Friday, March 30, 2012

Olbermann Apologizes For Not Being Able To Keep Current TV From Failing


Think I'm making that up?


Nope. 


Read the statement he released today:


http://minx.cc/?post=327992
My full statement
I'd like to apologize to my viewers and my staff for the failure of Current TV. 
Editorially, Countdown had never been better. But for more than a year I have been imploring Al Gore and Joel Hyatt to resolve our issues internally, while I've been not publicizing my complaints, and keeping the show alive for the sake of its loyal viewers and even more loyal staff. Nevertheless, Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, instead of abiding by their promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program, finally thought it was more economical to try to get out of my contract. 
It goes almost without saying that the claims against me implied in Current's statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently. To understand Mr. Hyatt’s “values of respect, openness, collegiality and loyalty,” I encourage you to read of a previous occasion Mr. Hyatt found himself in court for having unjustly fired an employee. That employee’s name was Clarence B. Cain. http://nyti.ms/HueZsa 
In due course, the truth of the ethics of Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt will come out. For now, it is important only to again acknowledge that joining them was a sincere and well-intentioned gesture on my part, but in retrospect a foolish one. That lack of judgment is mine and mine alone, and I apologize again for it.


As you can see, not making it up.  


Keith tried, folks. He really did. He tried to save Current TV.  But it just.........couldn't.......be done.  


Even Keifuums with his super-awesome Cornell Degree from the Animal Farm couldn't save it. 


See my super-awesome Cornell Degree?! 
It's got an official seal and everything!!


And if Keith Olbermann couldn't save Current TV, then by God NOBODY could!


Oh, and guess who they are going to replace Olbermann with? 


How about.........CLIENT #9?




Again, I am not making this up.  Swear to God.
NBC News & MSNBC Get Caught Using Edited 
Audio Tape,Transcript To Sell Narrative 
'Zimmerman Is A Racist'


After a rough week in which it was revealed the neighborhood watch captain that ended up shooting TrayVon Martin was


1. Hispanic
2. a Democrat
3. Has black friends and family members
4. Spends his weekends mentoring black kids


it looks like the usual suspects in the Old Media decided to help out the Narrative 'Zimmerman Is A Racist'  It would have been very, very oh so much more 'helpful' if Zimmerman had turned out to be the 'white man' he was initially portrayed as being in early news reports once the story went national. 


Because we all know how the Old Media is ever wanting to find that Right-Wing White Male doing something racist.  It helps them sell the viewpoint that America is an inherently racist society and that the racism runs so deep it's endemic and systemic. 


Zimmerman MUST be a racist. He has GOT to be a racist.  It is IMPERATIVE that he be a racist.  Because this is what they have been selling for 2 weeks now.  They can't let it go.


So they are starting to resort to outright deception.


First, MSNBC put up a supposedly accurate transcript of Zimmerman's 911 call:


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/28/MSNBC-ZImmerman-Ellipses


Here's what MSNBC first put up on their website:


Blogger Dan Riehl quickly realized what MSNBC had done, and put up his post pointing out what the real 911 transcript actually says: 

After it got out all over the internet that they were caught, without any explanation, MSNBC changed their objective, neutral news story to read this way: 


That would be bad enough.  However, on Tuesday morning of this week, it turns out NBC News aired an audio tape of the 911 call Zimmerman made - but that audio tape had been edited to EXACTLY MATCH the edited transcript that MSNBC originally put up.  Sean Hannity and Brent Bozell discussed this on The Hannity Show on Thursday night: 


NBC News is being excoriated in some circles – with competitor Fox News Channel leading the charge – for selectively editing audio of the 911 call placed by George Zimmerman just before he killed Trayvon Martin. 
The NBC segment in question featured anchor Ron Allen and ran on the Todayshow on Tuesday. On Thursday, Sean Hannity and guest Brent Bozell played the NBC version of the 911 call and compared it with the unedited version. 
In the NBC segment, Zimmerman says: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.” 
The full version, though, unfolds like this: 
Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” 
911 operator: “Okay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?”Zimmerman: “He looks black.” 
After playing both versions, Hannity said: “They forgot the dispatcher’s question! How could NBC, in good conscience, do that?” 
“This isn’t bias, this isn’t distortion, this is an all-out falsehood by NBC News,” answers Bozell, who runs a conservative watchdog group called the Media Research Center. 
“When you hear him say, ‘he looks black,’ anyone watching that believes that there are racial overtones to what this man did,” Bozell says. “How could you not believe that? It goes with the narrative of the profiling. The only problem is, they edited out the dispatcher asking him, ‘what does he look like?’” 
NBC News declined to comment.

No kidding they declined to comment. What could they say?  

One time with a transcript you can call that an accident - 'oh hey, how did that happen! Oops!'  Twice?  With an audio tape that exactly matches the edited transcript? Good look selling that as a glitch.  

This is TWICE in one week NBC News has been caught distorting facts about a major news story without owning up to what they were doing.  While passions are being deliberately inflamed - often with misinformation and distortion by hucksters such as Al Sharpton - here is what purports to be an objective news media organization engaging in the same kind of behavior, deliberately distorting their 'news coverage' to sell a false narrative.

UPDATE: NBC News will now investigate itself to discover exactly how this journalistic malpractice occurred.  

Why The Left Is Getting Angrier All The Time


They have the Old Media. They have the schools and universities.  They have Hollywood.  They have control of a lot of things in Washington.


And still..................they can't make The Right go away.


I see Progressives all the time who are getting angrier and angrier that the Right hasn't been totally de-legitimized yet.  


The 2008 election of Barack Obama, coupling a Democratic Presidency with a Congress under complete Democratic control signaled triumphalism on the part of many on the Left that at long last they had turned the corner and would soon leave the American Right far behind.


Ah, what a difference 3 years makes, eh?  


Instead of driving the Right from the public square, the Left is astonished to find itself locked in an actual debate over ObamaCare and also unable to keep it's latest outrage du jour Narrative on the TrayVon Martin case from being undermined.  


Instead of one smothering voice from the Left guiding America where it should go from academia, the news media, Hollywood, and Washington, there is an actual national debate going on about where the country should go. 


This debate isn't a temporary bug. It's a feature of the American democratic process. There's SUPPOSED to be two sides.


Yet Progressives seem to have this mental vision of progress being achieved only if they get total victory over the other side and drive it out of existence - or at least marginalize it so that it is driven underground.


In a way, Liberals keep setting themselves up for disappointment by shutting themselves off in cocoons and bubbles so they can PRETEND the Right has ALREADY been driven underground.  


That's why the Liberal shock over how the case for ObamaCare is going before the Supreme Court is so strong.  They had actually convinced themselves the law was going to pass this judicial review with ease, and were stunned to discover that wouldn't be the case: 


First Chris Matthews talked about how nobody HE ever talked to ever said there was even a remote possibility ObamaCare would not pass Constitutional muster:


http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/29/chris-matthews-im-pretty-surprised-to-learn-that-the-mandate-might-be-unconstitutional/


Then John Podhoretz discussed  how insular the liberal cocoon is that many supposedly objective, neutral commentators like Toobin and others live inside of:


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/supreme_shock_for_la_la_libs_LkWBvHWTzeCs4gvA3hdHKJ


Podhoretz is correct. These are supposed to be objective media journalists and experts who are supposed to be appraised of the arguments for BOTH sides of an issue.  For them to evince total shock like this when there have been serious, well-thought out and valid arguments against the mandate for over 2 years is inexcusable.  How could they really be doing their jobs if they don't know the other side's arguments?  


It used to be Liberals could guide the national conversation and believe their influence was far greater than they thought it was because there were no powerful Conservative voices on a national level that could challenge them.  They could speak with an almost single smothering voice to tell the American people Reagan was an idiot who should never be allowed into the White House, for instance.  Sometimes they did get jarring notices that the American people didn't really buy what they were selling, but not that often.  


Nowadays it's almost a monthly occurrence. The Left has a narrative it's trying to sell, only now Conservatives are numerous enough on the national scene to immediately begin answering back.  If they are trying to sell an obviously false narrative, such as with the Martin case, the holes in the Narrative start showing up quickly.  


And this is why the Left is getting so pissed off.  It used to be they could set a false Narrative and keep it going and suck all the power and results they wanted out of it before the actual facts caught up and revealed what they had been deliberately distorting and omitting.  But by the time the truth caught up, the Lefty mob had always moved on, leaving the clean-picked bones behind them.   And if you pressed the issue they just looked down their noses at you and said "Oh that is SO last month.  That's old news. Nobody cares, man.  We've moved on.  Did you have a point?  Is this conversation going anywhere? No? Let's drop it then."


You know what's so awesome about the New Media?  They don't get to finish picking the bones clean any more before the truth catches up. Hell, sometimes they haven't really started to sell their false narrative for even a full week before Conservatives are revealing to the public what was omitted and distorted by those leading the latest outrage du jour.  


Look at what happened when MSNBC tried to sell the 'Zimmerman Is A Racist Who Was Motivated By Racism To Kill TrayVon Martin' on their website with a most clever edit of the 911 phone transcript: 


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/28/MSNBC-ZImmerman-Ellipses

This is what MSNBC originally said:
Unfortunately for MSNBC's hack of a reporter, Breitbart.com was on the ball. The moment they saw the report on the MSNBC website, they realized what the 'journalist' had done. Here's what the actual 911 transcript actually says: 
As you can clearly see, ZIMMERMAN DOESN'T JUST VOLUNTEER  to the dispatcher the guy he's watching is 'up to no good' because 'he looks black', which is exactly the impression MSNBC was trying to give it's readers with that clever edit.  

Within hours of Big Journalism's Dan Riehl putting that post up pointing out their duplicity, MSNBC quietly - with no admission they were doing so, changed the text to read this way:
To read an absolutely HILARIOUS attempt to defend what MSNBC did there, go here and read the comments starting on page 5 with post #133, where posting as 'manofaiki'  I show what they did and invite responses:

http://vine.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=2277942&page=5

They simply can't keep the holes and distortions and omissions from the public eye any more.  


