Archive for the Stupid Media Category

NPR: Wal-Mart Tragedy is… Wait For It… BUSH’s Fault!

Posted in Economy, News, politics, Stupid Media with tags , , on December 5, 2008 by Randy Streu

Are there actually people who think this way?

According to NPR’s “Poet on Call,” Andrei Codrescu, the trampling to death of a Wal-Mart employee has been a long time coming — well, at least since 9/11.

And it wasn’t because of our collective sense of entitlement, borne by years of political correctness and official excuse-making for criminals, or because of our society’s loss of value in human life.  Of course not.

No.  It’s because George W. Bush told Americans to go shopping — and Americans, who disapprove of Bush, according to the Press, in near-astronomical numbers, all rallied to the cause with such fervor that they simply didn’t notice they’d killed a man.  They were too busy “Following orders.”

I’m astounded beyond words that this idiot is given a microphone.  Freedom of speech is one thing, but do we really have to encourage the mind-bogglingly stupid by paying them to talk in public?

Psst. Hey, You. Yeah, YOU… the Media Think You’re Stupid

Posted in Elections, News, Obama, politics, Sarah Palin, Stupid Media with tags , , , on October 2, 2008 by Randy Streu

I’m sorry.  I just can’t let this go any longer.  After all, the media assault on all things Conservative isn’t anything new.  Why not just leave it alone, or let Rush Limbaugh talk about the Left Wing mainstream media?  They have been, in their elitist way, assuming that the vast majority of the viewing public is dumb enough to fall for their BS for a long time, after all — haven’t they?  So why poke that hornet’s nest now?

Well, a couple reasons, actually.  First, I have to mention tonight’s VP debate.  I know much has been made in some circles about the moderator.  But I have to ask… is there anybody out there that honestly believes Gwen Ifillwill be impartial tonight?  Ifill, of course, wants you to believe that doubts about her credibility are due to race.  “After all,” she says, “no one’s ever assumed a white reporter can’t cover a white candidate.”  Of course, never mind that she has written a book featuring Barack Obama, which is scheduled to be released on inauguration day.  Never mind that the election of that particular candidate would certainly have a positive effect on book sales, thus giving Ifill a financial stake in the outcome of this election.  There’s no conflict of interest here.  Of course not.

The media — or, certainly, various members of the media, would also have you believe that Sarah Palin is unqualified to fill the role of VP.  (I’m not going to provide a link here, by the way, and give these people more traffic.  If you don’t believe me, Google it).  This is the part I really wanted to leave alone; to let the citizenry parse out for themselves.  Unfortunately, it’s beginning to appear that many people are actually being duped by this line of attack.  I’m not going to argue it, really.  I’m too damned tired, and, by God, people should be able to figure this stuff out.  I am, however, going to rephrase what it is the media want you to believe. 

The media, and the Democrats (but I repeat myself), want you to believe that a woman who worked her way up from local politics to become governor of a state which supplies a vast amount of our nation’s oil wealth, who has worked out trade deals with foreign nations, and whose every step in her political career has been marked by difficult executive decisions is somehow less qualified for the office of Vice President than somebody who has a short career marked by making as few political decisions as possible — none of which were executive decisions, by the way — is for the office of President.

That is what you’re being asked to believe.  The media think you are stupid.  The question is, are they right?

The Federal Government Is Trampling your Right to Contact America’s Enemies in Private

Posted in civil rights, Constitution, national defense, News, politics, Stupid Media with tags , on July 9, 2008 by Randy Streu

I will freely admit that I’ve longed believed the mainstream media has a left-wing bias.  I will also freely admit that I, personally, have more of a right-wing bias, and that I am therefore more sensative, perhaps, to such biases when they come from a purportedly “balanced” media.

So I was annoyed, but not surprised, when I read the ABC News write-up of the Congressional passage of the FISA Bill.  From the page title (“Spy Bill Passes: Gov’t Free to Spy on You”) to its faintly veiled commentary (“And so the FISA bill was an ‘historial embarrassment’ that Specter became complicit in when he chose later to vote for the law.”), the piece is rife with the sort of fear-mongering nonsense for which the news media is, sadly, becoming known.  And,  of course, their basic conclusion, that the Government wants to SPY ON YOU, is not only way off-base, but an out-and-out lie on the part of liberals and media goons.

