By Ann Coulter
9/19/2012
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.
________________________________________
To read another article by Ann Coulter, click here.
________________________________________
To read another article about our wildly out-of-touch mainstream media, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment