Path:
eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september
.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-septemb
er.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!wieslau
f.sub.de!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ? 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,az.politics,ca.politics,dfw.politics
Subject: The Embassy attack
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:33:20 -0700
Organization: Wieslauf BBS
Lines: 105
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-2-57-159.ph.ph.cox.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: wieslauf.sub.de 1348122802 16789 68.2.57.159 (20 Sep 2012 06:33:22
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@wieslauf.sub.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 06:33:22 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20120905
Thunderbird/16.0
Xref: news.eternal-september.org talk.politics.guns:87259 az.politics:2470
ca.politics:5741 dfw.politics:264

ELITIST, OUT-OF-TOUCH MEDIA COMPLAIN ROMNEY NOT REGULAR GUY
September 19, 2012




Only our totally unbiased watchdog media could turn the burning of U.S. 
embassies in countries where Barack Obama had recently supported mob 
revolts into Mitt Romney's blunder. Journalists couldn't risk having 
Obama's campaign slogan "Osama is dead" being amended with "and so is 
our ambassador."

After our ambassador to Libya was murdered in a preplanned, coordinated 
attack on our embassy last week, preceded by an attack on our embassy in 
Egypt (and followed by attacks on our embassies in Yemen, Indonesia, 
Tunisia and Lebanon), Romney criticized the Obama administration for 
"sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt."

He was referring to a statement put out by our Cairo embassy before the 
ambassador's murder, criticizing an American filmmaker whose YouTube 
trailer was the alleged provocation for the attacks. Attacks that 
happened to occur on the anniversary of 9/11.

The NFM (Non-Fox Media) uniformly denounced Romney's criticism and 
pronounced his campaign finished.

The Obama administration insisted that Romney had his "facts" wrong: 
Obama had absolutely nothing to do with the statement -- the embassy 
staff was freelancing -- and, even if the White House had approved it, 
it was a good statement because the riots were caused by the movie 
trailer, and furthermore, the embassy statement was issued before the 
riots even began.

This is known as an argument in the alternative: "I didn't break into 
that house, and if I did, I didn't steal the silver, and if I did, I 
only got twenty bucks for it."

If the statement were issued before our embassy in Cairo was attacked, 
then what was the administration responding to? Does the White House 
make it a practice to put out statements condemning random, barely 
viewed YouTube videos? The White House officially endorses that cute 
video of Kooky82's cat attempting to meow the national anthem.


The embassy's statement was obviously responding to something, and if 
anyone in the administration -- even that rogue embassy official! -- 
knew the Internet video was upsetting our dear Muslim friends, why on 
earth weren't our embassies protected?

Next, the Obama administration detained the American filmmaker and asked 
Google to block the allegedly offending video. (Take the week off, First 
Amendment.)

This behavior made it difficult for even the most obsequious journalist 
to keep railing against Romney for suggesting that Obama was acquiescing 
to angry Muslims. So the NFM's harangue against Romney was deposited in 
the same filing cabinet where the paperwork to close Gitmo is currently 
stored.

Now, a week later, Romney has said something, again. (Damn him!) This 
provoked another round of hysterical denunciations from the media.

At a private gathering, Romney told donors that Obama had a lock on the 
47 percent of voters "who pay no income tax" and "believe the government 
has a responsibility to care for them." This was deeply offensive to 
people who pay no income tax and believe the government has a 
responsibility to care for them.

But no matter how much the media belch out the usual cliches -- out of 
touch, insensitive, racist, not one of us, Thurston Howell, etc. etc. -- 
all most people heard was: FORTY-SEVEN PERCENT OF AMERICANS PAY NO 
INCOME TAX?

A friend of mine who spent time in Russia during the '70s told me that 
whenever a Russian would bring up the extensive coverage of Watergate, 
he'd sigh, thinking he'd have to explain that the American political 
system was not as corrupt as the commissars would have it. But all they 
ever wanted to ask him was: "Do all Americans have such nice shoes?"

The lesson is: You can't always control what the audience notices.

Thanks to the myopia of our one-party media, most journalists are firmly 
convinced that voters will be appalled by Romney's description of 47 
percent of Americans as supporting Obama because they pay no income tax. 
(Yes, head-up-their-butts journalists in the charming little burg of 
Manhattan are complaining that Romney isn't connecting with ordinary 
people.)

But the only people shocked by Romney's statement of fact are those who 
would never vote Republican under any circumstances. Everyone else is 
saying, "Is it really as high as 47 percent?" -- as the media impotently 
shouts, "No, you idiot! That's not the point!"

There's going to come a time, in the not-distant future, when it's 51 
percent paying no income tax. And when that happens, the party of big 
government will never lose another election. America will become 
indistinguishable from Western European nanny states -- except there 
will be no America to protect us.

The media happen to love the party of big government with all their 
heart, so from now until the election, no matter what Romney says, they 
plan to be scandalized.

COPYRIGHT 2012 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.1
 * Origin: Prison Board BBS Mesquite Tx  //telnet.RDFIG.NET www. (1:124/5013)