Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat

  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #1 

CNN Senior Reporter admits CNN is a propaganda mill -- but they mean well

Gateway Pundit is reporting that CNN Senior Reporter, Dylan Byers, admitted Friday on air that the liberal media elites report Obama and Hillary's "arc of history" following the Dems crushing loss against Gianforte.

The following is the transcript of Byers' commentary:

There's this conversation that's happening among people following the news industry, which is how can we bridge that sort of gap between all of those conservatives who don't trust the media, and get them to start knowing that, you know, we're acting in good faith, with good intentions? Maybe you can't, because they're not even listening. From the second, it's not as if they're reading the article and considering it, or listening the audio and considering it. They're just not paying attention to it, because they don't trust us.

And this, by the way, you look at the tapes of Trump there. Two things have happened: One, over the course of several decades, the conservatives have done a masterful job at capitalizing the waning trust in media and using it to their advantage. But a second thing has happened, too, which is that, on occasion, more than the media would probably like to admit, we have not told the story of conservative Americans, disenfranchised Americans, who believe that they are losing their country.

The story we have largely been telling is a story that is more or less in step with the arc of history as defined by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That does not mean we favor them to win. It just means that sort of vision of a progressive future, a global future, and that is not one that resonates with so many conservative American voters.

And so there is this chasm, and no one exploited it as well as Donald Trump did, and no one made it as violent and aggressive and sinister as Donald Trump did, and that laid the foundation for the sorts of incidents that happened saw last night.

The hilarious takeaway from this is that these liberal media elites are aware of their lies and their manipulation of the truth, they can only, however, admit it through bogus half-truths and semi-truths, and all the while, they still insult our president, insult our intelligence, and insult our rationale for collective distrust of the failing media establishment.

Teddy Roosevelt had something to say about "acting in good faith, with good intentions."


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #2 

Fake news, fake media, fake history, fake truth

wb-jan17-smallDavid Kupelian (WND) says the Benghazi 9/11 attack that killed four brave Americans was caused by a YouTube video. Michael Brown had his hands up and shouted "Don't shoot" before Ferguson cop Darren Wilson shot him. Man-caused global warming is settled science. Bruce Jenner is a woman. Donald Trump's adviser Steve Bannon is a white supremacist. Vladimir Putin hacked America's election system and Trump is his puppet.

Much, if not most, of what America's "mainstream media" report today as news is either misleading or flat-out false. Yet, ironically, our nation's elite journalists are up in arms over an apparently new threat they call "fake news."

And what is "fake news"? That turns out to be a more profound and revealing question than you might think.

A journalist's job, I have long said, is to be a professional truth-teller, but that raises the ultimate question: As Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?"

Traditionally minded Americans, conservatives, evangelical Christians and countless others see truth one way. But those on "the left" -- code for a worldview of churning rebellion against the Judeo-Christian, capitalist, Constitution-honoring ways of previous generations of Americans -- have their own very different notions of truth.

Of course, Americans have the cherished constitutional right to believe whatever "truth" they want, however absurd it might be. But there is a big price to pay, both as individuals and as a nation, for embracing lies as truth.

The press' role

The primary role of an independent press in a free society is to report truthfully and courageously, without fear or favor, what is going on in the greater world, but especially to serve as vigilant watchdogs on government and other powerful institutions and people, lest they abuse that power. Thus, the press plays an absolutely essential role in helping preserve and protect our society and culture against every sort of malevolent influence, from both without and within.

In recent decades, unfortunately, America's establishment press has devolved from simply manifesting a strong liberal bias, to acting as cheerleaders for big government, to openly advocating destructive left-wing causes, to secretly and unethically colluding with favored politicians (as we saw in November's election), to -- most recently -- obsessively attacking those who dare report the news truthfully!

Indeed, liberal media bias has metastasized into nothing less than a war on truth.

This latest manifestation started as what appeared to be a legitimate concern over genuinely "fake" (satirical, parody or just plain fabricated) news stories -- pre-election tales with headlines like "Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump for President, Releases Statement" -- which while pure mischievous invention, were highly shared on social media as though they were real news.

However, this understandable concern over "fake news" was quickly retooled as an exotic new weapon for attacking opposing viewpoints, "conspiracy websites" and -- most threatening of all to the Left, which includes the elite media -- legitimate news reporting that exposes the delusional nature of their coveted "narratives" (that's the code word for leftists' preferred alternate reality on any particular subject).

Even WND was recently designated a "fake news site" (along with the Breitbart, theBlaze and others) on at least one widely publicized list generated by a college communications professor. Since WND, now in its 20th year of operation, adheres to the highest journalism standards, is read internationally by millions of people and is staffed by professional journalists from top news outfits including the Associated Press, CNN, MSNBC (before it went insane) and other major TV and print news organizations, you might wonder why it would be maligned as "fake news."

Here's why: WND's worldview is pro-American, pro-Constitution, pro-Judeo-Christian, pro-capitalism and pro-morality. Obviously, then, it must be condemned as hateful and delusional by the left, which seems perpetually at war with America's cultural, legal and moral foundations.

