Archive for the ‘television’ Category

Olbermann’s Insanity

May 15, 2008

Tonight, Keith Olbermann on his ‘show’ on MSNBC took the opportunity to offer another ‘special’ comment to the nation – actually, the few hundred thousand viewers of his programme. Most of his special comments take the form of a raging attack on President Bush and tend to side with the Jihadists and any other anti-American group/country/individuals. Today’s effort was no exception.

Olbermann criticised American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, denouncing the American-led Coalition as being “cold-blooded” killers and accusing Americans of being war criminals. He felt President Bush was being dishonest when he mentioned that the Jihadists would prefer a Democrat as President – this is not speculation, it is clearly true. The Dems want to retreat and wave the white flag of surrender… both candidates have promised they will pull out the troops as soon as they become President. Olbermann was incensed at the idea that the extremists might attack the United States again – he seems to have fallen for the wishy-washy rhetoric of those living in the liberal bubble. That is, America is only attacked becasue of Bush’s policies. In his minute mind, if we pull out of Iraq and stop attacking the terrorists, they will love us and never harm Western civilisation again. Yes, Keith, and the Big Bad Wolf lived happily ever after with Little Red Riding Hood.

Olbermann accuses Bush of lying but in almost the same breath labels John McCain as Bush’s twin – clearly disregarding what his own cable network has been broadcasting for the past 7 years… McCain’s displeasure with Rumsfeld and certain planks of the Bush policies.

Olbermann, in his selfish little world, surrounded by yes-people, is guilty of many of the charges he levels at Bush, most of which involve dishonesty. He believes he knows what’s best for the American voter and so he ignores the extremist views of Barack and Michelle Obama, and their confidants, he belittles Hillary Clinton’s triumphs against the O-man, and he treats McCain with contempt. Olbermann lost the plot months ago. He seems to blame America for the world’s woes. We all know who he wants to win in the war on terror – it’s not the good guys.

Romney Lies

January 16, 2008

An interesting article highlighting Mitt Romney’s willingness to do anything to get votes, including flipflop and deceive.

McCain Remains Only Hope For Victory

January 16, 2008

The Republican race is wide open according to many in the mainstream media. When one looks at the national polls, however, it is clear that there is one candidate ahead of all Republican candidates and one candidate who can beat any of the Democratic candidates head-to-head.

Who is the candidate? John McCain. Despite media hopes that his campaign would collapse, McCain’s guts have seen him hold on and remain a frontrunner. At the moment local politics (economic recession in Michigan) are clouding voters’ judgement. What is at stake here is more significant that individual States’ concerns. Those voters in Michigan who think that Romney would prioritise their needs should his farytale ever come true are seriously misguided.

Voters in these primaries should be concerned with America’s future first and foremost. If the country is safe and in good hands, then individual states can prosper. If the Islamic extremists gain the upper hand and sense weakness in the White House, and if the rest of the world loses respect for American strength, individual states will suffer.

All voters in South Carolina must be urged to vote for national and international reasons and not local politics. The next leader of the Free World will come from this batch of candidates.

John McCain is the only candidiate suitably qualified to lead the Free World in the fight against radical Islam, to protect America’s interests, and to look after the interests of the people. He has always acted for the good of his country. Personal profit is not a factor. His country’s prosperity remains his priority.

Hannity’s (not so) Hidden Agenda

January 16, 2008

Following Mitt Romney’s expected victory in Michigan tonight, one had the equally expected ecstatic response from Sean Hannity on Fox News.

Hannity’s dislike for McCain knows no bounds. McCain’s New Hampshire victory was greeted with disdain as Hannity proceeded to belittle it by writing it off as a unique state that only went to the Arizona Senator owing to the Independent votes – conveniently ignoring the fact that the MAJORITY of Republicans voted for McCain.

Hannity should be careful what he wishes for. John McCain is the only candidate able to appeal across party lines – this will be vital against Clinton or Obama. Romney will flounder against either of these Democratic candidates – he is a businessman not a potential Commander-in-Chief.