There they are, still on the scene, still full of outrageous outrage!!! and all of a sudden they have to defend their false narrative - and they are not used to having to do that.  They are used to having their way, loudly shouting down anybody trying to tell the truth, and then moving on before their lies catch up to them.  They reap all the benefits of what they wanted from the Narrative and then move on before the consequences of their duplicity can be brought to bear on them.  


NOT ANY MORE.  


And boy, are they pissed about it.  


GOOD. Let them be pissed. They think they're pissed now? Just wait a few months.  They have several false narratives in play right now, and in the next couple of months, ObamaCare is inevitable, Global Warming, Derrick Bell and others are going to unravel further unless I miss my guess.


UPDATE! NBC News gets caught by Sean Hannity and Brent Bozell using an edited audio tape of Zimmerman's 911 call that exactly matches the edited transcript from MSNBC I posted about earlier.  Video at the bottom of the page.


Hmmmmmmmmmm.


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trayvon-martin-nbc-news-editing-911-call-306359

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Are Media Outlets Using A Deliberately Lightened Picture of Zimmerman To Make Him Look 'Whiter'?


Here's the by-now famous pic of George Zimmerman that went viral on the internet the past 2 weeks as the story of the TrayVon Martin shooting became a national news story: 



But do a Google image search for 'George Zimmerman and this is what comes up:


Do you...uh....NOTICE anything there?  The difference in skin tone between the various pictures?  


Let's call up one of the lightened versions and put them side by side: 



I can see blowing it up a bit in size making it more fuzzy, but how would that account for the change in the skin tone?  

Almost every other version of the pic is a lighter version much, much lighter than the original, whiting out Zimmerman's skin tone.  

Let's weigh in on this in the comments. What do you think? Deliberate or not deliberate?

UPDATE: Thanks for the mention by rdbrewer at Ace of Spades!  Welcome fellow morons!

I was going to point out, digitally copying a picture does not alter it's color or skin tone. You have to take it into a photo editor like Photoshop to make such changes.  And from what I can see up on Google right now, there's at least 5-6 different versions of that original picture - some of them even change the back ground color. 

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Why Hollywood Hates Act of Valor
[& Any Other Film That Doesn't 
Do It 'Politically Correctly']




Act of Valor is a pretty unique film. The producers decided to make a full length feature film starring active duty Navy SEALs instead of hiring a bunch of actors to pretend to be SEALs.  


http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/act_of_valor/




Note that Act of Valor has one of the BIGGEST differences in rating by top critics & rating by audience: 


It debuted in theaters in late February of this year, and even before it hit screens across the country liberal movie critics were already launching preemptive strikes against it.  It was called 'propaganda' and worse.  


And when you distilled all the criticism of the film down to a single point, here's what emerged: 


The movie went about depicting the US Military in the 'wrong' way. 


Here are several examples of how, according to movie critics, Act of Valor got the US Military 'wrong': 


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/act-of-valor-military-hollywood_n_1284338.html?ref=entertainment&icid=maing-grid7|aim|dl9|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D136995
A crack team of highly skilled warriors, outfitted with the most advanced weapons of the world’s most powerful military force, storms an enemy compound, firing round after round of ammunition through concrete walls and the skulls of their terrorist adversaries. 
The good guys have yet to suffer a single casualty until, suddenly, one of its leaders takes a rocket to the chest. The audience cringes, but the bang never comes -- the rocket clangs to the ground, unexploded, and the battle rages on. 
The upcoming film "Act of Valor" is replete with that kind of action, but there are a few things it doesn't have: There are no corrupt officers, no damaged heroes, no queasy doubts about the value of the mission or the virtue of the cause. 
That's because "Act of Valor" was born not in Hollywood, but in the Pentagon. It was commissioned by the Navy's Special Warfare Command and its success will be measured not in box-office receipts, but in the number of new recruits it attracts to the Navy SEALs.
Actually, having seen the film, I can tell you the HuffPo reviewer is misleading his readers when he says 'the rocket clangs to the ground, unexploded'.  That is a deliberate misrepresentation of what happened, assuming he actually saw the same scene I did. 


That RPG hits the Seal right in the chest and knocks him backwards over 10 feet into a wall, and the rocket gets stuck inside the SEAL's body armor - literally sticking out of his chest.  Another SEAL then helps to oh-so-carefully pull the unexploded missile from the body armor and holds it in his hand.  That rocket never 'hits the floor' with a 'clang' or any other kind of sound. 


There are no corrupt officers left. They didn't survive BUDs.


Note how the reviewer begins complaining almost immediately in his review about what this film DOESN'T have in it: "There are no corrupt officers, no damaged heroes, no queasy doubts about the value of the mission or the virtue of the cause."


Before we take that sentence apart, let's deal with another deliberate misrepresentation: [SPOILER ALERT in case you haven't seen the film yet, I am about to reveal some plot points, so don't read the next sentence if you don't want things spoiled for you]


During the course of the film one SEAL dies, another loses an eye and another is paralyzed.  No damaged heroes my ass. 


But notice what the reviewer is focusing his disdain on: the fact the film doesn't show officers who are corrupt, or soldiers questioning their mission.  


This is because American gov't is supposedly so evil and has been for some time that any good soldier with a brain has got to be wondering if he's being sent out to oppress innocent people or something.  