Although the left-leaning American press used to routinely fall prey to Soviet propaganda and disseminate it as though it were objectively reported "news" -- the classic definition of "disinformation" -- today the media have drifted so far left that they themselves are capable of generating radical left-wing propaganda without any help from foreign adversaries … and turning it into "news."

For most of our lifetimes, much of the news delivered to Americans by the left-leaning establishment press has been fake -- either due to outright commission or, more often, by omission.

For example: Prior to his being elected president of the United States, Barack Obama's past accomplishments and qualifications -- in other words, his résumé -- as presented to the American public by the big media was almost entirely fake. The establishment press simply refused to report anything about Obama's deep, disturbing ties to communists, terrorists, criminals and rabidly anti-American racists, nor his Muslim upbringing and schooling as a child in Indonesia. Instead, they shielded the public from the candidate's astonishingly radical past and instead praised the little-known Illinois senator as a brilliant, gifted, inspirational, post-racial, unifying political messiah.

In other words, the "mainstream media" literally sold voters on Obama in the 2008 presidential race, picking him up and carrying him high over their heads across the finish line. In so doing, the media betrayed the American people to such a staggering degree that the damage they have caused this nation -- and the world -- cannot yet even be calculated, as the cost is still accruing. Until the media acknowledge and apologize for their disgraceful role in elevating Obama as president -- a role they reprised in 2012 and tried to duplicate in 2016 with the epically corrupt Hillary Clinton -- they should never again be trusted.

Fake assumptions underlie fake news

Fake news, when codified over time, becomes fake history -- which is what we find, for example, in the ubiquitous but irredeemably dark, America-hating "history" textbook by Howard Zinn, "A People's History of the United States." This book is routinely assigned as required reading for our children throughout America's public high schools and colleges. According to Zinn's "fake history," America is at core an evil, racist, predatory ration that has grown in wealth and power only by exploiting minorities throughout its bloody history. Scant reference can be found to the enormous, unparalleled good that America has done for the world, its incredible generosity toward other nations, the hundreds of thousands of young lives sacrificially given for others in wars like WWII, and the multiplicity of ways America have elevated, fed, supported, protected and liberated so much of the rest of the world.

This type of perverse education, by the way, is precisely what has turned such a high percentage of today's college students against America in favor of socialism, a wretched system that always results in a loss not only of prosperity, but of liberty itself.

Underlying today's wall-to-wall fake news and fake history is what we could call fake truth -- that is, core baseline assumptions about life that are simply not true. Yet they are the very themes we see reflected in so many misleading leftist-oriented news reports day after day.

A few such underlying assumptions include:

  • Islam is a religion of peace. (Islam has been an imperialistic, warlike religion for 14 centuries and shows no signs of changing now -- indeed, using intimidation and terror, it is engaged in an aggressive expansion campaign throughout the world,)
  • America is still a deeply racist nation. (The U.S. is unquestionably the least racist nation on earth, twice electing a black man as president after, decades earlier, having widely embraced Martin Luther King's "dream" of a color-blind America.)
  • Capitalism is inherently predatory and is failing as an economic system in America. (Free-market capitalism is hands-down the most successful economic system in world history, delivering a far higher standard of living to far more people than any other system.)
  • America's highest law demands a "constitutional separation of church and state." (No such phrase exists in the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment says nothing of the sort.)
  • "Man-caused global warming" is settled science. (At least one petition has signatures of more than 31,000 American scientists, including over 9,000 with Ph.D.s, specifically refuting that position.)

The news media's overall dishonesty and delusion today is in large part a reflection of the all-encompassing deceit of the Democratic Party itself -- and particularly, in recent years, the Obama administration -- of which the establishment press has become little more than a cheerleading squad.

As TV news veteran Lou Dobbs commented recently on Fox Business Channel: "The Obama administration has largely been a White House built entirely upon lies. Whether it is in foreign policy, whether it is in domestic policy, whether it goes to border security or national security, [Obama] has managed to get away with this because we have a compliant, complicit national media that won't do their jobs as watchdogs." 

Bottom line: The left-wing news media, like the increasingly unhinged political party it serves as a propaganda ministry, is a creature of fake news and fake history rooted in profoundly misbegotten core beliefs.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #3 

Defining the far-Left's insidious propaganda

S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) says the American public is continually and subtly bombarded with propaganda and much of it comes from our corrupt media.

Propaganda is used in logos, posters, verbiage, particularly sound bites, et cetera to distort the truth and to subtly influence our thinking as you know. It is also used to diminish the opposition.

I remind myself that wiith logos, sound bites, posters and any type of advertising or propaganda, it is so important to be mindful but not responsive. Propaganda is such a sly, manipulative infiltrator into one's unconscious.

Since I have been querying people on what logos are parodies and which are not, I thought I'd post this. Can you guess which one is real -- if any?


So what do you think? It's a little shocking. It looks like an Islamic crescent.

The Missile Defense Agency logo was changed from the one on the Left to the one on the Right.


Propaganda is used by all sides, some more than others.

Propaganda is by-and-large is deceitful or exaggerated and it is used to manipulate. Putting the candy by the cash register or a wholesome child's face on a sugary cereal is somewhat harmless, but when propaganda is used to distort our more important choices in life, it's dangerous.

