John King, Chris Wallace and the Nazis: Nazis Had a BETTER Defense (Clinton Oen Marriage?)

See the previous article. Yep, in case it was not clear, Chirs Wallace (as the article suggested) SUPPORTED the kind of questoin John King asked. What was his "rfeason" for supporting this EVIL "negative ad" view of political "reporting? It is the SAME reason as John King--what we can call the media "talking point": "people were talking aobut it, abd tgerefire are interested in having this kind of question asked."


Yep. This is a case where t;he EXPLANATION is MORE EVIL tghan the original EVIL question. So Chirss Wallace and John King haave a "standard" fo "journalism" that people are "talking aobut it". What LIARS. What HYPOCRITES. What EVIL people.


I told you to see two OLDER moviews: "The Children's Hour" and "People Will Talk". "The Children's Hour", iwth Shirley MacLaine, is about two women whose lives are RUINED by "allegations" and TALK about a suuposed lesbian relationshiop betwwen tow woman TEACHERS (and proprieters of a girls'school). The second movie is "People will Talk", with Cary Grant, about a young and stupid woman who gets pregnant, without being married, only to fall in love and marry the doctor (Cary Grant) who tells here she is not really pregnant (movie rating, 100 on a scaleof 100). Again, the main EVIL in the movie is a SMEAR against the woman and her shusband.--trying to ruin their lives with BACK FENCE GOOSSIP. The pont of thiese movies, made back when Hollywood had some idea of god and evil, is that this kind of back fence gossip is an EVIL thing. As sated in my previious article, "The Children's Hour is a remake of a movie about back fence gossip of a HETEROSEXXUAL kind. The pont of the movie is the EVIL of this knnd of SMEAR, and not the "lestian' angale that Hollywood threw in when it remade the movie as "The Children's Hour". By the way, in "The Children's Hour", the "gossip" is only partly false. It turns out that one of the womn really is a lesbian, who would LIKE to have ahad a relationship with the otehr won. But I have always agreed with the pont of this movie--the EVIL of back fence gossip, which now is considered" "journalism". Nope. I did NOT arrive at this position this week, or this campaign. This blgo has fought this battle from the very betinning of this blog--a decade or so ago, especailly if you go back to my original posts on AOL as I firtst became "active", in my small way, on the internet.


As the headline says, the NAZIS had a BETTER defense. On, I would not put John Knig and Chris Wallace in thes same class as the Nazis on EVIL. But the Nazi DEFENSE was more convincing. You know the "defense": "We were just following orders, and w would have been shot if we did not." The reason this 'defense" has SOMNE merit, evin if not nearly good enough to excuse the conduct involved, is that the Gestapo DID SHOOT PEOPLE. Do you have any doubt of that? I don't either. John King and Chirs Wallace mayh not be as evvil as the Nazis, but they are alsoin ONO danger of being SHOT. Yet, the supposed "defense" of Chris Wallace and John King is that people "are talking about it". Gee, why don't you gys just go out and ANNOUNCE that you are disciples of EVIL? Waht do you hthink SMEARS and GOSSIP are all about? Again, the "defense" is WORSE than the original crime. And, of course, it goes without saying that the unfair and unbalanced network is fully as bad as CNN--NO differenc ce.


"But, Skip, atg least John King and Chris Wallace are honest about what they think th epeople should know, even if they are not as intelligent and well informed on good and evil as you are". .......................................................................................................................Sorry. ON th efloor luaghing and crying again. These are some of the most DISHONEST people who ever lived--teh biggest hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth--on two legs or four. Doubt me? Never do that.


Let us go to Barack Obama and the "birther" issue. You: John King and Chirs Wallace (and CNN and the unfair and unbalanced network). Did you KNOW that "people were talking" about whether Barack Obama was born in the Untited States? You did? Of course you did. Did LYOU then ask President Obama, or push others to ask, a SEROUS question as to Baack Obama's (the) failure to produce a copy of his birth certificate? You know you did not. That is because you are LIARS and HYPOCRITES. You only favor this kind of EVIL-PURE EVIL--question when lyou think it wil find FAVOR with lyour "journalistic" colleagues. You, John King and Chris Wallace, are so DISHONEST that I can hardly stand it. I am ashamed to breath the same ari that you breather. You are a disgrace to the human race, as are virtually ALL of you "journalists' out there. No, I never thought that it was a legitimate "issue" whether Barack Obama ws born in the Untied states. I called my own mother a KOOK for buying into that one (part of my "you are a kook if:" seriesl). But people were talking about it. And, Jouh King and Chris Wallace, YOU LIE if you say tha tyou "coverfed" thie "issue'. What you did was RIDICULE the "issue", and effetively call it an EVIL thing for people to be dragging our politics down to that leve. YOU LIERS> YOU HYPOCRITES. Where was that "serious" queston to Barack Obama as toWHY he did not settle the questin by releasing, or directing Hawii to release, ha copy of hi soriginal birth certificate? Again, people were talking about it, as illustrated lby the fact that Obama--helped along my Donald Trump--was eventually "forced' to releaste a copy of that birth certicficate. Acttually, owever, people are STIL "talkng" about it.