"I don't know all of a sudden man....I'm starting to doubt the mission....do I really want 
to stop this terrorist attack or not? I'm..........conflicted."


In the context of the film, the HuffPo reviewers complaint is laughable.  Act of Valor intentionally stays away from Iraq and Afghanistan and instead focuses on a plot to launch a new 9-11 style attack on America. Why in the hell would a Navy SEAL stop to ponder if a mission to keep terrorists from killing thousands of Americans in places like Las Vegas has any real value or not?  


http://www.tampabay.com/features/movies/act-of-valori-iwill-play-well-to-a-select-audience/1216445


Act of Valor is a land mine movie for anyone to review who isn't a military veteran, who hasn't bought into the cult of warfare. Like most faith-based movies, it's aimed squarely at an audience that will overlook considerable flaws because of its message. If you're not a true believer, what you think won't matter, anyway.


Act of Valor will likely earn high praise from combat veterans and their families, the way movies like Fireproof and Seven Days in Utopia resonate with Christians. Civilians, movie critics and certainly pacifists won't be nearly as impressed.


http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/movies/20120224_SEALs_can_save_the_world__but_they_can_t_act.html


Near the end, the film degenerates into an extended, chaotic firefight. You know who you're supposed to be rooting for because they're the ones wearing uniforms, but it's easy to lose touch with why.



I guess every time Navy SEALs try to stop terrorists from launching a new 9-11 it's 'easy to lose touch' with which side you're supposed to be rooting for.  :facepalm:


"We're the ones trying to keep innocent Americans from being 
blown up, you dimwit."


You may have noticed all these criticisms of the film don't have to do with strategy or tactics; instead all of the strong negativity for the film focuses on the POLITICAL MESSAGE they see the film to be giving them.  


Every film about our US military and a whole host of other issues must have the 'right' kind of political message, at least according to these guys. 


They do not even stop to realize for a second what they are revealing about themselves by making these complaints. 


Movies have to be made inside the Politically Correct Box according to the Liberal Mindset? 


Really?  REALLY???!!!


Could THIS explain declining ticket sales and interest in Hollywood's product as the town grows more and more overtly Left in  it's public pronouncements and it's work? 


Hollywood has been trying to hide the fact it's losing it's audience for years by pumping up ticket prices to insane levels and then crowing about 'record box office' numbers.  They never talk about the actual NUMBER of tickets sold, only what the gross box office take is.  


http://www.whitehutchinson.com/news/lenews/2008_may_june/article102.shtml


http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/30/business/la-fi-ct-cinemacon-20110330
The decline in admissions is troubling Hollywood. The number of tickets sold per person annually in the U.S. and Canada has steadily fallen for most of the last decade to 4.1 last year, the lowest since 1993.
Movies for general audiences have to be made inside a set of 'safe' themes to ensure as broad an appeal and therefore as big a box office take as possible.  


That certainly is ONE reason so many of Hollywood's recent 'blockbusters' are lifeless, have no real creativity [beyond new CGI effects], and after awhile all blend together and are totally forgettable and interchangeable.  
John Carter or Clash of the Titans or Transformer XIII? Does it really matter? Mix 'n match!


But there is ANOTHER reason the audience is declining. Even when Hollywood DOES try to make an 'important' message movie with supposedly creative themes, it WON'T make such a film outside the PC Liberal Agenda Box.  They simply won't do it.  


And remember what we already know: Less than 22% of the American population describes itself as Liberal. So around 78% of the population doesn't necessarily live inside the PC Liberal Agenda Box the way many in Hollywood do.  




And that 78% of the audience figured out long ago that when Hollywood tries to make a movie about strong subjects and controversial themes and issues, such films, no matter how many times the marketing screams the words 'edgy', 'trendy', 'sophisticated', etc. that film will sell only one point of view: the politically correct view.  The Liberal Agenda view.  Any envelopes pushed or edgy take on things explored always explores further to the LEFT, never to the right. 


This is what counts for 'milestone' entertainment in Hollywood now: when a film goes even FURTHER Left on a subject than those that came before it.  Left, never Right.  


People are tired of paying to see films that not only go out of their way to try to strongly sell points of view they don't agree with, but also go out of their way to attack what they do believe.  


Nope. No propaganda here!


This is Hollywood's broken business model: they deliberately won't make the kind of movies that the 40%  of the country that is Conservative wants to see.  Especially if they are making a movie about the military or current events and social issues.  


40% are Conservative, 20% are Liberal, and 40% are moderate.  What sense does it make to write off 40%-60% of your potential audience because your movies HAVE to be made inside the Liberal Agenda Box? 


Yet this is exactly what Hollywood does. AND NOTHING POINTS THIS OUT BETTER THAN FILMS LIKE ACT OF VALOR.  Because Act of Valor was manifestly made OUTSIDE of the PC Liberal Agenda Box.  That's why liberal critics were hoping to see it fail.  