The basic principles of propaganda are familiar to most of us but this might serve as a reminder because it will be used against us more and more under our statist administration.


When Maxine Waters calls all Republicans "demons," she is using a propagandist's tactic.

It is also a way to goad people into overreacting so they can be labeled extremists or stupid. Ridicule tends to infuriate people and they negate their own arguments with exaggerated reactions as their opponents had planned.

Repeating the same adjectives over-and-over to paint people with the same brush eventually paints its way into peoples' subconscious and it is particularly insidious. Say it often enough and people will believe it.  For example, making Tea Party people synonymous with all Republicans and then labeling them extremist gives them all one identity which is meant to diminish. It leaves no room for argument or differentiation among viewpoints.

Constantly saying Republicans want dirty air and dirty water (Obama) or that they are obstructionists (most of the Democrats in Congress and the President have made this accusation without proof) becomes part of the public consciousness despite the fact that it offers not one bit of fact.

Denouncing special interest groups such as anyone supporting the other side and not your own is name calling.

Adjectives are problematic. The "extremist Republicans" or the "lying politicians" (hhmmm…well, maybe that's a bad example.)


This is the art of illogical reasoning. All Catholics are for contraception, therefore the church needs to get in tune. The church is against women's rights and it has nothing to do with religious freedom. This tells the church that their views are not acceptable because a majority says they are not -- that is illogical. A equalS B, therefore, A is C. To say 'all Catholics are for contraception therefore it is not a religious freedom issue' -- one has nothing to do with the other. This sets up a fallacious rationalization not based in logical reasoning.


We have multiple examples of this. Calling Poly Sci major, Al Gore, an expert in Global Warming is an absurd generality in that there is nothing scientific about Political Science.

Calling things green, natural or organic doesn't make it so. Solar energy uses coal in its formation and since much of it is made in China, it is done so with a great deal of pollution.

Calling Obamacare moral doesn't make it so. In fact, some view it as outright theft and government intrusion on personal liberties. Certainly it alters our capitalist system for all time.


Another way is to transfer the power, prestige, respect, and authority of a symbol or group from one to the other without basis -- false comparisons.

Fred Thompson advertises for reverse mortgages so they must be good. Another for instance, I went to a rally of anti-war activists. When they started out, they had desecrated flags and photos that depicted soldiers as murderers. Now they hang U.S. flags and have signs pleading to bring our soldiers home safely.

Another was almost heard at the House hearings on religious freedom. Instead of speaking directly to the issue of religious freedom in this ongoing battle between the churches and the HHS rule to mandate abortifacients/contraceptives, the Democrats wanted to bring in a young woman with a compelling, irrelevant story about a friend who died and might have been saved by contraceptives. The story had no scientific or religious relevance to the topic and was only meant to pander to the emotions so it could be used later on as a talking point.

Making it about women's rights instead of sticking to the point is transfer.

Then there is guilt-by-association such as calling people racists, nativists, and xenophobes because they want borders and a planned, orderly immigration system and support Donald Trump. If you support Donald Trump, you are likely a deplorable and irredeemable.


Climate change theorists continually use non-peer reviewed papers as if they were as credible as peer reviewed. Since they have been kept secret, we now know data was falsified and one doesn't know what to believe. The purpose of peer review is to provide the important scientific vetting. Some people will say peer review does the opposite, but not if it is a careful scientific analysis.

People whore themselves out all the time. Don't pick a candidate because some well-known person likes him.


When a politician like Obama who grew up in Hawaii with all the benefits of a reasonably well-off family, went to the best colleges, made a living that puts him in the highest brackets of society starts talking to people in ghettos as if he were one of them, he is being disingenuous. He is not and never has been -- one of them. When Hillary tells you she is the champion of the everyday American but lives in splendor and tells bankers she doesn't relate to the middle class any longer, she is not just one of us.


Present only the facts that benefit the argument being presented (and not labeling it as opinion) -- one-sided arguments. Lying by omission in alleged fact-based publications or other media. For example, in an article by Bill Moyers on the Church-Obamacare controversy in 2010,he did not mention the fact that most religious facilities are self-insured, rendering the "indirect" payment option, the supposed solution to the religious objections, moot completely.


Most people want to conform and get along. They want to go with a winner. When polls and statistics are skewed, they push people towards a particular candidate.

That's why you hear things like only the "fringe" is opposed to Obamacare and anyone opposed will kill millions of sick and old people. Everyone prefers Obamacare.

I heard a Progressive from the Demos Foundation on Cavuto who said Progressivism and Government in charge of most or all our needs is what the American people want. If he says it enough, people will jump on board.


Giving people two choices -- you are with us or against us or you are part of the solution or the problem. You are a "true conservative" or you are not is a good example. In the case of the Iran deal, Obama said it was his way or war, which was untrue -- there were many other choices. When it comes to climate change, the left is now talking about imprisoning dissenters though science is about free thought or at least it used to be. The reality is that our world is mostly shades of gray and most things are never black and white.


These are meant to exclude the opposition or put the opposition on the defensive. It cheapens the opposition. Labeling Republicans as extremist and wanting to kill old people by destroying Medicare is patently untrue but it makes for a good sound bite. No matter how much they say they want to save it, people often remember the first sound bite. Stay away from extremist labels whenever possible though calling Obama a madman and Hillary evil might be okay given the Wikileaks revelations.

