Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Olbermann’s Self-inflated Ego…

May 6, 2008

Keith Olbermann’s ego, which he personally inflates every night with the aid of the usual cronies of the liberal elite media, must surely be in danger of bursting. Once a minor satirist, now a self-promoting apologist for all things anti-American, Olbermann’s show has survived for tworeasons. Firstly, it is on a cable news network that few care to watch. Secondly, he’s taken the easy option of being a Bush-basher, an anti-war, anti-American, and anti-Western Civilisation ‘journalist’ – something that is guaranteed to gain him good press in the wishy-washy world of the liberal media.

Tonight, once again, he took the opportunity to attack Senator McCain. The criticisms of McCain were exaggerations of the facts at best, or childish lies at worst. His partner in crime this evening was a certain Matt Taibii, dubious author of a deeply troubling book that supports the anti-American conspiracy ideas behind 9/11 among other disturbing notions. They took it in turns to take swipes at McCain, to back each other up and to mock America. At one point, Olbermann made light of the “post-9/11” world – he is an offensive cretin if he does not believe most people’s lives in the western world were altered by 9/11. Our whole outlook on the world, our security, religious extremism had to change.

Olbermann and Taibii spoke in circles and contradictions; at one point, criticising McCain for changing his opinions, and then pseudo-praising him for not blindly sticking to certain conviction. One would hope a politician could modify his views on issues over the course of several decades – it would be very concerning if he held exactly the same views in 2008 as in 1988. The world is constantly changing.

Taibii guffawed when mentioning that McCain had voted against his own bills in the Senate. Neither he nor Olbermann bothered to mention that he voted against some of his own proposed bills owing to their final state and content when they were presented to senators for the vote.

I do not want to waste any more of your time with Olbermann quotations or comments. All I will add is the following… Olbermann has put his eggs in the Obama basket. Two peas in a pod… two leftist elitists, out of touch with the people and often offending middle America. Hopefully, 2008 will bring an end to their negative, anti-American tripe they both try to force down the throats of their audience.

Advertisements

Romney Lies

January 16, 2008

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

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.

O’Donnell – Defending the Indefensible

May 26, 2007

Rosie O’Donnell is leaving The View ahead of her scheduled departure time following her spat with Elisabeth Hasselbeck. On the back of her regular efforts to discredit the US troops, denigrate the President, and propogate unsubstantiated falsehoods (9/11 conspiracy theories), this departure is long overdue.

While free speech and questioning of authority are to be encouraged in a democratic society, abuse of a public position to spread unproven, extremist theories and to undermine the country at a time of war should not be tolerated.

It is interesting that this blog has received a number of comments containing extreme vitriol as a result of its criticism of O’Donnell and yet these same people are quite happy to hear her compare the US forces to terrorists and President Bush to war criminals.

O’Donnell’s right to free speech is undeniable – she does not have the right to abuse the troops and spread groundless, extremist conspiracy theories on national television without being questioned.