Archive for July, 2008

How Obama is a Genocidal Anti-Black Racist

July 31, 08

22 August 2008: The Black Pro-Lifers have caught on to the genocidal scheme.

Following from Planned Parenthood’s Racist Anti-Black Eugenics:

obama live abortion

See Rick Warren Interviews Obama and McCain on Christian Faith Matters – Video and Reviews (on ‘pay grade’) for why the above is related to Obama.

Following from The Ryskind Sketchbook via You Reach Your Right Hand In, And Pull The Baby’s Brains Out:


Following from The Ryskind Sketchbook. See the Rick Warren post again for reference.

Democrat Family Values

Democrat Family Values

President Obama Cartoon

Democrat Family Values

Following from On the Issues:

  • Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007
  • 1997: opposed bill preventing partial-birth abortion
  • Voted against banning partial birth abortion
  • Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions
  • Undecided on whether life begins at conception
  • Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion
  • Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill
  • Supports Roe v. Wade
  • Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion
  • Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines
  • Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions
  • Protect a woman’s right to choose
  • Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance
  • Following from Michelle Malkin:

    Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion – even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama’s legislative actions in 2003 – denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions – were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress.

    And here’s a video by an abortion survivor who takes Obama to task:

    For the context of the above, from innocent as doves: Testimony of Jill Stanek, R.N.:

    Up until recently, staff options were to hold the baby until death, or put the baby in our soiled utility if we got too busy or if the baby lingered too long. Indeed, it is not uncommon for one of these babies to live for an hour or two or even longer. Last year, of the 16 babies that Christ Hospital states were aborted, at least five were born alive. Four of those babies, two boys and two girls, lived between one and a half and 3 hours. At Christ Hospital, one aborted baby lived once for almost an entire 8-hour shift. At least two of the second-trimester babies who were aborted last year at Christ Hospital were healthy babies.

    One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s Syndrome baby who was born alive to our soiled utility room because his parents did not want to hold him and she did not have the time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in the soiled utility room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was between 21 and 22 weeks old, weighed about a half a pound, and was about ten inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe.

    Toward the end, he was so quiet, I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up against the light to see if I could see his heart beating through his chest wall.

    President Obama Cartoon

    Following video from Moonbattery, witness as Obama says two doctors trying to care for a baby born alive is too cumbersome on the aborting mother:

    With PDF transcript, see page 32 and 33:

    As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

    Following from Michelle Malkin:

    “Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” – Barack ‘Babies are a punishment’ Obama


    The Dark Knight Movie Review (No Spoilers) – It Rocks

    July 31, 08

    Definite must-see.

    WARNING: Young children are not recommended to watch this Batman film! It contains many highly disturbing scenes of violence, torture, gore and psychological suspense. This is NOT the Batman of their cartoons.

    That aside, The Dark Knight is a superb piece of writing. Without being a non-stop action explosion fest, our attention wasn’t lost for even a minute. The suspense, surprises and twists kept us guessing from the start of the Joker’s plans to the end.

    The film is still full of action, but feels much more like a plot-driven thriller. I could see this film winning Best Film of the year for its intricate storyline that would make the best Batman comic plots proud (on which, its themes, are based), along with superb acting and timing.

    This is like an action film, a drama, a thriller, a detective mystery and a horror film – and a bit of that superhero stuff it’s supposed to be. No wonder it’s been killing at the box office!

    The late Heath Ledger has done for the Joker what Danny Devito did for the Penguin way back in Batman Returns – namely, discarded all trace of goofiness and replaced it with disturbing and demented twistedness.

    The real star actor of The Dark Knight

    This Joker doesn’t play silly tricks or use lame gags. He is a pure psychopath, of the most highly disturbing and chaotically unpredictable kind.

    He is a clown only in the mould of Stephen King’s It – laughing at the sick twistedness of the horrors he inflicts upon the populace. I can see why Heath Ledger’s playing of the Joker is considered superior to even Jack Nicholson’s.

    While Batman is supposed to be ‘the great detective’, this Joker out-schemes him at every turn. The Bat’s physical superiority and fighting skill amounts to almost nothing in the face of the Joker’s evil, anarchic genius.

    (In comic fan terms, Heath Ledger’s Joker has Dr. Doom’s infinite plotting without any of Doom’s honour or sanity. Replace ‘Batman’ with ‘Joker’ in this comic – this Joker is exactly like that. You’ll understand after watching the film. Hey… This Joker minus the craziness is exactly what Doom should have been like instead of that sucky movie version!)

