Greatest Hits: Why Leftists Deny Reality?

Share

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.

Why Leftists Deny Reality? Facts are the kryptronite to the left. 

Ever try to argue facts and information with a Liberal?  Ever come away from the encounter frustrated?   Well, there’s a reason for that. Here are some excerpts from an interview with Yuri Bezmenov, a defector from the Soviet Union.

I know that intelligence gathering looks more romantic…. That’s probably why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond types of films. But in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is NOT in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.

It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first stage being “demoralization“. It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least 3 generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism.

The result? The result you can see — most of the people who graduated in the 60?s, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can’t get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern can not change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. [alluding to Pavlov].

So, It would seem, by the admission of a former KGB official, that their efforts were successful.  If fact, the progress has even exceeded their expectations…

The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already for the last 25 years. Actually, it’s over fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. …he will refuse to believe it…. That’s the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.

Mind you, these words were spoken in the 80?s.  I think we all recognize that the situation has deteriorated significantly since then. Think about politicians like Allen Grayson, everyone on MSNBC (and most of the MSM), and the public schools and universities.  It’s all there.  Rights that do not exist are created, and rights that do exist are denied.  Capitalism is decried, and socialism is praised.  Lies, deceit, thuggery, intimidation, propaganda, and media control are all practiced by the left, and are viewed as acceptable practices.  They cling dogmatically to socialism, as it continues to destroy the country.  They deny, emphatically, all evidence to the contrary, irregardless  of it’s bulk and validity.  Then, they turn and attack anyone that presents the truth.

It seems hopeless, but it isn’t.  Since the last term of Bush, and especially since Obama’s election, more and more Conservatives have been speaking out.   While the left has entrenched and are attacking with all of their resources (which are considerable), they are losing the debate, as well as the battle for public opinion.  Our advantage is that they are still, in spite of their best efforts, a small minority.  Our disadvantage is that while the left is statistically small, they are extremely well placed.  Since their “long march through the institutions,”  their impact reaches far beyond their numbers.

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.

As usual, here are some ideas on how to deal with this situation:

1.  Don’t engage a leftist unless you can bury them in facts.  It won’t matter to the leftist, but anyone else that can see, hear, or read might be convinced by reality.

2.  Stay on message.  Leftists, when hit with reality, will change the subject to something that they think they use against you.  The classic, “Where were you when Bush was POTUS?” is easily answered by saying, “where are you now?”  You might be tempted to state that most of us didn’t agree with Bush’s policies, but then you are talking about history, and not what’s happening now.  Also, you are defending yourself rather than dealing with Obama’s policies.  Thread hijacking, ad-hominem attacks, lies, and logical fallacies are all part of the leftist playbook.  Point out that they are not responding to content, and move on with your point.  If they get shrill, let them, because you win!

3.  Don’t allow yourself to be distracted.  The infiltrators, the “anarchists,” and the MSM are all lying and/or threatening the movement.  While these need to be addressed, they don’t have to be a primary focus.  From what I saw, the Tea Parties did a fantastic job of identifying the infiltrators.  That, and the message still got out, and that is the key.  As for the MSM, let them say what they will.  This blog, and many others, expose their lies on a regular basis.  When they lie, and anyone can look it up on-line and see the truth, the more audience they will lose.  Let them fall on their own swords.  Basically, if your adversary is self destructing, get out of the way and let them.

4.  Facts, facts, and non-violence are our weapons of choice.  Stick with those, and we win.  Forget the left, they cannot be convinced of anything.  They will likely not overcome their programming.  We are trying to convince the people that aren’t sure, and might still be able to think a bit.  That too is working.  More people are coming to our cause all the time.

5.  Educate yourselves.  Read, watch, and learn.  A knowledgeable opponent will give the average leftist fits.  Again, when they get shrill, we win.

6. Stay calm.  If you lose your cool, you lose.  The goal of the leftist, beyond taking you off message, is to upset you and make you lash out, rendering you ineffective.

To sum it up, this is the key to our victory.

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”
—  Mahatma Gandhi

Share

Bloomberg’s Halperin Reveals He’s A Racist And Ted Cruz Is The Real Deal

Share

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.

mark-halperin-msnbc-2011
Mark Halperin of Bloomberg showed his true colors in his over the top, racist interview of Ted Cruz

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal and David Limbaugh at Right Wing News.

 

Cruz has that Reagan-esque quality to be unflappable when the Lefties in the MSM try to tear him down.


 

If you like arrogant, condescending, rude, insolent and patronizing Beltway journalism, you may appreciate Halperin’s performance. If you are a person of ordinary sensibilities, however, and not so intoxicated with the leftist worldview that you are incapable of dispassionately assessing the segment, you will have a different reaction.

What first struck me about the interview was not so much the objectively asinine questions Halperin asked but his obvious motive and attitude in asking them. Aside from a few throwaways, all of his questions were aimed at exposing Cruz as an inauthentic Hispanic. And as insulting as that is, there is something more noteworthy about it that some are missing in all the hubbub about the interview.

Halperin’s unstated premise underlying his questions is that one cannot have a bona fide Hispanic heritage if he doesn’t continue to bathe himself in the Hispanic culture and view American politics from a Hispanic prism. If you are ethnically Hispanic but have assimilated into American culture and embrace the American idea of government, you ought not be entitled to lay claim to your ethnicity or to receive support from the Hispanic community. Halperin and his liberal friends apply the same standards to assess African-American candidacies.

Cruz showed extraordinary class and restraint in fielding these boorish questions, but what was even more gratifying to me was that in his answers, he implicitly, though emphatically, rejected Halperin’s assumptions, making clear that though he is proud of his ethnicity and considers his Cuban-American father his hero, he is a full-blooded American, proud of the Constitution and the liberties it protects.

