? There is a lot of killing in the world, and a lot more coming. It makes no sense to go to WAR every time people are being killed. Sure, we can try to help stop the killing. But make no mistake about it: This is a WAR in Libya in which we have intervened. It would be sort of like the British or the French intervening in the American Civil War (which could have happened). We are now AT WAR in Libya. No ground troops, but still war. It is absurd to do that every time "civilians" are getting killed. Iran? North Korea? Yemen? Sudan? Somalia (where we SHOULD wipe out the Somali pirates)? Bahrain? Saudi Arabia (potentially, in the future)?

It seems obvious that we simply cannot form a coherent policy based on FEELIKNG--based on some sort of threshold of "humanitarian" "concern". Maye there are extreme cases. I go back and forth on Kosovo--another palce I MILDLY suuported the President. But there is simply no way to form a coherent policy based on "humanitarian" concerns If that were the test, then Bush 43 was not only right about Iraq, but we should have done it EARLIER (which, as stated above, is actually correct, but for other reasons).

No, it seems to me that we need to base policy on who are our ENEMIES (along with what we can do). Saddam Hussein was our ENEMY, and a threat to Americans (weapons of mass destrucdtion or no weapons of mass destruction). And, as a "bonus", he was a brutal killer (genocide, even). Gadhafi is our ENEMY, and again a brutal killer of his own people. We had an opportunity to get rid of him, and we should have taken it--should still probably take it, but we have done it wrong and totally confused the message. The message SHOULD BE that is a dangerous thing to be an enemy of the United States, and kill (or advocate the killing of) Americans. We administered that lesson with the Barbary pirates, and Reagan administered the same lesson so many times he ended the Cold War. Yes, we should promote democracy--as George W. Bush advocated, to ridiclue from the hypocrites in the mainstream media and in the rest of the left. But the key, overriding principle should be to PUNISH our ENEMIES.

President Obama is weak--a liar and a coward. Our enemies now know that, and that is a bad thing. Even Gadhafi knew it, and would probably have won his gamble--except for the FRENCH (lol). On his own, Obama would never have intervened in time in Libya (if you call this much too late intervention "in time").

Mexico and Drug Lord Propaganda: AP/Yahoo Do PR for Drug Lords (BOYCOTT YAHOO)

"Family Says Mexican Drug Lord Suffering in Jail" (AP/Yahoo "News"

Read the above headline, which was FEATURED tonight on my U-Verse default page provided by Yahoo. Consider whether you can get any more incompetent, and EFIL, than the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (complete, official name). And Yahoo enables this stuff by using the despicable AP as its main source for featured "newsL headlines (as does everybody else who uses the despicable AP without heavy editin on every story, and without using other sources to balance the AP). Yes, BOYCOTT Yahoo, which features the WORST of the AP stories.

You don't understand what is wrong with the above quoted headline? Apply immediately to the AP and/or Yahoo. You have a great career waiting you. Why is it "news" what a Mexican drug lord's family "says" about the drug lord's treatment/experience in a MEXICAN JAIL. Since when has the American "news" media become a public relations outlet for Mexican drug lords put in jail? The despicable AP, and the entire mainstream "news" media, pretty much IGNORED the violence in Mexico (3000 people a year being murdered across the river in Juarez), while this blog alerted you to the problems in Mexico as early as 2006. Even today, I am absolutely positive that there are more significant stories about the violence that occurred in Mexico than the "suffering" of a Mexican drug lord in a Mexican jail. This is the kind of story that proves I am right when I say that there is NO worse "news" organization than the AP, in this or any other universe (because it is impossible).

I have lived in the Southwest since 1960. I have lived in El Paso, essentially, since 1968 (when I entered the army and took basic training in El Paso). All of that time, Mexican jails have been NOTORIOUS for being bad places. I am actually impressed that a Mexican drug lord would be "suffering" like ordinary people in a Mexican jail--although not impressed enough to consider this a "news" story. it is NOT a "news" story. Whoe cares whether the FAMILY of a Mexican drug lord is "suffering" in a Mexican jail. "Good" is the appropriate reaction. And who appointed the AP as an outlet for the family of a Mexican drug lord. No, I don't care how many other stories the AP puts out, or Yahoo features (most of them almost as bad as this one). This is still not "news". It is more "news" to loook at whether ordinary Americans are "suffering" in jail (in Mexico or here), or even whether ordinary MEXICANS are "suffering" in Mexican jails. The daily violence in Mexico is certainly more newsworthy, and the mainstream media still pretty much ignores it (except for the trully outrageous incidents). Yet, the AP will report the death of 4 "militants" in a predator attack in Pakistan.

But what is the agenda behind this story? You might think that the AP and Yahoo have no interest in acting as public relations flacks for the familites of Mexican drug lords. Well, that has nott kept them from being public relations flacks for both terrorists and Muslim extremists. But that is because they are ANTI-AMERICAN. What is anti-American about this story?

I admit I am not exactly sure, other than the idea that we are promoting the "crackdown" on Mexican drug lords. Still, it is prettymuch of a stretch to see how this headline fits into the usual far left agenda of the desicable AP (and Yahoo). Is it that the AP wants to applaud the Mexican government for not giving the drug lord the usual special tratment? That may be it, although everyone knows lthat corruption is endemic in Mexico. If one Mexican drug lord is "suffering", then it is probably because other Mexican drug lords want him to "suffer". Or maybe this is just a case of this family somehow having "connections" with someone at the despicable AP. And simple incompetence does infect almost all stories put out by the AP.

Thus, I don't know why the AP put out this truely despicable story, with no "news" value at all. I especcially don't understand the headline, which implies that OF COURSE it is "news" what a drug lord's family say about his "suffering". That is just plain stupid. It MIGHT be "news" if a Mexican drug lord is receiving special tratment in Mexico, rather than having to go through an ordinary jail experience. There is simply o way it is "newsA" that the FAMILY of a "drug lord" "says" that drug lord is "suffering". Does the AP expect me to DONATE to a fund to HELP the por drug lord? Sorry, this is not Japan we are talking about here. It is of interest to note that NOT ONE of the featured stories (about six of them), at the time of the referenced headline, was about the "suffering" of any individual families in Japan, or really about the aggregate "suffering" of PEOPLE in Jpan.

As I said, evil stuff by terrible people (AP and Yahoo--not the drug lords, although I would have to say that they are more drramatically evil than the people in the AP, and Yahoo, who find their "suffering" to be "news".

P.S. Note, as usual, that the above has neither been proofread nor spell checked, due to my bad eyesight. .

Big East and NCAA Basketball: Overrated

I bet you thought that politics, economics and world affairs were the only areas in which this bog has been proven right, IN FORESIGHT. Not ture.

Richmond, Virginia has as many teams left in the NCAA basketball tournament (Richmond and VCU) as the Big East conference, and the Big East started (ridiculously) with 11.

Several years ago--I think when the Big East frist had 8 teams in the tournament--this blog told you that the Big East was an overrated basketball conference. Yes, the teams seem to win a lot of non-conference, early season games. But this seems to be a matter os style more than anything else. The physical intensity--not real skill--taught in the Big East seems intimidating to teams not ready for it (early in the year, or in non-conference games not emppasized by other schools). Then Big East teams start beating up on each other--losing LOTS of games--and everyone says that it proves what a great conference the Big East is. Nope. It merely proves, as the NCAA tournaments in the past have shown, that Big East t3eams losing to each other tends to show that the teams are not really that good. When the teams face schools ready to match their intensity, in the NCAA tournament, the Big East tends to lose a LOT of games (again, just as in conference).

Ye, it was ridiculous for the Big East to have 11 teams in this year's NCAA tournament. In fact, nothing shows the INCOMPETENCE of ESPN peole more than their PROPAGANDA for this result. it is not just that the Big East is an overrated conference, even though I have been proven right on that. What sense does it make to include a team in the BOTTOM HALF of the Big East in the "at-large" selections, whien such a team has shown it can't even end up in the top half of the team's conference. NO. I do NOT care if the team is supposedly one of the "top' 37 at-large teams. What this year's NCAA tournament has again shown us is that we have NO way of knowing that as to Big East teams who have lost (for example) 8 or 9 out of their last 10 games. What we do know is that those teams (like Villanova) have proven they do NOT deserve to be in the NCAA tournament (as would be true of ANY conference whre the bottom teams are asserted to belong in the tournament as at-large selections).

A "modest proposal" (or not so modest, since it obviiously makes so much sense):

1. NO team with a conference record of less than .500 should be eligible for being chosen as an "at-large" team in the 68 team field, no matter how "good" the conference supposedly is. Any such team should have to win the conference tournament (as Connecticut did in the Big East, and is still--not coincidentally--one of two, out of 11, still alive).

2. NO team which does not finish in the toop HALF of its conference (including ties and any odd numbered middle team) should be eligible for selection as an at-large selection.

3. NO team which does not have at least a .500 overall record should be eligible for an at-large selection. Yes, this one is probably unnecessary, since I don't think any such team has been selected. But, for completeness, it should be part of the criteria for eligibility.

Yes,it is obiouvs teams neear the TOP of "lesser" conferences should have a chance to prove themselves before any team that does not meet ALL of the above 3 criteria. It was, and is, absurd that the Big East had 11 teams in this year's tournament. If lyou can't even finish at the .500 level in your own conference, or in the top half of your own conference, then you have not shown you should be given a chance to win a national championship. Let HARVARD in. Maybe Harvard would finish last in the Big East, but maybe it would not. We can't possibly know. Even with the non-conference schedule, comparing teams is obviously very difficult. Teams that suddenly start losing in the Big East may be VERY BAD. And teams which start winning in the Ivy League may be pretty good. We can't know. What we can know is that a team that can't even finish at .5000 in the Big East does not DESERVE to be in the bigger NCAA tournament. They have already PLAYED themselves out of a "right" to be selected, since there is no real basis for assuming that their confrence is that much better than other conferences. Let us SEE how good the other conferences are, by giving their TOP teams a chance, instead of putting ht eBig East BOTTOM teams in the tournament.

Nope. I repeat: The Big East is an overrated conference. No, I am not saying the conference is terrible. Teams from the conference have obviosly sometimes done well in the NCAA tournament. But that does not change the absurdity of selecting a team that cannot even finish .5000 in the conference, or in the top half, in the big tournament--no matter how good youTHINK the Big East is (or Big Ten, or ACC or whatever).

I know. The "major" conferences have all of the leverage. Thus, you can expect that my "modest proposal" will never be adopted. It makes too much sense.

It is a heck of a lot more exciting to see UNKNOWN schools who have not yet PROVEN themselves to be LOSERS competing with the big boys than it is to see the same old LOSERS trying to recapture a magic that they could not show in the entire conference schedule, or by winning the conference championship. That is the reason there are those AUTOMATIC bids for conference winners. All my propsal does is extend that perfectly sound principle to the at-large selections--insuring that teams that have done well in their own--"lesser"--conrences do not lose their chance to teams that can't even compete in their own conferences (where the most intense, defining regular season basketball is played).

Yes, you ESPN peoiple who worship the Big East every year are STUPID. But see my previous article, where I show that ALL ESPN people have risen to their LEVEL OF INCOMPETENCE. You might say the same thing of most of those Big East teams that got into this year's NCAA men's basketball tournament

Obama, NCAA Brackets, the Peter Principle and ESPN: Rising to Your Level of Incompetence

You remember the Peter Principle: People rise to the level of their incompetence (referring first to managers, but applicable generally). This "theory" is really an axiomatic fact, unless a person reaches the highest possible level, and is still competent at that level (not the usual case). How could it be otherwise, when a person is PROMOTED from every level at which the person is competent (sometimes, of course, when the person was not competent even at the lower level, which I would assert is the case with President Obama).

You may have heard that President Obama gave his NCAA bracket predictions on national TV (obviusly more interested in that than in the situations in Libya, Japan, etc.). You have to admire both President Obama AND ESPN, who have both apparently realized that they are victims of the Peter Principle.

You may not have paid any attention, but ESPN has a "guru" who predicted the temas who would compose the 68 teammm NCAA brackets. The Peter Principle at work (which appears to apply to EVERY single person at ESPN--a mainsteam media network definitely not worth watching, except for the games themselves).

First, there is the ESPN assertion that their "bracket guru" almost never misses--right 98% of the time in previous years (or some such number). In any real sense, this is a LIE, and shows the general incompetence of ESPN. First, you have to understand that EVERYONE, and his dog, KNOWS about 60 teams that are going to be selected by the NCAA selection committee. Everyone knew Duke was going to be selected. Ditto North Carolina. Ditto Ohio State. Ditto almost every team (11) in the Big East. Ditto BYU and San Diego State. In fact, 31 teams are AUTOMATIC selections, and there are only 37 "at large" selections. Of those 37, it is a foregone conclulsion as to about 30 of them (give or take one or two). Thus, the only "percentage" that matters is your percentage of picking the teams AT ISSUE. In this case--as, really, almost every year--the ESPN "expert" MISSED on at least 3 (and maybe 4, as I was not keeping exact count) of th elast teams to be selected (the ONLY reason for listening to him, besides seeding--which he also got wrong). That is more like a 50% error rate than a 2% error rate. In fact, ESPN went balistic because NO ONE on ESPN even mentioned two of the teams selected (VCU a nd UAB)--something which ESPN appeared to take personally (instead of realizing that it was merely the Peter Principle at work).

President Obama obviously watches ESPN, and realized that he is more QUALIFIED than these people (as most would appear to be) to predict both brackets and winners. And, despite their initial reaction to the brackets that it was the NCAA that was wrong, and not their PREDICTIONS of the selectiioins, ESPN obviously realized that its people are walking, talking examples of the Peter Principle. Further, President Obama has clearly recognized that he is an example of the Peter Principle at work--explaining why he appears totally uninterested in Presidential "leadershp" on any issue (budget, anyone?).

Therefore, you can understand why Obama was giving expert opinions on winners in the NCAA tournament. He must already be in line to REPLACE at least one of the incompetents on ESPN, after he announces he will not run for reelection in 2012. And ESPN has to realize that Obama will be MUCH better at replacing one of their incompetents than he is at being President. No, I am not endorsing Obama's "picks" (form picks), but I agree with ESPN that Obama--once he no longer has to worry about being President, no matter now little he is worrying about it now--has a good chance of moving down to his level of competence at ESPN. In all events, he cannot be worse than the "experts" they now have.

Doubt me? Well, don't. No, I won't discuss Obama's incompetence as President in detail. If you are not aware of that, there is nothing I can say to convince you. But look at that "expert" ESPN touted as its "guru" of the NCAA brackets. I mentioned how incompetent he was on selecting the teams selected for the 68 team field. But I saved the best for last (for you doubters). This idiot putDuke as a no. 2 seed, even though EVERYONE (and again, his dog) knew that Duke would be a no. 1 seed. This guy had NOTRE DAME as the fourth no. 1 seed. Notre Dame was not even the top of the no. 2 seeds--an honor which went to San Diego State. This was totally absurd, and disqualified this "guru" from being an "expert" in even a local office pool. Again, a good number of the seeds were obvious, and everyone knew about Ohio State, Kansas and Pittsburg. But after Duke swept through the ACC tournament, without even a challenge, evyonone but the ESPN "expert" knew that Duke was going to be the 4th no. 1 seed. And the ONLY sentiment for Notre Dame appeared to be (several) ESPN "experts". No, there were numberous other seeding errors by the "guru", and all of ESPN.

Yes, you can argue who SHOULD have received a spot in the tournament, or a seed. But many of these predictions--including this "guru---on ESPN were on which teams WOULD be selected, and for what seed. On that topic, by definition, the NCAA is right and ESPN wrong.

I know. Some reading this may suggest that I would be better at being an ESPN "expert" (bar obviously being really low) or a McDonald's clerk than a blog writer. But this is NOT an example of the Peter Principle at work, even if you are right. The job of ESPN "expert" (lowly as it obviusly is) and McDonald's counter person are BOTH steps UP from this blog. I am not paid a dime for this blog, and strain my eyes just to try to write the articles. So I tthink you can say I have reached my level of competence. You get these articles "free", and I am not getting paid for them. No way you can say I am "incompetent" for this position.

That is why I am encouraged by Obama AND ESPN seeming to recognize the Peter Principle at work, and being willing to take action to correct the situation. Obama NOT President has to be an improvement. And Obama taking the place of a basketball "expert" on ESPN HAS to be another improvement.

P.S. No, I have neither proofread nor spell checked the above, as usual, because of my poor eyesight. However, I DID notice that I kept typing "CNN" for "ESPN". I don't know if I caught all of those FREUDIAN SLIPS. Every single person at CNN is, of courfse, incompetent, and the entire network is an example of the Peter Principle at work (UNLESS you regard it as a case, like my blog, where the people are already as low as they can go--but they get PAID!!!!! Sigh). Yes, Eliot Spitzer has proven that Obama could not be regarded as an automatic improvement at CNN. However, he could not be WORSE than Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, or anyone else they now have.

Pakistan Inteligence Propaganda: Anti-American AP and Yahoo (Boycott Yahoo)

"Officials: American Missle Strike Kills Three in Pakistan."

The above is one of last night's FEATURED headlines on Yahoo "News" (on my default Uverse page). BOYCOTT YAHOO. Yes, the story was again from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (complete, official name).

Yes, again yoiu have to MARVEL at the incompetent, anti-American headline and story. Am I calling the despicable AP, and Yahoo, moral traitors? Gee, you are finally getting smart. But just look at that headline.

What "officials"? Well, let me quote a more competent headline (although still stupid), and see if you can spot why it was not used: "Pakastani officials: American missle kills 3 enemy soldiers in Pakistan."

Yes, the anti-American AP is using Pakistani intelligence officials (unnamed) as "reliable sources" for a FEATURED Yahoo story. and if the headline named the source as Pakistani, you would pay the story no attention (as you should not). The original headline MISLEADS as to the source of the story, AND fails to tell you who was killed (which, really, the AP did not even know, although I think the story referred to "militants", or some such thing).

Now these Predator attacks in Pakistan are SENSITIVE, in Pakistan. This kind of story--referenceing four attacks in 24 hours, if you can believe the sources, since the story says the U.S. willl not confirm attacks--has the potential to HURT the United States for no purpose--even to get Americans killed. There must have been all kinds of incidents in Afghanistan where "3 killed". What made this one significant? Everyone knows about these Predator strikes. In fact, the Obama Administration has BRAGGED about killing terrorists this way (as, really, they should). That may actually be an anciallary purpose of the AP story: to indicate success of the Obama campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaida.

But I assure you, as somone who has written more extensively on the AP over the past 7 years than anyone else, that the main ppurpose of the AP story was ANTI-AMERICAN.

Again, do you doubt me? Then ask yourself why PAKISTANI intelligence has access to the AP to get s story about an insignificant attack published as a worldwide feature story? You can come up with no other answer to that than mine.

Yep. BOYCOTT YAHOO, which regularly features the WORST of stories from the despicable AP.

Japan, Nuclear Fallout and Absurd Hysteria: Fox News

As I have repeatedly shown, this blog is more than willing to criticize Fox News as part of the media problem (no intrest in actual information), rather than part of the solution.

This is another one of those small things, but a symptom of a major problem. Fox presented a weather report on winds around Japan and nuclear fallout (in the Sheppard Smith program). This is actually fairly important as to any nuclear radiation (particles) leaking into the atmosphere in Japan. But the weather reporter proceeded to talk about the upper level winds that might take fallout to Hawaii and the West Coast of the United States. This is FALSE PROPAGANDA, pure and simple.

Even in a total meltdown, the United States is simply too far from Japan to be signficantly affected by the nuclear fallout from a meltdown in a nuclear reactor in Japan. Can't hapen in a way to create any significant danger.

Doubt me? Remember, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a nuclear reactor to explode like an atomic bomb. All that can happen is what amounts to a cnventional explosion throwing radiaton from a melting core into the atmosphere. That would be a big roblem for Japan (allthough not the end of life as we know it--you may remember Nagasaki and Hiroshima). It would not be a problem for the United States. Too far away. Remember, in the 1950s we tested HYDROGEN BOMBS in the Pacific. Yes, that was not a good thing. But it hardly caused any major problems in the United States.

Nope. This is a case of Fox News simply trhowing out fear mongering to try to build an audience. There is no excuse for it, and Fox engaged in the same kind of fear mongering in more important reports. INFORMATION is what the "news" should be about, and not fear mongering SPECULATION. Sure, the nuclear plant situation in Japan is a problem, especailly for Japan, but it is absurd to suggest that the "job" of the media is to HYPE the problem. The news should be about facts and information, and not about FEAR (and ratings).

P.S. Should I blame my poor eyesight on those hydrogen bomb, open air tests in the Pacific, when I was a vulnerable chld? I never even thoiught of that until now. I could yet join this "victim" psychology.

Japan, Wolf Blitzer and CNN: Incompetent Liars on the Liar Network

Yes, I heard Wolf Blitzer say this on CNN: "Americans are heartbroken and devastated over what is happening in Japan."