Yeah, this'll NEVER make any money, right Hollywood?
[$612 mil worldwide on a $30 mil budget]


ANY movie made outside the PC Liberal Agenda Box immediately must be attacked for not being the 'right' kind of movie for some reason.  Passion of the Christ, October Baby, Act of Valor, Fireproof, whatever it's subject is, if it doesn't come at the issue from the 'right' kind of PC political viewpoint, then it's 'propaganda' and they'll encourage people to stay away from it.  


By doing this they are tacitly admitting they will only give their coveted stamp of approval to films that do approach issues from the 'correct' point of view - their point of view, the PC Liberal Agenda Box view.  So aren't they admitting they approve or reject movies based on their own political views?  Why aren't movies they approve of also propaganda then?  
"It's not propaganda if I agree with it's viewpoint."


If a movie agrees with their PC Liberal Agenda, they will praise it. If it doesn't then they call it 'propaganda' and a whole other slew of PC attack words in an attempt to marginalize it.  


Despite the attempts of Liberal critics to drive people away from this film, Act of Valor was a box office smash.  On a production budget of only $12 million, it's pulled in $68.5 million worldwide thus far, and will draw in even more when it hits PPV streaming and DVD/Blu-Ray.  


http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=actofvalor.htm


People like Mel Gibson, Bandito Brothers, and Daniel Knauf are exploring ways to use the internet and video streaming VOD to bypass the whole Hollywood system with it's PC Gatekeepers and media sycophants.   Check out 'Haunted', and the trailer for Gibson's latest film, coming straight to VOD soon: 'Get The Gringo':


http://bxxweb.com/haunted/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGKfF6d8TH8


As more Conservative, independent films with real creativity get made and marketed that explore issues and themes outside of Hollywood's cherished PC Liberal Agenda Box and have success, expect to see Hollywood and their pet critics get more and more nasty about it.  

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

We Didn't Forget


Remember this?: 
Out of the way, peasants! You can't stop us!


They walked through a crowd of Americans on their way to pass that travesty of a 1,000 page monstrosity, braying their laughter.  Nancy showed off the big gavel she was going to use to pound ObamaCare onto the heads of all Americans, Constitution be damned. 


Not laughing now, are they? 


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/27/CNN-Obamacare-Trainwreck
Nice Going There, Spike!
Lee Tweets The WRONG ADDRESS 
For Zimmerman


Several days ago film director Spike Lee caused a stir by tweeting to the world what he THOUGHT was the address for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain that shot TrayVon Martin.  This was at a time the New Black Panther Party had publicly declared they were offering a $10,000 reward for Zimmerman's 'capture'.  


Now it turns out Lee had the wrong address: 


http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/27/paper-spike-lee-tweeted-incorrect-george-zimmerman-address-possibly-putting-sanford-woman-in-danger/


"Did they get him yet?!"

Filmmaker Spike Lee tweeted the wrong home address for George Zimmerman, the Sanford, Fla., man who many are claiming should be arrested for shooting and killing Trayvon Martin. The tweet could have potentially put the woman who actually lives at that address in danger.
The Washington Times’ Kerry Picket went to the address that Lee tweeted as members of the New Black Panther Party were offering a $10,000 cash reward for Zimmerman’s capture, “dead or alive,” and others were demanding his arrest. 
“[T]he Edgewater Circle address Mr. Lee re-tweeted out is not part of the gated Retreat at Twin Lakes where the shooting took place and where Mr. Zimmerman lives,” Picket reported. “The area is not even a gated a community.”


Because they rushed to judgement and tried to gin up a mob to do their bidding, Sharpton and Lee and others have ended up disgracing themselves.  

Monday, March 26, 2012

Dear Left:  An Open Letter To The Kind, The Caring & The Compassionate Among Us


After you danced on Andrew Breitbart's grave and then chortled that Dick Cheney should have died during his heart transplant...........


I never want to hear another f**king word from you about 'civility'. 


Got that?  I didn't see anybody on the Left telling their own side to cool it and shut up about Breitbart dying or Cheney needing a transplant.  


John Hawkin's list of infamous Lefty hate: 20 Examples of the 'Tolerant' exposing their real nature:


http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/03/06/in_honor_of_andrew_breitbart_20_examples_of_liberal_hatred_on_display/page/full/


So this is fair warning. The next time some Lib opens their mouth and starts pontificating about how the Right is dragging down the National Conversation, I am going to go f**king  medieval on your asses.  I will come after you with rhetorical guns blazing.  


That is all.  
Time To Ask Again:
Just Who's Side Is This 
Son-of-a-Bitch On?

An open mike at a press conference with United States President Barack Obama and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev.  picked up Obama saying something outrageous to Medvedev: 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/26/obama-to-medvedev-ill-totally-cave-on-missile-defense-in-my-second-term-if-putin-will-give-me-space/ 


President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space. 
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you… 
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility. 
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
"Vladimir" is Putin, the real power in Russia.  
Does this sound like a strange way to negotiate with America's interests in mind?  
 What solution does Obama envision that would pay off for Putin so much that the Russians would agree to the “space” necessary by keeping quiet about US plans for its deployment?  The only possible answer would be the dismantling of even the smaller missile-defense system to which Obama committed in 2009.  And it looks as though Obama has already tipped his hand to the Russians — against whom this particular defense system would be mainly ineffective anyway — in exchange for political assistance to influence the election. 
Obama won’t share these plans with the American people. However, he’ll share them with the Russians, and ask for their help in influencing the election.  That should tell American voters all they need to know about this President.Or perhaps not.  What other nations has Obama asked for “space” on American foreign and national-security policy so that he can win a second term?  And what American interests is Obama willing to trade for that “space”?

