Wolf Blitzer is a dishonest, partisan political hack. See my previous article, and realzie that it got WORSE in the same progaram (the very same segment). In fact, it got so bad that even a CNN conservative rooled his eyes, and essentially called Blitzer an Oama shill. Donald Trump to Blitzer: "We know you favor Obama," referring both to Blitzer and the entire network. Is CNN getting so bad that even CNNN conservatives are willing to call Blitzer out on this obvious PROPAGANDA? Maybe so. Although you have to understand that a "CNLN conservative" is usually--especially as such a person actually exists on CNN, perhaps n an effort to keep getting invited back on CNN--is a fantasy creation that does not exist in the real world. To understand this, you need to read aMark Twain's famous criticism of James Fenimore Cooper (not as bad as Twain would hav you believe). Twain invented the term "Cooper Indian" to ridicule teh Indians portrayed in Cooper's books as as having no relationship to rel Indians. It is the same way with "CNN conservatives" who appear on CNN. What they say has NO relationship (ordinarily) to real conservatism. Of course, you could say almost the same thing about almost EVERY GOP politician thsse days. An AT&T/Yahoo/AP featured headline right now is about how the GOP is "near" to agreement on a 1 TRILLION dollar spedning bill--as the GOP has GIVEN UP on fighting about spending and the deficit. This is after the GOP has totally bought into the "payroll tax cut" fraud and again extending the extended unemployment mbenefits, which one story said would add 180 BILLION dollars to this next/currnet year's defict. I digress (not really). The point is that when a "CNN conservative" rolls his eyes at Wolf Blitzer, Blitzer had to be REALLY bad. And he was.
Rick Perry has correctly said that Obama and his firends are conducting a war on the Christian religion. In fact, as we know, CNN is conducting a war on teh Christian religion (hence, my new series, "CNNN's War on the Christian Religioni"). Blitzer and CNN--even though conducting a war on the Christian religion ehemselves--are SHILLS for Obama. Therefore, Blitzer set out to ridicule Rick Perry's accurate complaint against Obama (and epople who tink like Obama).
How did Blitzer do this? Was it by examing Obama's religious beliefs, and what religon Obama really belongs to? Not a chance. Remember, what CNN likes is a politician, like Obama, who may profess an allegiance to a "gneric" Christian religion that stands for nothing, so long as the politican makes clear that he or she does not really BELIEVE in any specific religion or religious doctrines. (unless they are Muslim, but I explained that in the previious article).
You have to get the picture here. Blitzer has a PENAER L (of two "guests" and himself) there to "analyze" politixal matters. Blitzer desperately wants to dEFEND Obama agaisnt the accustation that he is condcuting a war ont he Christian religion, and the even more accurate assertion that Obama is not a Christian. What Blitzer did was hold the two "guests" (including that CNN conservative) HOSTAGE, while Blitzer played EXTENSIVE clips from a White House CHRISTMAS EVENT (with all of the usual pageantry and hoopla). This included excerpts of Obama talking about his faith in Jesus Christ (which appears, like a Hollywood actress unable to maintain a British accent in he characte) ONLY when Obama THINKS specifically about how he is letting his facade sliip. To watch CNN, you would think all that Obama does is talk about his faith. To watch CNN is to think taht Obama talks more abut his religioin than RickPerry. The point heer is that Blitzer tried to use this CEREMONIAL "celebration" of Christmas to PROVE that Obama is obviusly a Christian not conducting a "war on religion". And this went on FOREVER. It looked like Blitzer was ging to repeat the ENTRIE EVENT, while his guests twiddled their thumbs. It was too much een for a "CNN conservative". This one rolled his eyes and said: "wolf, you just could not be more obvous about being a propagandist for Obama. What are you gong to d: play the whole event here to tlry to support Obama?" (or words to this effect--I romise you that this quote accurately converys the gist of what he said, even if he may not have used the word "propaganda").
The CNN conservative was exaclty right. It was OBVIOUS that Blitzer was engaged in PARTISAN PROPAGANDA trying to SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA. Wolf actually GUSHED: "It was beautiful"--talking aobut the Christmas sevent. The explicit message was, and Blitzer actually SAID this: "How can yo usay that a man who would participate in an event like this is conducting a war against religion?" The real qestion is this: "What can you say about a supposed "jouurnalist" who would put out PROPAGANDA this obvious?" What you can say is what I have said, what Donald Trump has said, and what even this CNN consrvative said (in effet): Wolf Blitzer is a dishoenst, partisan politiccal hack who regards his "job' as supporting Barack Obama with any LIE he can come up with. In other words, as the headline says, Blitzer is "Pope of the Obama Church".
