Lefty media death spiral update: Fox News outdraws MSNBC and CNN combined


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.


Will MSNBC’s last viewer please change the channel?

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse for MSNBC, along came the quarterly ratings reports.

In both daytime and prime time, MSNBC endured its lowest quarterly demo numbers in a decade, and its total viewership since the final quarter of 2007. Prime-time viewership was down 45 percent in the demo from the first quarter of 2014, while daytime viewership was down 39 percent in the demo.

Between the hours of 12 p.m. and 4 p.m. on Monday, for instance, more people were watching Al Jazeera America than MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Thomas Roberts and “The Cycle.”


Sucking up to terrorists and libtards is not a winning strategy.

The Big Kahuna in the ratings war? Fox News! For the 53rd consecutive quarter.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

With its 53rd consecutive quarter total audience win, Fox News Channel saw a 10% primetime rise among adults 25-54 in first-quarter 2015 over last year. In fact, with 321,000 on average among the 25-54s in primetime, Fox News thrashed rivals CNN (187,000) and MSNBC (132,000) with more news demo viewers than the other two combined, according to Nielsen.

In fact, Fox News had the five top watched and rated shows on cable news for the quarter. Again. Leading the pack? Bill O’Reilly. Meanwhile, Rachel Madcow fell to 26th place, behind reruns of Bill O’Reilly.


Their own families don’t watch MSNBC.

At some point the poobahs at Comcast will have to put profits ahead of ideology. At least I think they will. Who knows? They’re obviously in the tank for the Hilldebeest, and if she wins, running MSNBC at a loss is probably cheaper than writing checks to the Clinton Foundation.

Still, it warms my heart to see the looney lefties down for the count. Their shrillness echoes so loudly because there are so few of them to absorb it, not because their message is powerful or noteworthy.

If a cable news network bloviates in the forest, and there’s no one around to hear it, does it even matter anymore?

Originally posted by our resident curmudgeon Wyblog.


#FreeKate Update: Hunt Family Claims Anti-gay Bias, Police Investigation Finds None-Kelley Hunt Smith Engages in it?


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Alleged Sex Offender Kaitlyn Hunt in Court

From the earliest days of the #FreeKate story, the Hunt family had claimed that ant-gay bias was the reason for the arrest of their daughter.  Their claim was that the Smiths (the parents of Kaitlyn Hunt’s victim) had told school staff that they were upset that Kaitlyn Hunt had “made” their daughter gay, and that was unacceptable to them.   However, the police investigation was unable to find anyone who heard that.  Here are some excerpts from Detective Shepherd’s report…

investigation no gay biasinvestigation no gay bias 2


investigation no gay bias 3

investigation no gay bias 4

investigation no gay bias5

“…has never heard them make any anti-gay comments and has never heard them say that Kaitlyn (Hunt) turned their daughter gay,” seems to be the lowest common denominator.

Note that others were interviewed, but did not know the Smiths.

As you can see.  Detective Shepherd asked this question quite a few times, and no one stated that they heard the Smiths making such a comment.  So, the question is, did the Smiths ever make such comments?  And, if so, to  whom?  Or, is the claim of anti-gay bias just another invention of the Hunt family in order to take the attention off of Kaitlyn’s behavior?

It is also useful to review that the Vero Beach Chapter of PFLAG found no evidence of bias…

  The Other McCain has the details…

The local chapter of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) refuses to support accused sex offender Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt:

PFLAG of Vero Beach has received questions and comments regarding the controvery involving the two young ladies in Sebastian.
We have been watching the developments in this case since it was brought to our attention. PFLAG of Vero Beach cannot enter into the controversy for the following reason. We have not been able to find where the charges brought against this unfortunate young lady are inspired by homophobia, or are in any way anti-LGBTQ. . . .
The cry of discrimination, unless more facts come out, does not seem to apply here. Some very simple research yields cases where heterosexual kids have been arrested and prosecuted under the same law.

But, who HAS demonstrated anti-gay bias?  The FOIA information obtained by Jeanette Runyon features a text conversation between Kaitlyn Hunt’s victim, and Kelley Hunt Smith, dated January 9, 2013.  Here is a comment from Kelly Hunt Smith to her daughter’s victim…

kelley doesnt agree with gaykelley doesnt agree with gay2kelley doesnt agree with gay3


“I am a Christian and have faith in god, so for me, I don’t think it’s right, or what god intended.”

