“I’m getting a bit tired of the “deranged” soldier story. It was predictable, of course. The 38-year-old staff sergeant who massacred 16 Afghan civilians, including nine children, near Kandahar this week had no sooner returned to base than the defence experts and the think-tank boys and girls announced that he was “deranged”. Not an evil, wicked, mindless terrorist – which he would be, of course, if he had been an Afghan, especially a Taliban – but merely a guy who went crazy.

This was the same nonsense used to describe the murderous US soldiers who ran amok in the Iraqi town of Haditha. It was the same word used about Israeli soldier Baruch Goldstein who massacred 25 Palestinians in Hebron – something I pointed out in this paper only hours before the staff sergeant became suddenly “deranged” in Kandahar province.

“Apparently deranged”, “probably deranged”, journalists announced, a soldier who “might have suffered some kind of breakdown” (The Guardian), a “rogue US soldier” (Financial Times) whose “rampage” (The New York Times) was “doubtless [sic] perpetrated in an act of madness” (Le Figaro). Really? Are we supposed to believe this stuff? Surely, if he was entirely deranged, our staff sergeant would have killed 16 of his fellow Americans. He would have slaughtered his mates and then set fire to their bodies. But, no, he didn’t kill Americans. He chose to kill Afghans. There was a choice involved. So why did he kill Afghans? We learned yesterday that the soldier had recently seen one of his mates with his legs blown off. But so what?

Doubtful this dolt has a degree in psychology so he would know , er, squat about PTSD or battle fatigue.

Doubtful he’s ever been in combat otherwise he would be saying the idiotic things he says in this article. But continuing to spread the lie that soldiers were running amok in Haditha, shows he does know how to continue – as many liberals do – still lying about a story that’s been debunked as it didn’t happen.

I

“RUSH: I must replay the second Karen Finney sound bite. She’s a Democrat strategist. She appears on MSNBC frequently. Last night they were doing election coverage of the Republican primaries (in Mississippi, Alabama, Hawaii) and she was shocked. She was literally shocked that Santorum won. He’s a conservative. That means he hates women. He wants to deny women their health care. This is what they believe and what they want you to believe. And she was asked the following question (summarized) “Santorum did pick well on Alabama among working women. And Santorum! Karen, Santorum even sent out a mailer, and it had a quote from Rush Limbaugh, and he still won. Now, you were in Alabama. Karen, how in the hell can that happen? Santorum use a quote from Limbaugh on a flier, and a Republican women voted for Santorum! Tell me, how is that happened, Karen?”

FINNEY: You know, I’m stunned. Uh, the only explanation that I can come up with is — and I think this would be a question I’d want to go back and ask these women. For these women, did race — or… or, in other words, “conservative values;” that’s the code, right? — trump gender? You know, it’s still a very conservative state. The racial issues are alive and well in Alabama and Mississippi. Remember those polls that we saw where large percentage don’t believe in interracial marriage and think the president is a “Mooslem.” So clearly there is some sort of racial stuff in there, and I wonder if that — ultimately for white working women — trumps their own gender.”

Finney is a constant contributor on MSNBC. But she touts what many liberals believe that conservative women are a minority in America but that’s far from the truth. Fact is that only 23 percent of women in a 2009 poll consider themselves liberal, and even less far left. The grand majority of women are moderate to conservative. That’s a stat that hasn’t changed in the years before that poll or since.

So how to the women of America feel when MSNBC’s own paid analyst suggests that they’re racist?

I wonder how MSNBC’s advertisers would feel.

As you know MSNBC has strict guidlines for it’s hosts such as a ban from giving campaign donations.

I’m glad the money went to charity, especially the Cancer Society, however it still appears  a little more than “sticky” that MSNBC is somehow enabling it’s hosts to speak and promote the unions in the first place.

It’s simply just compromises their coverage, a decided conflict of interest at the least.

“President Obama’s campaign has hired Oscar-winning director Davis Guggenheim to produce a short film chronicling the first three years of his administration, Julianna Goldman of Bloomberg reports.

The campaign paid more than $160,000 for the film, which is less than 30 minutes long and set to be released in the coming weeks, Goldman reports. Guggenheim won an Oscar in 2006 for “An Inconvenient Truth.”

It’s called, “Waiting for Superman”.

More, “An Inconvenient Lie”. But I sure he’s be fair to cover these items in detail, like Kryptonite.

1. Created the greatest increase in National Debt in history (If he wins again it will rise to more than 15 trillion).
2. Highest Unemployment in more than 30 years.
3. I’m sure we’ll hear all about Solyndra. Right.
4. Fast and Furious: The continuing coverup of the Justice Department program to release 2,200 deadly weapons into the United States and Mexico, one of which killed a Border Patrol agent in 2010.

Can’t wait.

However, Pat will land correctly and with a few more bucks. A well placed source tells me that Fox News is all ready to pick up Pat within the coming weeks, likely as a frequent political commentator. Both Hannity and O’Reilly are pushing the charge to bring Pat within the fold. However not all are on Pat’s side. Chris Wallace says that Pat’s firing was justified, incredible coming from any journalist who defends free speech, nevertheless Wallace hasn’t the clout with the network that Hannity and O’Reilly have.

Let me add this from Pat defending his book.

“If my book is racist and anti-Semitic, how did Sean Hannity, Erin Burnett, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Megyn Kelly, Lou Dobbs, and Ralph Nader miss that? How did Charles Payne, African-American host on Fox radio, who has interviewed me three times, fail to detect its racism? How did Michael Medved miss its anti-Semitism?”

Obviously Fox isn’t afraid of the debate or Van Jones.

Ben Smith is a media hack and should been shunned and blacklisted by every media outlet that values it’s integrity. Fact is he left The Politico and now blogs at Buzz Feed. Big Journalism writes a scathing review of Smith’s hack job journalism.

“Smith’s journOlist speciality is creating distractions to keep Republicans off-message. He’s a genius at coming up with nonsense-narratives, or items that build upon or amplify nonsense-narratives, that are specifically designed to give Obama’s Media Palace Guards something to talk about other than Obama’s failed record or whatever it is the Republicans want to talk about. I first caught on to what Smith was doing back in 2008 when he published this.

Go take a look at Buzzfeed Politics right now. You’ll see that little has changed and that this story, “Shopping With the Gingriches” is PURE Ben Smith. It’s a story meant only to build on the nonsense-narrative surrounding Newt’s line of credit at Tiffany’s. It’s bait for the MSM to create a talking point and feed that narrative. And not just any nonsense-narrative, but one that fulfills Barack Obama’s reelection gameplan based on class warfare. Nothing in that story is about policy, history, vision, or news. It’s a hit-piece disguised as human interest, and I’ll say it again: it is pure Ben Smith.

But if you really want to understand how Smith operates, how biased and one-sided he is, read this.

The thing about Ben Smith is that we always seem to eventually discover something about him that helps to explain so much. For instance, there was the day we discovered Smith was a member of Ezra Klein’s notorious JournoList. ”

Smith’s dream has been to get on the Obama team short list for media spokesperson. He should get it. No one prints the BS better than he.

Somehow lefties that incites violence against gays. I doubt it, but whatever.

But you can’t find a single report about the suspension that notes that Roland Martin is a liberal. Oh, and he’s black too. Jus saying.

Roland Martin

“ORLANDO, Fla. — Mitt Romney may have hoped that by featuring former NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw in his new campaign ad, he could lend to his attacks on Newt Gingrich the credence of one of the country’s most eminent journalists. But both Brokaw and NBC are objecting to the ad, and asking Romney’s campaign to take it down.

The ad released Saturday consists entirely of a single clip of a single clip of Brokaw reading the top of the broadcast on Jan. 21, 1997, the day the House voted to reprimand former House Speaker on ethics charges.

“Good evening. Newt Gingrich, who came to power, after all, preaching a higher standard in American politics, a man who brought down another Speaker on ethics accusations, tonight he has on his own record the judgment of his peers, Democrat and Republican alike,” Brokaw says in the clip used in the ad.

He continues to inform viewers that House members voted overwhelmingly to find Gingrich guilty of ethics violations and levy a stiff financial penalty, raising questions in the process about whether Gingrich could lead the country effectively in the future.
“I am extremely uncomfortable with the extended use of my personal image in this political ad,” Brokaw said in a statement. “I do no want my role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign.”

NBC’s legal department said it had written a letter to Romney’s campaign asking that it remove all NBC News material from the campaign’s ads. NBC added that it has issued similar requests when other campaigns have “inappropriately used Nightly News, Meet the Press, Today and MSNBC material.”

Romney’s campaign said they were reviewing the letter, but that they believed it fell under the “fair use” exception to U.S. copyright law. The campaign declined to say whether it would pull the ad.”

It’s likely fair use, but you have to chuckle at Brokaw and NBC’s hypocrisy. Everything that damn network does is political and MSNBC is nothing more than an extension of the White House press room .

“Reuters is out with a tough story on Sen. Marco Rubio today, arguing that, the senator “has had significant financial problems that could keep him from passing any vetting process as a potential vice presidential choice…”

Unfortunately, it appears many of the facts are either wrong or exaggerated.

By my count, there were at least 7 errors or exaggerations:

1. “Rubio also voted against Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s Supreme Court nominee who is of Puerto Rican descent…”

(Rubio wasn’t even in the senate then.)

2. “He soon had [his house] appraised for $735,000 and took out a second mortgage for $135,000.”

(Rubio did not take out a second mortgage. He took out a home equity line, which is a line of credit secured by the value of the home.)

3. “In 2008, despite earning a declared $400,000 – including his $300,000 salary from the Miami law firm Broad and Cassel – Rubio failed to make a payment on his home for several months”

(Rubio never failed to make payments on his mortgage on his home. He did miss a payment on a second house that he co-owns in Tallahassee because of miscommunication with the bank and the other owner; but it was remedied immediately and was not caused by any financial problems.)

4. “During the same period he did not make payments on a $100,000-plus student loan from his days at the University of Miami, the disclosures said.”

(As far as I can tell, this is simply untrue. He has never missed a payment on his student loans.)

5. “He frequently had used his party credit card for personal use, and later reimbursed the party for about $16,000.”

(Rubio paid American Express directly. The party never paid any expenses, and therefore there was no need to reimburse them.)

6. “Before joining the Senate last year, he was caught up in an Internal Revenue Service investigation of the Florida Republican Party’s use of party-issued credit cards.”

(Rubio’s office tells me they have never been contacted about an IRS investigation.)

7 “Rubio owes far more on his $384,000 Miami home than it is worth, and at times has had difficulty paying his mortgage”

(Senator Rubio has never missed a payment on his Miami home.)

Reuters has issued 5 corrections on the story to this point, no word on the last two. It might be a good idea to pull the whole thing, issue an apology and fire the reporter.

Marco Rubio

“BEAUFORT, SC — Voters here in coastal South Carolina don’t seem too bothered with the salacious “bombshell” stories Marianne Gingrich is expected to tell on Nightline on Thursday night. They may not all vote for Newt Gingrich, but they all agree that voters here won’t be moved by stories of a 68 year-old former House Speaker’s sex life.

After all, they told me, have you seen what’s on TV these days?

“I think after the blue dress, and Clinton, it doesn’t matter anymore, You know?” said Barbara Thompson, a retired school teacher waiting in line to shake Gingrich’s hand after his second stop of the day in Beaufort.

Thompson is undecided (she’s picking between Gingrich and Mitt Romney) but she said whatever Marianne has to say won’t sway her, or really have much of an impact here thanks to a change in the “standards” in the country.

“I don’t think it will hurt at all,” she told me. “Things have changed, everybody has friends whose daughters aren’t married and have children. Everything has changed.”

Robert de Treville, who told me his family has been in Beaufort since the 1700s, stood at the back of the Gingrich event here, wearing a camouflage jacket and a Gadsden flag pin. He’s a a strong Gingrich supporter, and also said that the changing culture means most voters will barely raise an eyebrow at the new tales of Gingrich’s infidelity.

“I think that people have become numbed to some extent because of the changes in the media and the movies and the television shows,” he told me. They’ve become kind of a little bit less concerned about personal relationships and that aspect of our lives.”

He raised the 42nd president’s name, too.

“I think a lot of people are going to see through it,” de Treville told me when I asked him about the upcoming interview. “I mean you look at Bill Clinton and his peccadilloes. And you see how people were affected by that. And they understood that he was human. And Newt is human.”

I always laugh when the media tries to throw these stories up and make us think that it’s relevant. Clinton’s infidelity far outweighs that of Newts. Heck, he did a chick in the White House and lied about it to America. But the media wanted us to know back then that Clinton’s personal life had nothing to do with his performance as president. Even during the campaign run up his numerous affairs and infidelities were completely ignored.

American’s know this and so can see through shoddy, muckraking journalism when they see it.

Epic fail ABC, much like the rest of your programming.