Chris Wallace: Evil Man Spreading Evil (Boycott Fox News)

I bet you thoght that there was no way I could be PROVEn right--again--this time as to my view of Fox News. But if you do not realize that is what happened in last night's Republican debate, you were not paying aggention. As I have shown, Fox News has a perfectly reasonable clai m to being "balanced". But Fox has NO claim to being "fair". Fox is a poster child for Mi the late Michael Crichton's correct assertion ("Airframe"--a fictional novel of ideas) that the one MISTAKE you should never make is to assume that modern "journalists" are interested in "informatiion". They are NOT, and that is as true of Fox as it is of CNN or MSNBC. I do, by the way, practice what I preach. My viewing of Fox has steadlily DECLINED, and I do not regard Fox as worth watching. I now surf it on the same basis as I surf CNNN, CNBC andeven MSNBC (although, really, I don't seee how anyone can stand more than 15 seconds at a time of MSNBC--although it the people there do have the advantage of not being as HYPOCRITICAL as the sanctimonious liars of CNN). I surf these people to see what evil is in the hearts of men ("the Shadow knows")--or at least what evil is in the hearts of these men and women--none of whom that I respect at all.



I have never meant a headline more than I mean the above headline. I do not mean it to be hyperbole, or exaggeratioin. I do not mean i for dramatic effect (as my oft-repeated headline:; "Andrea Mitchell I a Whore"). I simply mean it.


Newt Gingrich was exactly right last night, and you wish all Republicans would say that to CNN and the rest of the mainstream media on these "gotcha" questions. It is the only way to stop them. But it is this blog which has been talking about Chris Wallace for a year and more. It is Wallace lwho asked Joe Miller "Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to be President", when NO ONE at Fox News ever asked that of a DEMOCRAT about Barack Obma. That is because Chris Wallace, and the otehr people of Fox, are COWARDS. I mean this one too, and would never take it back or dilute it. Fox News is willing to ask "mainstream media" questions of REPUBLICANS, but almost never of Democrats. Question to Barack Obama: "You call yourself a Christian. Yet you have supported abortion up to the moment of birth. Do you see a contradiction there. It is clear that the early Christian Chruch fought strongly against abortion." Antoerh question for Barakc Obama: "you say you are a Christian. Let me show you this quote from the Bible (showing quote condemning homosexual conduct). Do you understand why evangelical Christians may doubt taht you are really a Chritian when you tak about homosexuals being equivalent to other minorities? . Question for Brack Obama, or any Democrat: "Do you believe that the Bible contains the Word of God.?" Question for Barack Obama, or any Democrat: "Do you believe that the theoury of evolution fully elxplains how life on Earth deveoped from CHEMICALS to human beings? " I could go on, but you get the idea. You can make up your own, perhaps bette, questions. After all, I am not a Christin (as I am morally certain is true of almsot all of the media--including Chris Wallace and most of the peoplle of Fox. I may not know how to ask these questions. But if I were an HONEST "journalist" (Chis Wallace need not apply), AND thought these types of questions were appropriate, I would find out. The mainstream media was not even INTERESTED in whether Barack Obama still thought Reverend Wright was a "man of God" , after disowning the good Reverend for those terrible things he said (while Brack Obama did not listen for 20 years).