OBAMA IS NEGOTIATING TO TRADE AWAY MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS IN EXCHANGE FOR HELP IN WINNING AN ELECTION.  He has just been caught on an open mic hoping to trade away our national security for his own personal political gain.  

Not until this guy is out of the White House will we begin to have an accurate accounting of not only how much damage he's done to our country here at home with his trashing of the Constitution, but also how much damage he's done to our interests abroad.  

UPDATE: Sarah Palin responds - whoever's side Obama is on, it's clearly not America's: 

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150639939378435 
Let's Not Get Carried Away Trying To
Defend George Zimmerman




Due to the usual race hucksters like Al Sharpton ramping up the racial tensions, there's been a lot of strong pushback from the Right to defend George Zimmerman.  


Yesterday I got a lot of tweets from people who were crowing about new, more recent pictures that showed TrayVon Martin looking like a 'gangsta'.  


I'm sure more facts will come to light as the investigation continues, but we need to remember what we already know: 


A bigger, older man in a SUV who was armed with a concealed handgun decided to start following an unarmed teenager walking on a street, then for some reason, decided to exit the vehicle and chase him on foot.  


No matter how people try to rehash this, the one huge red flag that keeps telling me Zimmerman is at fault here is that there is no reason whatsoever for him to get out of that car. The police dispatcher, from what she can hear of Zimmerman huffing and puffing on his cell phone, correctly deduces that Zimmerman has left his vehicle and is chasing Martin on foot.  The dispatcher pointedly tells Zimmerman there's no reason for him to be doing that.  
What people need to realize is that if Zimmerman was just going to WATCH Martin, he can do that perfectly fine from inside his car.  There is only ONE REASON to exit the car and give chase on foot: Because Zimmerman was determined to apprehend Martin.  


Which is absolutely dumb.  Chasing assumes you want to catch. What the hell was Zimmerman going to do if he caught Martin?  


Another thing to ponder: I haven't heard at any time if Zimmerman ever identified himself to Martin as a Neighborhood Watch captain.  All the versions I've read, all Zimmerman says to Martin before the altercation begins is "What are you doing here!"


Put yourself in Martin's shoes.  You're walking around then notice some guy in a SUV is following you.  You walk faster, the guy gets closer to you in his car. You start running.  THE GUY EXITS THE CAR AND RUNS AFTER YOU ON FOOT.  


A new story is emerging that says Martin turned back and ran up to Zimmerman after Zimmerman gave up the foot chase and was about to get back in his vehicle, as if somehow this 'proves' Martin was the instigator.  


In fact, I could see myself doing the same thing.  I'm walking around minding my own business, guy follows me in his car, I run for it, he jumps out of the car and chases me on foot, then turns back and runs to get back in his car.  


What would my first thought be?  THERE'S NO USE RUNNING. HE'S GOT A CAR AND I DON'T.  He's just gonna keep following me.  Maybe get so close the next time he jumps out of the car he will get ahold of me.  Damn right I'm going to decide "Let's find out what the hell this guy thinks he's doing." 


One thing the stories agree on: when Martin gets close to Zimmerman, he demands to know why Zimmerman is following him.  ZIMMERMAN NEVER TELLS HIM.  Instead, Zimmerman makes a demand of his own: "What are you doing here?!"


You know how I would answer that?  Probably the same way Martin likely did:  "None of your f**king business."  Imagine how you would respond if a total stranger jumped out of a car and loudly and aggressively demanded to know what you are doing walking on the sidewalk.  
In the rush to defend Zimmerman from the rabid mob Al Sharpton is trying to stir up, let's not lose sight of the fact there is plenty of evidence this kid is dead because Zimmerman made some really awful decisions.  

Saturday, March 24, 2012

MSNBC's Karen Finney Doubles Down On Stupidity




Instead of learning from her huge gaffe the other day, Karen Finney is doubling down by insisting Conservatism/Republicanism is somehow responsible for TrayVon Martin's death:


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/23/MSNBCs-Finney-Links-To-Trayvon-Shooting-To-Kochs-NRA 


MSNBC's Karen Finny: "How do we go from one state to 30? Who was the Typhoid Mary for this horrible outbreak? Try not to be surprised. It’s the usual suspects: the Koch brothers, the NRA, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and Clinton vets, remember the Scaife family? Oh, yeah. These are the same people who stymied gun regulation at every point who funded and ghost write these laws and others that have become a core of the conservative agenda that is being implemented across our country. It’s the same group that also wrote the voter I.D. laws which threaten to disenfranchise some 5 million american voters, many of them African-American." 


Tomorrow it'll be Reagan, Ann Coulter, William F. Buckley and anybody else she can think of. 


Understanding Liberal Pathology I


I first ventured onto the Internet in 1993 in the days of Compuserve, when America On-Line was king.  

