Amazing to see MSNBC once again editing and misrepresenting news in a transparent effort to defame and detract from conservative candidates. (Remember the edits to Romney’s sandwich making comment and their equally odious edits to the Zimmerman 911 call? Note that I would be equally concerned if the editing and outright lies were being done in a manner that attacked and defamed liberal/progressive candidates.)
I have heard and read first hand accounts from more than one person who was at this campaign event and they are all saying that the crowd was yelling “Romney, Romney, Romney” and Mr. Romney stopped them and asked them to include Ryan in their chant. If one actually listens to the crowd, you can clearly hear that they are chanting “Romney.” However, that chanting is cut short by MSNBC audio techs. So they have deliberately misrepresented the crowd’s chant as “Ryan, Ryan, Ryan”. That way, when Romney stopped and asked them to chant both names, he appears weak and ineffective – having to remind the crowd who is leading the ticket. Instead Romney was lowering himself and raising up his running mate.
MSNBC apparently couldn’t stand to have Romney appear as a humble or self-effacing candidate, so they chose to smear the conservative in the story by editing the audio and reporting a lie.
Tell me again why anyone watches this channel? They’re not even doing a good job as a paid wing of the Democrat party because their attempts to smear the other side are so transparent that they become almost comical.
As we learn more and more about Obama’s “composite” girlfriends, and self-stated place of birth, we begin to see that much of this life before Washington was a fabrication and marketing scheme.
Now, we’re also learning that his much shared story about the death of this mother is also false.
Throughout the 2008 campaign season, and later, in support of his massive overhaul of our medical system, Obama was widely quoted as saying his mother had been the victim of a greedy and vindictive insurance system. He claimed she spent her final days in the hospital, fighting with insurance companies over her medical coverage.
For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.
In reality, we are now learning that there is something fundamentally wrong with a person spreading yet another false narrative about the evils of insurance companies, as a means of obtaining the most powerful political office on the planet.
The fables Obama seems to have told about his alienation, his girlfriends and the rest of his over-intellectualized voyage of self-discovery actually pale in comparison to the whopper he told when running for election in 2008 that his mother died because she had been denied coverage and treatment of her disease. Scott revealed that in fact the expenses relating to her cancer had been paid by her insurance. Though she had a separate and totally unrelated dispute relating to disability coverage, Scott’s research proved that Obama’s statement during the 2008 presidential debate was fiction […]
It bears repeating that the president knew this account was false because he served as his mother’s attorney in all her dealings with the insurance company.
It is time for Obama’s many, varied, and colorful personal narratives to be brought out into the sunlight. That this man is serial liar and much of his life appears to be little more than marketing spin and fable has become increasingly clear. It’s time that the media did its job and the American people saw through the hype and PR. It’s time to finally vet this man’s career and credentials.
Victor Davis Hansen considers the failure of the assumable minority identity in a recent post. As I noted in my previous posts on the Obama “Kenyan” bio (here and here), the fault lies wholly at the feet of the people engaging in the fraud. But few, if any, in positions of power have the courage to stand up and say that the king is strutting down the street buck naked.
Hansen quite rightly notes that many in the postmodern, politically correct, and progressive community feel no qualms engaging in fraudulent misrepresentation of their lives and history as a means of bolstering the progressive street cred. However, the problem with their situational ethics is that there is no longer a foundation upon which we can review their performance or abilities.
… we seem to forget that these are not just absent-minded slips, but deliberate frauds. These lies always result in making the author/professor/candidate more, not less, exotic and thus more marketable in today’s PC landscape. So when Obama, the former editor of the Harvard Law Review and current president of the United States, and Warren, a Harvard Law professor, fabricate their identities for career advantage, then who polices the police?
No one would ever seriously and openly advocate that our youth pattern their lives after frauds and liars. However, given the politically correct straightjackets that censor rebuttals to the ‘assumable minority identity,’ no one is free to criticize Warren because to do so would be to attack her imaginary Native-American “heritage.” One can’t criticize Obama’s own 16-year long claim to a Kenyan birth because to do so is to engage in “birtherism” and a racist assault on his – for the purposes of marketing a book – Kenyan heritage.
