ARIZONA GOVERNOR JAN BREWER FOR PRESIDENT

At least the lady has balls. Unfortunately, not enough to go around, but if she wants to run, she's got my vote.

HOW THE MEDIA IS SHAPING THINGS UP FOR YOU

Okay, from the headlines and whatnot after the president's Tuesday night speech, here's the way it looks like the MSM is planning to get him re-elected.

First off the Romney-Gingrich GOP nominee line: You'll probably hear and/or read nothing but how the two are polling equal. When something else will be reported it will only have to do with Romney — the left and the Dems are afraid of him because they apparently realize he can beat their boy. There will be NO mention of Mitt without the inclusion of the keywords "Mormon," "income tax," or "tithing," and will always make reference to his "corporate raiding," the latter, an arrogant assumption and a blatant lie, the three former ones irrelevant.

Secondly. There will only be reference to Gingrich in the context of Romney, but there will be a downplaying of any of Gingrich's faults, gaffes, etc. Slowly, the words "divorce," "Fannie Mae," "Freddie Mac," "DC insider," etc. will disappear from Newt stories. If there was a chance Newt could pull Indies, I'd probably vote for him, but there isn't, so Mitt's My Man.

Don't believe me? Watch. listen and learn how America got burned in the last election.

PATERNO

I'm still high from the Giants winning the NFC game, but ESPN is devoting a lot of time to the death of Penn State coach Joe Paterno.

A — he was 85 and had cancer, so we're not looking at a big surprise there.

B — Yeah — I don't follow college bowl — but apparently he was a good football coach.

C — He also covered up for a child molester, so that makes any "legacy" of his tainted, because if he did it "once," he did it twice. And there is absolutely no excuse for that. And that goes for anyone even remotely connected with the Penn State situation.

See ya Joe. You chose to leave that way.

LOOKS LIKE THE PRESIDENT GETS A SECOND TERM

Happen to hear ABC News in the background declaring Newt Gingrich the winner in South Carolina. If the guy announcing it — the latest talking head at ABC — was any happier he'd have been whacking off on camera.

Thanks to the South Shall Rise Again, America will be going down the toilet for the next five years.

Guess my buddy's right. Time to load up on ammo and rations.

CAN YOU IMAGINE

I'm not a Newt fan. I think Romney is our only chance for getting out from under the socialist agenda of which President Obama and his minions seem so fond.

That said, could you imagine if a media outlet like Fox opted to air an interview with, oh, say a former lover/ex of President Obama (assuming one exists. The man just doesn't seem to have a past as near as any "eyewitness investigator" has been "able" to find)?

No?

Well, ABC plans to air an interview with one of Newt's exes two days before the SC primary.

In the interest of fair and comprehensive reportage, of course.

Well, at least — instead of quoting Romney out of context — they're doing us a favor (much like ignoring the Paul campaign).

Oh, how I love an unbiased media!

THE MEDIA PLAN TO RE-ELECT THE PRESIDENT

If it isn't bad enough that the media elected President Obama by refusing to do ANY kind of background — or for that matter, look up his name in a phone book — check, how they've come up with a better way to keep him and his socialist cronies in office.

You can see it now.

"Hey. I've got an idea. The Republicans/Tea Party/Conservatives are so screwed up about who to vote for, let's throw a REAL wrench in the machine.
"Whatta ya mean?"
"Well, remember when Perot ran?"
"Yeah, but they already have a Perot. Ron Paul."
"That's not the point. What I'm trying to say is let's do a Mad Magazine thing on them."
"What the hell is Mad Magazine?"
"Shut up and listen. We get some stupid television personality who thinks he's a genius and get him to run. We got $68 million. We gotta spend it somewhere, don't we?"
"But what's that going to do?"
"Well, it gives those assholes in the media who feed on everything we give them, a chance to mock elect a Republican so they can say they're impartial."
"Who do you have in mind?"
"Steve Colbert."
"Who?"
"That guy who comes after Jon Stewart."
"Who?"
"Hey, isn't he that guy who got elected to the something in Canada?"
"No! That's Al Franken and he got elected in ... I dunno, Michigan or Minnesota or Green Bay or one of those cold places where nobody lives."
"Are you sure?"
"Yes. Colberts the OTHER guy with glasses."
"Oh, yeah. He's the guy that played the porter in Trading Places with Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd."
"NO! That was Al Franken."

Even though we're presented with voting for someone who can beat our present President, watch what happens now that Colbert's in the SC primary. And watch how much cash he has to spend. This ain't a Pat Paulsen for President riff (hopefully, SOMEone reading this remembers that). This is another attempt by the media who — see the entry before this one — want to know whether they should investigate their sources, to pollute any chance of throwing the current President out of office.

(I refuse — unlike every scumbag liberal and democrat in the world — to use pejoratives about our President ... unlike the aforementioned scumbags)

TRUTH IS ALWAYS STRANGER THAN FICTION

The New York Times actually ran this editorial today.


"Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?
By ARTHUR S. BRISBANE

I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about." blah-blah-blah,ya-da,ya-da ya-da.

Now, I didn't go to J-school (journalism school), having learned my reportorial skills OJT, courtesy of an editor named Kevin Ireland, and later a publisher named Scott Shane.

What I learned from both of them was something called "vetting your source;" i.e., checking out the person who was feeding you the crap you were writing about. NObody tells un-slanted truth. Everyone that talks to a reporter has a bias they want to proffer, and the reporter is the schmuck (or genius) who figures out/writes the truth or lie. Theoretically. Apparently they don't teach that in J-school.

Here it is 2012 and the Gray Lady is asking whether they should be doing that?

No wonder we let the media elect an amateur as president. Holy crap!!!

(And, yes, I've been published in the effin' New York Times.)

GO AHEAD. I DARE YOU!

"A hard-line Iranian newspaper called Thursday for retaliation against Israel, a day after the mysterious killing of a nuclear scientist in Tehran with a magnetic bomb attached to his car."

Aside from the stupidity of a western media source describing any Iranian paper as "hard-line" — I suppose depending on which way you were trying to slant the news, one could describe the same paper as liberal, moderate, etc., considering they're all mouthpieces of those whacky, freedom loving, modern Iranians.

Anyway, the above is being widely disseminated by the media, let's just say ...

GO AHEAD. RETALIATE AGAINST ISRAEL. I DARE YOU!

Nothing could be finer.

Nuke Iran Now.