That comment would get any Christian branded as a “hater,” would it not?

Kelley Hunt Smith doesn’t believe that being gay is “right,” or isn’t “what god intended.”  Is that anti-gay?  She said she wanted Kaitlyn to see a counselor about it…because of issues with her father?

I told her that I didn’t feel like she was gay, and I felt like she needed to go talk to a counselor about her issues with her dad.

Was she suggesting that this “made” her daughter gay?

Kelley Hunt Smith stated that the victim was too young, and the relationship wasn’t healthy?   If she believed that, why didn’t she do more to stop a relationship she admitted was problematic?

So, this is what Kelly Hunt Smith tells the victim-that she believes in God, and that she doesn’t believe that homosexuality “is right.”  But in May, she was saying something rather different about the situation…

They were both students in the same high school, it was a mutual consenting relationship on both parts.

This was unusual for Kate, she has always dated boys, but being the kind of mother I am, I didn’t want to make it a big deal. I talked to her about it, and figured it was just a social thing, times have changed and a lot of kids are experimenting, so I didn’t make much of it.

James and Laurie Smith wouldn’t give up. They were out to destroy my daughter, they feel like my daughter “made” their daughter gay. They are bigoted, religious [zealots] that see being gay as a sin and wrong, and they blame my daughter. Of course I see it 100% different. I don’t see or label these girls as gay. They are teenagers in high school experimenting with their sexuality, all teens do it in one form or another. They are teens, its healthy and normal. And even if their daughter is gay, who cares, she is still their daughter.

Unfortunately by the letter of the law, this girl has NO voice. Her parents can play the “victims” and ruin my daughters life. We have written letters through our attorneys trying to appeal to these people as parents, talk through it and come to some agreement or understanding but James and Laurie Smith refuse. These people’s delusional stand, their hate and bigotry is tearing our daughter apart.

Note the VERY different tone between January and May?  Kelley Hunt Smith contradicts what she said to the victim, and them attacks the Smiths, for having the same beliefs that she stated having in January?

Once again, we see some glaring differences between what Kelley Hunt Smith says, and what Kelley Hunt Smith says.  The question is, when was she lying, or was she lying at both times?

Tomorrow, we will take a look into the relationship between Kaitlyn Hunt and her victim, and have some more revealing comments from her mother.

Once again, we need to extend our thanks to Jeanette Runyon, who braved being banned by on Twitter by a handful of #FreeKate supporters, who have even pretended to stalk her in real life.  And while her attackers knowingly spread lies about her, she was busy obtaining the factual information that you have seen in the posts over the last two days.

 NOTE:  As the police investigation noted, two coaches indicated that Kaitlyn Hunt was NOT on the basketball team, and had not made the team.  She was permitted to work out with the team, but was told to stop due to “drama.”

Linked by Dead Citizen’s Rights Society, thanks!

Linked by Viral Feed, Thanks!

Linked by The Other McCain, thanks!

Linked by the American Spectator!  Thanks!


MSM Reports What the Rest of us Have Known for Months: Military Help for Benghazi was Available but Denied


At last, the MSM is starting to report what we knew all along-that military help was available to relieve Benghazi, but was denied.

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.


The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

And now we see why the administration was threatening whistle-blowers.  The people have a story that completely contradicts the administrations narrative.  Now, I have some concerns about the story.  Is CBS going to run with it, and then discredit it, in order to cover for the administration?  Maybe it’s just me being a tad bit paranoid, but considering the lengths to which the media has gone to in order to cover for the president, I have a hard time believing that they are going to throw him under the bus.

Unless, that is, they are going to throw someone else under the bus to protect team Obama.

H/T: Right Scoop



Benghazi: Officials are Finally Coming Out of the Shadows With Explosive New Information


The mainstream media has tried extremely hard to bury the story, but the tragic events surrounding the attack on our compound in Benghazi that led to the death of four Americans will not go away.  With little to no answers the administration that promised to leave no stone unturned in order get to the bottom of this is now taking a “nothing to see here…move along” attitude.  The proverbial “These are not the droids you’re looking for” line from Star Wars appears to be the tactic this administration is running with.  However, new information from inside sources appears to contradict the administration’s claims that there was no possible way to rescue our citizens who died in the attack.  Maybe there is something to see here.  Make no mistake folks, in my opinion this goes all the way to highest levels in our government and they desperately want this to go away.  I knew this ran deep a few days after the attack when Hillary Clinton was contemplating seeking legal counsel.  Not many people remember that little talked about fact.  Because this runs so high up the ladder, there has been a concerted effort by this administration to deflect, obstruct, and bury this story.  Below is a clip of Special Report that tackles this new revelation.  Please watch it.  It’s about 10 minutes long.

Folks if this leads to where I think it’s going to lead, then there really needs to be a criminal investigation.  Benghazi was and is a low point in our nation’s history and people need to be held accountable.  I don’t care how far up the chain it goes.  Four brave souls died and as of this writing I don’t know one person who has been held accountable.  When this story looked as if it was going to fade away, one of the first things I said was where are the people who know the truth?  Why isn’t anyone stepping forward?  Well it looks as if that is finally starting to happen.  I hope we have the courage to see it through no matter where it takes us.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post: The Sentry Journal


Two Christians Were Beheaded by Muslim: National Media Silent


If seems that  more and more good people  are being set upon by all sides.   Christians are being persecuted in schools, in universities, in hospitals, and via ObamaCare.  Now, add to the fray the Muslims, for  two Christians were beheaded by a Muslim in New Jersey.  And, as usual, the MSM is taking a pass on covering it.  The Western Center for Journalism has the video…

Then again, the Book tells us that this sort of thing is going to happen.  But the MSM is performing its function and not reporting on it.  However, if a Tea Party member were caught jaywalking, it would be a national story.  In fact, maybe NBC will just make it up and report it!

Linked by America’s Watchtower, Thanks!



MSNBC Caught Selectively Editing Video: Volume 7954



OK, the number is a wee bit of an exaggeration, but probably not by much.  It seems that MSNBC, and other news outlets, were caught selectively editing  footage to show that a parent of a Sandy Hook victim was heckled at a public hearing.  Nice Deb has the story and footage…

First off , here is the MSNBC video…

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Now, here is what really happened…

He wasn’t heckled AT ALL, as Treacher and everyone else on the planet who has seen the complete video, can see:

He asked the question and demanded an answer. There was complete silence. And only then, when he said that not one person could answer it — rather than remaining quiet out of respect for his feelings — did a few people answer it. You might not like their answer if you don’t like the Second Amendment, but that answer wasn’t unprompted. They were not heckling him.

How stupid do they think people are? Stupid enough to reelect Obama.

I guess I can see why they try this crap.

As you can see, the editing was subtle, but clear-  typical liberal propaganda.  Nice Deb has a great run down of all the times NBC, or MSNBC has been caught editing footage to make someone look bad.  It won’t be the last, and we’ll be around to expose it.


MIchigan Union Violence Update: Media Ignores it, Leftists Craft Conspriacy Theories


Michigan, Unions, Violence, Goons, Americans for Prosperity, Tent, Attack, Assualt, Intimidation, MSM, Bias, Coverage The post reality world means that it really makes no difference what really happens, and even if you have the most iron-clad evidence, it’s all about who controls the information.  So, with that in mind, let’s take a look at what is happening…

Media Ignores Union Violence:

As usual, the MSM is refusing to cover union violence.  That is not new, and we shouldn’t be surprised, but it still should be covered, and so it shall.  Newsbusters has a storyto that end…

Networks Refuse to Cover Union Violence:

On Tuesday, World News reporter Alex Perez put the focus not on out of control violence, but on the fact that Michigan’s right-to-work bill actually passed. He began, “The anger boiling over. Officers turning to pepper spray to control the crowd at least 10,000 deep. But it wasn’t enough.” One might think the journalist was speaking of the attack on Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. No. Perez kept the attention on the new law: “Michigan Republican lawmakers approving landmark legislation, lifting the requirement that workers in unionized workplaces pay union dues.

Over on Tuesday’s CBS Evening News, Elaine Quijano vaguely explained, “Union members from across Michigan and other states voiced their anger at the Michigan capital.”