If Romney wins the nomination, the Republicans can kiss goodbye to the White House. Does Hannity want a Democratic White House? If he does not, he should stop backing the candidate whose main policies seem to involve lining the pockets of big business and whose other opinions appear to have changed with the winds of public opinion.

Romney’s flipflopping reminds one of another famous flipflopper from 2004…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbdzMLk9wHQ

We all know how that story finished.

Chavez: Television Is Bad For You

May 28, 2007

What a surprise. The darling of the liberal, anti-American, pro-‘anybody else’ brigade has continued to demonstrate his dictatorial, totalitarian heart by shutting down Venezuela’s most popular television station. Its crime? Free speech and not showing undying love for President Hugo Chavez.

Chavez is following a path laid down by others of his ilk sucha as Che Guevara and Fidel Castro – they claim or have claimed to be on the side of ‘the people’ but in reality they put themselves first and are quite happy to see the working classes (and everybody else, for that matter) struggle and suffer.

Hopefully, Americans such as Jesse Jackson and Harry Belafonte, along with many others, will take note of Chavez’s actions and condemn him. The rest of the world needs to send a message to Chavez, but that is unlikely to happen.

Oh, by the way, Chavez also turned the water cannons onto thousands of peaceful protesters. What next?

The way these Marxist dictators do business is not dissimilar to kings of France in the 1700s. They control all the wealth, they live in fine abodes, and they have scant regard for the lives of the people. We know what happened in 1789.

CNN’s coverage

Rosie’s Blog’s Damning Evidence.

May 27, 2007

Much of the furore surrounding the Rosie O’Donnell and Elisabeth Hasselbeck verbal entanglement centred on the notion that O’Donnell had described the US troops as terrorists. A charge that O’Donnell denies and one on which she forced Hasselbeck to defend her (eventually) during the now infamous row.

It is ironic that O’Donnell’s own blogsite contains the following quotation – a transcript of a discussion in which the ‘terrorist’ description pops up…

 “Dated: 2007-05-23
Did Rosie Call Our Troops Terrorists?

The [sic] is directly from the transcripts of The View for May 17th:

O’DONNELL: …… I just want to say something. 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?
HASSELBECK: Who are the terrorists?
O’DONNELL: 655,000 Iraqis — I’m saying you have to look, we invaded –
HASSELBECK: Wait, who are you calling terrorists now? Americans?
O’DONNELL: I’m saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?
HASSELBECK: Are we killing their citizens or are their people also killing their citizens?  
O’DONNELL: We’re invading a sovereign nation, occupying a country against the U.N.”

Notice, O’Donnell refuses to answer Hasselbeck’s questions regarding clarifying her position on the identity of the terrorists in her opinion. It is clear from her initial statement (my bold) that she is implying that US troops are the terrorists. She is clever enough not to actually put those words in the same sentence but her implication is crystal clear. Hasselbeck gave her ample opportunity to clarify her postion – O’Donnell refused.

It is typical of O’Donnell that she tosses in the 650,000 figure for the amount of Iraqis killed and she even has a section for this stat on her blogsite. I say typical, because of course the number 650,000 is not based on any facts. It is fictitious. There is no proof. This does not deter O’Donnell from using it as if it were true to back up her argument.

It is equally bizarre that she would state that the US was acting against the UN while conveniently ignoring the fact that Hussein/Iraq had been acting in violation of the UN for over a decade. I hardly think the current massacres occuring in Iraq as a result of the fighting between rival Muslim groups is in accordance with the UN charter either – although the lack of action from the UN regarding Darfur might suggest otherwise.

The fact that O’Donnell’s own blog contained the incriminating evidence – and yet, O’Donnell’s people viewing the transcript through Rosie-tinted spectacles do not see it. This might explain why they don’t ‘get’ 9/11 or the War on Terror.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.