One dare not question the motives underlying their collective fraud because that implies a patriarchal, modernist, racist, … colonialist, … sexist – did I forget any? – attack on whatever parentage or heritage they have most recently claimed.
Their background is fraudulent and their experience is fraudulent. Therefore, their achievements are primarily based in lies and then bolstered and funded by additional lies and politically correct fear. Their lives are a fraud, but they are celebrated in the progressive world as shining examples of successes that others should mimic.
This is simply nonsensical.
Something to think about amidst stories of the voter fraud that are now almost accepted as normal.
“We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections.”
–John Adams, Inaugural Address, 1797
The Telegraph has an amusing editorial on the how “the high priest of the AGW cult,” George Monbiot, “is feeling frustrated and depressed.”
In a Guardian editorial Monbiot is laments the discovery of a massive academic and scientific fraud perpetrated by several of the world’s eminent climate scientists. Of course he refers to this revelation as an “attack on climate scientists.” He continues by claiming that this horrid “attack” is “now widening to an all-out war on science.”
Laughable of course, and that hilarity is quickly pointed out by the editorial author, Gerald Warner who states that Monbiot shouldn’t get too far ahead of himself as the “war” is only being waged against “bogus science.”
But as Monbiot attempts to argue, no one but he and his similarly endowed high priests have a prayer of understanding their advanced thoughts and theories on climate. Furthermore, the merciless “monopolies” led by publishers and editors of scientific journals make it impossible for the public to access the ‘science’ that he and his cohorts are producing (would those be the same journals in which Phil Jones, Mike Mann, and the other CRU & IPCC-linked “scientists” conspired to control the content, or to shut out when they found they couldn’t? Just asking …) Even worse, he then goes on to detail how popular culture makes all scientists into “sinister schemers.”
So, after reading Monbiot, you begin to understand that its the public’s stupidity, the greed of publishing companies, and that eevilll Hollywood (except when they’re awarding Al Gore his Oscar or Academy Award) that makes it impossible for poor, misunderstood, and under-appreciated climate scientists to get their clear vision of truth, justice, and climate purity out to the masses.
It has nothing to do with the East Anglia fraud, Climategate, Glaciergate, the misreported NASA data, or any of the other frauds perpetrated in the name of climate change. It’s just that we’re too dumb and to easily controlled by publishers and the media.
Monbiot’s hand-wringing and whinging might be easier to endure if he weren’t so completely arrogant about his massive intelligence as compared to the public’s stupidity and malleability. It might be easier still to endure if the fact that none of his stated concerns mattered in the least when the true-believer’s ideas were doing the influencing.
Why am I not surprised to read that the U.N.s top climate change guru is,
1) Not trained in climate science (normally I wouldn’t bring this up as sufficient reason to discredit someone, but isn’t the “he’s not a climatologist” epithet the first thing true believers spit out a reason for skeptics being denied the opportunity to comment? Interesting that their top guy is guilty of the same sin.)
2) Making bucketloads of money from his involvement in setting world wide climate policy
From the Telegraph,
No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.
Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.
What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.
These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.
Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international ‘climate industry’.
With this sort of thing going on in more than one place (can you say Al Gore) and the East Anglia CRU fraud, it’s no wonder that reasonable people are starting to get angry at the growing level of control these people have over our lives.
It would be interesting to see some attempt to estimate the total direct cost to the world’s taxpayers of all the scare-mongering since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring first started appearing in The New Yorker magazine in June 1962.
Each scare, in turn, is packaged and marketed with more skill than the previous; each enjoys its run in the world’s headlines, and the frenetic political attention we have been watching in Copenhagen in its most advanced form. Each in turn is gradually forgotten as more facts come to light, as the apocalyptic predictions fail, as the storyline bores through repetition. And then a new scare needs to be invented.
This is perhaps one of the best descriptions of the costs of this type of over-the-top environmental hysteria and fraud I have read in a few years. Would that more people would pay close attention to the suggestions this author makes on dealing with these so-called leading lights.
For this reason, I think we need, after thorough public inquiries, to bring criminal prosecutions against some of the major scientific players exposed by the recent release of e-mails and papers at the centre of the “global warming” scam. The more any percipient reader pours through those “hacked” documents, the clearer he will see the criminal intent behind the massaging of the numbers; for the masseurs in question stood to benefit directly and personally from getting “the right results.” This is, by its nature, an issue for the criminal courts.
My reasoning here is that “environmentalism” at large has — like all other “progressive” movements — exploited public gullibility about motivations.
The leading lights have accumulated wealth and power, while presenting themselves as men of goodwill. They have projected themselves through sympathetic media as unselfish and pure and have demonized their opponents as selfish and impure while themselves being on the take.
Even before examining, objectively, details of the claims environmentalists are making, the public needs to be put on its guard. A successful representative democracy requires an electorate armed against politicians of any stripe or kind (elected or otherwise) who make claims to personal sanctity, for this is an infallible mark of grave hypocrisy. Genuinely good people do not advertise their goodness; genuinely humble people do not advertise their humility; genuinely truthful people do not claim to be messengers of “settled science” when there is no such thing.
Kind of hard not to mock what this group has done to the supposedly “settled science” of climate change.
Just one example of how derelict the Obama campaign has been in controlling their online donations.
Used the following information and it was accepted…
First name: Fake
Last Name: Donor
Address: 1 Dollar To Prove A Point
Zip / Post: 33333
Email Address: email@example.com
Phone Number: 2125551212
Employer: Mainstream Media
Occupation: Being in the Tank
And incredibly, my $5 donation was ACCEPTED!!!
With the outright fraud being perpetrated by other Obama-linked groups like ACORN, it’s no wonder the news is looking better and better for Obama all the time. With donations pouring in from Saudi and Palestinian sources, (very) thinly veiled threats of riots should Obama lose, and tens of thousands (or more) fraudulently registered Democrat voters being added to the roles, it’s clear that Obama and his supporters are dead set on taking this election whether they get the votes or not.
Update: One wonders if this is the sort of behavior we have to look forward to from angry Obama supporters (note the riot threats discussed above). (Note: the woman who claimed to have been attacked has apparently admitted that she lied about being attacked. Thankfully she is being charged by the local police as her report was clearly an attempt to provoke anger against the Obama campaign. Obama has enough in his policies to critique. People don’t need to be making things like this up.)
A 20-year-old woman who was robbed at an ATM in Bloomfield was also maimed by her attacker, police said.
Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Diane Richard tells Channel 4 Action News that the victim was robbed at knifepoint on Wednesday night outside of a Citizens Bank near Liberty Avenue and Pearl Street just before 9 p.m.
Richard said the robber took $60 from the woman, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim’s car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter “B” into her face, Richard said.
Update: More of the same on the issue of Obama’s shady fund raising schemes. More complaints to the FEC have been filed over the tens of thousands of campaign donations that appear to have come illegal and foreign sources.
The RNC complaint noted that, by all appearances, the Obama campaign had disabled standard security features on its fundraising website.
“For example, online merchants usually match the cardholders’ provided name and address to the credit card number to protect against fraud,” the RNC noted. But “given the high number of fictitious contributor names linked to credit card contributions, OFA appears not to be consistently following this practice.”
Even more troubling than these cases appearing in the Obama campaign’s itemized contributions is the $270 million that the campaign has taken from undisclosed sources.
“The RNC believes that widespread illegalities may exist among these un-itemized contributions and requests that the Commission immediately investigate both itemized and un-itemized contributions in both the OFA primary and general election periods to ensure a fair and open election.
Anyone still have any questions about why Obama lied to the American people regarding public funding of his campaign? If he had gone with public funding, he would have to be a whole lot more open about who he was getting money from.