Nope. that is a LIE, and not an isolated one. For some reason, I have heard nummerous people on CNN use "heartbroken", or a "broken heart", to describe their reaction to what is happening in Japan.

40,000 AMERICANS die every single year on our highways. At the very same time of the disaster in Japan, 15 people died in that bus accident in NYC, and 5 people died today in a highway accident on I-10. Across the Rio Grande, within 5 miles of where I amm typign this in El Paso, more than 3,0000 people a year (39 Americans in the last year) are being MURDERED in the violence in Juarez, Mexico.

Am I "hearbroken", or "devastated", by all of this death? Nope. That would be STUPID, and most Americans (unlike what Wolf Blitzer and CNN think) are not stupid. "Heartbroken", and "devastated", are terms reserved for family and loved ones. It is simply absurd to suggest that they are correct terms for an abstract (even if on TV) type of mass death as what has occurred in Japan. If you are gng to be "hearbroken" by that kind of thing, you will go through your entire life constantly "heartbroken" and "devastated". Death is a fact of life in the world in which we live--and has been ever since there were human beings. I just finished reading Shelby Foote's "narrative history of the Civil War." At Cold Harbor, thousands of AMericans (mostly Union soldiers) died in EIGHT MINUTES (in Grant's suicidal attack at Cold Harbor). In the 30 days that included Cold Harbor, there were more than 50,000 Union casualties, and some 25,000 Confederate casualties. Am I "heartbroken" and "devastated" from reading that sort of thing? No, it just makes me a little sad, and impressed with the sacrifices theat people have made so Wolf Blitzer and CNN can be incompetent liars.

Yes, I know. Some of you will agree with my daugher that this kind of FALSE COMPASSION (no, I don't believe for a moment that Wolf Blitzer was "hearbroken" and "devastated", or realy thinks you should be) is not a big deal. Don't I know that poor Wolf, and the others on CNN, are merely tryng to show their "compassion", even if they are devaluing words in the process. What word do you use for your oyng child drowning, if you use "hearbroken" and "devastated" for what ou see on TV from Japan?

I don't agree that this is nitpicking--making too much out of "understandable" hyperbole. No, it is not the worst thing CNN is doing. But it is really the same thing that CNN is doing on more serious matters. CNN does not care about INFORMATION. Yes, I am sure Fox News--as I have often stated--is committing some of the same "journalistic" crimies. But I have not noticed Fox being so ovious about this false compassion. No, it adds NOTHING to the story to say that mere observers (who have not lost oloved ones, friends, etc.) are justifiably "heartbroken" and "devastated". Absurd, and unhealthy. It whos an inability to tell the truth--instead ALWAYS appealing to overblown emotion and "point of view".

CNN truly is The Liear Network, and totally incompetent. If you can't rely on aanything CNN says to be a real attempt at information, and you can't, then you can't rely on CNN to tell you ANYTHING useful--on the nuclear scare or anything esle.

Larry Kudlow: Economic Fascist and One of the Stupidest Men on Earth

Yes, another example of this blog being PROVEN right--more right than Rush Limbaugh, in foresight. Yes, I have labeled the people on Wall Street and CNBC as the Stupidest People on Earth, for many years, and I have consistently named Larry Kudlow as both one of those stupid people AND an economic fascist (applies to Cramer, all of CNBC, and almst everyone else in the financial community these days). Meanwhile, Limbaugh occasionally, and stupidly, references the movement of the stock market as meaning soomething: referencing such ovements, only when they happen in a way that he can use for propaganda, as showing how the "smart" people on Wall Street know that Obama economics repreents a disaster for the economy (correct, but the people on Wall Street don't know it). That is on alternate days, when Limbaugh is not--sort of--noting how dumb these corporate/Wall Street/financial people are. Limbaugh is nothing if not INCONSISTENT (because, above all, he is partisan, which is not true of this blog--where principles rule and not mere partisanship).

What is an "economic fascist"? Well, it has almost nothing to do with Hitler, although Hitler adopt3ed the preexisting economic theory (as did, of course, Mussolini) as a supposed doctrine (when what Hitler really believed in was Hitler). "Economic fascism" is a supposed partnership between Big Government and Big Business to control the economy (ending up, of course, being dominated by government, although Goldman Sachs, Big Business, and Wall Streeet people like Kudlow think that they can dominate economic policy in a positive way if onlly the government will listen to them, with Goldman Sachs pretty much accomplishing this domination in the recent short term). Ben Bernanke, Tim Geitner and Henry Paulson (who CREATED our present economic problems) have all done basically what Goldman Sachs told them to do. Okaym you say, but how can you ever PROVE you are right about Larry Kudlow, even though most people would agree with you that he is the sort of stupid Wall Street person who has given Wall Street (correctly, despite Limbaugh) a bad name?

Well, guess what. Kudlow--attempting to spew Wall Street propaganda and stupidity on the really despicable CNBC--said the following: "We are llucky that the human consequences of what happened in Japan are worse than the economic consequences.". Read that again (paraphrased, but accuraget), and realize just how bad it is.

In the first place, it is STUPID. Yes, it is stupid in terms of comparing human tragedy and economics (even though economic problems, like the Great Depression, can lead to human misery). But it is just as stupid in PREMATURELY assessing the economic consequences of what has happened, and is happening, in Japan. Further, if you read betwenn the lines, this is Larry Kudlow AS ECONOMIC FASCIST talking. Kudlow has bought into the present Wall Street view that all governments have to do is act the way Kudlow and/or Wall Street wants them to act, and they can handle any crisis. I can't tell you how stupid that is, and it is completely incompatible with free market theory (the theory havt NO government, or colletionn of individual people, can control economic events better than the free market).

Sure, governments have to act when there is a disaster. But the idea that we know know how to CONTROL an economy to meet any kind of crisis is absurd, and it is one of the false assumptons that make Kudlow one of the Stupidest People on Earth (along with the rest of the economic fascists that gave us the idea, SUPPORTED BY KUDLOW in 2008, that government "bailouts" were necessary to "save" Wall Street (and Kudlow's ass--along with the ass of all of those other stupid Wall Street people who should have been allowed to fail).

But what about the proof that I was right about Kudlow? Read the quote again, and realize lthat it was so obviously the reaction of a stupid, desicable human being spouting Wall Street AGENDA that Kudlow had to almost immediately APOLOGIZE (saying it came out wrong). If you read the quote carfefully, though, you realize lthat there was o way for it to come out right (even if you assume, as I wuld, that Kudlow was ot really meaning to say that we are lucky that it is only PEOPLE suffering in Japan rather than the Japanese economy and Wall Street).

Nope. I have been proven right on Kudlow. One of the best things that ever happened to the Repubican Party is that Kudlow never ran for office as a Republican (once rumored). In fact, the best thing that has recently happened to this country, other than the 2010 election in the House, is that Kudlow has not only never run for significant elective office as a member of EITHER PARTY, but now is unlikelyl to ever do it. In this time of crisis and sadness, we have to be thankful for every silver lining we can find. No, I would not go so far as to say that we are LUCKY that the human suffering in Japan has exposed Kudlow as the man I knew him to be. Kudlow is not that important, except maybe in his own mind. No man is. It is, however, a small plus in an otherwise vastly depressing human tragedy.

