Thread: How Liberal Bias Shapes the MSM - and Our Views

MSNBC viewers overwhelmingly support killing American citizens with drones
Published by: Robert Laurie on Monday March 11th, 2013

Why are we not surprised?



Update: A quick Mea Culpa. Apparently this happened in February, not March. Not being an MSNBC viewer, I missed it originally and, when it was sent to me today, I read the date wrong. The poll is still on the MSNBC website and you'll find that the results have reversed, since some time has passed.

The politico ran a story on this 24 hours after it happened, which includes the video. Watch it here. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...ne-156481.html

By this point, we all expect craziness from MSNBC's cadre of ridiculous hosts. From Maddow to Matthews, Scarborough to Schultz, they're some of the goofiest crackpots in the history of television. So when they say something nutty, no one really notices.

It's like trying to spot a diamond in a mountain of shattered glass.

However, last month, their reliably left-wing viewers chimed in via an on-air poll. The MSNBC audience was asked if they supported Obama's desire to target U.S. citizens via drone strike, without due process. The results were overwhelmingly positive - unless you're an administration target.

78% percent of the respondents said that, yes, killing U.S. citizens without due process is just good natured, old-fashioned, American fun.

To his very, very, minimal credit, even Schultz - who's gone on record saying Obama's drone policy "doesn't meet the moral or constitutional standard that we expect of any administration" - was dismayed by the results.

So be careful out there. If MSNBC viewers had their way, the administration would have final say over whether U.S. citizens live or die....

http://www.caintv.com/msnbc-viewers-overwhelmingly-s

Just 17 Percent of Americans Believe Media Cover Obama Objectively
By Matthew Sheffield | March 11, 2013



For decades, members of the elite media have told Americans to trust that their political coverage is objective and fair. A new poll released today indicates that most of the people simply do not believe that.

The good news is that 46 percent of Americans agree with the correct statement that the media are “excessively sympathetic” to President Obama and that only 17 percent believe the media are fair. The bad news is that 28 percent maintain the delusion that the press “deliberately tries to hurt Obama.”

Those results were among several questions posed to likely voters on behalf of The Hill newspaper. Another interesting fact shown by the poll is that people seem more inclined to believe that Obama has exaggerated the impact of the budget sequester that just recently went into effect: http://thehill.com/polls/287235-hill...with-sequester

Obama has since toned down his rhetoric, admitting that the cuts won’t be “an apocalypse.” But voters are not letting the president off easy: The Hill poll shows that a strong plurality of voters, 48 percent, said Obama and his team exaggerated the negative effects of the sequester cuts, while just 31 percent said the White House did not overplay its hand.

A plurality of the American public also believes the political news media are too soft on the administration. According to the Hill Poll, a solid 46 percent of respondents said the news media are excessively sympathetic to the president, while 28 percent said the press deliberately tries to hurt Obama and just 17 percent said they offer unbiased coverage.

Voters were mostly split along party lines on the question, but those who identified themselves as “Other” tended to agree with a strong majority of Republicans who said the news media are overly sympathetic to Obama.

The three options on the media choice only add up to 91 percent so presumably the other 8 percent were unsure. One wonders just how many of the 28 percent who imagine the media are trying to hurt Obama think that conservative talk radio and a handful of cable news shows equate to the entire national press.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew...#ixzz2NHegIoxA

The Chart That Proves That The Mainstream Media Is Lying To You About Unemployment http://bit.ly/Y6NVFN



The mainstream media is absolutely giddy that the U.S. unemployment rate has hit a “four-year low” of 7.7 percent. But is unemployment in the United States actually going down? After all, you would think that it should be. The Obama administration has “borrowed” more than 6 trillion dollars from future generations of Americans, interest rates have been pushed to all-time lows, and the Federal Reserve has been wildly printing more money in a desperate attempt to “stimulate” the economy. So have those efforts been successful? Well, according to the mainstream media, the U.S. unemployment rate is falling steadily. Headlines all over the nation boldly declared that “236,000 jobs” were added to the economy in February, but what they didn’t tell you was that the number of Americans “not in the labor force” rose by 296,000. And that is how they are getting the unemployment rate to go down – by pretending that huge numbers of unemployed Americans don’t want jobs. Sadly, as you will see below, the truth is that the percentage of working age Americans that have a job is just 0.1% higher than it was exactly three years ago. And we have not even come close to getting back to where we were before the last economic crisis. For example, more than 146 million Americans were employed back in 2007. But today, only 142.2 million Americans have a job even though our population has grown steadily since then. So where in the world is this “economic recovery” that they keep talking about?