Then there are Bill Haher (noted atheist) and me (noted--lol--agnostic). Bill Maher and I AGREE that Barack Obama is NOT a Christian. Again, people are certainly "talinking about it". CNN regularly talks abut how HORRIBLE it is that peole keep raising that issue, even as John King and CNN sespecficially rasie RELIGION as an "issue" against GOP candidates. Joh king said--I heard him--that it is EVIL for religion to be part of a political campaignl-citing Oma. Then he and CNN RAISE RELIGION as a "legitimate issue" al of the time, including way back when Sarah Palin's religion was broughtg into question. Again,these are the wrost HYPOCRITES to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. Again, the NAZIS had a better "defense" for EVIL (even if their evil was on a whole new level)).


I am still waitng for Barack Obama to be asked the SERIOUS question: "Bill Mahe has said you are not a Chrisitan, but a secular hujmanist. What do you say to that?". Or: Mr. President, you have talked abut people "clinging' to their religion. You have misquoted the Declaration of Independence to leave out "by their Creator". Y:ou have tried to deny money to religius health care givers adn organziations because they act upon their religious beliefs. Do you understand why people may question whether you are really a Christian, and think that may be just a matter of political expediency on your part?" Message to John King and Chris Wallace: These propoesed questions are NOT AS BAD as lthe questins you two defend. Yep. This blog has said that actual religious beliefs should NOT be a part of American politcal campaings, even though people have a perfect right to VOTE on their beliefs. But this blog has also said that I am not a Christian, and do not believe in "turning the other cheek". So, if YOU, Jon King and Chris Wallace, think you can get away with SELECTIVE EVIL, an dw\without me CALLING YOU THE EVIL HYPOCRITES LYOU ARE, then you are sadly mistaken.


Oh yes. The parenthesis in the headline. I ask yoiu HONEST readers out there: Do you believe that the Clintons had an "open marriage"--that is, a politcal ARRANGEMENT at some pont rather than a real marriage? Do oyou believe that Bill Clinton regarded himsef as free to "go his own way", so long as he was discrett? I would bet that at least 80% of the people, if they were HONEST, would say that the Clintons had some sort of "arrangement" when Bil ran for President, rather than a "real" marriage (whatever that is). The media, however, was UNINTERESTED in going into that issue, even as people "talked about it". Nope. These HYPOCRITES fall back upon "hypocrisy". Tha is jsut media speak to try to JUSTIFY BIAS against the GOP. Do DEMOCRATS "favor' "open marriage"? Dod they favor adultery? Does Newt gingrich TALK abut "family values" a lot? Give me a brak. John King. You and CNN are HYPOCRITES;; the wrost hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four.


The nthere is Reverend Wright. Did you see CNN, or really any "journalists', really PReSSING candidate Obama on REverend WWright? CNN keeps bringing up the Rick Perry supporting pastor who merely asnwered a RELIGIOUS QUSTION in a religioious way: "Mormonism is a cult" (in that pastor's opinion). And CNN brings in "evangelicals" to talk about Mormonism. Where were th e "evangelicals' brought in to talk aobut Reverend Wright, or to talk SEROUSLY (rather han as a subject of CCN ridicule) as to whether Barack Obama is a real Christian. Nope. IF "religion" is going to be MADE an issue by John King and CNN, then it needs to be TREATED as an issue for EVERyONE. If Sarah Palin belonging to a church that is famous for "speaking in tongues" (that is, that movement is), then WHY are not the DETAILS of Presiden't Obama's "church" and religiouis beliefs not an ISSUE? CNN says that is EViL. . I agree with them. CNN IS EVIL. JOHN KING IS EVIL. CHIRS WALALCE IS EVIL. CNN will do a WRITTEN ARTICLE on the "Gospel according to Herman Cain", and then will dismiss any fqesutins regarding Barak Obama's religion. These people are LIARS. They are HYPOCRITES. They are EVIL.


Agian, I worry that I have not expressed my ture feelings here. Do you really understand how much CONTEMPT I have for John King, Chris Wallace, and essentially every modern "journalsit"? I hope so. I keep trying to adequately convey it to you. CNN would not even REPORT on Reverend Wright until Barak Obama deined to notice it (because peole were "talking").


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Here is another question I would like to see asked of Barack Obama (which may end up being the title of a full article in itself): "You profess to be a Christian. Most Christian religions teach that if you do not accept Jesus as your Savior, you will go to Hell (where Skip may be there to meet you--editorial commetn). Do you, Barack Obama, as a Christian, believe that people who are not Christians will go to Hell?" If CNN is going to be "allowed" to bring religion into politicas, and Democrats are, then lets us REAlLY go into religion. I am READY. Are you? Or do you want to RETHINK this idea that we should be talking about religoius beliefs in POLITICAL CMPAIGNS, "journalistic" coverage, AT ALL. As stated, peole--including pastors--are NOT doing anything wrong to vote for someone who they think SHARES their fundamental beliefs. But this does NOT mean tghat those beliefs shoud be an ISSUE in campaings. That is an EVIL thing, and CNN is more a paricipant tiint hat EVI than almsot anyone else. See planned article on THAT. One of the OFFICIAL names for CNN is The Anti-Chrisitain Network.