People are often demeaned because they are smart or intellectual, being called geeks or nerds. The same holds true for non-intellectuals who have intelligence and commons sense or are just correct on an issue.

Calling Obama an extremist for wanting to eviscerate 80% of our nuclear weapons is not inaccurate since we are at war with enemies proliferating nuclear weapons. Coming from an area of strength, not weakness is advisable.


All the intellectual, pinot noir drinking sophisticates say it is so, therefore it is so. You want to be in with the in-crowd, don't you?


The Affordable Care Act which is not affordable and has us on an unsustainable trajectory financially is euphemistic. Clean energy which requires corrupt processes to be built, especially when built in china, is not so clean and it sure isn't cheap.

The Fairness Doctrine which takes away free speech or The Employee Free Choice Act which takes away the right to a secret ballot are good examples. Lying with positive words to clean up a not-so-positive reality!


If there are any changes to Medicare, you will all die, the left told us. In fact, trillions of dollars will be taken from Medicare to fund the unsustainable. Eventually, seniors and the entire country will be pushed onto a less effective Medicaid system. Doctors are dropping Medicare or threatening to do so because of the changes stemming from Obamacare.

All Republicans are neo-cons -- there is no in between. Meanwhile, many wars were started by Democrats and Obama has set us up for a third World War, especially after giving Iran the okay to develop nuclear weapons in nine years.


Dare to be different. Black Lives Matter appears to be different but they aren't, they are the useful idiots. Their agenda is the agenda of the Progressives, funded by George Soros.


Without considering the research, implications and other factors, we could be all wrong. It doesn't mean you have to change your values, only keep an open mind.


Divide people, pinpoint the enemy, and give them no voice. Bacrack Obama and Hillary Clinton are masters of it. We are all being divided along pro and anti-Democrat lines. Deplorables, irredeamables, blacks, whites, Latinos, LGBTs, white middle class men, police, cowboys, Catholics, Evangelicals, Atheists…the list has gotten very long.


Be careful with this. We should consider the future, but the crystal ball clouds up in our ever-changing world. How many times has Al Gore predicted we would be underwater?

Every person is an individual and is unique to be valued for his/her viewpoints. Let reasonable arguments prevail.


"The essence of propaganda," Goebbels once remarked, "consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never again escape from it."

Political propaganda demands steadfast loyalty and ridicule of the opposition, it transforms enemies of the past into friends, eliminates or rewrites history, demands unwavering faith with each new erratic change that erases all traditions and valued institutions of the past.

Propaganda manipulates people into accepting only one side of events by lying, obfuscating, and omitting facts. It goes beyond enticement or persuasion. It's twisted.

Joseph Goebbels, the brilliant sociopathic propagandist for the Hitler regime, used his understanding of mob mentality and modern propaganda to bring Hitler to power and help him maintain the adulation of the mob. Eventually, that adulation turned to terror but that is not how it began. The press was Goebbel's biggest supporter.

Goebbels, as Minister of Enlightment, was charged with ensuring that no one in Germany read or saw anything that was damaging to the Party and that the views of the Party were presented in the most persuasive manner possible, no matter what it took.

Joseph Goebbels became Adolf Hitler's propaganda minister in 1933. He was given power over all German radio, press, cinema, theater and German culture. He used films, print, posters, speeches, and rallies to glorify Hitler and the ideology of the Party.

Joseph Goebbels once said, "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play." What would he say about our press today? That it's a good start?

The propaganda machine Goebbels employed utilized imagery, often through poster art. It was used to boost the morale of workers, telling them they are the front. They used it to depict the Nazis as a force for good while outlining who the enemies were.

Some posters included slogans such as, "The people will rise," "freedom and bread," "Forward with the powers of renewal!" They were always colorful, often in red print.

Slogans that were short and easily remembered were very popular. Goebbels said, "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly -- it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

The scapegoating of minorities, such as Jews, furthered their grandiose perception of self. The propagandists needed a common enemy to blame for unemployment and the Jews fit the bill. They were often caricatured in cartoons, film, and posters.

The Nazi propagandists, without the Internet, social media, or TV, used the radio to their advantage. Goebbels called it the eighth great power. He arranged for the German government to subsidize cheap radio sets so that almost every household had one with which to hear the Nazi lies.

Film was a popular medium for Goebbel's use. A Department of Film was set up in 1933 with the expressed goal of "spreading the National Socialist world view to the entire German people." One of their films, The Wandering Jew, was a documentary style attack on the Jewish people.

The press was controlled. One paper called Der Sturmer ('The Attacker') was rabidly anti-semitic and pornographic. Even Goering wouldn't allow it in his offices.

Political correctness became ingrained. The media was used to convince people of what was safe to think and to say.

Even music and opera became part of the propaganda machine.

Goebbels knew people had to be entertained first before they could be convinced. He combined entertainment and propaganda in a way that have never been accomplished before.

Most of all, Goebbels promoted the cult of personality surrounding the Fuehrer. His image was shaped through all forms of media. Hitler was a powerful and charismatic speaker who appealed to the emotions and the mob mentality. The combination worked. Propaganda needs the leader who can convince people he is their savior.