    I vote Heath Ledger for Best Actor. Playing the pretty nice-boy in films like A Knight’s Tale and The Patriot are who he is, but playing the Joker is truly acting.

    A running theme repeated throughout the film is: Would you take a life to save a life? To save many lives? To save yourself? Are humans merely glorified, amoral animals?

    And the film ties up the ‘loose ends’ introduced by the previous movie (i.e. Batman Begins). Though that film was dark, it was nothing compared to the darkness of the sequel…

    Overall, a must-see that is far more thought-provoking and mature than Iron Man, and puts the eye-candy antics of Spider-Man 3 to shame.

    See also the post, Batman = Bush? for some comparisons.

    Test Post to Determine Coding Error

    July 30, 08

    Red-Haired Shanks, sacrifices his left arm to save the boy Luffy in the very first chapter of the manga One Piece.

    One of the strongest fighters in the world,

    From this, Luffy hardens his resolve to become the Pirate King… And to one day meet Shanks again on the high seas.

    Ryskind Citation = Proud!

    July 30, 08

    From The Ryksind Sketchbook – Guess who said this. Hint: His middle name begins with an “H”.

    Referring to my post, Flip Flop Obama in Action – Video and Transcripts. See also Obama and the Surge for more proof of his duplicity.


    The Iconic Moment of One Piece: Shanks Rescues Luffy

    July 30, 08

    One of the strongest fighters in the world, Red-Haired Shanks, sacrifices his left arm to save the boy Luffy in the very first chapter of the manga One Piece.

    From this, Luffy hardens his resolve to become the Pirate King… And to one day meet Shanks again on the high seas.

    The moment in context from One Manga:

    See also another touching One Piece scene, Luffy vs Usopp: The Spirit of the Clashing Men.

    Fanboys: Bling King Shigsy

    July 29, 08

    Bling King Shigsy

    Click the above for full comic.

    Yep, King Miyamoto’s pronouncement was the crowning glory of the suckfest that was E3 2008. Reference at here.

    VGCats comic criticism of the same at Mr. Potatomoto.

    Debunking GayChristian101’s ‘Alternative’ Marriage in the Bible (Especially on David and Jonathan’s Alleged ‘Marriage’)

    July 28, 08

    Extended from a comment I made.

    An article at GayChristian101, Marriage in the Bible, attempts to provide several examples of unusual types of marriage found in the Bible.

    The main purpose of providing these examples, as you probably could guess from the site name, is to argue for the legitimacy of homosexual marriage in the Bible.

    (Why homosexual marriage, and not just relationship ? As I explain under the Jesus and God sections of Bible Passages That Oppose Homosexuality, Christianity rejects all sexual contact outside of marriage. And if a man cannot marry a man, then any sexual contact between them will always be immoral.)

    The alternative types of marriage cited are:

    1) Polygamy (Lamech, Esau, Jacob etc.)

    2) Kinsman redeemer marriage (if a man dies with no offspring, the brother must marry the widow to provide offspring – e.g. Onan, story of Ruth)

    3) ‘Marriage’ to servants (Abraham with Hagar, not included by site: Jacob’s children by Rachel and Leah’s servants who gave rise to the Twelve Tribes of Israel)

    4) Prisoner of war marriage (Israelites took Midianite virgins, Numbers 31:1-18)

    5) Slave marriage (Master can sell slave’s family, Exodus 21:1-6)

    6) Homosexual ‘marriage’ (David and Jonathan)

    Having read through the list, I found plenty of flaws in the arguments presented. But all of them pale in comparison to the VERY DECEPTIVE ARGUMENT I found in Example 6, as I detail in POINT ONE.

    Read on…


    POINT ONE – David and Jonathan were never married

    Most importantly, Example 6 – that of purported homosexual ‘marriage’ – is skewed totally out of context.

    This is what the GayChristian101 article presents:

    6. Same sex marriage. The partnership of Jonathan and David is an example of same sex marriage in the Bible. Jonathan’s father referred to David as his son in law in I Samuel 18:21.

    With screen-captured evidence in context here:

    I was dumbfounded by the murderous ripping of the verse out of all recognizable context. You will be too after you compare the above argument with the actual Bible passage:

    17 Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab. I will give her to you in marriage; only serve me bravely and fight the battles of the LORD.” For Saul said to himself, “I will not raise a hand against him. Let the Philistines do that!”