At every turn, Halperin was trying to discredit Cruz as a Hispanic by trying to trap him into revealing that he doesn’t qualify as a person who could attract Hispanic votes through identity politics, and at every turn, Cruz showed that he could do so indeed if he chose to; he chooses not to because he is about economic growth and opportunity for all Americans. He simply refuses to look at his candidacy as an opportunity to help any targeted groups, including Hispanics. This, my friends, was the takeaway from the interview, because in the end, it was about Cruz, not Halperin, who only confirmed that he’s a mini-flyweight charlatan of a reporter.

To experience the full effect of this embarrassing charade, you need to watch the video, but here are some excerpts of the questions and my summary of Cruz’s responses.

“What’s your appraisal of (Bernie Sanders’) candidacy, and can we hear your very good and very respectful imitation of Sen. Sanders?”

Cruz didn’t take the bait but did use the opportunity to make a trenchant point: Sanders gets props for his candor in admitting he’s a socialist. Hillary Clinton’s economic policies are very close to Sanders’, and it will be interesting to have her explain whether she agrees with policies he’ll describe as socialist and whether they would be good for this country. Bingo.

“Your last name is Cruz, and you’re from Texas. Just based on that, should you have appeal to Hispanic voters?”

Again, Cruz refused to fall into Halperin’s trap. He didn’t say, “Hey, I am really Hispanic.” He said he is proud he received 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in his U.S. Senate race in Texas because his personal story resonates with the Hispanic community. And it does so not because he speaks Spanish but because it is an inspiring story of a father who relied on his own personal fortitude to achieve the American dream in a land of opportunity. Cruz’s message to Hispanic voters is not “Vote for me because I’m one of you” but “Vote for me because I intend to restore the American dream and expand opportunities for all Americans, regardless of color — with policies that will allow you to unshackle yourselves from the burdensome and destructive policies of the Obama administration and will lead to your liberty and prosperity.”

After a few more questions shamelessly trying to flesh out Cruz as a fraud and a faux Hispanic (asking him to identify his favorite Cuban food, Cuban dish and Cuban singer), Halperin asked Cruz whether the Republicans could win a majority of the Hispanic vote — as if that were all that matters in a Cruz candidacy.

Cruz graciously ignored the utter offensiveness and shallowness of the question and asserted that President Obama’s policies have “hammered” the Hispanic community and other minorities. Cruz stressed that he is all about expanding growth, opportunity and jobs for everyone and promoting school choice as the civil rights issue of the 21st century because every child, regardless of race, deserves an opportunity for excellence in education. Just outstanding.

What Republicans should learn from this interview — and others — is that despite what they’re telling you, Democrats and liberals are genuinely afraid of Ted Cruz because he is a class act, poised and unflappably enthusiastic about the American dream and will pursue an agenda to reverse Obama’s “transformational changes” and restore opportunity for all Americans, irrespective of race, creed, color, ethnicity, gender or religion.

How splendidly refreshing — and exciting!

UPDATE: Halperin apologizes.

.

.

.

Share

SMOKING GUN: New Documents Tie Obama And Senate Democrats Directly To The IRS Scandal

Share

judicial watch papers

 

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

Why can’t the leadership in the GOP be more like Judicial Watch/

Thanks once again to Judicial Watch (and no thanks once again to the feckless boobs in the Republican leadership), conservative pundit Wayne Root just connected the dots that link Senate Democrats and the White House directly to the IRS scandal.

The entire article is worth reading, but the short version is as follows: Root was targeted for audit in 2011, disputed the findings in Tax Court, and won in 2012. Only five days later, Root was again targeted for a separate audit, an unprecedented step.

Judicial Watch took Root’s case and after the traditional, illegal withholding of evidence for over a year, finally secured documentation of the audit. Stunningly, a “random audit of small businessman” was marked “SENSITIVE CASE” with no other explanation.

Written in the margin of Root’s case files were IRS documentation of the taxpayer’s political views; the agent “wrote on my file that he spent many hours on the Internet researching the political views of Wayne Root.”

In a free and fair society IRS agents don’t spend hours researching a taxpayer’s political views. Not unless they are looking to destroy the taxpayer based on orders from above.

…Wait. It gets better.

My IRS files state that a United States senator from Oregon was involved in my tax audit. At the time both senators from Oregon were Democrats. So now we can prove it was a political witch-hunt directed or coordinated by high-level Democrat politicians.

Why would any U.S. senator be involved in a random taxpayer’s IRS audit? Why would an Oregon U.S. senator be involved in the audit of a Nevada small businessman? Could it have been Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden? After all he was at the time Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee with oversight over…the IRS…

Senator-Involve-Wayne-Allyn-Root[1]

 

This email indicates that a senator from Oregon was somehow connected to Wayne Root’s audit. Screenshot courtesy of Judicial Watch

Senator-Involve-2-Wayne-Allyn-Root-620x475[1]

 

…This email indicates that a congressional office was requesting information about Wayne Root’s tax audit. Screenshot courtesy of Judicial Watch…

…Why would any senator from either party be involved in a “random IRS audit” of an individual taxpayer? Isn’t that illegal? Doesn’t it violate my civil rights? It’s certainly beyond the scope of the duties of a U.S. senator.

Unless the Obama White House asked him to get involved.

But wait. We’re not done yet.

The date my case was closed is perhaps the most damning piece of evidence. The IRS auditor told my attorney that a top IRS official called to demand my tax audit be closed immediately. That was May 2013. Does that date sound familiar?

My case was closed – on short notice – the very week that IRS official Lois Lerner testified about the IRS scandal in front of Congress (and plead the fifth so as to not incriminate herself).

…Who asked the IRS to target Wayne Root? Who gave the IRS agent permission to call Wayne Root when the top IRS investigator claims that never happens? Who asked the Oregon senator to get involved in my audit? Why was a top IRS official interceding in my case? Why was it marked “SENSITIVE”?

This conspiracy goes directly to the Obama White House. I’m not just any conservative media personality. I’m President Obama’s Columbia College classmate (Class of ’83) [and] one of Obama’s loudest critics. It appears my criticisms hit close to home. I got under Obama’s skin. And someone in Obama’s White House either called that U.S. senator to try to destroy me; or perhaps directly ordered my attacks at the hands of the IRS and then called the Oregon senator to coordinate and oversee the attack.