On NBC’s Nightly News, Brian Williams also ignored the actual violence. Instead, he worried, “The emotional fight over unions and American jobs in a place many thought it could never happen. Are we looking at a turning point for American workers?”

To sum it up simply, they spiked it.  And, if it isn’t covered, it didn’t happen.

Then, just when you thought you couldn’t  get any more strange, the leftists started projecting…

The Other McCain has more…

After yesterday’s incident in which labor union activists tore down an Americans for Prosperity tent in Lansing and sucker-punched Stephen Crowder, this headline zoomed up the Memorandum aggregation:Breitbart Folks Appear to Fake Violence in LansingHuh? This was a decidedly odd piece of blogging: The claim that somehow the union thug clobbering Crowder was part of a right-wing hoax, based on such “evidence” as the event having been reported by “James O’Keefe’s buddy” Lee Stranahan — because, hey, if anybody at Breitbart thinks it’s actually news, that means it must be phony, right?Also, the video was edited. Anybody who edits a video is obviously engaged in some kind of evil conspiracy.What the hell is this silly gibberish? Are these people crazy?No, they’re engaged in a systematic effort to create confusion and discourage mainstream journalists from reporting on the incident.Accuse the accusers!” Re-arrange the narrative of events so that a story that obviously makes the Left look bad is, instead, a story about the Right unjustly trying to make the Left look bad.

Here’s where my take is a bit different that Stacey’s.  It is true that accusing the accusers is a tactic in the lefts play book. However, there is an additional wrinkle, and that is WHY it’s in the left’s play book.  The name of that wrinkle is projection.  In psychology, projection is the tendency to think that others do as you do.  Since the left is infamous for false flag (remember the Infiltrate the Tea Party), and “staging atrocities” (remember OWS), that they would automatically assume that we are doing what they do for standard practice.  This thinking is the source for the idea that you will always know what the left is up to based on what they accuse us of doing.  In other words, the liberals look at us through the same fecal colored glasses that they use to view their own activities


Newsweek to Cease Publishing: And Nothing of Value was Lost


Today, Tina Brown, the head of Newsweek and the Daily Beast, announced that the long time magazine would stop publishing, and be a fully on-line entity.   Here is part of her announcement…

We are announcing this morning an important development at Newsweek and The Daily Beast. Newsweek will transition to an all-digital format in early 2013. As part of this transition, the last print edition in the United States will be our Dec. 31 issue.

Meanwhile, Newsweek will expand its rapidly growing tablet and online presence, as well as its successful global partnerships and events business.

Newsweek Global, as the all-digital publication will be named, will be a single, worldwide edition targeted for a highly mobile, opinion-leading audience who want to learn about world events in a sophisticated context. Newsweek Global will be supported by paid subscription and will be available through e-readers for both tablet and the Web, with select content available on The Daily Beast.

Four years ago we launched The Daily Beast. Two years later, we merged our business with the iconic Newsweek magazine—which The Washington Post Company had sold to Dr. Sidney Harman. Since the merger, both The Daily Beast and Newsweek have continued to post and publish distinctive journalism and have demonstrated explosive online growth in the process. The Daily Beast now attracts more than 15 million unique visitors a month, a 70 percent increase in the past year alone—a healthy portion of this traffic generated each week by Newsweek’s strong original journalism.

Please remember that Newsweek sold for one dollar, and the new owners had to assume the massive debt that came with the publication.  Also, it’s been geysering red ink since Brown took over, and was never going to recover.  Yes, print is pretty much dead.  Yes, other publications have faced increasing challenges as more and more people go to the internet for news.  However, Newsweek’s decline was incredibly precipitous. It didn’t have a challenge, it fell off the cliff.  And for that, there is only one possible explanation…

No on wanted to read it. 

That’s it.  It’s really that simple.  Then, we can tack on the fact that Newsweek as a publication filled to the brim with liberal propaganda.  And like other sharply liberal new sources, like CNN and MSNBC, Newsweek has faced a severe loss of audience over the last several years.  Perhaps we can say that people don’t want to be propagandized?  That perhaps they want actual news?

Of course, Brown states that site  traffic is way up but I have to ask two questions.

1.  Web traffic is one thing-revenue (and especially profitability) is another.  If Newsweek and the Daily Beast are having a ton of visitors, that’s great, but are they making money?

2.  If people were not paying to read the print version of Newsweek, will they pay for it on line?

Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit put it a bit more directly…

It looks like their conservative-bashing, America-bashing, misogynist business plan did not work out so well, huh?


CNN Moderator, Candy Crowley Uses False Fact Check


Here is the video, via Breitbart, that shows how Candy Crowley tried to explain away how she helped Obama with some false information.

It seems that Crowley aided the POTUS will some cover.  Mediaite has even more on why so far fewer Americans trust the media…

My singular take away moment of last night’s debate was one that elevated Crowley from moderator to debate participant. Crowley shot from the hip and echoed a talking point from the Obama campaign regarding their handling of the Libya attack to criticize Mitt Romney mid-debate. What’s more? She was wrong. Crowley did her profession a disservice last night and confirmed many American’s deepest suspicions about the media in the process.

RELATED: Candy Crowley: Romney ‘Right’ That Obama Didn’t Call Libya Terror, But Thought ‘He Picked The Wrong Word’

During the debate, when President Obama was challenged – as his administration has been for weeks – about the White House’s handling of the attacks in Libya, he bristled with indignation over the suggestion that he was taking this attack with anything but the utmost seriousness.

So, the MSM helps out Obama again.  And CNN wonders why no one watches?


Did the mainstream media’s bias contribute towards President Obama’s terrible debate performance?


Oh fudge…

We all know the mainstream media is in the tank for President Obama; but did their bias and unwillingness to ask the tough questions throughout his Presidency contribute towards the President’s terrible debate performance? Looking at the debate from a slightly different angle I believe it did.  In an effort to shield President Obama from the impact his terrible economic policies has had on America the mainstream media has not only done themselves and the American people a great disservice, but they may have unknowingly sabotaged the President’s debate performance last night.

By not holding the President’s feet to the fire when abysmal economic numbers were being reported quarter after quarter for the last four years the mainstream media didn’t do his administration any favors.  By not asking the President to defend his policies that clearly have failed they may be indirectly responsible for his undoing.  The strongest steel is forged in the hottest fire and for the last four years President Obama has not felt the heat.  Instead Obama has been protected and coddled by a mainstream media that is more concerned about getting him reelected than reporting the truth.  The problem with that is he can only hide from his record for so long before someone comes along and holds him accountable.

That person was Mitt Romney and he hammered the President with the economic reality the President’s policies has created; a reality that sees 23 million people out of work with anemic growth.  Finally the President had to defend the indefensible and he was unprepared.  After all he had been given a free pass by the mainstream media for four years, how dare Mitt Romney hold him accountable for his record.  He looked irritated and lost as Mitt Romney fired fact after fact at him.  At one point during the debate he asked the moderator to move on to another topic.  He might as well have said “uncle.” The President looked rattled and shaken and not very presidential.  For the first time he had to face an opponent who took the fight to him and he was soundly defeated.

So the mainstream media that adores Obama so much is now asking what happened.  How could their champion who is such a great orator get schooled?  Why was he so unprepared?  To find the answer to their questions they need look no further than their inability to be objective and unbiased.  Their decision to give the President a free pass in order to protect him may ultimately lead to his political demise because he hasn’t felt the heat until now.  And last night he was burned by it.  How’s that for irony.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal

Note:  For about a day, the author of this post was listed as me, Not John Carey.  It has been corrected, and my apologies to John.


George Zimmerman to Sue NBC Over Selectively Edited 911 Recording


In a very interesting development, George Zimmerman is suing NBC for selectively editing the 911 tape from the night that Trayvon Martin was killed.

Here is the CH 2.0 coverage from that time…

NBC can’t seem to stay out of the propaganda game.  They were, once again, caught with their grubby hands in the selective editing jar, and my are they so sorry…

For being caught, that is.

“During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret,” NBC News said in a statement e-mailed to The Hollywood Reporter on Tuesday. “We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers.”

When asked if anyone at Today had lost their job or had been reassigned as a result of the investigation, an NBC spokeswoman said: “We will not be commenting on our course of action.”

NBC’s statement comes a day after The O’Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel chastised its competitor for taking so long to investigate what it thought was a simple matter. NBC announced on Saturday it had launched its investigation.

Here is the current coverage, from Newsbusters…

In March, NewsBusters broke the story about NBC’s Today show airing an edited audiotape of George Zimmerman’s 911 call the day he shot Trayvon Martin in Florida.

On Thursday, the New York Post reported Zimmerman is suing the Peacock Network.

According to the Post, the complaint will be filed against NBC News President Steve Capus and correspondent Ron Allen who was the Today reporter involved in the March 27 broadcast.

A source told the Post, “The suit will be filed imminently against NBC and its news executives. The network’s legal department has put everybody in the news department involved with this incident on notice, telling them not to comment.”

This is a very interesting development.  NBC intentionally edited the audio to fit a political agenda.  The results damaged Zimmerman’s reputation, as well as exposed him to increased death threats.  So, he was clearly damaged by the coverage propaganda.


Who Is Mitt Romney’s Opponent In This Election


America’s Socialist News Network’s presidential debates start tonight in Denver, Colorado. How did the Republican National Committee allow the Left Stream Media control the debates? Today’s media should be required to register as Democratic Party Super PACs. I’m serious!  But, it is what it is. So, the challenger, Mitt Romney, about whom we know intimate details of his life, will square off against the incumbent, Barack Obama, about whom we know very little even after four years in office. The reason we know so little about Mr. Obama is in part due to his own actions to hide his past by having everything from his birth certificate to his school and college records sealed by court order. The other reason, of course, is that the left Stream Media refused from 2008 until today to vet him as  they have every candidate for the office of President in our history.

Through the efforts of people like Andrew Breitbart and many conservative bloggers, those that have been paying attention were able to piece together a much different picture of who Barack Obama is and it is a much different picture than the one painted by Obama and his minions. We know who his mother was. A strange woman who led a strange life and had some strange connections to people high up in our federal government. We know who Obama’s grandmother was. Not the poor woman Obama wanted us to believe she was. Although there is some debate about who Obama’s real father was, we know that Kenyan, Barack Obama, married his mother and then shortly disappeared. We know that his mother remarried to an Indonesian Muslim and young Barrack becomes young Barry and he goes of to Indonesia and attends a Muslim school for a few years. Obama’s affinity for Muslims has been very evident during his term as our President. We also know that Barry was sent to live with his grandmother in Hawaii. Although his grandmother was not poor, she was not rich either. Yet, Barry/Barack attends an exclusive and expensive private school. How did that happen? And, although we have no reason to believe that Barry/Barack was a superior student, he is admitted to an exclusive and expensive private college in California. How did that happen? Who pulled the strings?  Who paid the bills? We know that Barry or Barack (we don’t know when he changed his name back) went to study at Columbia University where no one remembers him. Obama explained in the fictional books he supposedly wrote about himself that he chose his friends carefully; like radical Marxist professors and like-minded friends. Who paid for his time at Columbia? After Columbia, Barack goes to Harvard to study law. We don’t know if he went as a foreign student from Kenya or not. We do know that he allowed, for sixteen years, a published bio of himself to stand unchallenged that said he was born in Kenya. He was not born in Kenya; but we are left to assume he applied the same tactics as Elizabeth “Cherokee” Warren to his advantage. Although we have no knowledge that Obama was a superior student at Harvard, we know he was appointed to the prestigious Harvard Law Review. This was a first for Harvard, having a black man on the Law Review. It was also the first time that someone named to th Law Review never wrote a review. How did that happen?

After Harvard, Obama decides to go to Chicago where he takes a job an instructor of Constitutional law at the University of Chicago. From those who knew him there, he was a mediocre teacher at best. Obama gets involved in “community organizing” with some shady groups like ACORN and begins to build alliances within the Chicago Democratic machine. He marries Michelle who gets a job paying $300,000 a year at a prestigious Chicago hospital doing what, we don’t know. We know when she left that job, the position was never filled again. How did that happen? Obama decides to run for the State Senate in Illinois against a very popular opponent. He wins because his opponent’s court sealed divorce papers become public, creating a terrible scandal. How did that happen? Who made that happen? Without distinguishing himself as a State Senator, Obama decides to run for the US Senate and he wins. Well he had the Chicago machine behind him and it was probably a safe seat. So, before finishing his first term as an US Senator and without ever writing a single bill, this unknown nobody decides or SOMEBODY decides he should run for President of theses United States against the popular Hillary Clinton who is backed by the Democratic Party machine. And, the rest is now history. Obama defeats Hillary in the primaries and goes on to defeat John McCain for the Presidency. Defeating John McCain was not much of a trick. Defeating Hillary Clinton was an astounding accomplishment. How did that happen?

I think it was Thomas Sowell who wrote recently that nobody could possibly be that lucky. His analogy was that no one goes to Las Vegas expecting to be dealt a royal flush, let alone being dealt a royal flush night after night. But, he says that has been the story of Barack Obama’s life. The Left Stream Media has no interest in trying to find out how a no body could have such a meteoric chain of successes that led to the most powerful position in the world; the Presidency of these United States.

So, now America’s Socialist News Networks will entertain us with what they call the presidential debates. We know the cards are stacked against Mitt Romney. This same media tells us that this election is very close if not in the bag for Obama. They tell us that the only chance Romney has is for him to score a knockout in the debates. Yet, they themselves will be there to try to make sure that doesn’t happen.

In the opinion of this humble observer, Mitt Romney needs to deflect the moderators questions as quickly as possible and attack Barack Obama by ridiculing the President’s record and layout a clear explavtion of what he will do as president and why Americans will benefit from his plan. In short, Mitt Romney needs to go on the offensive. Mitt Romney needs to take off his mittens.

Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire


Media Bias: Administration Knew That Libya Attack Was Planned, Only ABC Covers it


Imagine, if you will, that our ambassador to Libya was killed.

Then, imagine that the administration blamed the attack on a “spontaneous protest” over a YouTube video that no one watched.

And, just to make it more interesting, let’s add that the Libyan government came out and said that it was a planned terrorist attack, and that they had warned the administration that it was coming…in advance of the attack.

Imagine that security, in Libya, or anywhere else, was not increased.

Imagine that the MSM played ball and used the death of our ambassador to Libya in order to attack Mitt Romney.

In the event that you thought it couldn’t get even more interesting, let’s tack on that American intelligence officials stated that they knew that it was a terrorist attack shortly thereafter, even while the administration continued to blame the aforementioned unpopular YouTube video.

Then, imagine that even when this information came out, the media, with the exception of Jake Tapper of ABC, refused to cover it?

ABC’s Jake Tapper’s Thursday report on World News stands alone as the only Big Three coverage so far of what The Daily Beast’s Eli Lake reported on Wednesday – that U.S. intelligence officials had “strong indications” within a day that Islamist terrorists were behind the September 11, 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi – not a mob enraged at a controversial Internet video.

By contrast, former NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw tried to point the finger at Mitt Romney on Friday’s Today show for the media’s apparent lack of curiosity at the inconsistencies in the Obama administration’s narrative about the terrorist attack. Otherwise, NBC only aired two reports on the story since Wednesday – twice running the same Ann Curry interview of Libyan President Mohammed Magarief.

Tapper pointed out during his report that “the White House first suggested that the Benghazi attack was spontaneous, the result of that anti-Muslim video inciting mobs throughout the region.” He emphasized the administration’s talking point by playing a clip from September 14, 2012 press briefing, where White House Press Secretary Jay Carney underlined that “these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.” When the ABC correspondent himself raised Benghazi, Carney continued by claiming that “we have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned attack.”

The correspondent later added that “sources tell ABC News that intelligence officials on the ground immediately suspected the attack was not tied to the movie at all….Some administration sources tell ABC News they were concerned after the White House began pushing the line that they attack was spontaneous and not the work of terrorists.”

To me, it almost seems that this was a set up.  At there very least, the administration knew that this was a pre-planned terror attack within a day or two of the event, if not before.  But, they started a narrative, and the MSM dutifully went along, in spite of the mounting evidence to the contrary.  Then, even when half the planet knows that the administration lied, and is continuing to lie, the MSM still refuses to cover the cover-up.  Of course, the cause should be obvious, as they actively participated in the cover up.  In the end, this is what we have to expect from the MSM.  We should expect them to lie, and if they manage to ever engage in random acts of journalism, we should then be pleasantly surprised.

This story, more than others, alarms me.  Yes, the administration is knowingly telling lies about an event that cost the lives of several Americans, and the MSM is willingly helping them.  That leads me to question if there is a limit for how far the MSM will go?  If Americans were detained for no reason, would the MSM carry water for such a regime?  If a war was started, also without cause, would the MSM make the case that it was justified?  We already know, for example, that NBC isn’t above editing footage, or flat out making things up to deceive the sheeple, but is there a limit, or is this a leaderless propaganda machine that will lie for the bad guys, and smear the good guys?

Sadly, I think the answer is that there is no limit on what, or who, they will lie about.


Media Distrust at an all-time High: A Look Inside the Numbers


What happens when a poll is taken showing the level of trust in the media?  We see a clue to the outcome in november.  The Rand Paul Review has the following, from Gallup…

More broadly, Republicans continue to express the least trust in the media, while Democrats express the most. Independents’ trust fell below the majority level in 2004 and has continued to steadily decline.

Trend: Trust in Mass Media, by Party

OK then, we see that the Democrats in the sample trust the media to the tune of 58%.  That is predictable, as the media cheer leads for the Democrats.  Also, we see the Republican figure is remarkably low, at 26%.  In fact, I can’t understand why it’s that high, but that is the topic for another day.  The big number-the one that the media and the Democrats have to be concerned with-concerns the independents.  Independents are the swing votes.  The numbers of liberals and Conservatives remain mostly stable, but it’s the independents that are swayed either way.  If the independents are not trusting the media much more than Republicans, that means that the pro-Obama mainstream media propaganda isn’t striking a chord.   And if the propaganda isn’t sinking in, they might not be voting Obama in the fall.

And that, my friends, spells doom for the Democrats.


Great Moments in Civil Discourse: Liberals call for Ann Romney’s Death


Just imagine if Conservatives all over Twitter called for Michelle Obama’s death.  Might that cause a bit of an uproar, or even some coverage by the MSM?  I think we all know that such an event would be cause for the MSM to revisit the Republcan “hate” and racism memes.  However, it doesn’t even seem to be of note when liberals call of the death of Ann Romeny.  The Examiner has more…

On Wednesday, liberals on Twitter called for the death of Ann Romney, the wife of GOP nominee Mitt Romney, Twitchy reported. As of this writing, the so-called “mainstream media” has refused to report on the hatefulthreats issued on the social media site.

“I want to murder Ann Romney right now,”tweeted “Gregory Martinez.”

Some called for Mrs. Romney to commit suicide.

“Why does Ann Romney act like an average mom? B***h kill yourself, you had maids taken care of your f*****g kids,” another person said.

“Ann Romney Need To Kill Her Husband Then Kill Herself (sic),” said another.

“Ann Romney needs to die,” tweeted Quinn McGregor.

Go to the original post for more.

So, we once again see the double standard at work; the left get’s a pass on all sorts of nasty behavior, and if Conservatives do not do it, it will be invented-all to skew public opinion.



Media Bias: MSNBC Cuts all RNC Speeches Given by Minorities


How far would MSNBC go to portray Republicans as racist?  Far enough to not show any of the speeches by minorities, apparently.  Michelle Fields has more…

Francesca Chambers over at Red Alert reports:

MSNBC wants you to think the Republican Party hates minorities. So much so that the liberal news network cut minority speeches from it’s convention coverage.

When popular Tea Party candidate Ted Cruz, the GOP nominee for Senate, took the stage, MSNBC cut away from the Republican National Convention and the Hispanic Republican from Texas’ speech.

MSNBC stayed on commercial through former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis’ speech, as well. Davis, who recently became a Republican, is black.

Then, when Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno’s wife Luce’ Vela Fortuño took the stage minutes later, MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews opted to talk over the First Lady’s speech.

And Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval? Noticeably missing from MSNBC, too.

Mia Love, a black candidate for Congress in Utah, was also ignored by MSNBC.

The network that propaganda made famous is following the fine tradition of Pravda and Tass.  Too bad that no one is watching, or it might do some real damage.  Of course, they probably have no idea that communist propaganda still doesn’t have an audience, beyond the occupods.