There wasn't much resistance to the propaganda. People did not appear to rush to the defense of Jews.

Once a leader in this new and warped culture became entrenched, nothing seemed to affect his standing. In fact, disreputable behavior enhanced his image.

Propaganda was all that Germany knew.

Events surrounding the Fuehrer were filled with splendor with splendid words and lots of marches and flag waving.

Then there was the Hitler Youth who were entertained with sports, games and fun activities while being subjected to ongoing indoctrination. It didn't always work well and rebellious youth were hanged.

No matter what lies were uncovered, the lack of credibility never affected the teflon leader because of the unceasing propaganda glorifying him, thanks to the master of deceit, Joseph Goebbels. Propaganda set the stage for the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party.

Can people be swayed by propaganda if they don't already hold these beliefs deep-down? It would seem so.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #4 

"Right-wing, anti-government extremism is the leading source of ideological violence in America"

Jammie says let's just completely ignore the constant threat of Islamist terror and the leftwing street marauders rioting around the country. We've got the New York Times helpfully cherry-picking and twisting some statistics to help pretend there's some right-wing plot to undermine America. Yes, nearly 14 years after 9/11, the "Right" is still the greatest threat facing America.

The stupid, it hurts.

This month, the headlines were about a Muslim man in Boston who was accused of threatening police officers with a knife. Last month, two Muslims attacked an anti-Islamic conference in Garland, Tex. The month before, a Muslim man was charged with plotting to drive a truck bomb onto a military installation in Kansas. If you keep up with the news, you know that a small but steady stream of American Muslims, radicalized by overseas extremists, are engaging in violence here in the United States.

But headlines can mislead. The main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists. Just ask the police.

In a survey we conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum last year of 382 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorist threats in their jurisdiction; 39 percent listed extremism connected with Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorist organizations. And only 3 percent identified the threat from Muslim extremists as severe, compared with 7 percent for anti-government and other forms of extremism.

Now who exactly is this Police Executive Research Forum, unknown to us until just now?  Well, they receive generous funding from one MacArthur Foundation. And who, pray tell, are they? Glad you asked.

In at least one case, Fanton said that leftist donors had gone too far. In 2002, Steve Kirsch, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, announced that he was going to spend millions on an organization with the working title of "The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy," which he said would be the left-wing counterpart to Americans for Tax Reform. Fanton said that it was a bad idea for donors to give money to an organization that thought it already had the answers to public policy problems. "To go all the way to where a foundation thinks it has the answer and it's going to try to work that answer through to a solution, that's a more difficult question," Fanton told the Wall Street Journal.

It is true that a small amount of MacArthur's money goes to center-right organizations. Between 2001-2004, MacArthur gave three grants to the Center for Strategic and International Studies totaling $1.25 million for research into nuclear nonproliferation, Russian missile development, and biological weapons. The American Enterprise Institute received two grants totaling $100,000 for research into presidential succession in the event of a terrorist attack.

But this small amount given to the Right has been dwarfed by MacArthur's stalwart support of the Left. For instance, the MacArthur Foundation showers money on arms controllers, including in the 2001-04 period the Arms Control Association ($650,000), the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation ($575,000), the Center for Defense Information ($650,000), the Federation of American Scientists ($2.5 million), the Pugwash Conferences ($350,000), U.S. Pugwash ($150,000), and the Union of Concerned Scientists ($1.4 million).

A subsection of MacArthur's funding of research on "pursuit of security here and abroad" is labeled "protecting fundamental values." Here all of the grants go to left-wing groups including the American Civil Liberties Union ($1.25 million), the Center for Democracy and Technology ($250,000), the Center for Investigative Reporting ($250,000 "for support of a documentary film entitled No Place to Hide: Stories from a Surveillance Society"), the Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law ($65,000 "for work designed to reduce the evidence of hate crime and likely landlord and employer discrimination toward persons of Middle Eastern ancestry"), the League of Women Voters Education Fund ($225,000 "for support of the project called Local Voices Citizen Conversations on Civil Liberties and Secure Communities"), and Physicians for Human Rights ($200,000 "to send three two-person teams to the Afghanistan region to monitor and document the human rights situation there").

Weird how these obscure groups all operate for leftwing causes, huh? Now back to the idiocy from the Times:

Despite public anxiety about extremists inspired by Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, the number of violent plots by such individuals has remained very low. Since 9/11, an average of nine American Muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism-related plots against targets in the United States. Most were disrupted, but the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.

In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center. The toll has increased since the study was released in 2012.

Meanwhile, terrorism of all forms has accounted for a tiny proportion of violence in America. There have been more than 215,000 murders in the United States since 9/11. For every person killed by Muslim extremists, there have been 4,300 homicides from other threats.

Never mind the fact that residents of our cities, completely owned and operated by the Democratic Party, are mostly responsible for vast majority of those homicides in America.  But let's pretend it's some out-of-control right-wing mob.

Public debates on terrorism focus intensely on Muslims. But this focus does not square with the low number of plots in the United States by Muslims, and it does a disservice to a minority group that suffers from increasingly hostile public opinion. As state and local police agencies remind us, right-wing, anti-government extremism is the leading source of ideological violence in America.

Absurd. Completely absurd. Oh, and you'll never guess whose names pops up in relation to this study.

The article also cited the George-Soros funded New America Foundation, as their list of consultants for the findings. Bergen's reports also cited NAF's findings, which used inconsistent and absurd presumptions on what makes a person "right-wing." For example, the New America study lists clear examples of domestic violence as cases of "right-wing terrorism" because of fragmentary details of hearsay.

Now the frothing Left has some handy new talking points to hammer the Right with. Never mind it's completely bogus.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #5 

The definition of propaganda -- "This was not a religious crime...does not reflect Muslim beliefs..."

From The New York Times:

"The portrait investigators have begun to piece together of the two brothers suspected of the Boston Marathon bombings suggests that they were motivated by extremist Islamic beliefs."

Ortiz' statement was clearly written by the White House and is a political statement -- not a statement of fact.

Just another example of Obama's government lying to The People about those who wish us dead.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #6 

Iowa has spoken -- Islam is peaceful

Robert Spencer is reporting that a new poll has shown that a majority of Republicans and an overwhelming percentage of Democrats who are likely participants in the Iowa presidential caucuses think Islam is peaceful. Now if we could ship them over to the Islamic State, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Thailand, the Philippines and a few other hot spots, they could work on convincing the people who seem to have the hardest time grasping this point: Islamic jihadists.

The Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll was conducted during the last week of January by Selzer & Co. of West Des Moines. Pollsters asked 402 Republicans and 401 Democrats which one of these two statements more closely reflected their own views: "Islam is an inherently violent religion, which leads its followers to violent acts," or "Islam is an inherently peaceful religion, but there are some who twist its teachings to justify violence."

Fifty-three percent of the Republicans and eighty-one percent of the Democrats chose the second option. Thirty-nine percent of the Republicans and thirteen percent of the Democrats said that they thought Islam was violent, with the remaining eight percent of the Republicans and six percent of the Democrats apparently not sure why they were being asked about Cat Stevens.

This shows the effectiveness of the constant barrage of media propaganda, the never-ending avalanche of articles and learned talking heads assuring us that when we see Muslims brandishing Qur'ans and screaming "Allahu akbar" as they kill infidels, it doesn't really have anything to do with Islam. Fifty-three percent of Republicans and 81% of Democrats have been brainwashed to deny what is painfully obvious. The religion whose holy book says "slay them wherever you find them" three times (2:191; 4:89; 9:5) and calls upon believers to wage war against and subjugate members of what are commonly known as the other two great Abrahamic faiths (9:29), and that exhorts believers to behead unbelievers (47:4) is peaceful. Iowa has spoken.

What's that? The Jewish scriptures contain some violent bits, and therefore Islam is no more violent than Judaism or Christianity? Well, in fact, neither the Jewish nor Christian scriptures have any open-ended and universal calls to believers to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers comparable to Qur'an 9:29, and both Jewish and Christian traditions have mainstream interpretations of violent passages that reject literalism, while literalism is mainstream in Islamic tradition. Nonetheless, the invoking of supposedly comparable passages of the Bible to dismiss concerns about violent exhortations in the Qur'an has become commonplace in the public discourse – which shows how much the public discourse today has become indifferent to inconvenient facts.

Before the triumph of the politically correct ethos, this wasn't even a controversial point. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God's law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

And in some corners of the world, the question of whether or not Islam is violent is still uncontroversial. Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, assistant professor on the faculty of Shari'ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad, in his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: "Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah." Nyazee concludes: "This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation" of non-Muslims.

But back in Iowa, the president of Selzer & Co., J. Ann Selzer, was thrilled by her poll's results. "The majority," she exulted, "do not damn the whole religion for the actions of a few." Nonetheless, she did fret that among the Republicans, "you have more than one in three that considers it a violent religion."

But the idea that thinking Islam is violent means condemning "the whole religion for the actions of a few" is just an Islamic supremacist talking point, one of many that was cooked up by the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its allies, and which by constant repetition has now entered the mainstream. In reality, the question of whether or not Islam is violent can only be answered by examining Islamic teachings, not the actions of a few or even many or most Muslims. This is because people when they act are motivated by all sorts of different things. The fact that a Muslim does something doesn't make it Islamic.

If Islam has a doctrine of warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers, then it is just grand that many, or most, Muslims disregard or ignore that doctrine, but that doesn't mean the doctrine itself doesn't exist. And unfortunately, it does exist. But in Iowa, and all over America, they've dutifully swallowed what the propagandists keep serving up.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #7 

Pro-Islam propaganda from the U. S. State department


Sorry, John, sex slavery IS justified under Islamic law

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #8 

California state senate passes a bill requiring schools to teach about Barack Obama


Adelle Nazarian is reporting that a new, unprecedented bill passed by California's State Senate on Thursday will encourage public schools to teach students about the historical significance surrounding Barack Obama's status as the first African-American president of the United States of America.

Assembly Bill 1921 passed with a 30-1 vote, according to the Associated Press. It was introduced by Assemblyman Dan Holden (D-Pasadena). Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) says the bill would require the Instructional Quality Commission (which facilitates much of California's Common Core framework) to consider teaching students about Obama's election within the context of past voter discrimination, the AP notes.

Sen. Joel Anderson (R-Alpine) was the only senator who voted to strike down the bill. He said, "We've never done this for any previous president," the AP notes.

Mitchell reportedly placed great emphasis on the importance of learning about "overcoming our nation's past to elect our first black president."

That 30-1 vote implies that California State Senate has only one Republican. No wonder the state is all screwed up.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #9 

The road we really traveled

Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle skewer and parody Barack Obama's "Road We Traveled" campaign video. Sponsored by Free Enterprise Alliance's Halt The Assault project.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 14
Reply with quote  #10 

Sorry Ann Marie, get Tom Hanks to pay for the documentary he narrated. He believed what he was reading didn't he?  BTW, tell Tom I won't be attending his new films or renting his older ones. I have never boycotted an actor before now. I am disheartened that Hanks so willingly lied for The Won.  I'm hearing this pledge from my friends, as well. Hanks and his type will find out in Nov. that America is not theirs to remake into a socialist utopia.


Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #11 

Your name in the credits...

By Ann Marie Habershaw on March 26, 2012

You deserve some recognition. And we can't carve your name into the wall of this thing that we’re building -- it’s bigger than that.

Here’s what we want to do:

Make a donation of $3 or more before March 31st, and we’ll put your name in the credits of Davis Guggenheim’s documentary, “The Road We’ve Traveled.”

This film is being used at field offices across the country to fire people up -- because we know it’s one of the best tools we have. But grassroots supporters like you are the ones making sure our field offices have the resources they need to get the film out there.

That’s why if you help make that happen, you get the credit -- literally.

There’s a huge fundraising deadline on March 31st. So make your donation before this Saturday.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Longknife 21

Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #12 
 "The Road We’ve Traveled," ??  should be re-named "The Load We Shoveled"!!
Stolen from The People's Cube.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #13 

Evening in America?

Michael Barone says Barack Obama’s 17-minute video, "The Road We’ve Traveled," gives us an idea of how he wants to frame the issues in the fall election.

The first thing you notice about the video is that the atmosphere is dark, wintry, minor key. You see but don’t hear the election-night crowd in Grant Park, and then the video switches to graphics about the economic meltdown that followed the financial crisis of 2008.

There are gloomy scenes throughout. Obama’s economic advisers arrive in a bleak Chicago after a snowstorm. The president is shown sitting in the Oval Office through a window at night.

The visuals are oddly antique for a president who promised hope and change. When narrator Tom Hanks talks of the "middle class," we see downscale neighborhoods with houses built in the 1910s or 1920s. When he talks about economic recovery, we see an early 1950s Ford coming off the assembly line.

Hanks strikes another historical note. "Not since the days of Franklin Roosevelt has so much fallen on the shoulders of one president." Well, Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan might disagree, but one gets the idea. If America is not standing tall, it’s because Obama started off nearly six feet under.

We hear a lot about the burdens of office and the loneliness of presidential decision-making. The same point was made in 30- and 60-second ads run by Jimmy Carter’s reelection campaign in 1980.

Those spots featured only Carter and the narrator speaking. The 17-minute video has time for testimony from Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, and, briefly, Michelle Obama.

The resemblance to the Carter ads is ominous, seeing as Carter lost 51–41 percent in November. Americans want to think well of their presidents, but sometimes they decide they’ve had enough.

Republicans and political reporters will find much to quibble with in "The Road We’ve Traveled." There are misstatements of facts, and issues are framed in ways that are arguably misleading. The Washington Post’s fact checker has given the video three of a possible four Pinocchios for the Obamas’ description of his mother’s insurance situation in her final illness.

On issues, we don’t hear the words "stimulus package"; there is just a brief reference to the otherwise unidentified Recovery Act. Much more is made of the GM and Chrysler bailouts, which Biden says -- some Pinocchios due here -- exacted sacrifices from the United Auto Workers.

There is also much more -- more than there was in January’s State of the Union -- on health care. We hear a list of promised benefits -- keeping adult children on parents’ insurance, banning refusals to insure for pre-existing conditions -- which so far have failed to make most Americans love the law.

We hear little about foreign policy except for the withdrawal from Iraq, with some attractive footage of soldiers returning home and praise from Clinton and Biden for ordering the SEALs to kill Osama bin Laden.

There are the predictable shout-outs (liberals call them dog whistles) to Democratic constituency groups -- feminists, gay-rights supporters, seculars, fans of green energy.

Altogether, this seems more like an attempt to shore up the Democratic base than it does an attempt to win over independents, who, polls indicate, are skeptical about many claims made in the video. Its main message is what I heard from Democratic voters I encountered on the primary trail: Things were really bad when he got in, and he needs another term to straighten them out.

For a contrast, look at the 1984 Reagan campaign’s "Morning in America" ad. The narrator, ad man Hal Riney, has a soothing voice like Hanks’s, but his message is vastly more upbeat. America is "prouder and stronger and better," he proclaims, because of the policies of President Reagan.

You see more flags than you do in the Obama video, more smiles, and couples at the altar. It looks like springtime and is filled with light.

"Why would we ever want to return to where we were less than four short years ago?" Riney asks. Which surely reminded viewers of the question Ronald Reagan posed in his only debate with Jimmy Carter: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Reagan stole the line from the master, Franklin Roosevelt, who, in a fireside chat before the 1934 off-year elections, asked, "Are you better off than you were last year?" But that was 46 years earlier, and no one remembered.

It’s a question that the Obama campaign dares not ask.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #14 
He's got jokes about the birth for the often-repeated head turn to the left a la Jeramiah W:


Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #15 
Republicans are in the "Flat Earth Society"

So many lies, you lose least watch through 1:20 or so:



Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #16 

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 133
Reply with quote  #17 is reporting - “The Road We’ve Traveled” is an Obama campaign short movie — or alternatively dubbed “docu-ganda” — that, to many, is a stunningly fawning 17-minute account of what the filmmaker posits are the president’s myriad “accomplishments” during his first term.

“Remember how far we’ve come,” opens director Davis Guggenheim’s film. Guggenheim, of course, made waves recently when he asserted that the only “negative” about President Obama is that he has too many positives.

But where does the title and theme for Obama’s mini propagandist piece hail from? Glenn Beck went digging and thinks he might have found the answers in a book from 1942.

In 1942, Stuart Chase, in his book "The Road We Are Traveling" spelled out the system of planning the Fabians had in mind.

Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #18 

Ladies and Gentlemen, The Narcissist



Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #19 

Ladies and gentlemen, Barry the Manchild
Watching barry in front of a crowd of worshippers is revealing. He is Jeramiah W personified; in pace, inflection, tone, volume and hate....and that head turn after the "shut up" in which he looks to the side at's pathetic and juvenile.


And..."because I am the President" is nauseating.




Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #20 

What?  Me?  Blame?

Obama's 17 minute campaign ad "The Road We've Traveled" claims that "he would not dwell in blame." Oh, really?

And Tom Hanks is a fool to utter those words.  It's a career-killer.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #21 

Obama blames Fox News for "Muslim" rumors

Mackenzie Weinger is reporting that  Barack Obama blamed Fox News for his political woes in a private meeting with labor leaders in 2010, saying he was “losing white males” who tune into the cable outlet and “hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7,” according to journalist David Corn’s new book, “Showdown.”

In “Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party” -- which hits bookstores on Tuesday -- the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones chronicles the White House from the 2010 midterm elections to the start of the 2012 campaign. The book focuses on key moments of Obama’s presidency, such as Osama bin Laden’s assassination, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Arab Spring, the debt ceiling crisis, and Obama’s dealings with Congress.

Corn writes that after the midterm elections, Obama told labor leaders in December 2010 that he held Fox partly responsible for him “losing white males.”

"…Fed by Fox News, they hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7, and it begins to seep in…The Republicans have been at this for 40 years. They have new resources, but the strategy is old," Corn recounted Obama as saying.

During Special Report with Bret Baier on Fox News Channel last evening, Baier reported that his staff had researched the "Muslim" allegation.  He stated firmly that no Fox Newsperson has ever uttered the "Obama is a Muslim" meme.


Everyone should know by now that it was The New York Times that informed the world that Obama was a Muslim.  


Actually, The Times went even further, describing Obama as an Islamic apostate whose recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric.


"As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood.  It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion.  Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant."




"His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is 'irtidad' or 'ridda,' usually translated from the Arabic as 'apostasy,' but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive)."


"With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings."


So if Team Obama wants to point fingers, point 'em at The New York Times.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Birther Deluxe

Posts: 93
Reply with quote  #22 

"The Road We’ve Traveled"


‘The Road We’ve Traveled’ is a misleading account of Obama’s mother and her insurance dispute.


The Washington Post gave one of the stories 3 pinnochios.


Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #23 

Hey, Tom!  Check this out!


Politicio's Mackenzie Weinger is reporting that Barack Obama blamed Fox News for his political woes in a private meeting with labor leaders in 2010, saying he was "losing white males" who tune into the cable outlet and "hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7," according to a new book, "Showdown," by journalist David Corn, Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief.

Continue reading here . . .

Tom Hanks committed professional suicide when he made this Obama propaganda film.


A Google search of -- Obama blames -- returns 11,400,000 results.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #24 

Brit Hume on Tom Hanks’ narration of Obama propaganda film

On FOX News Sunday today the All Star Panel discussed the Obama propaganda flick that was recently released. FOX News analyst Brit Hume had this to say about narrator Tom Hanks:


Hume:  "He (Hanks) said he (Obama) did not dwell on blame.  I’m surprised Tom Hanks could get that line out without coughing."


Hume added:  "All the attempts to lay blame are politically foolish.  They seem small, petty, weak.  Look, winner take responsibility.  Losers blame others."




A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 54
Reply with quote  #25 
Obama has hosted over 100 fundraisers -- most in the last three months.

And as of July 16, 2010 "the equivalent of five work weeks spent smacking golf balls".

Keith Koffler on July 16, 2010 reports. "President Barack Obama has played a remarkable 41 rounds of golf since becoming president, easily outpacing his predecessor and possibly damaging his ability to portray himself in 2012 as a populist advocate of average folks".

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved