Tag Archives: ABC

Cleveland Kidnapping, “Courageous” Gays and Jodi Arias: The Lame Stream Media’s Shiny Objects

Posted on by
3

In case you haven’t noticed, here is where we are. It is possible for a person to spend every waking hour in front of the television without risking exposure to anything remotely serious, useful or informative. Consider the viewers of alleged “reality” shows. Be it “Real Housewives,” “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo” or “Project Runway,”  these people, the epitome of what has come to be known as the “low-information voter,”  can consume thousands of hours of “reality” and still not be able to name their congressmen at gunpoint. As you well know, this bunch was instrumental in the “historic” 2008 election of Barack Obama, our first celebutard president. His campaign brilliantly realized that to win, they needed to position him as someone “cool,” so that voting for him would be like voting for Tom Hanks as “the most trusted person in America.” The fact that he was a hard-wired radical leftist whose ideology was (and is) diametrically opposed to the country created by the Founders never had to come up, as his slobbering fans, whose only previous experience with voting consisted of furiously texting the number of their favorite “American Idol” contestants on a Tuesday night transferred their mania to their new favorite famous guy.

It may be obvious to many Americans that it’s safe to assume that most of the dolts who spend their time watching “Cheaters” “TMZ” and “Inside Edition” are not well-informed citizens. Some may also shake their heads in disgust thinking about the millions of wet-behind-the-ears twenty-somethings who think they are getting “news” by watching “The Daily Show.” Before we look down our noses at these people, though, they need to consider a depressing reality: specifically, viewers of supposed network “news” programs are only marginally more informed than the average viewer of “The Colbert Report” or “My Giant Face Tumor.”

The most popular network morning show today is ABC’s “Good Morning America.” It is also the most dangerous because it allows its viewers to believe that they are actually well-informed, when in fact a person can watch this show seven days a week without risking exposure to more than 5 minutes of actual news and information.

Here is the template for a typical GMA’s daily broadcast. A weather story, preferably a huge storm with lots of destruction, followed by a human interest story, then something about celebutard’s behaving badly, and concluding with a promotion for some ABC prime-time programming. On days when there is a blockbuster human interest story, like the Jodi Arias Verdict, or the Cleveland Kidnapping, there will be wall-to-wall coverage, featuring interviews with anyone with even the most remote connection to the figures in the case. They might even shorten the weather coverage to turn network tv minutes over to their exhaustive coverage of these cases.

If you doubt me, consider the recent case of the drunk driving arrest of Reece Witherspoon’s husband in Atlanta. GMA devoted two segments to this case, which was also big news on “TMZ.” Can anyone seriously make the case that there’s a dime worth of difference between these two shows at the end of the day? The answer is “no.”  Incidentally, the same day that this earth-shattering story was HUGE over at GMA, more serious outlets were reporting on the fact that Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Barack Obama’s man in the U.S. Senate, agreed with another democrat, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) that the Obamacare bill that Sen. Baucus had largely written is a “train wreck.” Of course, since apparently 42% of Americans don’t realize that Obamacare is the law of the land, I guess the folks at GMA figured it would be WAY too time-consuming to try to explain to the audience what they were talking about if they reported on that whole “train wreck” thing. Besides, issues like the economy, Benghazi and the looming Obamacare disaster are so boring! That Reece Witherspoon story, now that’s news!

Lest we forget the media bias that we frequently lament, their slanted coverage of events is only part of the story. An equally dangerous bias is the Jurassic media’s decision to distract the public with these shiny objects to avoid any mention of issues like Obama’s part-time jobs recovery or last years deliberate pre-election coverup on the murder of four Americans in Libya on the anniversary of 9/11. Isn’t it a story that the president of the United States has time to call a professional athlete to congratulate him on his “courage” for proclaiming how much he enjoys having sex with other men but not to talk to the Secretary of State on the day that our ambassador is murdered? Apparently not. It would not be at all surprising if asked millions of Americans believe that “Benghazi” is new designer or a hip restaurant that Barack and Michelle visited on their last date night.

Please don’t misunderstand. I am delighted that the three young women in Cleveland have been released, and I can appreciate the human interest value of this story. I also understand the public’s near-obsession with murder trials, particularly those with extremely salacious, titillating facts like those in the Jodi Arias case. I am not suggesting that these stories not be reported. What I am suggesting is that they should be be the only things reported, given so much prominence that the American people are left in the dark about real news, news that genuinely affects their lives and the lives of future generations.

Bottom line: if you watch “Good Morning America,” and you think you are an informed citizen, think again.

Sen. Marco Rubio, Please Don’t Let Yourself Get Played By Dick “Eddie Haskell” Durbin

Posted on by
4

On yesterday’s show, I told you that I fear that Sen. Marco Rubio is being played on the issue of immigration. Here’s the latest con from Obama and the democrats. They get him to be the front man on their “comprehensive immigration reform,” assuring him that, as he said on several Sunday shows yesterday, any reform allowing people illegally in the country to stay while they get right with the law will be more difficult and more expensive than it would be for them to go home and get in line. All the while, they snicker behind his back. They know that as long as those undocumented democrats stay in the country, the elected democrats can chip away at any of those onerous provisions that mean Republicans and other uncool people who support old-fashioned, outdated concepts like the rule of law support and insisted upon in exchange for amnesty.

illegal aliens, immigration reform

I thought these people were “in the shadows.”

If you had any doubt that I’m right, (and I don’t know why you would since you should have learned by now that you should never doubt me), consider the following, from yesterday’s Washington Post, a story by David Nakamura:

It was early one morning in December when Richard J. Durbin spotted Marco Rubio in the members-only Senate gym.

Dedicated fitness buffs, the two had become unlikely workout buddies. Now Durbin (D-Ill.) wanted to know whether Rubio (R-Fla.) would join him in another heavy lift: a fledgling bipartisan group tackling immigration reform.

“You ought to be a part of this,” Durbin, 68, told his 41-year-old colleague, according to people familiar with the conversation. “You’d be an important voice, so come hear us out.”

Dick “Eddie Haskell” Durbin is behind recruiting Sen. Rubio into these amnesty shenanigans. Need I say more? This guy is one of the phoniest, duplicitous leftist schemers. That’s how he earned the nickname “Eddie Haskell” from me in the first place, and the nickname “the pudgy huckster” from the late Steve Neal, political reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times. He is legendary in his home state for his soft-spoken, avuncular demeanor which he uses quite skillfully to conceal his extreme views from gullible constituents. This is the man who plotted with radical leftwing groups to obstruct the confirmation of many of President George W. Bush’s well-qualified judicial nominees, including the scary smart, and “especially dangerous” Miguel Estrada. The left-wing, identity politics groups, People for the American Way, NARAL, and the Alliance for Justice, who pull Durbin’s strings demanded that Mr. Estrada never be permitted on the federal bench because “he is Latino” and they could not run the risk that a Republican president would appoint the first Hispanic to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In addition, Dick Durbin has shown the democrats’ cards on the issue of border security. Let’s pretend for the sake of argument that our government has any way of measuring border security, even though as we heard on the March 24 edition of The Teri O’Brien Show, they have admitted that they don’t. In a congressional subcommittee Obama administration officials testified that the new and improved “holistic” metric that Big Sis, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, promised two years ago does not exist. There is no new metric, and there recent evidence that the border is significantly less secure than we’ve been told. From the awesome Byron York in the Washington Examiner:

“According to internal reports, Border Patrol agents used the airborne radar to help find and detain 1,874 people in the Sonora Desert between October 1 [2012] and January 17 [2013],” reported the Los Angeles Times last week. “But the radar system spotted an additional 1,962 people in the same area who evaded arrest and disappeared into the United States.”

That means officers caught fewer than half of those who made the crossing in that part of Arizona. If those results are representative of other sectors of the border, then everything the administration has said about border security is wrong.

We haven’t seen the “Gang of 8” proposal, but supposedly it sets the bar on border security pretty high. From The Wall Street Journal:

Immigrants in the U.S. illegally would not gain green cards under a bipartisan Senate bill until law-enforcement officials are monitoring the entire southern border and stopping 90% of people crossing illegally in certain areas, according to people familiar with the plan. …

Along the U.S.-Mexican border, 100% of the border would have to be under surveillance, and law enforcement would have to catch 90% of those who cross the border illegally at “high risk” sections—a term that people following the Senate talks did not define. In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security reported that only 44% of the border was under operational control, meaning officials had the ability to detect and block illegal activity there.

Sen. Durbin, along with his partners in crime Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) has suggested, though, that this 90% number is not a requirement that must be met before illegals get put on that vaunted “path to citizenship.” (Aside: shouldn’t that be “pathway to a green card?”) Rather, it’s a “goal.” So, in other words, it’s the typical leftwing lying lip service designed to deceive people into supporting proposals that they would never support in a million years if the truth were known. From Politico:

Sens. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.) disputed a report in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal that the immigrants would have to wait until law enforcement officials are stopping 90 percent of people crossing the Southern border.

According to Democratic sources briefed on the legislation, the Department of Homeland Security would need to implement a plan that achieves the 90 percent apprehension rate, but the rate itself is not a trigger and a barrier to the pathway for citizenship.

Oh, OK, then never mind.