    18 But David said to Saul, “Who am I, and what is my family or my father’s clan in Israel, that I should become the king’s son-in-law?” 19 So [e] when the time came for Merab, Saul’s daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah.

    20 Now Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 21 “I will give her to him,” he thought, “so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” So Saul said to David, “Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law.”

    22 Then Saul ordered his attendants: “Speak to David privately and say, ‘Look, the king is pleased with you, and his attendants all like you; now become his son-in-law.’” – 1 Samuel 18:17-22

    Immediately, anyone can see that David was considered to have the potential to be Saul’s son-in-law because Saul intended David to marry his daughter, Michal! (They do get married later in the chapter.)

    And as a later commentor prompted me to take another look at ‘potential’, look at verse 18. David considers himself unworthy to become the king’s son-in-law. Now if David were already ‘married’ to Jonathan – or any other member of Saul’s family – why would David still consider himself unworthy to be part of the king’s family?

    Instead of showing the actual verse which would immediately debunk the argument all on its own, the GayChristian101 article gives its own summary of the ‘David is Saul’s son-in-law’ passage along with some description of how David and Jonathan shared a homosexual love.

    In fact, this misuse of Scripture is so blatant (you don’t even have to dig around to find that Saul meant David to marry his daughter, it’s right before the cited verse), it almost seems intentional – as if the writer’s whole strategy is to rely on the hope that no one would bother to open up their Bibles and check the verses.

    But the site attempts to make Example 6 weightier through a link, where it argues that the Bible only says that David was pleased to become Saul’s son-in-law, and then explains that this was because David wanted to be near Jonathan. But does this at all equate to ‘homosexual marriage’?

    A comment by Rick Brentlinger further argues that David has a ‘second opportunity’ to be Saul’s son-in-law, thus meaning that David actually ‘marries’ Jonathan after marrying Michal.

    But I quickly pointed out that the keyword is ‘opportunity’, meaning that the first chance (by marrying Merab) was not taken.

    Quite simply put, David was given the chance to marry Merab and become Saul’s son-in-law, but he refused. Then David was given the chance to marry Michal, that is, the second chance.

    Rick Brentlinger and GayChristian101 simply and blatantly ignore the context of the verse to draw a conclusion that suits the homosexual agenda.


    POINT TWO – Whatever the other examples legitimize, it is not homosexual marriage

    Once this sixth example has been shown to be terribly misguided, none of the other five examples serve to support the idea of God and Bible legitimized homosexual marriage.

    None of the cited examples except the refuted sixth example show homosexual relationships, but relationships between men and women. Whether they are multiple wives, servants or slaves, they are still WOMEN.

    Even of all the first five examples were legitimate marriage contracts today (see fourth point), they would all be the basis for HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS.

    Of course, the article’s focus is to argue that since mainstream Christians judge these unusual marriages from our cultural points of view, we are also judging homosexuality from a cultural (not Scriptural) point of view.

    To quote Rick Brentlinger again:

    I’m not arguing that all other types of marriage are necessarily legitimate today. I’m making the case that God blessed marriages different than the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm, therefore Complementarianism (the belief that God will only bless marriages like the Adam and Eve model) was not a belief of our pre-Christian spiritual ancestors, neither is it God’s truth for today.

    But once more, even if modern Christians were to accept these odd marriages simply because they are recorded in the Bible, we would have no similar reason to accept homosexual affairs outside of marriage – as there are NO EXAMPLES of homosexual marriage in the Bible.

    Now see POINT THREE.


    POINT THREE – Not everything recorded in the Bible is condoned

    The Bible does not automatically condone something, just because it records the event.

    I don’t know how many times I have to explain this simple-as-rock concept to polemicists! Just because history books accurately record the Nazi Holocaust, does this mean that the history books condone genocide and racism?

    The same standard applies to the Bible. The Bible records things like disobeying God, cheating God, lying to God, warring against God… Do you really think that this therefore means that God approves of these sins against Him?

    So apply this principle to the six examples given. While some of the examples have a clear God-given directive (Midianite virgins), most do not (multiple wives, Abraham’s child by Hagar, the alleged David-Jonathan homosexual relationship).

    They are merely faithful records of what transpired, with no say from God or the author as to whether the act was given approval or permission.

    That is to say, these examples cannot and should not be taken as authoritative Biblical basis for unusual, non-heterosexual or non-monogamous marriage.

    Remember that David also had an adulterous affair with Bathsheba, something no one sanely argues that the Bible condones.


    POINT FOUR – Whatever th Bible says of David and Jonathan, it does not record marriage

    The site’s links cite that the Hebrew words used to describe David and Jonathan’s love as romantic, like the kind of love between a man and a woman. (But see the CLOSING POINT of my post.)

    But even if David’s and Jonathan’s love had been of a romantic or sexual nature, it still would provide no basis for a Biblical homosexual MARRIAGE – the aim of the ‘Marriage in the Bible’ article.

    Even if David and Jonathan had been romantically attracted, even if they had been sexually attracted, the Bible does not even record that they ever consumated these feelings – nore does it condone such feelings (the acting upon which would be punishable by death under Mosaic law).

    And even if they had carried out such a forbidden and illegal physical act, it still does not equate to a MARRIAGE.

    Not also that POINTTHREE applies again, in that even if they did do the dirty deed, the Bible in no way condones it.


    POINT FIVE – Does anyone really trust Saul as a good reference?

    The article’s citation of Saul using a word inferring sexual intimacy when speaking of David and Jonathan’s relationship is questionable.

    Saul’s anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don’t I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you?” – 1 Samuel 20:30

    The link they provide gives no explanation for their claim that the Hebrew term used in the verse refers to sexual intimacy. None seems to be even remotely inferred in the NIV translation.

    It can also be easily refuted using the argument of POINT THREE – not everything recorded by the Bible is condoned (in this case, Saul could have been mistaken or lying).


    POINT SIX – Old Testament, old school

    All of the examples given are Old Testament ones. None occur after Jesus uttered His words as follows:

    • Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” – Matthew 19:5-6
    • “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” – Mark 10:6-9

    From these passages, it can be inferred that Jesus was reaffirming the God-instated ideal of one man marrying one woman.

    If not, why would He create just one man and one woman – instead of two men, or one man and two women?

    • So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. – Genesis 1:27
    • For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh – Genesis 2:24

    And why can’t two men reproduce, if they are meant to fill the Earth in a perfect God-given plan?

    • As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.” – Genesis 9:7

    Thus, the Christian concept of the New Testament completing and superceding the Old Testament means that the examples provided by the site can be dismissed on a Scriptural, not just cultural basis.


    POINT SEVEN – Old Testament, School of Very Very Hard Knocks

    Most tellingly, the whole article focuses on Old Testament examples of ‘alternative marriages’ and criticizes mainstream Christians for deciding their doctrine on ‘cultural basis’.

    But if the Old Testament is taken as an authoritative source, what about all the hardline warnings against homosexuality?

    • Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. – Leviticus 18:22
    • If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. – Leviticus 20:13
    • Judah did evil in the eyes of the LORD. By the sins they committed they stirred up his jealous anger more than their fathers had done. There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. – 1st Kings 14:22,24
    • Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as his father David had done. He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made. – 1st Kings 15:11-12
    • The king stood by the pillar and renewed the covenant in the presence of the LORD – to follow the LORD and keep his commands, regulations and decrees with all his heart and all his soul, thus confirming the words of the covenant written in this book. He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah. – 2 Kings 23:3, 7

    Rick Brentlinger uses the same old argument that every single reference to ‘homosexuality’ in not just the New Testament, but also the Old Testament actually mean ‘shrine prostitution’.

    But how does this explain away all the various terms used to describe homosexual acts, such as a ‘man lying with a man’? And note that shrine prostitution is itself directly addressed in 1st Kings in different terms from ‘ordinary’ homosexuality.

    See also the CLOSING POINT below.



    In conclusion, I have a burden to share on something the faux-pas of POINT ONE made me think about. Whether this was a mistake out of ignorance or if it was an intentional attempt at deception, I will not conjecture.

    But it makes you wonder: If the pro-homosexual apologists can make a totally invalid argument like this, what does it say of the validity of their other arguments, such as ‘The act condemned in the Bible doesn’t mean homosexuals, but male prostitutes, or the article’s claim that ‘The Hebrew words used to describe Jonathan and David’s love indicate romantic, emotional attachment’ ?

    Obama’s Iraq Trip Unwittingly Convinces Americans That There is Peace in Iraq

    July 25, 08

    Excerpts of an article from American Thinker:

    Obama trip press frenzy backfires
    Ray Robison

    Despite the media attempt to keep the presidential race coverage one-sided, an odd thing happened on Barak’s trip to Baghdad. A lot of Americans realized we are winning the war on terror.

    Many have made note that as the surge succeeded and the bad news blissfully began to ebb, media coverage of Iraq thinned to a trickle. We knew it, but we couldn’t measure the effects of the media callousness towards our military until now. It now appears indisputable that for many Americans who don’t follow the news regularly there was a serious gap in what they believed was happening in Iraq and the reality of it.

    Coinciding with the “Obama goes to Iraq” coverage comes a poll update by Rasmussen and released on July 23rd.

    Over half of American voters (51%) now believe the United States and its allies are winning the war on terror, the highest figure recorded in nearly four years by Rasmussen Reports in a nationwide survey.

    Only 16% now think the terrorists are on top, while 27% view it as a stalemate. Prior to this week’s survey, the number who believe the terrorists are winning had never fallen below 20%.

    Last July, just 36% thought the U.S. and its allies were winning. At that time, an equal number – 36% -thought the terrorists were ahead.

    42% now think the situation in Iraq will improve over the next six months. That’s up from 37% a week ago and 23% a year ago.

    Only 23% now expect things to get worse in Iraq, down from 49% last July.

    The gap also is narrowing dramatically between those who think history will judge the war in Iraq as a success – 36% now – versus those who think it will be viewed as a failure (39%).

    The number of respondent in this reoccurring poll who answered that we are winning against terrorists jumped to levels not seen in four years, to 51% – now a majority.

    Conversely, the number who considered al Qaeda and their ilk the victors dropped to a threadbare 16% of respondents, a new low by a wide margin.

    For the first time in months, more Democrats (35%) also think the U.S. is winning versus the number who credit the terrorists with being ahead (26%), although nearly a third (31%) are undecided. Last week, only 27% of Democrats thought the U.S. was winning.

    The percentage of Republicans who see the U.S. and its allies ahead also stayed roughly the same at 78%.

    Thirty percent (30%) of likely Obama voters also see the U.S. winning, while 26% of them disagree.

    And it just so happened that this poll was conducted the same day that Obama and his media entourage hit Baghdad.

    Although it is not definitive, it is a strong indication that all the media hype and attention on this trip refocused the media lens on Iraq and that Americans saw a new picture there.

    Ironically for Obama that new picture helps McCain by decreasing the common feeling of urgency which created the mood for immediate withdrawal at any price that Obama rode to the nomination.

    For many who were afraid to read news about Iraq in 2008 (if they could find it) after the desperation felt in 2007, this new coverage opened their eyes. And these newly opened eyes just might be attached to ears that heard McCain claiming success and Obama dismissing our efforts in Iraq. The media attention has shown to an entirely new – admittedly previously disengaged – audience that McCain made the right call.

    Some portray the success of the surge in McCain’s case in political terms of winning the battle but losing the war. They claim he will be a victim of his own success. They claim that his surge strategy and success in Iraq reduced the threat to our nation which negates his advantage on security issues. They might have a point.

    But a counter balance to that is that many Americans genuinely did not know that we have essentially won in Iraq until now. They thought that Obama was delivering the straight truth to them on Iraq. But now they know he was being less than candid. The Independents and conservative Democrats now might see that he was not telling them the truth.

    A picture says a thousand words and those pictures of Obama in Iraq with no body armor are telling a different story than what he has been selling to the American people. And it was a fawning media brazenly trying to tip the scales in his favor that made it happen.


    The photo via Moonbattery:

    This, even while Obama refuses to reconsider his opposition to the Surge (on a tip from hutchrun).

    It’s the law of unintended consequences.

    Remember that Obama routinely criticized the Surge and situation in Iraq as hopeless (link has more cartoons).

    Whereas the truth is that there really is peace in Iraq.

    See here for the Obamedia World Tour which has more cartoons.

    Super Chuck Norris Bros.

    July 24, 08

    Via, apparently this is a video:

    Of a real fan-made PC game demo!

    And another version via Dueling Analogs:

    You are also invited to refresh your memory of Chuck Norris’ ineffable machoness with some Chuck Norris Facts.

    Chuck Norris doesn’t play video games. He beats them. With roundhouse kicks.

    Obamedia Loves Obama… And I Mean Red Hot, Steaming Wet Lurve!!!