If you believe that I am suggesting that Obama and Democrats be asked these ridicuous, evil questions, you are not getting the point. The point is that these questions are ridiculous and eVIL, whether they are asked of Republicans or Democrats. The desicable Associated Press was EVIL when it ran that story of how Romney's great-grandfather was a POLYGAMINST. Question for Barack Obama: "Was one of your grandathers a polygamist?" Another: "Honw many of your great-grandfathers were polygamist? Were you ever interested in finding out? The ONLY reason I might ask quesions like this of Democrats, including Obama, is to SHOW the mainstream emdia just how EVIL they really are. Hey,. I KNOW it is hopeless. Thewe people are such dishonest hypocrites that they are incapble of self-examination. Thus, when the Fox "panel" (the qu;stion may have come from the Washington Examiner panelist--opne of them, which merelly means that the Washington Examiner is a newsaper for which I don't have any respect either) asked Herman Cain about what he meant when he had mentioned that evangelical people in the South were uncomfortable with Romney's Mormon relitioin, that was an EVIL question. Question to Barack Obama: "Can you see why people don not regard you as a Christian, when you talk about people "clinging to their religion" in samall town Americaa? Nope. I see clearly, It was NOT a rejection of Romney's Mormon religioin as an "issue" that prompted the question--an 'issue" that I have pointed out that the evil peopkle on Fox have raised themselves. The purpose of the question wsa AGITATION. A good part of what Fox did last night was try to gin up their ratins with PROVOCATION. Again, what is it that you do not understand of Michael Crichton's dead onevaluation of the EVIL of modern "journalists"? Thse people are NOT interested in information. They are interested in THEMSELVES--in this case gain "cred" with the mainstream media they purport to depise while pushing themselves forward for ratings and gloray. Rad that last sentence again, and realize how very much I truly DESPISE these people--especailly Chris Wallace. It is one thing to expose Herman Cain as a bigot (which the question did not do). It is another thing to do what Fox deliiberately did, and that is to RAISE the "issue" of religon as if it is some sort of legitimate "issue" bot be raised and "debated". Give me a brak. This is EVIL stuff.


Ylu have Chri Wallace asking Newt Gingrich the very same questin he has been asked 1000 times, in a deliberate attmept to suggest that what Gingrich THINKS on the ral issues does not matter--a ture "gotcha fquestion:' : "Mr Gingrich, almost all of our staff resigned and called you'uncdisciplined'. How do you DARE ask peole to vote for you for President of the United States?" Yes, I did take dramatic license here--quoting the queston the way Wallace meant it. No reasonable person (a test for you--and a condemnation of Wallace) could think that questin has ANYTHING to do with whether Newt Gingrich should be Presidentof the United States. Thisis a DEBATE. You are supposed to be getting INFORMATIN for the public to make a decision FROM THE CANDIATES. Wallace's questin was not interested in "inforamtion". It ws a true "gotcha' question meant to BOOST WALLACE. Nope. Chris Wallace is an EVIL amn, but there is a reason I have singled him out as more evil than the rest. It is not just the questins he asks, but the sanctimonious, Anderson Coooper-type EVIL of the way Wallace defends the questions. YHou will remember that Wallace was rightly condemned for his EvIL question to Michele Bachmann, and I have criticized him for multiplle questons.


The EVIL of Wallace, and of Fox News, is rewvealed by Wallace's reaction (and the endorsement of that reaction by Fox--BOYCOTT FOX NEWS, I beg lyou), In the debate itself, Wallace said: "I was merely asking you about yourrecord. Your record is very relevant." (or words to that effect). Message to Chris Wallace: You are a LIAR, as well as an evil man. Exactly what basis do you have for saying that it is part of Gingrich's RECORD that his campaign staff rsigned? That is stretching the word "record" beyond all belief or meaning. Under Wallace's "interpretagion", there is NOTHING he asks that could be cirticied, so long as it is part of the "judgment day" "record" of a person from birth to death. . I am seriious This is what Wallace's defense amounts to: "My questions do not have to be fair or relevant. They only have to relate somehow to something a person has ever said or did, or has been alleged to have daid or did." That is the statement of an EVIL man, and that is what Cris Wallace is.


Doubt llme? Never do that. I heard Wallce (for the 15 seconds I could stand it) "defend" the Fox questions to a nodding Fox interviewer (BOYCOTT FOX). Wallace's "defense" was the one I have shown before to be totally EVIL. Come on. You know this one. Sing along. "The 'job' of a 'journalist' is to 'challenge' and 'test' the candidate." That is the most EVIL statement of them all. The JOB of a "journalist" is to get INFORMATIN to the public. Nope. The "job" is NOT to ask COWARDLY questins (becuase you are afraid of how the rest of the media wil react to certain questisns, and because you are gong t meet cricism with this ridiculous response) so UNFAIR as to "test" the candidate's ability to deal with UNFAIR questins.


I agree that this is the professed attitude of almost all modern "journalists". That is why these are EViL people. But Chris Wallace is even worse ltlhan most. He regards it--he just said so--as his JOB to ask "gotcha" questions where it is all about the questin and not the answer. Tht is anoter LIE from a man who is one of the worst liars I ahve ever seen, and one of the most evil men (outside of seiral killers and al-Qaida terrorists). Remember what Wallace said in that earlier controversy: "It should not be about the questin, but abut the answer.'. Mr. Wallace, you are an evil liear. For you, it is all about the question. You have essentially said so. Sure, questiohns shoud get real INFORMATINN out of poiliticians, and not just talking ponts. But that is the exact opposite of what these "gotcha" questions are intended to do. Michael Crichton got it eactly right: "NEVER believe that the modern 'journalist' is after information." Crichton p[ut those words in the mouth of his "media consultant" character, but no true words were ever spoken. And Newt Gingrich handled it correctly. It is time to start CONDMENTNG these questions, and condemning the people who ask them. It is NOT releveant wehter you think the Bible is the literal Word of God. It is NOT relevant whether you blieve in evolution. It is NOT relevant whether your campaign is a mess. Oh, I agre it should be REPORTED if a campaign staff resigns, or is fired. But it is absurd to suggest, as Wallace did, that such "inside baseball" is a major factor in who should be President. It is even bmore absurd to believe that a candidate's ANSWER to being challenged over and over again on that--as if the candidate has noting else to offer--is any kind of legitimate "journalimsm". No, it is not even rrelevant whether Mitt Romney and his wife engaged in prematiral sex (Sixty Minues question in 2008).


"Oh, Skip, that lst example is over the top. That is not typical." Did you actually SEE last night's debate? Over the top? Did you SEE Byron York, who I USED to respect (no more), ask Michele Bachmann what she had "meant' whn she once said that she believed that a wife must "submit" to her husband? Bachmann's answer was great. But the QUESINT was evil incarnate, because of the suggetin that this is a LEGITIMATE question. By the way, if you believe that an ordinary Christian wife "submits' to her husband in the misleadnig way suggested by this question, you DESERVE the rude awakening you are going to get from women on this point (if you ever try to act upon it). Now you might think that maybe Byron York was handing Bachmann a "softball". Too cleve by more than half, even if it were true (which I don't believe). The reset of the mainstream media will merely feel validated by the questin. That is exactly the type of question they like to ask Republicans, in an even more snide and condescending way than Brynor Yrok. I am a little dispppointed in Bachmann that she did not have a Gingrich-type reactino to this insulting, ridiculous question. However, I understand Bachmann. She cannot AFFORD to take umbrage at this kind of question. It is just used as evidence of the STORYLINE that Bachmann is not a reasonable serious person.


Have I told you Chris Wallace is a COWARD--an evil coward? I know I ahve. And that applies to the people of Fox News who approved that question to Michele Bachmann. The mainstream media, and "establishment", have declared that it is okay to ask Michele Bachmann this kind of thing. She is a REAL Christinan (HORROS!!!!--and I damn well mean that is the genral reacton of Fox "journalists"). The storyline is that she is slightly crazy. Therefore, it is "okay" to INSULT her. Message to Chris Wallace and Fox: It is NOT okay". It is EVIL stuff. It is the stuff of COWARDS--snivleling pond scum not worthy to lick Miichele Bachmann's shoe (whether or not she shold be President of the United States). I stepped in some dog excrement today, while walking, and I am sure that the Fox logo was there. I admit that this may be a case of the mind seeing what it expects to see. But you get the pont. This is my final opinion o Fox News.


You know my plans for the Republican Partty, when the final betray occurs (which I expect by the end of the year). I iintend to stop referencing the Republican Party by name--referring to it as %$#^# (that archaic, defunct old party allegedly founded by Thomas Jefferson). Well, I am not waiting any further on Fox News. the term will never appear in this blog again. When I refer to #$%#^!, or some such euphemistic symbols for the curse words I am thinking, alng with this description: "unfair and unbalanced". I know aht I said Fox really is preety "balanced". But that is only POLITICALLY. There is another meaning for "unbalanced", and that is the meaning I will be using.


Q.E.D. You should boycott &@#$% ("unfair and unalanced"). And Chris Wallace is an evil man spreading evil. Noneo f this has any rellationship to "journalism", which died a long time ago--the "unfair and unbalanced" network being no excepton.



P.S. No prooofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).