What the bill does do — what the Homeland Security domestic spying program has always done — is allow for the wiretapping of known enemies of the state (i.e., terrorists), and those inside our borders who are in contact with them.  How do we know these domestic individuals are in contact?  Simple.  When you call a tapped phone, your call is traced.  The bill also grants cooperating phone companies a level of protection from lawsuits for the act of, you know, aiding in the defense of our country.

So let’s review:  The government isn’t spying on you.  George Bush doesn’t give two flying figs about your date last night, or how hot the neighbor is, or about the crappy book you’re reading.  Unless you happen to be chatting up a known Enemy of State, your communication is secure.  We simply don’t have the resources to tap every phone in America, and Americans wouldn’t stand for it if we did (even Republicans).  Nobody’s “rights” are being violated — unless you consider the ability to privately contact a terrorist a “right.”

Just a fair warning, by the way: Anyone who chooses to argue by incorrectly quoting Ben Franklin, and attempting to equate his brilliant remarks on essential liberty and temporary safety to the situation here will simply be labeled an idiot and ignored, unless you can demonstrate how contacting known terrorists falls under “essential liberty.”  Good luck with that.

Yellow Journalism and The Non-issue of McCain’s Citizenship

Posted in Constitution, Elections, Hillary, John McCain, News, Obama, politics, Stupid Media with tags , on February 29, 2008 by Randy Streu

The New York Times has recently published an article questioning John McCain’s constitutional ability to become President, based upon the fact that he was born on a military installation in the Panama Canal Zone.  Oddly, though the headline on the Times article says McCain’s off-shore birth “prompts queries,” the article doesn’t mention anybody as actually bringing up the subject.  Indeed, the “queries” seem to come from nobody other than the Times themselves.  Yellow journalism at its finest.

First, for clarification, I understand that there are many people who believe themselves to be intelligent, but haven’t managed to pull their heads out enough to understand the fairly simple language and intentions of the Constitution on this matter.  Even the Times, though it repudiates it as being “potentially unconstitutional,” mentions a measure passed by the first congress which indeed takes the pains to define the “natural-born citizen” clause in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.  A natural-born citizen, according to this measure, includes those children of citizens “born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States.”

Even without that measure as guidance, common sense ought to rule the day here.  Clearly, the children of citizens are, themselves, citizens.  If a group of missionaries have a baby in Africa, that baby is, in fact, an American citizen.  If a soldier and his wife have a kid in Germany, that child is legally American.  This is fairly clearly the definition of “natural-born.”    I would further suggest that the only reason this definition would ever be called into question is as a distraction from actual campaign issues. 

One wonders if the New York Times would be so quick to post this question if it had been Barak Hussein Obama or Hillary Clinton born on a military installation.

Point number two: an American military base is, in fact, American soil.  Just the same as a United States embassy is considered American soil.  This is an internationally recognized convention.  An individual questioning the “Natural-born” citizenship of a person born on a Panama military base might just as well question the status of a person born in Alaska.

The truth is, only an idiot would consider this anything but a frivolous issue.  Only a complete moron would honestly believe that McCain ought to be disqaulified from the race based on this fact.  It’s simple logic.  So, the question we have to ask is, why is the New York Times so interested in it?  Simply put, they aren’t honest. 

The New York Times has no scruples, when it comes to seeing their desired outcome in this election.  They backed McCain as Republican nominee, hoping to weaken the conservative base — and, given the timing, keeping this and that other little gem just waiting on the backburner.  The Times has known what they were doing this whole time.

And you have to hand it to them.  It would seem that there are still plenty of people stupid enough to believe them to be anything other than a glorified tabloid with an agenda.


