Andrew Sullivan notes the immediate hysteria and hypothesizes that “it was the Israelis who immediately got their US media mouthpieces to spin the speech as some sort of attack.”
Yes, Andi's referring to the Jewish-controlled media, which somehow continues to employ crackpots with failed drug-tests.
But remember, folks: when a liberal talks about "the Jewish-controlled media" or blatantly stereotypes blacks, it's not racist. I can't explain it, but it's just not.
Linked by: PJ's Tatler. Thanks!
Another Holocaust is coming... and this time the world will neither be forgiven or spared.
I nearly busted a gut reading how the lamestream media is Israel's water carrier and faithfully transmits its positions to the US public. If anything the dinosaur media is so reflexively anti Israel, that it would never put any positive spin on anything Israel does, and if Israelis tried to influence the coverage, the reporters and anchors would throw a hissy fit.
I'm sure that now Sullivan believes that the media covered up Bristol Palin's birth of Trigg, and Sarah Palin's non-pregnancy, on direct orders from Israel, because Israel didn't want to jeopardize having a true friend in the White House rather than the current occupants.
Attack Obama? How by saying he's too conservative?
Obama is to diplomacy and sanity what Jack the Ripper was to prostitutes.
Is Jewish Media better than American Media??
thi trưong bat dong san
Like the blog, but what does "Doug Ross @ Journal" mean?
Post a Comment