At this point, the “unemployment rate” has become so meaningless that it really isn’t even worth paying much attention to. If you really want to know what the employment picture looks like in the United States, you need to look at the employment-population ratio.

As Wikipedia tells us, many economists consider the employment-population ratio to be far superior to other measurements of employment…

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development defines the employment rateas the employment-to-population ratio. The employment-population ratio is many American economist’s favorite gauge of the American jobs picture. According to Paul Ashworth, chief North American economist for Capital Economics, “The employment population ratio is the best measure of labor market conditions.” This is a statistical ratiothat measures the proportion of the country’s working-age population (ages 15 to 64 in most OECD countries) that is employed. This includes people that have stopped looking for work.

A chart of the employment-population ratio in the United States over the past several years is posted :





As you can see, the percentage of Americans with a job fell from about 63 percent to below 59 percent during the last economic crisis. Since that time, it has not risen back above 59 percent. This is the first time in the post-World War II era that we have not seen the employment rate bounce back following a recession. At this point, the employment-population ratio has been below 59 percent for 42 months in a row.

http://libertycrier.com/business/the...-unemployment/

MSNBC found by The Pew Research Center to have 85% of airtime filled with opinion. What a joke and is also evident by their ratings or lack thereof.

MSNBC Almost Entirely Dominated By Opinion: Pew Study
The Huffington Post -By Jack Mirkinson 03/18/2013

MSNBC is far more reliant on opinion coverage than any of its cable news rivals, a new study found. http://stateofthemedia.org/2013/spec...ews-landscape/

The Pew Research Center's annual "State of the Media" study was released Monday. One section of the report — which, when taken in its totality, makes for very gloomy reading — deals with changes in the television news landscape over the past five years. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...m_hp_ref=media

The study's authors found that, since 2007, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC have all cut back sharply on the amount of actual reporting found on their airwaves. Cheaper, more provocative debate or interview segments have largely filled the void. MSNBC, though, stands out from the pack, Pew said:

CNN, which has branded itself around reporting resources and reach, cut back between 2007 and 2012 on two areas tied to that brand—in-depth story packages and live event coverage. Even so, CNN is the only one of the three big cable news channels to produce more straight reporting than commentary over all. At the other end of that spectrum lies MSNBC, where opinion fills a full 85% of the channel’s airtime.

Pew found that Fox News spent 55 percent of the time on opinion and 45 percent of the time on reporting. Critics of that figure would likely contend that the network's straight news reporting tilts conservative, but it is true that Fox News has more shows that feature reporting packages than MSNBC does. The network's straight news hours — hosted by Chris Jansing, Thomas Roberts, Tamron Hall and Andrea Mitchell — are usually filled with interview segments or pundit debates.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2900160.html

CNN Accused of Pro-Rapist Bias in Steubenville Verdict Coverage



Following yesterday's guilty verdict in the Steubenville Rape Case, several CNN reporters including Candy Crowley, Poppy Harlow and Paul Callan have come under some heavy criticisms for being sympathetic towards the co-defendants during their coverage, describing the students as "very good students" with "promising futures." CNN's post-verdict commentaries have been compared to a comedy sketch that aired in 2011 about an athlete who "overcame" rape charges http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWLJZw9Ws-g and an online petition calling on the anchors to issue an apology has already broken 53,000 signatures on Change.org. http://www.change.org/petitions/cnn-...nville-rapists

However, it is worth mentioning that CNN anchors are not the only people who have pitied the co-defendants. In the wake of this debate, the single topic blog Public Shaming has been highlighting dozens of tweets and comments on Facebook and Reddit from many others vocalizing their support of the boys. http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/

Steubenville Rape Case refers to the ongoing trial of two Steubenville High School student athletes who have been charged with alleged rape of a 16-year-old girl from Weirton, West Virginia in August 2012. Due to its highly publicized nature, the case has become a notable topic of discussions on social networking sites and other online communities.

Background

On August 22nd, 2012, Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond, two football players from Steubenville High School in Ohio, were arrested[5] and charged with alleged rape and kidnapping of a 16-year-old girl from Weirton, West Virginia at a party on August 11th.The kidnapping charge was subsequently dropped[24] and the trial is scheduled for February 13th, 2013. However, as of January 6th, attorneys are attempting to postpone and relocate the trial after the backlash caused by the social media attention.[25]

When her parents went to the Steubenville police on August 14th, they came with a flash drive containing the photographs, screenshots of the tweets and a video in which a former Steubenville baseball player was shown discussing a rape.

Notable Developments

August 2012: Blog Coverage

Following the local news report of the arrests, a few bloggers began discussing the case online, including Ohio-based crime blogger Alexandria Goddard[2] who began detailing the case on her personal blog on August 24th. Goddard’s posts highlighted tweets[3] about the events and a YouTube vlog[4] tagged with “rape” and “drunk girl” that she had found on the social media accounts of the two boys. In October, she was sued for defamation[6] by the parents of one of the students named on her blog, but as of January 4th, the suit had been dropped.[23] Following the rapists’ guilty verdict, Goddard was publically praised for her work bringing attention to the case.[39]

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events...ille-rape-case

Steubenville High School rape case

Sentencing

On March 17, 2013, Judge Thomas Lipps found Mays and Richmond, who were tried as juveniles, guilty of rape. They face the possibility of being jailed until age 21.[12] The judge has set the minimum sentence of one year for Richmond, who was found guilty of using his fingers to penetrate the girl while she was unconscious,. Mays, who was found guilty of penetrating the girl, while she was unconscious, and dissemination of pornographic pictures of her, was given a minimum sentence of two years.[13] Because the girl was a minor, Mays was charged with and convicted of dissemination of child pornography, which carries an additional year in prison. Mays and Richmond will also be registered as convicted sex offenders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steuben...hool_rape_case

CAN YOU IMAGINE THE REACTION IF BUSH DID THIS?

London Telegraph: "Obama took part in a joint press conference with President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank this morning under a beaming banner of Yasser Arafat, also known as the 'father of modern terrorism'.

"It projects a clear signal that Washington is weak in the face of terrorism, and it is an insult to the memory of those who died at the hands of Arafat’s terror network. . .

"Obama could not even pronounce the name of Burmese freedom fighter Aung San Suu Kyi on his recent visit to Rangoon. He also famously called the Falkland Islands "the Maldives", and succeeded in offending the whole of Poland when he referred to a 'Polish death camp' in World War Two. . . .

"Obama’s first term was littered with embarrassing gaffes abroad, and it looks like his second term will be more of the same. This is in many respects an amateurish presidency, headed by a president who is frequently out of his depth on the world stage, and all too willing to appease America’s adversaries."

You can read the story at: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...he-free-world/

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

CNN Accused of Pro-Rapist Bias in Steubenville Verdict Coverage



Following yesterday's guilty verdict in the Steubenville Rape Case, several CNN reporters including Candy Crowley, Poppy Harlow and Paul Callan have come under some heavy criticisms for being sympathetic towards the co-defendants during their coverage, describing the students as "very good students" with "promising futures." CNN's post-verdict commentaries have been compared to a comedy sketch that aired in 2011 about an athlete who "overcame" rape charges http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWLJZw9Ws-g and an online petition calling on the anchors to issue an apology has already broken 53,000 signatures on Change.org. http://www.change.org/petitions/cnn-...nville-rapists

However, it is worth mentioning that CNN anchors are not the only people who have pitied the co-defendants. In the wake of this debate, the single topic blog Public Shaming has been highlighting dozens of tweets and comments on Facebook and Reddit from many others vocalizing their support of the boys. http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/

Steubenville Rape Case refers to the ongoing trial of two Steubenville High School student athletes who have been charged with alleged rape of a 16-year-old girl from Weirton, West Virginia in August 2012. Due to its highly publicized nature, the case has become a notable topic of discussions on social networking sites and other online communities.