The chat rooms and message boards of those bygone days were a revelation to me.  24 hours a day, at any time you could find people discussing a wide variety of topics, from religion to entertainment to politics.  

From entering numerous threads about topics like Abortion, Infanticide, Euthanasia, I quickly encountered plenty of Progressives arguing for their side of the national debate on these current issues. 
It's quite true that if you are Liberal or Conservative you tend to surround yourself mostly with friends - both on-line and off - that tend to think the way you do and share your common interests.  While you can't pick your family you do have control over who your close friends are.  

But what surrounding yourself with people who share your views, and more importantly, often come by those views in the same manner that you did often means is that you can not have a clear grasp of why the people on the other side of the political spectrum ended up over there.  

People tend to unconsciously think other people think, reason, and adopt ideas and beliefs the same way they do.  

That's why I found it fascinating to discuss current topics and issues with Liberals and study how they responded to challenges to their views. 

Here's what I've learned over the years from these discussions. 

Liberals don't adopt their views after careful and reasoned analysis.  

Progressives are not individualists; they seek Herd membership and status among the Collective is established by displaying love of conformity.  This is why groupthink commitment to The Accepted Group View is so vitally important to the Left. 

Conservatives come to their positions through reason and experience.  Liberals adopt theirs on the basis of Authority of the Herd and emotional commitment.  

This is why most Progressives view as challenge to their beliefs as a PERSONAL ATTACK.  This is why they almost immediately interject a lot of emotion into a discussion where they are finding their views being challenged.  
This is why Liberals and Conservatives are often talking right past each other.  The Conservative ends up thinking "If only I make a rational enough argument from reason and general experience, I can show them Conservatism is right" while the Liberal tends to think "If only I can demonstrate that evil motives drives them I can get this guy to STOP ATTACKING ME and graze with the Herd in peace."  

Liberals that bring up political topics in chat rooms and message boards are not really looking for a challenge to their views that is reasonable and well thought out; what they are really looking for is affirmation that they CARE and that they BELONG to the Herd.  

Rational arguments will not convince Progressives to give up Progressivism.  Having studied the personal stories of people  who were once far Left and who have come over to the Right - such as David Horowitz, for example - what I ended up discovering is that it's their own personal accumulated experience that leads to a 'Road To Damascus' moment where the scales fall from their eyes.  

The views of the Left are not adopted because they are rational; they are adopted because they are popular, and they hold forth a powerful vision that people respond to emotionally.  

Since they weren't argued into adopting it in the first place, it's often an impossible task to argue them out of it.  

It comes down to personality.  Some people only feel secure as part of The Group. Others have a mistrust of Groups and find their security in Independence.  
They are not so much defending a core set of ideas & policies as they are defending their own personality traits.  

This is why many Liberals IMMEDIATELY get emotionally hostile to having their views challenged.  They instantly view it as a personal attack.  Since they instinctively come to view the questioning of The Group's groupthink as a personal assault, this is why they not only defend their own views in such a emotional, sometimes nasty way, this also explains why they can only challenge the beliefs of others in the same emotional manner.  

Attacking the viewpoint of others, or defending their own viewpoint, they do so based on their emotions.  The meme of the Angry, Red-Faced Liberal has more than a little truth to it.  Whether defending what Liberals believe, or challenging a Conservative assertion, discussion for the Leftist Progressive is ALWAYS waged on a deeply personal level. 
This is what many Conservatives don't understand.  There they are calmly and reasonably discussing a certain subject - let's say pension funds for unions, which are going to bankrupt many states before 2020 gets here if something isn't done - and all of a sudden the Liberal they are talking to will lean over the table and hiss "Why do you HATE working families?"

This is what it always comes down to . They are convinced evil motives drive Conservative policy.  Therefore only evil people can adopt Conservatism.  Based on this bedrock assumption, they will totally ignore any rational points you are making that count against the Liberal position and at all times keep trying to discuss your MOTIVES for daring to question the Collective Wisdom.  

 Liberals will often claim you are IGNORING them if you don't respond to an attempt to change the subject or to a personal attack red herring, but instead keep calmly and rationally building your argument.  

What you said: "We need to reform the state union pension system to keep the state from going bankrupt." What the Liberal hears: "I hate working families."

What you said: "There is no national crisis where women cannot obtain cheap, effective birth control, and this new mandate violates many citizens' First Amendment rights because it would force them violate their religion, and the Constitution is very clear that Congress cannot pass or enforce a law that does that." What the Liberal hears: "I hate women and I want to make war on them."

What you said: "We've tripled our spending on public schools in 2 decades and the present system continues to vastly underperform.  It needs real reform to ensure taxpayers and students aren't being shortchanged."  What the Liberal hears: "I hate kids and teachers and I want the American public school system to fail."

What you said: "The national cost of illegal immigration is bankrupting some of our states and it's not right that illegal immigrants end up having more rights and protections than people who are legal citizens, so we need to enforce the immigration laws."  What the Liberal hears:  "I hate everybody who doesn't look like me and I want all immigration to America to cease." 

What you said: "America should be a color-blind society where merit decides who rises, not skin color or gender.  If some segments of society are not equally represented in some fields, the answer is to improve the education and preparation for the work force of that segment of society, not to lower the standards in order to promote unqualified people to positions they can't handle."  What the Liberal hears: "I hate anybody who isn't white and women too."

What you said: "Marriage is an institution that has been the basic building block of society for thousands of years.  We shouldn't be tinkering with it and casting the traditional view aside when nobody really understands what the long term effects of such tinkering will be."  What the Liberal hears: "I hate gay people."

What you said: "Human life begins at conception, and abortion destroys that human life.  Such a thing should only be done for the most compelling of reasons, which is why the 98% of abortions that are done for elective and not medical reasons need to be more strictly regulated to demonstrate we are a culture that values human life, no matter what stage it is at, young or old."  What the Liberal hears: "I hate women."
Understand, in the Liberal Mindset there can't POSSIBLY be a completely rational and compelling argument for what the Liberal Mindset rejects.  This is why 99% of the time you are attempting to argue rationally, the only thing the Liberal is thinking about is the next statement they are going to make that will demonstrate what a terrible person you are. 

They completely mentally dismiss any argument you make without even seriously listening to it.  It can't be a valid argument because..........hate.  

As far back as 1996 I was starting to realize that no matter how dispassionately and reasonably one argued with the Far Left, it always comes back to this:  ADMIT YOU HATE PEOPLE.  YOU'RE ONLY A CONSERVATIVE BECAUSE YOU DON'T CARE.

Liberals  adopt these beliefs to show they CARE and that they BELONG.  

So here's what the Liberal is also hearing, besides the fact that you are full of HATE: 

What you said: A rational, carefully thought out argument in favor of a Conservative position.  What the Liberal hears:  You want me to STOP CARING and to CEASE BELONGING
How dare you attack my core personal identity, you pond scum!

Since these two core values are so deeply rooted in the bedrock of the Liberal Mindset, challenging them provokes a hostile response.  This is also why when a Liberal shifts to becoming a Conservative, they always talk  about how FRIGHTENING it was to step out as a real individual for the first time in their lives, how alone and cut off they felt.  

The Collective can only explain a conversion from Left to Right in terms of mental instability or loss of character.  There can't possibly be any legitimate reason for someone to shift from Left to Right, so some other explanation must be found.  

That's why when someone like Frank Miller publicly declares he is now leaving The Collective behind, it has to be explained away as "he's lost his mind" or "he was always evil, he's just now letting us know this".  
"Hey OWS - go back to your mom's basement! That's right, I'm evil! Always have been, suckers!"

It never occurs to Liberals that if Conservatives/Republicans are driven and motivated by HATRED of anybody that is not white and male, how can the Republican Party and Conservatism have so many non-white, non-males as members?  

This explains the rabid hatred Liberals reserve for those who refuse to bow to the Collective Will on Race and Gender politics.  Nobody gets more hatred directed at them than Conservatives who are non-white and non-male.  Because they aren't where they 'should' be - safely under lock and key on the Liberal Plantation.  Ideological conformity based on race and gender and class is a MUST for Progressivim's agenda to succeed. 
Women and minorities who aren't where they 'should' be on the political spectrum - solidly on the Left, to hear some people tell it - thwart the Collective Narrative that they are in a fight for the survival of civilization with the Evil Young White Males.  

If Conservatives and Republicans honestly and truly hate Women, Black, Hispanics, etc. then how does one account for the fact almost half of Conservatives are women, more than 1/3rd aren't white, many are old, etc.  

Conservatives set about to win individual hearts and minds through rational appeal. Liberals set about trying to co-opt entire societal groups based on race, gender and class, and then assign PC 'cowboys' to ride herd on those groups by using Political Correctness to make sure most of them stay on the reservation.  
Hey you c*nt, get back where you belong!

Nothing shows cognitive dissonance like some Far Left Liberal who turns around from  hurling the most vile, disgusting and sexist invective at a Conservative non-white woman to demand why YOU are so full of hate.  

But this is what they do. I know they do it because I have watched them do it for more than a decade and a half.  The first couple of times I watched this sort of thing, I realized "I have got to set about understanding how these people can do this sort of thing without the gears in their heads exploding from the hypocrisy."  

This is why when older, sager Conservatives tell the younger ones rational arguments are wasted on people who can't argue rationally themselves, they have a point.  You should only make rational arguments to people firmly held in The Collective Groupthink if you are endeavoring to learn and study their responses so you can obtain a better grasp of how to lead them to admit from personal experience how the Collective Groupthink led them to believe things they can look back at now and see were manifestly untrue.  
That is the first chink in the armor of the Collective: "If holding to the Groupthink led me to defend something in the past so fiercely and emotionally that is now so obviously untrue....what has the Collective Groupthink got me believing RIGHT NOW that is untrue?"

In Part II coming next week: How to Tie Liberals Inextricably to A False Narrative Of A Current Event And Then Lead Them Ask Why They So Quickly Adopted That False Narrative.

UPDATE: John Hawkins helpfully provides 20 examples of Liberals revealing their true nature: 

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/03/06/in_honor_of_andrew_breitbart_20_examples_of_liberal_hatred_on_display/page/full/