And then, there’s this from The Liberal Death Star aka The New York Times:

As drafted, the legislation would provide as much as $3.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security to set up a five-year border security plan. Officials must present the plan within six months, and no immigrants can gain any provisional legal status until the plan is in place. It would include a program to finish any border fencing that border agents deem necessary.

The plan must also show how the authorities will move quickly to spread technology across the border to ensure that agents can have surveillance capability along its entire length. They will also have five years to reach 90 percent effectiveness in their operations, a measure based on calculations of what percentage of illegal crossers were caught or turned back without crossing.

If, after five years, border officials have not reached the surveillance and enforcement goals, the bill establishes a border commission to advise the Department of Homeland Security on how to reach its goals, with additional financing of up to $2 billion.

Seriously, a commission? In other words, they’re admitting before this whole charade gets put into place that they have no hope of securing the border.

Senator Rubio, please don’t allow yourself to be played by the likes of Sen. Durbin and Sen. Schumer. You don’t need to do that to be able to run for president in 2016. Yesterday on ABC’s “This Week,” Sen. Jeff Sessions showed Republicans a way out of the this trap. More on that in a subsequent post.

Ruh-Roh. Even the Lo Fos Are Catching On, and Placing the Blame for the Economy Where It Belongs, on Obama

Posted on by
Reply

It appears that even the low information types, who think they know what’s going on because they watch vacuous, moronic programs like “Good Morning America,” which at best are just pop culture pap, and at worst is part of the Obama administration disinformation campaign, might be figuring it out, at least when it comes to the economy. From one of the Left’s favorite bloggers, the Liberal Death Star’s Nate Silver: 

A CNN poll conducted March 15 to 17 found that respondents were split in whom they preferred on handling of “the federal budget and the way the government raises and spends money,” 47 percent for Mr. Obama and 46 percent for Republicans. The CNN poll had another worrying number for Mr. Obama. The last time a government shutdown was in the news, in September 2011, CNN found that 47 percent of respondents thought Republicans in Congress would be more responsible for a shutdown if it occurred. Just one-third of respondents said Mr. Obama would be to blame. But CNN asked the question again in its mid-March survey and found that Mr. Obama’s advantage was gone; 40 percent of respondents said they would blame Congressional Republicans for a government shutdown and 38 percent said they would blame Mr. Obama.

I guess when people have lots of time on their hands because they have no jobs, and they can’t watch one more episode of “Inside Edition” they resort to actually activating their rusty cerebral cortexes. Emotionally-driven white guilt and celebutard worship only goes so far, Barry. You’re lucky so many people are so clueless about the facts, otherwise at least 90% would blame you for the situation that you’ve created in the process of “remaking” America.

Local News: Very Little Information, LOTS of Unintentional Comedy

Posted on by
2

As you know, I watch so you don’t have to, so I know that if you’re looking for actual substance, you’re not going to find it on last century television network newscasts. Their local affiliates are even less worthy of your precious time, unless that is you’re looking for a few good laughs. Where else are you going to see a woman talk about the fact that the “vacuum cleaner man” has “seen my tits?” So, to help you celebrate New Year’s, I present this 2012 local news blooper real. Enjoy!

First Phony Michelle Obama’s Top 3 Lies on ABC’s “The View”

Posted on by
7

In the latest effort to distract voters from the epic disaster that is the Obama presidency, the Mrs. went on ABC’s moronic socialist hen party to appeal to emotionally-driven, low-information females who no doubt will be dazzled by this act. Speaking of which, the 2nd dumbest bleach blonde blowup doll on TV, Elisabeth Hasselbeck couldn’t stop slobbering over the First Klingon.
Here, we see three of the bald-faced lies Michelle Obama told during this risible appearance.

Michelle’s Mom-in-Chief Masquerade

Posted on by
1

Today, just in time for Campaign 2012, Michelle Obama’s book, American Grown (Groan), hit the shelves and Mooch hit the book tour trail, performing her phony “Mom-in-Chief” act for a receptive audience of emotionally-driven, low-information women on ABC’s “The View.” In this clip, she describes how she is concerned that she is not “a classic First Lady” who might do things that are not “ok.”

Of course, she is correct. She does do a lot of things that other First Ladies have not; specifically,

That’s a small portion of the ways in which Michelle has enjoyed her well-deserved reparations.

I don’t know if we should give credit to her PR people, or the doctor who prescribed the meds that make it possible for her to pull off this phony routine. Perhaps it’s both. Regardless, if this angry, bitter woman with a race-based sense of entitlement larger than her substantial posterior can convince anyone that she is anything else, it’s a major propaganda coup.

Coming next: Baba asks Mouchelle about racism in the upcoming campaign.