Background

On August 22nd, 2012, Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond, two football players from Steubenville High School in Ohio, were arrested[5] and charged with alleged rape and kidnapping of a 16-year-old girl from Weirton, West Virginia at a party on August 11th.The kidnapping charge was subsequently dropped[24] and the trial is scheduled for February 13th, 2013. However, as of January 6th, attorneys are attempting to postpone and relocate the trial after the backlash caused by the social media attention.[25]

When her parents went to the Steubenville police on August 14th, they came with a flash drive containing the photographs, screenshots of the tweets and a video in which a former Steubenville baseball player was shown discussing a rape.

Notable Developments

August 2012: Blog Coverage

Following the local news report of the arrests, a few bloggers began discussing the case online, including Ohio-based crime blogger Alexandria Goddard[2] who began detailing the case on her personal blog on August 24th. Goddard’s posts highlighted tweets[3] about the events and a YouTube vlog[4] tagged with “rape” and “drunk girl” that she had found on the social media accounts of the two boys. In October, she was sued for defamation[6] by the parents of one of the students named on her blog, but as of January 4th, the suit had been dropped.[23] Following the rapists’ guilty verdict, Goddard was publically praised for her work bringing attention to the case.[39]

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events...ille-rape-case

Steubenville High School rape case

Sentencing

On March 17, 2013, Judge Thomas Lipps found Mays and Richmond, who were tried as juveniles, guilty of rape. They face the possibility of being jailed until age 21.[12] The judge has set the minimum sentence of one year for Richmond, who was found guilty of using his fingers to penetrate the girl while she was unconscious,. Mays, who was found guilty of penetrating the girl, while she was unconscious, and dissemination of pornographic pictures of her, was given a minimum sentence of two years.[13] Because the girl was a minor, Mays was charged with and convicted of dissemination of child pornography, which carries an additional year in prison. Mays and Richmond will also be registered as convicted sex offenders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steuben...hool_rape_case

http://cheezburger.com/36869

3/29/2013
Obama Kids Living It Up
While Regular Kids Can’t See the White House
— and News Outlets Are Scrubbing the Information
Patterico @ 11:10 pm


Alex Marlow at Breitbart.com reports: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-story-removed

A local news affiliate in Idaho reported that the First Daughters, Sasha and Malia Obama, are on a Spring Break ski trip in Sun Valley, Idaho. The story quickly spread across the Internet when picked up by the highly trafficked Drudge Report website.

But hours later, the story disappeared from the KMVT website without an update or correction. Breitbart News confirmed that the White House requested that the post be removed.

Obama’s kids were just in the Bahamas. Must be nice.

And the White House’s justification for asking that this news be scrubbed? Alex publishes this statement from a White House spokeshole:

From the beginning of the administration, the White House has asked news outlets not to report on or photograph the Obama children when they are not with their parents and there is no vital news interest.

Awww. It’s not newsworthy, eh? I beg to differ, and I applaud Alex for breaking the story of how the cowardly Idaho news outlet caved. Elizabeth Price Foley expresses my feelings well: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/166105/

While I certainly understand the concerns about security, presumably the Secret Service is accompanying these girls wherever they go. If these media reports are true and the girls have been to both luxurious and expensive locations during their spring break, this would be legitimately newsworthy at a time when the President has halted White House tours and other basic government functions, supposedly due to sequestration-based budget cuts. The public deserves to know whether the Obamas are being hypocritical and/or squandering tax dollars during a time of economic austerity

http://patterico.com/2013/03/29/obam...e-information/

comments

You know, I was treated to enough “Jenna and Tonic” cracks from the media during the Bush 43 years to not really care that Sasha and Malia are being discussed in the media.

It is not a personal attack to simply state they went to the Bahamas and then to the Rockies to go skiing and their daddy spent considerable taxpayer coin to do it.

Not like when the media breathlessly reported the rumor that “Jenna and Tonic” got kicked out of Argentina (remember that). To advance some leftie theory that the girls drinking antics were proof that their daddy was a white-knuckled dry drunk.

But this story isn’t about Sasha and Malia. It’s about daddy Obama’s priorities. The Secret Service can only do so much under any circumstances. So under sequester if the WH gets to choose, and it always gets to choose, the SS will guard the Obama kids and not supervise the kids who might visit “the people’s house.”

Priorities

...

If it is too dangerous for people to know what city the Obama girls are in, they probably shouldn’t go. Of course, people already know they are in DC most of the time. So why are they in more danger when they are in a vacation city?

...

No censorship like voluntary censorship

...

I don’t think that it is unreasonable for President Obama and his family to take a vacation now and then, and yeah, that is going to entail public expenses for security. Every Christmas, in Hawai’i? OK, that’s fine with me. Summertime on Cape Cod? Yeah, that’s fine, too.

But at some point, you do have to start asking about profligacy with the taxpayers’ dollars. Sun Valley and the Bahamas, one right after the other? That’s starting to look a bit excessive.

We’re borrowing a trillion dollars a year, and have had these horrible, draconian, terrible and heartless sequester spending cuts; many Defense Department civilian employees will be required to take off fourteen unpaid days between now and September; that’s almost three weeks of paychecks lost to them, perhaps a considerable hole in many people’s budgets, but the President of the United States somehow can’t rein in the expenses of the Presidency just a little?

...

Some things money can’t buy. For others, there’s the taxpayers. — Michelle Obama

..

I know I use the phrase “limousine liberal” a lot, and some may think that, after awhile, such a description, as applied to liberal A, B or C, goes without saying. But when it comes to the people currently occupying the White House, they truly are the epitome, the essence, the very definition, the heart and soul of “limousine liberal.” And, again, one does not have to be wealthy, or take a lot of vacations (on the taxpayers’ dime or not), to be deserving of that label, since when it comes to two-faced behavior, most on the left are, in effect, limousine liberals.

I won’t say anything about even more extreme, contemptible versions of such lunacy, otherwise known as “champagne socialists.” George Soros or quite a few folks in Hollywood fit that label, and New York City’s money-bags mayor is chomping at the bit to graduate to that level.

Let them eat cake.

...

There is a “vital interest” in reporting this, simply due to the fact that “the sequester” somehow does not preclude the Obama daughters from reportedly taking successive extravagant vacations, traveling from the Bahamas to Sun Valley. Can’t the President explain to his daughters that, in times of economic difficulty, “everybody’s got to have some skin in the game?”

"Everyone has to tighten their belts a little..."

...

"The truth is most Americans don't want much. Folks don't want the whole pie. Most Americans feel blessed to thrive a little bit....but that's out of reach for them. The truth is, in order to get things like universal heathcare and a revamped education system then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

- Michelle Obama April 8, 2008

I don't see the Obama's "giving up" a crumb ... much less a piece of "their" pie...

The Open-Borders “Journalists” Who Banned “Illegal Immigrant”
by Michelle Malkin ~ April 3, 2013 09:29 AM

File this in the overflowing cabinet labeled: No Wonder the Mainstream Media Is Dying. On Tuesday, the Associated Press announced that it is banishing the phrase “illegal immigrant” from its famous stylebook. The world’s largest newsgathering outlet now advises reporters that “illegal” will “only refer to an action, not a person.” http://blog.ap.org/2013/04/02/illega...grant-no-more/

AP directs writers not to use the terms “illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented” anymore, except “in direct quotations.” It won’t be long before illegal border crossers, illegal visa overstayers, illegal deportation evaders, document fraudsters and illegal alien traffickers are all referred to as “our fellow Americans.” Without the quotations. Mark my words.

(Update, via the Center for Immigration Studies: See, I told you so! http://www.cis.org/feere/ap-drops-il...them-americans )

AP explains that it wants to stop labeling people. Hah. This is the same organization that employs journalists who have repeatedly shown naked bias against tea party members, gun owners and pro-life activists. AP’s most famous White House correspondent, Jennifer Loven, was such a shameless water-carrier for the Democratic Party that she earned the permanent nickname “Democratic operative Jennifer Loven” on the Internet. In 2010, she left AP to join an official Democratic-run lobbying and communications firm in D.C. Same difference. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-b...litical-pr-lob

propose that we banish the term “journalist” when referring to members of mainstream news organizations who pose as neutral news-gathers while carrying out a blatantly ideological agenda. From now on, AP’s staffers shall be described in my columns as “alleged practitioners of journalism” or “journalists” only when using direct quotations.

But I digress.

Just a few years ago, the AP resisted open-borders demands and the pressure of political correctness in favor of pithiness and precision. In 2010, a member of the “Diversity Committee” of the Society of Professional Journalists launched a campaign against “illegal immigrant” and “illegal alien.” The crusading “journalist” argued that foreign law-breakers should instead be labeled “undocumented workers” or “undocumented immigrants.”

As I told Daily Caller reporter Matthew Boyle at the time, the idea that “undocumented workers” and “undocumented immigrants” are more objective labels than “illegal immigrants” is complete and utter nonsense. The euphemisms that mainstream “journalists” favor are far more politically loaded than the ones they’re trying to replace.

It’s a farce to call someone an “undocumented immigrant” whose pockets are overflowing with fake, fraudulent documents — and that is usually the case with many of the suspected illegal immigrants featured in AP stories. (Moreover, it is inaccurate to call someone whose employment history, criminal record and welfare status are unknown an undocumented “worker.”)

At the time, the AP agreed. AP’s deputy standards editor David Minthorn told Boyle three short years ago: “The AP Stylebook created its entry on ‘illegal immigrant’ in 2004, in response to renewed debate over border security and the enforcement of immigration laws after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Together, the terms describe a person who resides in a country unlawfully by residency or citizenship requirements. Illegal immigrant … is accurate and neutral for news stories.”

So what changed? “Journalist” Kathleen Carroll, AP’s executive editor, attributes the move to the “evolving” English language. I attribute it to the “evolving” transformation of once-neutral news organizations into brazenly transparent satellite lobbying outfits for the left. It’s not media bias that’s the problem, of course. It’s the sanctimonious pretense of objectivity to which these alleged practitioners of journalism cling.

Just look at the ABC News coverage of the AP’s decision. “Journalist” Cristina Costantini praised the move and patted her own colleagues on the back for their progressivism. “Fusion, the ABC-Univision joint venture, does not use ‘illegal immigrant’ because we believe it dehumanizes those it describes and we find it to be linguistically inaccurate.” On her Twitter account, “journalist” Costantini gushed that AP’s capitulation came “thanks to the hard work of great people like @joseiswriting.”

“@joseiswriting” is Jose Antonio Vargas, the former Washington Post reporter who spearheaded the whitewashing of our language and our laws on behalf of illegal aliens. In 2011, with great fanfare and elite media sympathy, Vargas publicly declared himself an “undocumented immigrant.” Except, as he himself confessed, Vargas had documents coming out of his ears — including a fake passport with a fake name, a fake green card and a Social Security card his grandfather doctored for him at a Kinko’s.

As I previously noted when Vargas shed his “journalist” costume in favor of full-fledged activist, he had committed perjury repeatedly on federal I-9 employment eligibility forms. An immigration lawyer advised him to take responsibility for breaking the law and return to his native Philippines. Following the rules would have meant a 10-year bar to reentry into America. Making false claims of citizenship is a felony offense. Document fraud is a felony offense. Instead of accepting responsibility, Vargas used a friend’s address to obtain an Oregon driver’s license under false pretenses and duped his employers until the golden moment to confess — without any fear of punishment under the illegal alien-friendly Obama administration — arrived.

The persistent use of open-borders euphemisms championed by Vargas and Company once again serves as the perfect illumination of the agenda-driven, dominant progressive media. They’re as activist inside their newsrooms as Vargas is out in the open. Vargas won’t rest until the legal definition of American citizenship is obliterated. And neither will his “journalist” colleagues cheering him on, whitewash brushes in hand.


http://michellemalkin.com/2013/04/03...gal-immigrant/

comments

“Immigrant” doesn’t work either. Trespasser, burglar, break and enterer, fraudster (when they apply for welfare/medicare/social security/food stamps), forger (false documents). In some cases felon, but they’re released instead of prosecuted.

..

Jay Leno gets how millions of illegals will vote if handed amnesty - so why don't Congressional Republicans?

http://www.mrctv.org/embed/120678

Any wonder he is going to be replaced..you speak the truth you get in trouble nowadays...

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/leno-ap-...ented-democrat

...

The word police seem to be winning. Why? Because we allow it. Continue to use whatever term you want. We still have a First Amendment, and they can’t dictate what you say! Remember that! I CHOOSE not to say certain things because they disturb me to say them. But, I refuse to allow these bozos to dictate my words to me. They are continually trying to change our thinking and our culture…and there are too many sheeple out there who just blindly follow along. Soon, we will be a nation of robots, just blindly following along because we are told to. Get a grip, folks!! Stand up to this! THINK FOR YOURSELVES! THEY do not know better than YOU! In fact, the very people who do this crud are seriously mentally defective, to be ignored at all costs.

..


I favor using the precise legal term: ILLEGAL ALIEN.

Illegal Alien is a legal term, like “Resident Alien.”

You know, if they stop using illegal alien, there will be no differentiation between legal and illegal. They have been trying to blur those lines for years. This will complete their mission. When they accuse conservatives of being heartless, they always say we are against immigration. They neglect to include the word “illegal” which makes all the difference in the world. And of course they know it!

,,

Well, if the AP is looking for new ways to describe people who cross the border to make their lives and the lives of their families of little hungry mouths to feed, might I suggest “foreign economic invaders,” “foreign economic infiltrators,” or “FEIs” (works for both). BTW, “FEIs,” pronounced feez, aren’t the only people we must identify. There are also “foreign economic invaders/infiltrators advocates,” or “FEIsAs,” pronounced feezas, also known as “Democrats.”

..

I seem to remember that the term ILLEGAL ALIEN comes directly from our century old immigration laws. It’s not a pejorative term with racist implications–an alien is someone from another country.

The horribly high unemployment rate among many of our younger legal citizens is directly caused by the entry level jobs being filled by ILLEGAL ALIENS. The jobs I did in the 1950′s and 1960′s to pay for my car, insurance, and university costs–lawn work, painting, janitorial, construction site cleanup, busboy, etc. were not available for my sons and daughter in the 1980′s and 1990′s.

...

See about Jay Leno’s joke? Man, I’m guessing after getting screwed over by the progressive NBC execs, he must have had enough. AP, what he said is technically correct, undocumented democrat to replace illegal immigrant.

This is why the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION was trying to cut the hours of the Border Patrol and give the money to the Ports of Entry. (Very glad they weren’t able to do it). The ports let people in and with extra money they can expand the Border Crossing Program with people allowed to enter the country for short excursions, etc. They come up and go ahead and vote while they are shopping at WalMart with democrat voter registers on every street corner in the border towns. The Border Patrol keeps people out, not good for Obama and Janet.

Undocumented Democrat, I like it.

Now, stay tuned for Pasadena Phil and Flyoverman to regale you all with stories of Juan McAmnesty and Lindsay Grahamnesty, and they will be right about these jerks, but won’t talk about the real head of the beast, Obama.

..

Does this mean that there will no longer be such a thing as an illegal gun? I guess the idea is to make it impossible to enforce any laws since the term “illegal” is now illegal.