Juan Williams, today, on the unfair and unbalanced network (which I really can't stand to watch more than a few minutes surfing a day, just like CNN, which is al YOU should stand--if that): "It has been assumed that the 2012 election will be all abut the economy. However, if Rick Santorum is the nominee, that is not turue. In that case, it will be all abut social issues."
That is, of coure, the TALKING POINT of the LEFTIST, PARTISAN MEDIA (for whom Williams is a poster child). This needs translation. Yuo will remember that "Dishonest Jack" Cafferty, on CNN, said that if the gOP kept talking about "social issues", they could NEVER win an eleciton. What he MEANT was, as this blog said, is that "Dishonest Jack" Cafferty, and CNN, believe that THEIR positon on "social issues" is MORE IMPORTANT than this country. Dishonest Jack is willing to SELL OUT this country because "social issues" are so important to him. But he is willing to LIE and SAY that his problem is that "social issues" are "improtant" to the GOP. What Dihonest Jack, and CNN, WANT is for their "opponents" on social issueds to simply GIVE UP. Sorry, Dishonest Jack, I will conitinue to call you the DISHONEST POLIITICAL HACK that you are, no The Liar Network.
Now you shouild be able to translate what Juan Williams waws saying. Here is what he was really saying, dishonest, leftist political hack that he is:
If Rick Santorum is the GOP nominee, it does not matter whether he would be the economic savior of this country. It does not matter whether he CAMPAIGNS mainly on the economy. We political hacks on the left, and in the leftist medi, are going to LABEL him as being all about "social issues", and we are going to try to MAKE the campaign be all about soccial issues. We are going to do that for two reasons. One si tat we want to DEFEAT the GOP, an dwe think that is the way to do it. Did not our own Greta Van Susteren, itaking th eparty line of the unfair and unbalanced network, say that Santorum's position on gay marriage (lol--Santorum's psiton being virtually identical to Romney's OFFICIAL position, and close to OBAMA's OFFICIAL position--meaning that Van Susteren and the left don'tBELIEVE Obama and Romney, and they are right) DISQUALIFIES Santorum from being the nominee. What else t could Van Susteren have meant when she PUSHED the idea that Santorum's veiws on gay marriage make it impossible for him to win. That is, becasue for people like us leftists and GOP establishment types, GAY :MARRIAGE is MORE IMPORTANT than the future of this country, even if human civilization got along without tit for ALL of human history, up until alost the 21st Century. For us, on the left, "social issues' are the MOST IMPORTANT issues--well worth SELLING OUT THthis country. Oh, it is a close question as to whether we would SAY, even in our own hearts, that we regard social issues as more important than gaving government "take care of people" from the cradle to the grave, but that is how we ACT. We ACT like "free" morning after pills are MORE IMPORTANT than CANCER TREATMENT. We ACTG like women should have a RIGHT to an abortion (not what even the Supreme Court said), PAID for by the Federal Government, up to the moment of birth, and that the "abortion issues" (on which we are on the side of DEATH) is MORE IMPORTANT to the country than the economic future of the country. We are willing to SELL OUT the country for abortion. We are willing to SELL OUT the country for "gay rights" (special rights). We are even willing to SELL OUT the country for SEX (free condoms in schools and the like). Gay adoption? More important to us than this country. Eliminating Christmas as a RELIGIOUS holiday? More important to us than this country--damn Goerge Washington and Baraham Lincoln for talking aoubt God and Providence (in the case of Washington). It is MORE IMPORTANT to us than this country for religion to be ELIMINATED from American life. We KNOW Barack Obama is not a Christian. That is one of the things that WE LIKE about him (as Bill Haher and Skip have agreed that we feel abut Obama). If you think ANY of us put GOD above leftist ideology, you are insane. Leftist ideology comes first. And leftist idology, on s"social issues" is way more important to us than this country."
I coiuld go on, but you get the idea. What? YOu suggest that I am reading to mcuh into what Juan williams has said.? You poor fool, you. I am hardly reading ENOUGH, and I stp[[ed only because I was tried (and figured you would be, too). Never doubt this blog. I GUARANTEE you I am correct on this reading of the importan ce of "social issues' to the left. This includes, again as a certainty, an ANTI-CHRISTIAN attitude (a to peole who may REALLY BELIEVE in the Chistian religion). Take my word, as an agnostic. I KNOW when a person really believes in his or her religion and when he or she does not. Media peole DO NOT (almost universally). Nancy Pelosi DOS NOT (,a nd has really admitted she does not) . Brack Obama DOES NOT, and even enables the DISHONEST HYPOCRITES in the media to talk about the religion of GOP canddiates because Obama does not even PROFESS or PRETEND to believe in a SPECIFIC Christian religin. He just claims to be some sort of GENERIC Christian (not being able to say he is a Reverend Wright Christian, for political reasons). The media, and Bill Maher, take that to mean--even as they SAY otherwise--that Barack Obama does not really believe in any religion besides leftist ideology. Here, the media has inadvertently lurched into the turth, althgouh they will never tell YOU the truth--other than sending you the MESSAGE that they expect you to interpret. Obama, of course, CLAIMS to be Christian--sort of puts on a C"Christian mask"--whenever he feels it is POLITICALLYH CONVENIENT for him to do so. At ALL such occasions, the obedietnt medai says (lying through their teeth, as they BELIEVE the exact opposite): "See how Christian our Pressident is. Aren't you RACISTS out there ashamed of questioning the Chrisitan beliefes of the most sincere Christian since St. Paul." I know. St. Paul just turned over in his grave because I said that, even in sarcasm.
No. Thre is jsut do doubt about it. For the left, SOCIAL ISSUES are the MOST IMPORTANT issues. They are almost universallly willing to SELL OUT their country over social issues, if it comes to that. They are more than willing to ADVISE YOU to do that: to vote to destroy this country economically rather than votefo for a GOP candidate with the "wrong' position on social issues. That is what Jaun Williams, as a dedicated leftist, was all about. That expalins why he conncentrated on outrageous "social issue questions" in his DBEATE QUESTINS (the unfair and unablanced network being WORSE than CNN in the debate questions). As I said, the meida inttends to MAKE a candidate like Rick Santorum "all about" social issues, because that is all they intend to LET him talk about. that was ture in the debates, and it is true now. And I am agiving you the correct MESSAGE the media is sending you: SELL OUT your country rather than let someone with the socil issue views of Rick Santoru m be President, even if you believe his econmic program will save this country. In fact, we don't intend to ever let you KNOW that Santorum's economic program is, no matter how much HE pushes it. Santorum gives a speech where 999% of the words deal with economic issues and foreign policy issues like Iran (where Santorum has been a LEADER)? Doesn't matter. We are gong to take that 1% and SAY that Santorum is all about "social issues'. We are DISHONEST HYPOCRITES. Wath else do you expect? We are the MEDIA; hwar us roar (or whimper, as the case may be). Wee will TELL you what you should consider important, and we consider social issues IMPROTANT (if a person believes like we think Santorum does, not if a person believes in the CORRECT things in which we believe).
I am telling you the truth here. It is your problem if you don't look behind what the media says to the real agenda. maybe you don't like ANYTHING about Santorum. Fine. Well, you are wrong, but you are not selling out yourself and your country to have that opinion. If you refuse to look at the ENTIRE picture of what a Sanorum Presidency would be like, anre realize it woululd NOT be a "theocracy" (as an agnostic, I should know), then you ARE selling out yourself and your country. Further, you are being PLAYED by media people like Juan Williams and Dishonest Jack Cafferty (perhaps also by a GOP estalbishment uncomfortable with BOTH conservative views on "social issues' and conservative views on economic issues).
I aam gong to channel my inner Clint Eastwood here, standing in for Juan Williams: "We, the media, have the biggest megaphone ever invented, much more powerful than a 357 magnum handgun. Do you really want to take us on? Well, doo you, PUNK.' I do. You should. You should also realize that this is how the media thiinks of you--especialy if you happen to really believe in your religion: as a HICK and a PUNK.
Then there is Jack Nicholson: "You can't handle the truth" That is also how the media, the left, and estalbishment politicians of all parties think of you.
Boycott the unfair and unbalanced network, as I have told you for monts. I only surf a few minutes a day just to see ow BAD they have gotten, and to see what the GOP estalibshment party line is today.
P.S . no proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight--can't even see shading). Oh, you are a leftist and say you REALLY BELIEVE in your religion? I think that is an oxymoronic statement, but I call myself a conservative and don't believe in any religion, or the concept of faith itself. So there are probably a FEW of you out there. I apologize for lumping you with the leftist media, which means lumpoing you in with the worst people who have ever lived (with the POSSIBLE exceptino of serial killers and terrorists). You few people must have a PROBLEm, however. Does it not bother you that voting for a leftist really does mean, almost always, voting AGAINST your religion (which almsot every leftist wants to eliminate from American life). Nope. I do not have the same problem. Taht is because I know how to REJECT the media PROPAGANDA that electing a conservative on ssocial issues means that we will have a THEOCRACY. That is simply not ture. It is a LIE. And I AGREE with truly religioous peole on most POLICY things, including TOLERANCE toward religious peole in this country. Ype. I oppose aobriton as strongly as the most devout Catholic, with NO religious reason whatever. lI OPPOSE "gay marriage", and special" gay rights"--feeling confident that I am with THOUSANDS of years on human history on this one--a history which HAS seen plygamy (still in the workld) and INCEST (Cleopatra), but has NEVER seen "gay marriage." "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance"? Doesn't bother me. Nativity scene in the public sqare, or in school, to explain what a NATIONAL HOLIDAY is all aobut? Doesnt' bother me. I consider it INTOLERANT to try to deprive people who DO blieve of these things, especailly when they profess to be a majortiy of this country. Really, I have no dilemaa at al voting for someone like Rick Santorum. I have no worry at all the he will FORCE his religius beliefas on me. I am CONFIDENT leftists will FORCE their "religious" beliefs on me. Leftism (lefitist ideology) IS their relign. Again, Bill Maher and I agree this is Obama's religion (Maher calls it "secualr humanism", which is just another word for leftism--for leftist ideology). Some of ou may have seen the original post of tis article, where there was an entire line of "k's", as I obviusly inadvertenty leaned on a key. For those of you who blieve in God, you are free to believe that God was punishing me, as he did when I was stuck with that futile Sodom And Gomorrah search for a honest, competent AP reporter. I only discovered it by accident, as even my eyesight picked up a really sTRANGE looking line. That illustrated to me again the CHALLENGE readers of this blog face, trying to puzzle out things like this. A bad typist and no proofreading is surely a challengeing, daunting thing to face. Wo what? A little challenge--okay, a BIG challenge--is GOOD FOR YOU.