What is the LIE here? I am glad you asked that. The LIE is that participation in a "Christmas event", no matter how "beautiful", says AnYTHING about Obama and the Christian religion. I hate to break it to Wolf, who is familiar with the MILITANT INTOLERANCE of Bill Maher (who has agreed with my evaluation othat Obama is nto a Christian).. I am an agnostic. Yet, I would have no problem, if I were Preisdent (don't have nightmares over it, as it ain't going to happen), appearnig at this kind of celebration of Christmas. The Preisdent, even if he were a Muslim, and even if he is a "secular humanist" (quoting Bill Maher) like Barack Obama, has an OBLIATION to recognizere the TRADITION of the national Christmas holiday--to LEAD the nation in its celevration. As I have said multiple times, when I am asked what I do when OTHER PEOPLE PRAY: "I bow my head and DON'T PRAY." I don't feel "left out" or "excluded" or "offended" that other people are "celebrating " their religion. If THEY get comfort from it, it is fine with me. Do you understand that Obama appearing at a Christmas event, or even having teh White House organize one, means NOTHING abut Obama and religion. All the while, Obama is MISQUOTING the Declaration of Independence to LEAVE OUT GOD ("Creator") and supporting the ACLU in its war on Christmas. Have you heard Obama say that the ACLU should nto be out there ATTACKING CHRISTMANS? Not a chance. The ACLU and Obama are "like that". (imagine crossed fingers here). Obama wants Christians to VOTE for him, but he is part of the "movement" (which includes CNN) conducting a war on the Christian religion in public life. Would I, as an agnostic, get up and talk aobut my "faith in Jesus Christ" (sp,e sprt pf vague, generic "aith")? Nope. But tat is because I am more HONEST than BarackObama. No, I would not get up and say, in an event CELEBRATING Christmas, that I don't believe in Jesus Christ. What is it oyou and Bill Maher don't udnerstand about TOLERANCE, COURTESY an dPOLITENESS? But I woul dnot misrepresent myself for political purposes. Obama was raised without religion, by his own admision, and that is hwere he really still stands. The "Christian" is just venerer, for political purposes.
Doubt me? Never do that. Is even the POPE (not even referring to an Obama Pope like Blitzer) always a believing "Christian"? Obviuosly not, if you look at history. Read Will Durant's discussion of the Christian religion just prior to theReformation. You had "dueling popes'--one in Itally iand one in Farance. You had MEDICI popes, using the office as a POLITICAL tool. You had popes with blatant mistresses and children. You had clergy SELLING church offices and blessings (maybe not so very different from today). You maybe had Popes involved in actual murder,. The Medici do not have a bloody reputation for noting. Were these all "Chritians"? Not a chance. Not "believeing" Christians, anway. Then you have the "televangelists" like Jimmy Swaggert and the Bakers. Think the fictional "Elmer Gantry" here, wo resonaged because he reresented so many real frauds. The idea that one is a "Christian" just because he may present himself---on occasion--as one is absurd. Only a dishoenst, partisan political hack like Wolf Blitzer would assert this FALSE fallacy as an obvious truth. Again, note that CNN actually published an article, and pushed it on air, entitled "The Gospel according to Herman Cain.". Has CNN done that with regard to Baack Obama? Not a chance. CNN is NOT INTERESTED in what Obama's actual religion is. They are oly interested in OBAMA PROPAGANDA. If they did do a "special" on the "religion" of Barack Obama, it would be the most blatant PROPAGANDA you have ever seen. Yet, CNN is perfectly willing to CRITIQUE the religion of GOP politicians critically (Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and so many others). Wolf Blitzer, and the rest at CNN, rally are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four.
Wolf Blitzer was even more disgraceful a propagandist than he sually is, and that is saying something. It is an indication of the NEGATIVE campaign that CNN is preparing to run on behalf of Barack Obama--along with the rest of the mainstream media. Just because I cannot bring msyelf to support the GOP does not mean taht I do not fully realize what is gooing on here, and haw BAD it is going to be if Obama gets relelcted using the TACTICS tath are going to be used.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Oh, I will mentin again the kind of "religioous" Democrat that CNN likes. This blog has cited the interview where Nancy Pelosi was challenged on her assertion that her postioni on abortion was "consistent with Catholic teacing". She fianlly had to admit that was FALSE. What was her explanation, in the interview she gave? It was right out of the Obama Chruch, where Blitzer is Pope: "God gve me free will and a brain for a reason. He expects me to use then. I am ready to face Him about the matter when the time comes." Is that the statement of a BELIEVING Caholic? Not a chance. It is the statment of an AGNOSITIC unwilling--too arrogant--to turn his or her "barain" over to God. As this blog has said, Pelosi's positon is familiar to me, because it is pretty close to MINE (not on abortion, but on why I do not believe in FAITH). As with Barack Obama, of course, the difference is that I am HONEST, while Nacy Pelosi is DISHOENST.