Opinion is one thing — I just can’t abide stupid people

Posted in Elections, Fred(!), Stupid Media on January 10, 2008 by Randy Streu

So, I’m travelling the blogosphere and I catch a “man-on-the-street” interview in which a guy talks about how Fred(!) Thompson is the strongest conservative on the ticket — but he won’t vote for him.  His reason?  Basically because he doesn’t think he’ll get enough votes in the primary.  Huh?  If you don’t think he can win the GE, that’s one thing.  But that’s what Primaries are for

So, in other words, this guy won’t vote Thompson because the news media either pretends he doesn’t exist, or else just says nobody else is voting for him.  Can you say, “baaaaa”?

I’ve said it before:  if you have honest issues with the guy, fine.  I may not like Ron Paul supporters, but at least they’ve chosen their guy on the issues, instead of some invented bullshit about “fire in the belly.”


Are We Watching Conservative Republicanism Die?

Posted in Constitution, Economy, Elections, Fred(!), Giuliani, healthcare, immigration, Mike Huckabee, national defense, News, politics, Ron Paul, Second Amendment, Stupid Media, taxes with tags , , , , , on January 8, 2008 by Randy Streu

I’m beginning to think the liberals and the media (but, as some would say, I repeat myself) have finally won.  Or, perhaps, are about to.  When I look at polls, when I listen to people talk (both of which are horrible, horrible methods with which to gain information — and I understand that) it seems people actually want the government to do their thinking for them.  They want the government to deny them liberty and force charity, or health insurance, or social security — or whatever.  They are truly beginning to believe that the average citizen, perhaps, shouldn’t be trusted with weapons — Second Amendment be damned.

This is what happens when you stop thinking with your brain.

What’s been really demoralizing to me personally is that this disease of liberal stupidity (to risk being redundant again) is striking in the Republican party — even harder than in the past.  I’m demoralized because, frankly, I don’t have the strength to start a new party which will stick to Goldwater conservative principles, the Constitution — and not force us to retreat from a war that we’re winning.

For example, as we move along in the primaries, we start looking at what sort of impact the Republican candidates are going to have in New Hampshire.  Why?  More importantly, why would conservatives wish to use a traditionally blue state (in which even many of the Republicans are liberal) to gauge the outcome of the Republican ballot?  Fred(!) Thompson has wisely chosen to skip this state altogether and move along to SC.  Why?  Simply put, because that’s when the Republican race begins.  I’m not going to harp on this point — Limbaugh touched on it today, and better than I could.

My point is that the Republican party seems to be under the impression that pandering to the Left, that producing a liberal candidate and winning the election is, in fact, winning.  Folks, I’m here to tell you, giving up liberty is not winning.  Period. 

Allowing the government to have any control over your personal life, including whether or not you and your family are covered by health insurance, is a loss of liberty.

Allowing your tax dollars to subsidize abortion, welfare, amnesty (even in the form of educational aid) or whatever, instead of those thing for which the federal government was actually formed is, in fact, loss of liberty.

And for what, Republicans?  To get a president with the (R) next to his name?  What good will that do, if the choice simply brings us further down the Left, after all?  Just what the hell is the point of having a Republican president if he governs like a Democrat?

I’ll close with words of wisdom from Fred Thompson.  “I believe conservatives beat liberals only when they challenge their outdated positions — not embrace them.”


A Silent Primary

Posted in blognews, Fred Thompson, Fred(!), general, Mike Huckabee, News, politics, Stupid Media on January 6, 2008 by ambrose7

Wyoming held its Republican primary today with little fanfare or News coverage.  Several candidates hadn’t been there at all, yet the people of Wyoming spoke out, and though you will find little coverage of the primary through you’re major networks, a conservative message won the day.  With Mitt Romney winning the field and taking 8 delegates, and Fred Thompson coming in second with 3 of his own.  Duncan Hunter finished third on the day and will receive 1 come Convention time.  Its good to know that there in America’s heartland conservative values still win out, In a place where people voted on a candidate’s message alone, and were not overwhelmed with the media driven message of “change” the down home values of Freedom, Family and Faith won the day.