One thing is now clear: I was the victim of a widespread politically-motivated criminal attack by the IRS.

My files have been turned over to U.S. Senate investigators. I stand ready to testify in front of the US Senate.

On a scale of one to 10, mathematicians have yet to define a number high enough to represent the criminality of the Democrat Party.

.

.

.

Share

Second Amendment? Ted Cruz Smacks Down A Reporter – Hard

Share

poster 002Hat/Tip to Mike Miller at Doug Ross @ Journal.

On the 2nd Amendment Ted Cruz Mops The Floor With Reporter’s Attempt At A “Gotcha Question.”

You’ve gotta love how he so Reaganesguely deconstructs, and thus takes the power away from the typical far left ‘gotcha’ question.

 

At a recent event, GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz was asked the following question:

“In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, a statistic surfaced putting support for background checks at 90%. Did you go against the want of the nation with your vote against Manchin-Toomey (a bill that would have required background checks on all commercial sales of guns)?”

After patiently listening to the questioner read the prepared question, Cruz responded:

“You know there’s an old line: there are lies, damn lies and statistics. You’re right, that was a poll that was bandied around a lot, but you can find a lot of results in a poll depending on how you frame the question. As you and I both know, we have a system of background checks in place right now.

What Manchin-Toomey was trying to do was extend that to every private sale between two individuals … two guys in a duck blind selling their shotgun, one to the other. The federal government doesn’t have any business there.

When you asked about the role of public opinion polls, when it comes to Constitutional rights, what matters is what the Bill of Rights says. It doesn’t matter what happens to be popular at the moment.

The entire reason for the Second Amendment is not for hunting, it’s not for target shooting … it’s there so that you and I can protect our homes and our families and our lives. And it’s also there as fundamental check on government tyranny.”

Classic Cruz.

.

.

.

Share

White House Memo: Don’t Mention Temperature When Discussing Global Warming

Share

 photo earth_covered_by_clouds_zps4deb8d7f.jpg

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

The temperatures aren’t rising?

Then we’ll switch to calling it “Climate Change” instead of “Global Warming.”

The temperatures STILL aren’t rising?

Er, um, don’t mention temperature when talking about Global Warming.

Gore-Global-Warming-Lies

Yes, the Gore-distas really are that pathetic…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

First rule about global warming: don’t talk global warming.

The White House quietly released a draft guidance telling federal agencies to consider the impact more carbon dioxide emissions will have on the environment, but only in terms of how much more carbon dioxide will be emitted.

When conducting environmental impact analyses on rules and projects, federal agencies should only talk about carbon dioxide emissions increases — not things like potential increases in temperature, precipitation, storm intensity and other environmental impacts that scientists warn about.

“In light of the difficulties in attributing specific climate impacts to individual projects, [Council on Environmental Quality] recommends agencies use the projected [greenhouse gas] emissions and also, when appropriate, potential changes in carbon sequestration and storage, as the proxy for assessing a proposed action’s potential climate change impacts,” the White House wrote in its guidance federal regulatory agencies conducting environmental reviews.

Why is that? Federal environmental assessments will likely show regulations have a negligible impact on the environment in terms of temperature rises, sea level rises and such — indeed if every industrialized country stopped emitting carbon dioxide tomorrow, temperatures would only be reduced 0.21 degrees Celsius by 2100.

“CEQ recognizes that many agency [National Environmental Policy Act] analyses to date have concluded that [greenhouse gas] emissions from an individual agency action will have small, if any, potential climate change effects,” the White House wrote.

Basically the White House is telling agencies not to make any predictions about how much an individual project or program will impact the environment through global warming because there’s too much uncertainty.

“In other words, it would prove that the assessment of climate change impacts of federal actions, as directed by the CEQ, to be a complete and utter waste of time,” writes Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger, climate scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute.

The Cato scientists argue the White House’s order to agencies not to consider the actual environmental impacts of global warming allows the government to hide how little its actions will actually impact the climate.

Michaels and Knappenberger say climate models, which the federal government has spent billions of dollars developing, can be used to quantify the environmental impacts from higher carbon dioxide emissions.

But what the Obama administration doesn’t want you to see is just how small an impact individual federal actions will have on temperature increases, sea level rises, precipitation and other factors.

“So instead of assessing actual climate impacts (of which there are none) of federal actions, the CEQ directs agencies to cast the effect in terms of greenhouse gas emissions—which can be used for all sorts of mischief,” write Michaels and Knappenberger. “For example, see how the EPA uses greenhouse gas emissions instead of climate change to promote its regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.”

The EPA says its rule to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 30 percent by 2030 will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 555 million metric tons per year in 15 years — sounds like a lot, but it will have a negligible impact on global temperatures.

Even if the EPA got rid of carbon dioxide from all power plants currently operating, global temperature rises by 0.03 degrees Celsius by 2100.

“Government action occurs incrementally, program-by-program and step-by-step, and climate impacts are not attributable to any single action, but are exacerbated by a series of smaller decisions, including decisions made by the government,” the White House wrote.

“Therefore, the statement that emissions from a government action or approval represent only a small fraction of global emissions is more a statement about the nature of the climate change challenge, and is not an appropriate basis for deciding whether to consider climate impacts under [the National Environmental Policy Act],” the White House added.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Well MSNBC We’ve Got Good News And Bad News…

Share

msnbc 002

 

Hat/Tip to Conservative Tribune.

The Good News?

Megyn Kelly and Fox News will be having a very happy Christmas.

The Bad News?

MSNBC has now been viewed by fewer people than airport radar and sonograms. – Source

Even CNN is doing better than MSNBC.

It was just revealed that the liberal MSNBC network is facing dismal ratings, and not even the recent midterm election coverage could give it a necessary boost.

According to Accuracy in Media, viewership of the leftist channel is down 13% from last year to November 2014.

The low numbers mean that MSNBC is now trailing behind CNN, which has struggled with ratings problems itself.

This is really just more proof that the age of Obama-Mania is over.

After the 2012 Presidential election, MSNBC’s ratings were looking hopeful, and network President Phil Griffin even predicted that 2014 would be the year that his channel beat Fox News.

Instead, the troubled network has only fallen more behind.

The overall numbers show a dramatic difference between Fox and the rest of the field. An industry report by Mediaiteshowed that Fox News had over 2.3 million total prime-time viewers during November.

In comparison, MSNBC only had 662 million total viewers. That’s less than one-third of Fox News’ audience.

Despite its countless critics, Fox News is the undisputed leader in the news ratings. That domination was improved by the very strong Republican takeover during the 2014 midterm election. Conservative viewers typically prefer Fox, while liberals associate with MSNBC.

And Megyn Kelly is really coming into her own as the titular head of Fox News, and is beginning to eclipse Bill O’Reilly.

The feisty Fox anchor was ranked in first place for her demographic. That makes November the first time that Kelly beat her friendly rival Bill O’Reilly, who also appears on Fox.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

 

Share

Tea Party/Conservative movement alive and well, making big gains

Share
Former Secret Service Agent, Dan Bongino
Former Secret Service Agent, Dan Bongino

Hat/Tip to the Tea Party News Network.

Some Tea Party Victories the Mainstream Media Refuses to Cover

The far left wingnuts in power in the MSM are trumpeting the news that the Tea Party is dead.

LOL

Fat chance, but keep trying to fool yourself there, MSM.

The mainstream media is back at it. The McDaniel campaign appears to be mounting a legal challenge to the dirty tricks that won Thad Cochran the GOP nomination, but the media has once again pounced on the narrative that the Tea Party is dead.

We’ve heard it all before.

It’s easy to announce the Tea Party dead when one refuses to look at the bigger picture and when the media selectively cherry-picks which races they will discuss. No political movement wins 100% of races and if the media focus is primarily on lost races, it offers a skewed narrative.

Let’s look at the list of Tea Party victories.

  • Dan Bongino. The former Secret Service agent who has risen to the national spotlight espousing Tea Party ideas beat his opponent last night. He didn’t just beat him, he annihilated him 84%- 16%.
  • What about Curt Clawson? The Tea Party candidate easily won the House seat for Florida’s 19th District last night in a special election. The media, however, has remained silent.
  • Tea Party candidate Ken Buck won a four-man primary for his nomination for Colorado’s Fourth District and still, the media has said little about it.
  • Alex Mooney won in West Virginia
  • Ben Sasse won in Nebraska
  • Tea Partier John Ratcliffe even defeated incumbent Rep. Ralph Hall, the nation’s most senior Member of Congress- the first time an incumbent Congressman had been defeated in a runoff election since 1996.

Quite an impressive list, and keep in mind it’s just a quick and not necessarily complete list.

It looks as if Conservatives are making huge strides in putting a dent into not only the Democratically controlled seats, but also the ones occupied by GOP Establishment RINOs.

The struggle to take back the Republican Party is not a sprint, but a marathon fraught with defeats and disappointments, but a continual march down the field.

We are not winning 100% of the races, but we are winning a good amount of races and, perhaps even more importantly, we are changing the way Republicans operate.

Whereas once Republicans bickered about who could cooperate more with Democrats by acting as moderates, now the exact opposite is occurring; virtually every Republican race occurring in 2014 has been about one thing: who is the most conservative. Countless races have devolved into a bickering match between candidates touting their conservative credentials.

Read the full story here.

Share

NY Times Reporter Admits Main Stream Media Bias on National TV during Jeopardy Gameshow!

Share

It’s no surprise to the many loyal readers of CH2.0 that there is main stream media bias by the liberals. What is surprising is when a member of the “elite” media admits publicly that he treats politicians differently, depending on what letter follows their name.

“I’ll take ‘Explicit Media Bias” for $500, Alex.” On the April 23 “Jeopardy,” a reporter for The New York Times actually admitted that it was part of his job to “annoy” Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

The admission came as a question under the category “Man of the House” about House Representatives. In the video question, New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau introduces himself and asks:

“This California Republican who chairs the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee has been called Obama’s Annoyer-In-Chief, & it seems I provide the same service for him.”

This “journalist” has a long history of purposely attacking Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA):

Lichtblau, a Pulitzer Prize-winner who worked for “The Los Angeles Times” previously, has been writing hit pieces on Issa since as far back as 1998, according to Politico. In 2011, a Lichtblau article accused Issa of

fraudulent business activity. Issa fired back against Lichtblau’s article, demanding a retraction for the article he accused of being riddled with inaccuracies that had tarnished his reputation.

Remember, Lichtblau works for the New York Slimes – er, Times; the same paper who viciously went after the Bush administration, even going so far as to publish stories harmful to Bush’s national security policies. However, when it comes to Obama, the NYT bends over backwards to give the man cover by withholding information about his drone programs.

 

Read the full story here.

Share

From the ’90s: Clinton Memo Warns About Citizen Journalists

Share

We on the right are forever hearing how the Conservatives want to go back to a by-gone era; how we fear change and abhor moving forward.

Well Ann Coulter has famously said, “You can always tell what liberals are up to by what they accuse you of doing.” And she is absolutely right, again. In 1995, a memo was circulated bemoaning the loss of control over the news and how it is disseminated.

“Internet has become one of the major and most dynamic modes of communication” and “can link people, groups and organizations together instantly.”

“Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be located in one area and available to all,” the memo states. “The right wing has seized upon the Internet as a means of communicating its ideas to people. Moreover, evidence exists that Republican staffers surf the Internet, interacting with extremists in order to exchange ideas and information.”

So the Clinton White House was upset that any average citizen had a chance to impact our political discourse and possibly change the course of events. I never thought I’d say this, but it would seem that the Clinton Administration was correct. Because just a short three years later, Matt Drudge would change how Americans got their news and his actions started the inexorable slide that would wrest control of the message out of the establishment’s hands.

Drudge forever changed journalism in January of 1998 when he reported that Bill Clinton had a sexual relationship with a White House intern and that Newsweek killed the story to protect its ally in the White House.

As former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has pioneered the use of social media to get her message out, has said, the “new media rose up precisely because the old media failed to tell the truth.”

“That very first new media breakthrough was about 15 years ago when this lowly little store clerk in a lowly little apartment equipped with his computer and a modem broke one of the biggest stories of the decade. His name was Matt Drudge and the rest is history,” she said. Palin added that the establishment “denounced Drudge as irresponsible and unprofessional and even dangerous and anti-everything from motherhood to apple pie.”

“How dare that nobody from nowhere without a degree or a pedigree try to influence the national discourse? But the real reason they feared him was because he wasn’t beholden to the old media’s machine and the Thought Police. Unshackled, he was free,” Palin explained.

I’m just wondering if Bill & Hillary are expecting an apology from Al Gore. I mean after all, he DID invent the internet, right?

 

Read the full story here.

 

Share

Gay Rights Activist, Larry Brinkin, Pleas Guilty to Possessing Child Pornography

Share

If a Republican, Conservative, or a Catholic Priest was caught with child pornography, this would be a national story.  However, the subject of the story, is Larry Brinkin, a gay rights activist.  Apparently, when gay rights activists get caught with child porn, the media treats it like Benghazi, the IRS, and Fast and Furious-it goes right down the memory hole.   The Other McCain has more…

You stay classy, “veteran gay rights advocate“!

Veteran gay rights advocate and former San Francisco Human Rights Commission staffer Larry Brinkin pleaded guilty Tuesday to possessing child pornography.
Brinkin, 67, changed his plea in a deal with the district attorney’s office that will result in a sentencing recommendation of six months in county jail, six months of home detention, five years of probation and lifetime registration as a sex offender.
Brinkin, who worked as a senior contract compliance officer with the rights commission until his 2010 retirement, was arrested in June 2012. Authorities said e-mail attachments were found on his America Online subscriber’s account that contained images of toddlers engaged in sex acts with men.
Prosecutors originally charged him with six felony counts of possessing and distributing child pornography, but dropped all but one felony count of possession as part of the plea bargain.

Such is the character of a “Human Rights Commission staffer,” and Zombie points out that the baby-rape enthusiast Larry Brinkin will still be eligible for his taxpayer-funded pension:

A former high-ranking San Francisco government employee convicted of felony possession of child pornography will continue to receive his government pension because, according to city regulations, evidence of “moral turpitude” is required to revoke a pension yet viewing violent kiddie porn does not qualify as moral turpitude. . . .
A recent law defining which type of actions count as “moral turpitude” required to nullify municipal pension benefits does not include sex crimes involving children, and only refers to financial crimes . . .

I guess “moral turpitude” is a smear against pedophiles?   At ay rate, the MSM would tell you “nothing to see here” because the story of Larry Brinkin does not fit the narrative.   However, we are going to present it to the world.

I found a comment on the original post interesting.  Here it is, in it’s entirety…

ChrisDavis2011

Every day, Stacy, Smitty, Wombat and the gang put their lives on the line using their God given talents to inform the populace about atrocities occurring all over our once great nation. And (statistically speaking) people, in general, do nothing, absolutely nothing to solve the problem at hand. The worst part is that Christians demographically actually do less than secular humanists in their respective areas of concern.

At the risk of being branded another Christofacist, puritanical, naysayer and receiving the Wombats hammer for logarrhea, I submit the following….

The very worst part of this horrific crime against nature is that not a single reader (statistically speaking) will do a single, solitary thing about this outrage.

Oh sure, people write snarky comments, and forward the link to places like AFT, but who has the courage to actually do something stop child sexual trafficking and abuse.

Do you donate money? Oh no, just bought a new Lexus. Do you volunteer time? Well, I am so busy with work and my bowling league. Do you attempt to lobby the relevant electoral bodies to change the law? Ekkkkk gads no, then the homosexuals would find out who I am, and then begin harassing me and my family.

Rise up my friends rise up. We wear the armor of Christ, and good things can come from our hands if we have Christ in our heart, and sweat on our brow from toiling for Christendom.

Thought provoking, and the man threw down the gauntlet, so to  speak.  I’d be interested in seeing the reader’s reaction to this story, and especially the comment.

Share

More of Obama’s Thug Tactics

Share

Greta Van Susteren, a cable television personality since 1991, has spent her 14 year TV career building her reputation as a hard hitting, unbiased arbiter of the truth. She started working for CNN in 1991 as a legal analyst. She came into prominence during the OJ Simpson trial and after 11 years at CNN, she went to FOX News.

Greta is known for asking hard questions, but being respectful in the process. She garners respect from not only her colleagues, but also the folks that she has interviewed.

That is why it’s no surprise that Van Susteren is pulling no punches and reporting the latest attempt by the Obama administration to exert influence over and control the news. She says that someone within the Obama administration, someone that she knows personally, told her to tell Fox reporter, Jennifer Griffin to back off and stop investigating and reporting on the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on 9/11/2012.

I remembered a disturbing phone call from a good friend in the Obama Administration. I have known this friend for years. The call was a short time after 9/11 (maybe Oct. 2012?) In the call, my friend told me that my colleague Jennifer Griffin, who was aggressively reporting on Benghazi, was wrong and that, as a favor to me, my friend in the Administration was telling me so that I could tell Jennifer so that she did not ruin her career. My friend was telling me to tell Jennifer to stop her reporting. Ruin her career?

In 20 plus years, I have never received a call to try and shut down a colleague – not that I even could – this was a first. Here is what I know: Jennifer is a class act…experienced…and a very responsible journalist. One of the absolute best in the business – no axe to grind, she just wants the facts.

I told my friend before I go to Jennifer telling her she is wrong, I need proof she is wrong, strong proof and you need to be specific – what are you saying she is getting wrong? We went around and around — including the statement again that this was just a call as a favor to Jennifer and me to save Jennifer’s career from reporting incorrect information. I got no proof. Zero. I smelled a rat. Favor to me? Hardly. My friend was trying to use me. I feel bad that a friend did that to me, tried to use me for a dirty reason. I knew then — and it is now confirmed by BIPARTISAN Senate Intelligence Committee — Jennifer was getting her facts right. I think it is really low for the Administration to stoop this low.

On her website, Gretawire, she posted that in the days following the attack, Fox was left out of the conference call hosted by the State Department press. Fox received no invitation to that call, while all other major news outlets were included. But it got worse, for a later briefing by the CIA followed the same MO by excluding Fox News.

“Our friends in other media outlets were scandalized that Fox was not included and told us all about it. They were suspicious of State Department forgetting us/Fox and courageous to tip us off. The State Department claimed it was [an] accident and not intentional,” Van Susteren writes.

And there were many times in the months and years since September 2012 when Obama Administration officials would make comments to suggest that Fox was just doing the Benghazi reporting for political reasons. The Administration was doing what it could to deter and demean the Fox News Channel investigation. They did not want to give us the facts — so their strategy was to attempt to belittle and demean our reporting.

It turns out Fox News wasn’t alone in being the subject of the Obama administration’s bullying tactics. CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson scared the administration so bad that not only was her very own network taking a dim view of her reporting, but she began to get stonewalled, having trouble getting her Benghazi stories on the air. But the veteran reporter persisted, even after her computer got hacked. CBS confirmed this, but stopped short of placing blame. Atkisson said:

I find [that] improper,” she said. “You could say suspicious.” Suspicious? “We don’t know what we don’t know,” she says. “There could be political reasons or valid national security reasons [for not replying]. I just don’t know. I know they haven’t made a good argument” for why public disclosure of the material would harm national security.

Breitbart would later report that the survivors, which were debriefed by the State Department immediately following the attacks have been kept out of the public eye, and that they in all likelihood they were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements.

It was reported that Nixon had an enemies’ list and he used similar thug tactics to control the message. The only difference being that the MSM was outraged by it and publicly took him to task. Today’s MSM and some of the cable news outlets may be just as outraged, but you’d never know it by listening to the evening news.

Share

A Third Party Perspective

Share

Often times we hear that we’re too close to something to be able to be objective enough to evaluate it rationally. Now before I go much further, lets make sure that we all know who I’m speaking of.

I’m not talking about our main stream media, MSNBC, CNN or the plethora of far left websites, such as DailyKOS, HuffPo, etc… No, I’m talking about those that are closer to the center of the political spectrum. The folks that possibly bought into Hope & Change in ’08 and maybe sat home in ’12.

Back in ’08, candidate Obama sounded pretty centrist. He certainly talked a good game, and sounded to the run of the mill voter, or as Rush says, the low information voter, like he was the breath of fresh air they were looking for. Somebody who was charismatic enough to get people together and smart enough to surround himself with good advisers.

Unfortunately, we all know that was just smoke and mirrors by a narcissitic, America-loathing, socialist (I’m being generous on that label, btw) intent on residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. However, there are still folks out there who just can’t see the real Obama.

Enter Sir Hew Strachan, a prominent war historian and his credentials are, to say the least, impressive.

He is Chichele Professor of the History of War at All Souls College, Oxford. He was Professor of Modern History at the University of Glasgow from 1992 to 2000. Additionally, he is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Royal Historical Society. He holds an honorary D.Univ from the University of Paisley. He was appointed a deputy lieutenant of Tweeddale in 2006. He is a member of the Academic Advisory Panel of the Royal Air Force Centre for Air Power Studies. In addition, he is on the Chief of the Defence Staff’s strategic advisory panel, the UK Defence Academy Advisory Board, and is an advisory fellow of the Barsanti Military History Center at the University of North Texas. He was on the council of the National Army Museum and is currently a trustee of the Imperial War Museum. He is a visiting professor of the Royal Norwegian Air Force Academy in Trondheim and in 2009 was the Sir Howard Kippenberger Professor at Victoria University Wellington.

Whew!!

So to say that he knows military strategy is quite the understatement.
In an interview with The Daily Beast, he said that President Obama’s strategic failures in Afghanistan and Syria have crippled America’s position on the world stage.

Sir Hew Strachan, an advisor to the Chief of the Defense Staff, told The Daily Beast that the United States and Britain were guilty of total strategic failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama’s attempts to intervene on behalf of the Syrian rebels “has left them in a far worse position than they were before.”

The extraordinary critique by a leading advisor to the United States’ closest military ally comes days after Obama was undermined by the former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who questioned the President’s foreign policy decisions and claimed he was deeply suspicious of the military.

He went on to say that Obama is “chronically incapable” of military strategy and falls far short of George W. Bush in that area. Strachan also cited President Obama’s “crazy” handling (or bumbling) of the Syrian crisis as the most egregious example of a fundamental collapse in military strategy and planning since 9/11.

“If anything it’s gone backwards instead of forwards, Obama seems to be almost chronically incapable of doing this. Bush may have had totally fanciful political objectives in terms of trying to fight a global War on Terror, which was inherently astrategic, but at least he had a clear sense of what he wanted to do in the world. Obama has no sense of what he wants to do in the world,” he said.

Strachan also spoke of President Obama’s “dithering” over intervention against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, saying it has empowered the Syrian ruler and simultaneously undermined America’s military reputation while destabilizing the Middle East.

“What he’s done in talking about Red Lines in relation to Syria has actually devalued the deterrent effect of American military capability and it seems to me that creates an unstable situation, because if he were act it would surprise everybody,” he said. “I think the other issue is that in starting and stopping with Assad, he’s left those who might be his natural allies in Syria with nowhere to go. He’s increased the likelihood that if there is a change of regime in Syria that it will be an Islamic fundamentalist one.”

Sir Strachan has a book coming out next month which examines the failure of modern politicians to use strategy to determine the proper course of military action. He states that the lessons learned at the end of the 20th century hurt us going into the 21st century.

“Using war did deliver. The wars were pretty short, the Falklands, First Gulf War, Kosovo, so people lulled themselves into an expectation that war was simply a continuation of policy and that it was successful. But it hasn’t been since 9/11,” he said.

But Strachan says that a good start at fixing this problem would be to allow military leaders to speak their minds. He was critical of how General McChrystal was forced to resign after that Rolling Stone interview, which revealed his and his staff’s comments about the politicians who were their bosses.

“The concern about the military speaking out shows a lack of democratic and political maturity. We’re not facing the danger of a military coup. The professional experts, who deal with war all the time, should be able to express their views all the time, openly and coherently, just as you would expect a doctor or a teacher to express their views coherently about how you run medical policy or teaching policy,” he said.

In fact, he can point to precedent on this. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill held daily strategy meeting with his chairman of the Chiefs of Staff back in World War II.

“The Churchill-Allan Brooke relationship was fraught at times but it worked because both were pretty frank with each other,” Strachan said. “Soldiers have a duty here as well—if they just say, ‘yes Mr. Prime Minister or Mr. President, we can give you exactly what you want,’ then they’re probably not being very honest.”

Now I know this isn’t any groundbreaking news to those of us who have delved into Obama’s past and had him pegged for a radical since way back in 2007. But the fact remains that it is heartening to hear somebody on the world stage who is forthright enough to be honestly critical of our president.

Share

Unemployment Down Due to People Getting Jobs, or People Giving up and Dropping out?

Share

unemployment

If you believe the Obama administration, or his sycophants in the MSM, the unemployment rate is down because of the President’s exceptional leadership and policies in the face of the racist GOP.  This should not come as a surprise, nor should we be surprised that the unemployment rate is really down due to the fact that so many people have dropped out, and given up on trying to find a job.  The Federalist has more…

According to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released this morning, the U.S. economy last month added 74,000 new payroll jobs, while the unemployment rate fell to 6.7 percent from 7.0 percent. Good news, right? Not really.

Yes, the unemployment rate has fallen significantly from its high of 10 percent in October of 2009. But it turns out the unemployment rate has been falling for a pretty depressing reason: people dropping out of the labor force. Last month, 347,000 workers dropped out, effectively sending the message that it wasn’t even worth looking for work anymore.

Here’s what the unemployment rate would look like if the labor force participation rate — basically the number of people in the economy working or looking for work — had remained constant since June of 2009:

Labor Force Dropouts Drive Lower Unemployment Rate (TheFederalist)

So in other words, Obama’s policies suck so horribly, that he’s contracting the labor force itself.  So many people have been unable to find work in Obama’s economy, that the have dropped out entirely. If you are not using unemployment to find a job, you aren’t counted, so the drop is because of dropping out-not getting jobs.

But, the liberals will continue to bleat to the beat drummed by the MSM.

Share

MSM Discovers Pope Francis is Catholic; Asks How this Happened

Share

You mean he's a Catholic? We waz robbed!

You mean he’s a Catholic? We wuz robbed!

Shock and disbelief ran through the corridors of the mainstream media today after it was discovered that Pope Francis is Catholic.

“How the hell does a thing like this happen” declared Time Magazine’s outraged managing editor, Nancy Gibbs.

We just made him our man of the year. If we had known he was Catholic we never would have done that.  Catholics are evil.  The Church is evil.  Christians are evil. Republicans are evil.  Evil is everywhere except in the Democratic party.  Not that I’m saying evil exists because that would be making a bourgeois value judgement.  But everyone who isn’t a liberal Democratic is evil.  That’s why we made Francis the man of the year.  We all thought he was one of us. He hates the same things we hate:  the Church.  Capitalism.  Dogma and Organized religion, except for Islam which as we all know is the Religion of Peace.  I don’t have to tell you we have egg on our faces.

Sources say the news of the Pope’s Catholicism first broke when a reporter for CNN went to interview Francis and witnessed him saying Mass.

There was this procession and it looked like they were all walking behind someone carrying two tire irons. I asked what it was and someone said “Pope Francis is walking behind a cross.” Cross?  I didn’t even know he was angry.  Then he started to elevate something and I asked what he was doing.  I was told he was elevating the host.  I thought that meant he was promoting Jimmy Falon.  But they told me it was the body and blood of Christ.  It was then that I first realized that Pope Francis was a Catholic.  I felt so disgusted.  I had to run out and vomit in the street.

Simultaneously with the incident in Rome, reporters for MSNBC verified Pope Francis’ Catholicism by asking one of their Hispanic cleaning ladies about him.

“We love Hispanics deeply” said a source at the network who wishes to remain anonymous.

They are peoples of color and they vote Democrat. Well, except for the Cubans so they don’t count.  Anyway as I was saying we love Hispanics but we are troubled by their religiosity.  It seems so out of character for a Democrat.  But she confirmed that Pope Francis is indeed a Catholic.  We had to fire her just to be safe.

With the disturbing news that their favorite anti-dogma, pro-socialism, pro-gay marriage public figure was indeed Catholic the major media outlooks have banded together to ensure that a fraud like Pope Francis never again pulls the wool over their eyes.

“It’s all about fact-checking” said a producer.

We are going to double check things from now on. Being in the news industry normally I don’t concern myself with facts but sometimes you have to do your homework. Like that time I was going to do an article about President Johnson assassinating President Kennedy.  I googled “Johnson killed Kennedy” and they said it was true.  Then I ran the story.

As for the newly-discovered Catholic Pope Francis, Time Magazine has withdrawn its Man of the Year award.

“We should have gone with Miley Cyrus” said Gibbs.  ”She sets a better moral example.”

Original Post:  Manhattan Infidel

Share

Muslim Man Beheads Two Christians in New Jersey: Media Silent

Share

We should always respect the religion of peace, as we are all told.  After all, they got a religious exception from ObamaCare.  When a Christian speaks Biblical truth about homosexuality, it becomes a national controversy.  Muslims KILL homosexuals all over the world, and it isn’t even a blip on the radar.  Even murdering Christians seems acceptable these days, with even President Obama sending funding and weapons to the Syrian Rebels al Qaeda, who massacres Christians at every turn.

So, it probably should not be a surprise when a Muslim murders beheads Christians in New Jersey, and there is no mention in the MSM.  Here is more…

How much do you want to bet that if it was  a Christian beheading Muslims, that it would be a national news story?

Share

What Has Happened To The Once Mighty Peacock?

Share

The executives and powers that be over at 30 Rockefeller Plaza have evidently never heard that old adage, when you find yourself in a hole – STOP DIGGING!! What has happened to the network that brought us such sterling news people as, Hugh Downs, Tom Brokaw, Tim Russert, David Brinkley, Jessica Savitch, John Chancellor and Stone Phillips?

The list of NBC’s faux pas keeps growing and growing with each passing day, it seems. Let’s recap, shall we? (and these are just the ones this author remembers)

* MSNBC television host Ed Shultz via his radio show –
– calls radio talk show personality, Laura Ingram a slut, live on the air, not once, but twice.
– calls the GOP “anti-American.”
– says of the Republicans, “Sometimes I think they want Obama to get shot. I do. I really think that there are Conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.”
– says “You’re damn right Dick Cheney’s heart is a political football. We oughta rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him.”
– he continues about Dick Cheney, “Lord take him to the promised land, will ya? See I don’t even wish they guy goes to hell, I just wanna get him the hell outta here.”

* MSNBC host Chris “Thrill Up His Leg” Matthews –
– “I think Sarah Palin proved herself to be – I think she’s proven herself to be profoundly stupid.”
– mocked Rep. Michele Bachmann as being hypnotized for the answers she gave him, then called her a balloon head because she stated that the Founding Fathers were against slavery.
– called people who believe in God, “troglodytes.”
– on MSNBC’s Morning Joe show he said, “…everybody in the GOP pushes the birther conspiracy…”

* Martin Bashir called for defecation and urination into the mouth of Sarah Palin. (He later resigned.)

* Melissa Harris Perry –
– She and her entire panel made fun of Mitt Romney’s adopted black grandson.
– said, “…we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”

And now we come to NBC’s latest transgression. During their New Year’s Eve show, Carson Daly tried to speak about the Pearl Harbor Day tweet by SpaghettiOs which showed their mascot holding an American flag and saying, “Take a moment to remember #PearlHarbor with us.” Following is a transcript of the exchange:

CARSON DALY, HOST: SpaghettiOs on Pearl Harbor Day, they sent out a tweet featuring their mascot holding an American flag asking people to quote “take a moment to remember #PearlHarbor with us.” It offended a lot of people, corporations glomming on to, you know, sentimental American historic traditions, seemingly looking for people in business. It wasn’t good. But you were offended for another reason.
JANE LYNCH: I’m offended because they were referring to SpaghettiOs as pasta.
NATASHA LEGGERO: I mean, it sucks that the only survivors of Pearl Harbor are being mocked by the only food they can still chew. It’s just sad.
Carson Daly’s face betrayed his emotions. You could tell he thought the remark was out of line, but he went along with the “joke” anyway. The rest of the ensemble laughed heartily about it, with B-list character actor, Anthony Anderson cackling like it was the funniest thing he’d ever heard.

What is it with NBC? They allow their on-air personalities to disparage, mock and denigrate anyone and everyone on the right, and as if that wasn’t egregious enough, they turn their sights on survivors of the second worst terrorist attack on American soil?
One can only wonder how many years must pass by before NBC begins to mock the survivors of 9/11.

Share

Want to see How Much the MSM Lied About ObamaCare? Plus, Extra Oral Spewage™ from Ed Schultz

Share

Losing_share

Obama lied about his crowning achievement; ObamaCare.  This is so very well documented as to be unassailable.  However, we cannot neglect to mention that not only did Obama lie, but prominent democrats did as well.  In fact, some of them are still lying, and looking incredibly foolish in the process.  But, we cannot neglect the propaganda wing of our would-be regressive overlords-the MSM.  They have “carried the ball” for Obama, and all of his lies, including ObamaCare.  No discussion of the lies surrounding Obama’s chief “accomplishment” without discussing the MSM, and their lies in support of Obama’s lies.

The Media Research Center has a sampling of lies told by the MSM, I will show only one, you can go there for the rest.

I picked Ed Schultz because he is the “blogger’s dream topic.” To discredit Ed Schultz, all one has to do is quote Ed Schultz. Just wait for him to open his mouth, and he does all the work for you.   It’s almost like an infomercial!

(A blogger sits at his computer, looking dejected)

Blogger: If only I had something to write about, I only have a few minutes!

(Announcer appears as if from no where)

Announcer:  Don’t worry Mr. Blogger, we have a cure to your problem.  It’s Ed Schultz!

Blogger:  You mean, Ed Schultz, the guy that was demoted on the network that no one watches?

Announcer:  That’s the one, Ed Schultz is  the cure to your “blogging with no time” woes!

Blogger (looks skeptical): Now wait a minute, how can that lying, bombastic, wind bag Ed Schultz help me?

Announcer:  That’s a fair question.  You see, it’s all in how Ed Schultz combines lying, yelling, and pure 100%  non-logic into Oral Spewage™ !  Ed Schultz does all of your work for you!

Blogger:  OK, I can hear all of that Oral Spewage™, but what can Oral Spewage™ do for my blog?

Announcer:  You see, Oral Spewage™ is 100% self-discrediting.  To discredit Ed Schultz, all you have to do is quote Ed Schultz!  His proprietary blend of Oral Spewage™ means that all you have to do is quote Ed Schultz, and simply add a brief sentence after the quote to drive home the point!  Anyone with more than two functioning brain cells  will get it!

Blogger:  Well, it looks like I’m going to be using Ed Schultz’s Oral Spewage™ to create witty and effective blog posts with just a few words!

Announcer:  That’s right, you’ve got it!  Oral Spewage™ does it again!

Please note that Ed Schultz was not harmed in the writing of this post. 

Share