P.S. Note, again, that the above has been neither proofread nor spell checked (eyesight). Yes, I could be totally blind, and not be as blind as Kudlow. But that does not change that I cannot see well enough to even make spell checking effective, or worth the time and effort. Your only consolation is that you could be using the time deciphering my articles listening to Kudlow, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, or the rest. I assure you that the worst of my articles is more worthwhile than that.

Libya, CNN and the Mainstream Media: Incompetent Propaganda

This is another aricle where my--correct--ridicule of CNN and the mainstream media is not based on my own poliltical agenda. This is actually an "I told you so" based on a blog article of a week or two ago (check out the archives). Yes, I believe Libya's Khadafi is a madman who needs to be ousted in Libya. Thus, you can say I am on the "side" of democracy in Libya, and even on the "side" of the rebels.

Bt what I told you--in foresight, again--was that the mainstream media (I first used the AP as an example, although CNNN was putting out more blatant propaganda) was payng no attention to the FACTS in Libya. They wre merely putting out--and still are--pro-rebel PROPAGANDA. Now CNN has said in the past that it regards it as improper to even take the side of the UNITED STATES in "reporting". I find this open ROOTING for the rebels as improper "journalism".

No, I don't care whether people on CNN report on the many lies and crimes of Khadafi. But remember how all of the mainstream media reporting was that the rebels were "approaching Tripoli", and about to oust Khadafi? I told you that they were NOT ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIIONS.

What were those questionis? Well, were the rebels really giving them the complete picture? Did the rebels have any military organization? Were the rebels--however right they are--anyting more than a disorganized mob? Would th erebels be able to stand up to a real military attack? Did the rebels have any real organization (even non-military), and WHO are the people in charge?

You will note that the media stories tonight basically prove all of the previoius media stories--including Fox News, where the advocacy was not quite so obvious, but there--were PROPAGANDA. The story tonight is that rebel forces are in full fledged RETREAT, and that Khadafi forces are now "winning" the civil war.

Well, you say, if I want Khadafi out, why do I object to REBEL PROPAGANDA and open advocacy "journalism" trying to oust Khadafi? I object to it because there is not even an attempt to give you, and me, THE TRUTH. Why pay any attention to the mainstream media, if you know they are not even attempting to tell you the truth?

That last question is a good question, and the answer is that I do NOT pay any attention to the mainstream media, except to criticize them. Yes, I will read between the lines, on occasion, to figure out the FACTS (as distinguished from the propaganda). But it is not easy, even for me, and I am an expert.

We do NEED a "news" organization interested in factual information, and not solely interested in agenda (political and otherwise). it is too bad we do not have one. CNN is cerainly not it. The despicable AP is just as bad. Nope. The whole mainsteam media is "all propaganda, all of the time". That includes NPR. No, as I have said repeatedly, Fox News is not the answer either, atlhough they are actually more "balanced" than the others (just not much more interested in factual information).

Read Michael Crichton's "Airframe", as Crichton said it better than I can in his prescient (although the trend was already well established) novel. As Crichton puts in the mouth of a consultant advising someone on dealing with today's media: "The essential thing for you to realize is that these people are not intrested in finding out information. It is an enoorous mistake to answer questions as if the purpose of the questions is to obtain informatiion.".

Crichton was right, and so am I. Yes, I have been proven right on Libya. All we hae been getting from our media is propaganda, and it does not matter that the propaganda was in a "good cause". (maybe, depedning on who the rebels really are, and recognizing that a MOB does not represent a viable military, or even governing, option). Yes, our mainstream media would have actually done better for the rebels to have presented factual information, instead of propaganda. Everyone agrees--almost--that Khadafi should be ousted. But FACTUAL information, and penetrating questions, would have been much better for determining just how that ouster can be accomplished in the face of the very real obstacles that exist. As it is, CNN and the rest have propably helped KILL thousands of people who perhaps did not have to die (for nothing?). Someone needed to be informing the whole world, including the rebles, that an undisciplined mob of untrained, ill-equipped people was not going to cut it.

P.S. Note, again, that all articles on this blog--until further notice--have neither been proofread nor spell checked (eyesight). If only poor eyesight were the main mainstream media problem.

CNN, HLN and Eliot Spitzer (criminal): An Evil Network Spreads Evil

CNN is all propaganda/all agenda, all of the time. That includes sister network HLN. However, you should not get the idea that it is always a matter of POLITICAL proganda. This article goes back to an HLN atrocity of a week ago Thursday, which shows just how evil CNN and HLN ca be.

Yes, the HLN host decided to take up th e"cause" of that San Antonion beauty pageant winner who was deprived of her "crown"--allegedly because she got FAT (okay, allegedly gained weight--if I don't want to be agenda driven like CNN/HLN). Yes, HLN did a totally biased interview with the "beauty queen) who is suing the pageant people--who had LOST her attempt at an immediate temporary injuncion. However, at least at the time of the referenced story, there was still a trial on the merits scheduled (the merits, that is, other than immediate injunctive relief).

Now I said this is not political propaganda, even though it is propaganda, and that is mainly true. However, you will remember the Miss California/Miss USA contestant who alleged she was UNFARILY attacked because she had quoted our President: answered that she believed marriage shoould be between one man and one woman. She mainly received an UNSYMPATHETIC "hearing" from CNN and the rest of the mainstream media. In contrast, CNN seemed to be quoting notes (as to the San Antonio young woman) diretly wovided by the woman's attorney. No, that is not what this article is mainly about, although it is annyoning that HLN regarded itself as an ADVOCATE in this matter (not at all important, and I am getting tired of beauty contest participants constantly engaging in lawsuits, especially since all I can see they are accomplishing is to kill off what appears to be a dying industry).

Is it wrong, by the way, to say that role models for young women should not gain wieght? Ask Michelle Obama!!!!! But we still have not come to the EVIL--the outrageous, indefenisble evil--of HLN (CNN) in this story.

What is the mainstream media technique when they have an agenda? You should know this one. What they do is create a "VILLAIN" (as they tried to do with poor Peter King on his Congressional hearing about Muslim extremists), and then egage in a PERSONAL ATTACK. In this case, HLN decided to try to make a villain out of the beautry pageant director (name withheld to protect the innocent--a word I use advisedly in this case, as she was the VICTIM of outrageous EVIL by HLN)>

This beautry pageant director is a 61 year old woman. Now you might wonder what HLN could say about a 61 year old woman, who meerly had the somewhat thankless job of being a beauty pageant director. Was she an up-tight, unfair prig? An old prune, with no compassion? Well, I would consider that kind of subjective attack as unfair to the 61 year old woman, and an evil character assassination. But I don't have the EVIL imagination of CNN (more likely the imagination of the young woman's attorney--apparently an evil man himself, if what I suspect is true). Yes, I am morally certain HLN/CNN was fed this evil "information"" by SOME interested person. The breathless HLN/CNN "report" was that this poor 61 year old woman had a CRIMINAL RECORD.

HLN presented this inforatminon as if it were conclusive that this woman should not be running a beauty pageant. Say what? That is both EVIL and ASININE, even if it is true that the woman had a criminal record. But it gets worse (I could never make up people this EVIL). HLN/CNN tried to "check this (irrelevant information) out". They found that a WOMAN OF THE SAME NAME AND AGE (I could never make this up) had a "criminal record", but they could not confrim (really, I could not make this up) whether it was the same woman. Thus, HLN/CNN is willing to try to ruin a woman's life with "information" they have not even verified, and which is NOT RELEVANT (even if true). This is beyond EVIL. I truely hope that Hell exists (having my doubts, since I am an agnostic), becausee it will be Heaven for me to meet these HLN/CNN people in Hell. As usual, my contempt for them knows no bounds.

Doubt my opinion on this? Don't. Quick cut to ELIOT SPITZER. You may not know, since no one watches, but Spitzer has a show on CNN in prime time. What does this have to do with the subject of this article? Oh, come on. You know this one. Spitzer has a CRIMINAL RECORD (no matter what his "rap sheet" may show).

You remember Eliot Spitzer. He USED TO BE governor of New York, and was a prosecuotr prosecuting prostitution rings (and associated organized crime) before that. As governor of New York, responsible for enforcing the laws of New York, Spiter PATRONZIED THE VERY KIND OF PROSTITUTION RING HE HAD FORMERLY PROSECUTED. Yes, Spitzer was froced to RESIGN as governor of New York for this CRIME. It was also a dereliction of duty as the governor of New York. Who would hire a criminal/corrupt "pubic servant" like Spitzer?

CNN. Yes, it was CNN who hired Spitzer aFTER this.

Talk about hypocrisy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HLN and CNN are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. They are willing to try to destroy a poor 61 year onld woman over an UNVERIFIED "criminal record", but they have hired one of the most blatant politican criminals of all time.

What? You say that a person's life is not over once he pays his "debt" to society? That such a person HAS to be able to receive a job, or he will be forced to keep committing crimes because he has no other way to live? Hey, I AGREE WITH YOU. That is why this HLN PERSONAL ATTACK on this 61 year old woman is one of the most EVIL things I have ever seen in "journalism". (The mind bogggles, by the way, at what crimes Spitzer might commit if he had been unable to find an "honest" job. It is lucky he found a non-criminal DISHONEST job--he and CNN being a perfect fit).

Let me be clear. I don't really oppose CNN's hiring of Eliot Spitzer because Spitzer admitted to a crminal act (and corrupt act for a governor). I always thought G. Gordon Liddy (a namesake of mine as to one of those names) was pretty much nuts, and deserved to go to jail for his role in Watergate. But Liddy is an INTERESTING guy. I never listened to h;imregularly, but Liddy had an interesting radio talk show after he got out of prison. John Dean was at least as culpable as Liddy--who called Watergate a "john Dean operation"), and MSNBC used Dean as an "expert" on ETHICS. I am glad someone gave LIddy a chance to present his (interesting) views to the public, desite his "criminal record". I can't say the same abuot John Dean.

Yes, my objections to Dean and Spitzer really have little to do with their "criminal record", and a lot to do with their lack of any intellectual integrity. Oh, I think it is obvius Liddy had intellectual integrity , He just had significant moral blind spots. Now I would be reluctant to hire Liddy for an OBJECTIVE "news" show, or for any network pretending to be some sort of "news" network. The Spitzer hiring showed that CNN is a partisan network. Imagine the CNN reactin if Fox News had hired Liddy for a prime time evening show!!!! But I am gald Liddy got a job, and I thought he was well worth listening to (with many grains of salt). I would have had no problem with Spitzer getting a radio progarm. The CNN hiring of Spitzer was significant because it represented an absolute admission of the PARTISANSHIP of CNNN.

But if CNN is going to hire Spitzer, CNN/HLN has no business acting as if a "criminal record" tainsts someone fFOR LIFE (and "provesa the UNRELATED allegations of a beauty queen).

Q.E.D. CNN/HLN is an eil network spreading evil.

Peter King and CNN: An Evil Network Spreads Evil

Yes, CNN has spent an enrite week putting out propaganda opposing Peter King's hearings on ISLAMIC EXTREMISM and its penetration in American life (not, despite the opposing propaganda, an attack on all Muslims, or an investigation as to whether Muslim ms in general are good Americans). See my previous articles, since the prescient one last Sunday. But this article is about EVIL (CNN evil), and not just about the normal CNN propaganda.

Yes, CNN did an ad mominem attack on Peter King accusing him of being a hypocrite (talk about the pot calling the kettle black) because (allegedly) Peter King had once been too cozy with the IRA (the nati-British, anti-Protestant organization based mainly in Northern Ireland that had a terrorist element--not much different from EXTREMIST Muslims having a terrorist element in al-Qaida).

Why is this EVIL stuff, and not merely partisan propaganda? If you don't know this, I despari for you. . But I will tellly you anyway. It is evil because it represents what Bill Clinton called the POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION. It represents an attempt to not merely oppose Peter King politcially, but an attempt to DESTROY him with allegations at least a decade old.

You don't understand this. Let me explain it to you, and in the process explain to you why CNN contains the worst hypocritews to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. Remember Barack Obama and his association with TERRORISTwilliamAyers? Wel, CNN did not think that was "news". You can argue the point (although it shows lthe hypocrisy of CNN). But let us go further. What if President Obama wanted to call a conference on "civility" in American politics, and he was called a HYPOCRITE because he had associated with Ayers (a clear advvocate of violetn terrorism, and an actual terrorist). Would CNN ever present that as even arguable "news"? Of course not. It would be an EVIL attempt to deflect the issue of "civility" by arguing over Obama's association with Ayers (an old issue of the 2008 campaign, which is where I disagree with Sean Hannity continuing to bring it up as a signficiant current issue).

Does it matter to the questioin of whether we should look into Islamic extremism whether Peter King once was "soft" on the IRA? Of course it does not matter, and that is exactly the position CNN would take with a CONSERVATIVE or Republican allegation of a similar kind. But CNN is composed on partisan hypocrites, and those people do not care if they are consistnet. In fact, like President Obama himself, they are willing to take oposite positions on consecutive days (as they basically have done with the issue of "civiity" and union incivility in Wisconsin).

Any allegations of Peter King being "soft" on the IRA are OLD poltical allegations that cannot possibly have anything to do with the merits of King's hearing on Islamic extremism. Indeed, CNN well knows that there is no way to "resolve" those allegations at the present time. CNN merely hoped, as did Kin'g opponets, that the mere QUESTION of "hyposcrisy" could be used to discredit King on a PERSONAL level (a mominem attack--attack against th eperson--on a "where there is smoke there is fire" theory of evil pllitics).

You sill don't think this was EVIL by an EVIL NETWORK. Think again. Was CNN not playing on the BIGOTED idea that the Irish in general were too forgiving of the activities of the terrorist wing of the IRA? Of course it was. This is the same EViL that the hypocritges at CNN said lthey opposed with regard to King's hearling: the idea that Muslims are involved with Islamic extremism merely by being Muslims. Yes, if Peter King had been PROVEN to be a TERRORIST, thqat might be relevant (although hardlyl dispostivive of whether we should investigatge the pnetration of Islamic extremism in the United States). However, the allegation that King was "sympathetic" to the IRA is the kid of thing that would take a hearing in itself to even come close to investigating, and even then the result would surely be inconclusive. And the IRA is hardly a current terrorist threat to the United States (wherfe it never was much of a terrorist threat--not to the extent it was in Britan and Northern Ireland).

Yes, the whole IRA thing was an EVIL attempt by CNN to hold its own Kangaroo Court "hearing" on a totally irrelevant "issue": the issue of Peter King's OLD "association" (alleged) with the IRA. Well, CNN, where is your investigation as to President Obama's ASSOCIATIONS--especailly old ones.? Ask Sean Hannity if you want to know the "issues" that could be raised--with at least as much allegation of "hypocrisy" as with Peter King.

And see my previous article on the possibl eHYPOCRISY of Obama claiming to be a Christian, when he does not really believe in any religion at all, other than the leftist "religion" of secular humanism. You will not see that alleged hypocrisy even mentioned on CNN, because CNN is composed totally of dishonest hypocrites. Yes, I have my doubts whether Barack Obabama's religion, even if hypocrisy is involved, is "news'. But neither is this PERSONAL ATTACK on Peter King "news".

This is EVIL stuff, because it (the personal attack on Peter King about something that cannot be reolvesd, and happened long ago) is an IRREWLEVANT personal attack for POLITICAL REASONS. It had no legitimate purpose, other than to try to destroy King personally.

Nope. C NN is an evil network spreading evil.. The lpersonal attack on King is another example of this. Stay tuned for tomorroww's planned article about the EVILS being spread by CNN (an article which will not even deal with the evil political propaganda of CNN).

Obama Is Not a Christian: Bill Maher and CNN

You say you have not seen Bill Maher all over CNN explaining that President Obama is a "scular humanist" and not a Christian (on which point Bill Maher and I agree from a position of expertise--although I am a tolerant agnostic while Maher is an intolerant, bigoted agnostic/ateist)? Of course you have not seen Maher all over CNN expounding on tis point, although CNN may obviously have made some mention of it while I was not looking (as I only surf CNN, which shows you that CNN is all propaganda, allof the time, since my examples come from limited surfing of CNN, where it is a rare 30 second view of CNN that does not expose obvious propaganda).

You say that what Bill Mher thinks of President Obama is not "news"? Ah, I would agree with you, but lthat merely shows that CNN is composed of the worst, most dishonest hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth. It was CNN who had Bill Maher on virtually every day--almsot every hour--for weeks talking about his opinions on, and characeer assassination of, Christine O'Donnell. Further, CNN (The Atheist Network, as well as The Liar Network) have Bill Maher a forum to spoiut his views on religion as if those views are "news", or any kind of valuable opinion. That is because Bill Maher and CNN have the same agenda, and CNN is all propaganda, all of the time. YUes, CNN gave Bill Maher a forum --with no real Christian coivces on the other sid--for his own kind of hate speech even before Christine O'Donnell, although CNN mad it crystal clear what it was doing with its attacks on Christine O'Donnell.

And CNN--in its role as The Liar Network--regularly justifies its most outrageous PERSONAL ATTACKS on conservatives with the excuse that it is all about "hypocrisy". Is it not "hypocrisy" for Barack Obama to represent himself as a Christian when he is no such thing? Of course it is. But CNN is not interesteed in featuring Bill Maher in connection with this proposition, because CNN is only interested in promoting its own agenda (all propaganda , all of the time). If CNN is going to present it as "news" that Christine O'Donnell was supposedly a "witch" in high school, should CNN not explore the issue of whether Obama is a dishonest HYPOCRITE--using Bill Maher as it did with Christine O'Donnell? If CNN were honest, this would be true. CNN is not hontes.

No, I don't care whether Billl Maher has "taken it back", or otherwise backed off his claim that Obama is not a Christina. I don't watch Maher. I don't know. But I saw multiple clips where Maher made this--correct--assertion with regard to Obama, and if any conservative had done that with regard to a Repubican--or even Obama--CNN would have been all over it (even if the conservative asserted it was not really a serious allegation).

Nope. CNN is made up of dishonest hypocrites. That is why you have not seen the Bill Maher assertion on Obama treated as the kind of major "news" his every assertion was previously treated on CNN.

P.S. As stated in previious articles, the evidence is overwhelming that Bill Maher and I are correct that Presdient Obama is NOT a Christian---making him a dishonest hypocrite. It was noaccident that Obama TWICE left out "by their Creator" from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-efident: that people are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain inalieanable rights, among them being the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happinesss." Then there is this campaign quote from Obama at a private San Francisco event: "These people (small town America) cling to their guns and their reiligion, and take out their frustrations on people who are different from them." (or words to that effect). I could go on, but it is obvious to me--as an aganostic--that Barack Obama isnot really a believing Christian, despite his pose to the contrary.

P.P.S. Note, as usual, that the above has neither been poofread nor spell checked (bad eyesight).

Wisconsin and CNN: All Propaganda All of the Time

CNN has long ago droppped any pretense of being a "neutral" "news' organization, but it is actually getting worse. It reallly is "all propaganda, all of the time". As I have stqated, my Boston lawyer older daughter--an Obama supporter---has told me: "Everyone knows CNN is partisan. Don't they have a right to be?" No, the sanctimonious hypocrites don't have a "right" to assert they are "journalists" presenting "news', when they are not. And CNN is WORSE than Fox News. Fox News may have an overall conservative bias, but it DOES provide different points of view (and even some pretty liberal hosts). But ALL of CNN is like Sean Hannity. What "conservative" guests appear are there only to be attacked and/or dismisssed. Most importantly, howver, CNN does not even COVER any news that disagrees with their agenda (Reverend Wright, for example, until they had no choice). Nope. You are wrong. Fox News DOES cover (tto much, in my view, as I don't endorse Fox News) the news being presented by CNN and the AP (see previous article).

Yes, Wisconsin is a case in point. After the Giffords shooting, CNN--on the half hour, or more frequently, kept talking about "anti-government" ANGER and LACK of CIVILITY. That has now been exposed as mere propaganda. You can't get any more anti-government anger than the union example in Wisconsin. And there have been DEATH THREATS (prtty much ignored on CNN, when they were featured on the half hour is someone alleged such threats against a Democrat in the health care debate). Then there was tlat virtual assatult on the legislature by protesters, as unions tried to shut down the government in Wisconsin (as did those Democrat state senators),. For CNN, this is all suddenly "passionate" expressions of democracy in action. CNN does not even attempt to explain these whiplash reversals. That is because CNN is all propaganda all of the time. They are also the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four.

Yes, luckily no one watches CNN. That is why I have compared my own detailed examinatiion of CNN (The Liar Network) to "attacking a gnat with a nuclear weapon". So why do it do i? This should be obvious to you. I am using CNN (which is why I surf it, rather than boycott it like all of the rest of the public--even if unconsciously)? I am using CNN jsut like I used to use the despicable AP (for the last 7 years)--as typical of the mainstream media--and left--as a whole. I can't read like I once could, and therefore CNN is a more convenient place to find typical leftist thinking. I think my generally leftist older daughter would agree with that: that CNN is a place to find typical leftist thinking. My older daughter is not dumb (she did graduate from Cornell law school, while I only graduated from the University of Texas School of Law); she is just misguided (one of the shames of my life being that I could not raise my daughers to be right thinking conservatives, even though CNN is among the leftists who forced me to shame myself by coming out of the closet as more of a feminist than those in the mainstream media and on the rest of the left).

Yes, my article on Sunday PREDICTED the propaganda blitz on MUSLIMS (and how Peter King is picking on them). All propaganda all of the time. Every half hour. Poor Peter King was given no chance. Before he even began his hearing, he had been the subject of a propaganda blitz ALL WEEK. CNN: All propaganda, all of the time. There was no pretense of objectivity. No examination of extremist Muslim hate speech and doctine (the kind of thing that CREATED al-Qaida). Yes, you would never learn from CNN that al-Qaida came out of the extremis version of Islam taught in Saudi Arabia. It is that hate theology that is our problem and not just al-Qaida. See Frederick Forsyth's excellent analysis of the origins of the Taliban and al-Qaida in "The Afghan" (fiction, but the factual information is correct). CNN is not interested in looking into extremist Muslim hate speech. CNN is into "all propaganda, all of the time".

No, all Muslimms are not extremists. But it is too mcuh a part of the ORGANIZED Muslim religion around the world. I was amused when a CNN "reporter" (all propaganda, all of the time) said that the primary image to come out of Pter King's first day was of a SINGLE MUSLIM FIREFIGHTER who died on 9/11. All propaganda, all of the time. So what? ONE MUSLIM. And no one is saying all Muslims are bad. What the sane ones among us are saying is that MUSLIM EXTREMISTS are bad (for us and Muslims in general), and that such extremists are a dangerous part of worldwide Islam (way beyond al-Qaida, as such extremists are the creators of al-Qaida). If these Muslim extremists do not represent all Muslims, how is it relevant that SOME Muslims are heroes? it is not relevant, but CNN--and the other apologists for Islamic extremists--simply ignore this dishonesty and hypocrisy. For them, every example of "good" Muslim behavior does represent all Msulims, while examples of bad Muslim behavior (no matter that it is the result of substantial hate speech in the Mulsim community worldwide) does ot represent anything other than that one individual.

CNN (he Liar Network): All propaganda, all of the time.

Union Propaganda and the Mainstream Media: Boycott Yahoo

Wis. Defeat Could Help Lauch Counterattack Against GOP" (headline from the AP, as featured on Yahoo "News", Unverse default page tonight)

I want you to read the above headline and MARVEL. Look at how truly incompetentit is, and then consider how it illustrates that the present mainstream media is all about PROPAGANDA and agenda.

Was the GOP "defeated" in Wisconsin? Of course not. But that is what the headline SAYS. Yes, it is the WINNING side that usually "launches" a counterattack. The headline is propaganda nonsense. The despicable AP simply culd not bring itself to use the term "union defeat", even though the story makes clear the story is talking about a union defeat.

You want to know just how MUCH propaganda is in this story? Consider what the story would have said if the public employee unions had WON in Wisconsin. Yes, the story would have said that the unions were going to use their momentum to ATTACK the GOP around the country. Yes, along with everything else, the story is a LIE. Unions were alwyas going to use recent events to attack the GOP, and it does ot matter whether the unions succeeded in their campaign of intimidation and extortion in Wisconsin. It is absurd to suggewst that the union defeat will HELP them. That is simply dishonest. What is true is that the very battle was always going to be used by the unions to try to facilitate their TAKEOVER of the democratic process.

You say I am too harsh using the term "takeover" of the democratic process to describe what the public employee unions are trying to do? Not true. The public emplooyee uniions lost an election in Wisconsin, and tried to reverse that defeat by subverting democracy. If lyou deny that, you should be condemend to observe for 24 hours a tape of the unions ATTACKING the Wisconsin capitol building, to try to keep the legislature from acting. What if the Tea Party had ATTACKED the U.S. Senate and House chambers, and the White House, durng the health care debate?

"Civility" anyone? You notice that the mainstream mediais no longer saying ANYTHING about "civility". That is because they are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. Ever since the health care debate began, and especially after the Fiffords shooting, the mainstream media used the word "civility" as a PROPAGANDA WEAPON against the Tea Party (which never did anything as disrluptive as what the unions have done in Wisconsin). Now they have simply reversed themselves, without shame (because they have no shame)--calling the union protesters "passionate".

Did you ever see a Yahoo "News" headline saying: "Obama Defeat Could Help Tea Party Launch Counterattack against Democrats". Of course you didn't. That is because the mainstream media is now all about PROPAGANDA. They don't really even pretend anymore, except as a tactical matter. Yes, the defeat of the Tea Party in the passage of the Obama health care bill DID result in a counterattack. But you will note that a VICTORY by the Tea Party in the health care bill would have had the same result (unless, of course, Obama had actduallly abandoned his disgraceful approach to the heatlh care bill, and had moved toward a truly "bipartisan" bill--bad as such a bill would probably have been).

Now if the mainstream media wanted to say that the way that Governor Walker "rammed" through the bill in Wisconsin has some similarities to the way Obama, Pelosi and Redi rammed through the unpopular health cae bill, and could have some of the same results, I would regard that as a legitimate point. No, I don't regard it as the same. It was DEMOCRATS in Wisconsin who left the state, and abandoned all democratic process. If you want to say that Democrats, and the unions, might have had a beef about the ORIGINAL process of pushing the bill in Wisconsis, then there might be a similarity--although I consider the analogy flawed. But as it is, Democrats were simply violating both legal and democratic procedure by going "on the lam".. And unions were, and are, using intimiidation to try to get their way, after losing a democratic election. But all of that is beside the pint that you will NEVER see the mainstream media saying that what the Repubicans did in Wisconsin is the same as Obama, Pelosi and Reid did in Washington. That would not fit their agenda, because they willl not cirticize Obama, Pelosi and Reid in that way.

Yes, the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" remains as bad as any "news" organization in any universe (known and unknown), because it is impossible to be worse. BOYCOTT YAHOO. That is because Yahoo--as I have detailed over the past two years--features nothing but AP propaganda--NO opposing voices on the Uverse default page. I do not forgive Yahoo for that, even though I know that Yahoo does not generate the stories. If yo distribute Nazi propaganda, does it matter twhether you generate it? No, I am not saying this is Nazi propaganda. I am just making the point that Yahooo is just as guilty for distributing propaganda as the despicable AP is for putting it out.

Read that headline again. Then try to defend it. If you think you can, you should apply to work for the despicable, and incompetent, AP. I am still on my Sodom and Gomorrah search (now expanded to CNN, since I can now handle audio better than I can read) for an honest aP reporter. I still have not found one. As I have repeeatedly stated, I would advise you not to look if you see somethiing strange happening to an aP office, or a CNNN office (or even a Yahoo office). I would not want you to turn into a pillar of salt.

P.S. Note, as usual, that the above has neither been proofread or spell checked (same bad eyesight that makes my AP Sodom and Gomorrah search more difficult).

BOYCOTT YAHOO.