    July 24, 08

    From John McCain’s website come two videos. The first is about the liberal media’s obsession with Obama…

    Version 1 which is more popular by far:

    Version 2:

    And the second is about Obama’s shallowness of celebrity:

    Also being covered by Michelle Malkin and Moonbattery. Chris Matthews’ leg reference in depth here.

    What, don’t think it’s true?

    The Washington Posts has to admit it.

    Half of the people already realize it:

    The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

    Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win…. Just 24% believe that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

    Democrats — 37% say most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the campaign. 27% believe most reporters are trying to help Obama. 21% in Obama’s party think reporters are trying to help the Republican candidate.

    Republicans – 78% believe reporters are trying to help Obama. 10% see most offering unbiased coverage.

    Unaffiliated voters – 50% see a pro-Obama bias, 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.

    45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win. Just 30% disagree and 25% are not sure.

    50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is.

    30% of voters believe having a friendly reporter is more valuable than raising a lot of campaign contributions.. Twenty-nine percent (29%) believe contributions are more important and 40% are not sure.

    From Commentary Magazine:

    One gets to sense that journalists not only like Mr. Obama; they are in awe of him. They want to impress him and please him and are afraid of being rebuked by him… All of this helps explain why Americans’ distrust in the media hit a new high in 2012, with 60 percent saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.

    More confirmation here.

    This is concurrent with the New York Times running Obama’s feature but refusing McCain’s rebuttal.

    And then there’s this expose from Investor’s Business Daily:

    An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

    Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

    Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

    What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

    Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

    I’m suuuuuuuuuuure this will not in any way affect their journalistic neutrality, objectivity and integrity.

    And this on a tip from hutchrun, from Harold Evans, former editor of the Times of London and the Sunday Times:

    Researchers at the Project for Excellence in Journalism report that in the six weeks since the Republican convention, McCain, once the darling of the media, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. Meanwhile, Obama got twice as many positive stories as McCain. The website Politico has also acknowledged that it had loaded the dice against McCain: 100 stories were more favourable to Obama than McCain; just 69 were the opposite.

    And also these cases of reporters drooling over Obama at the gym, swooning over his lack of sweat, ogling their eyes out, watching him body surf and just plain freaking out to touch him.

    And if a network doesn’t fall heads-over-heels for Obama… Then they are immediately booted from Obama’s plane:

    Journalists from three major newspapers that endorsed John McCain have been booted from Barack Obama’s campaign plane for the final leg of the presidential race.

    The Washington Times reported Friday that it was notified of the Obama campaign’s decision Thursday evening — even though the paper has covered Obama from the start.

    Executive Editor John Solomon told that the Obama campaign said it didn’t have enough seats on the plane, but “I don’t think the explanation makes sense to us.”

    “We’ve been traveling since 2007 with him. … We’re a relevant newspaper — every day we break news,” Solomon said. “And to suddenly be kicked off the plane for people who haven’t covered it as aggressively or thoroughly as we are … it sort of feels unfair.”

    And they must be racist too. Video at Moonbattery.

    All this bias has taken its toll… Even the Internet is more trusted than traditional media now!

    But what can we hapless citizenry do, but vote against the brainwashing zombification… And mock!

    President Obama Cartoon

    President Obama Cartoon

    Above two from President Barack Obama – Four More Years!

    Next one from Day by Day:

    Following from Day by Day:

    The reason for the above snubbing the wounded troops? His media wasn’t allowed along, thus denying him the solely-important photo ops. Meanwhile, the Iraqi Minister of the Interior did visit the wounded American troops.

    Following from Day by Day:







    Following from Baloo Cartoons:


    Following from Baloo Cartoons:
















    Following from The Ryskind Sketchbook:


    Following from Baloo Cartoons:


    Following six are from a series of strips from Day by Day:


















    Following from Day by Day:




    Following from Day by Day:


    Following from Diversity Lane:


    Obama Bunch

    See also Obama’s Unsavoury Bunch Cartoons.



    Sarah Palin cartoon

    Via Michelle Malkin:

    Following from Pushing the Envelope:

    See also more mockery of the Obamesiah/Obamedia World Tour at Michelle Malkin. A small selection:

    Following from Day by Day:

    And via Moonbattery:

    And an uncanny prophecy of the Obamarrogance by The Ryskind Sketchbook:

    Because Obama is travelling around the world not as an ambassador for America, but as an ambassador for himself:



    And his egoisticism doesn’t end there… Via Michelle Malkin and Hot Air, from CBS News:



    %d bloggers like this: