Thursday, February 04, 2016

Bazzo Says: The New York Slimes Endorses Hillary

Bazzo Says:


In an editorial days before the Iowa caucuses, The New York Times endorsed presidential candidates Hillary Clinton for the Democrats and Ohio Governor John Kasich (who?) for the Republicans. As both candidates believe you are too stupid to live without government, same as the Times, this comes as no surprise.  This explains why the Times, like the Daily News, is hemorrhaging money. They, like their dwindling readership, are out of touch with the mood of the electorate. You see, news organizations such as these do not write or opine for you, but instead they do so for each other.
Like many or probably most on the left, they sit in a room with like-minded people validating their own opinion. Contrary opinion is derided and dismissed. It is considered extreme, out of the mainstream and uninformed. This in spite of the huge crowds gathered to hear Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Carson and Rubio vs. the almost invisible crowds for Bill and/or Hillary or any of the establishment Republicans. They are dismissed as mind-numbed-robots. They are incapable of independent thought, only taking their marching orders from talk radio.
Nooooo. Only these smartest people in the room, people who polling shows only represent 20 percent of the people (most people polled identify themselves as a little right of center), actually know what’s going on and their conclusions are unassailable. For them, the customer is always wrong. This I firmly believe is the real reason why they lose money. People just do not want to pay to be insulted.
So, in endorsing Clinton they write that she is one of the most “deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.” What are those qualifications? Well, she is praised for her term as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. Yes, here the Times is honest; she was secretary of state. For the Times, that is qualification enough. Remember, liberals are to be judged on intent, not consequences. If she were to be judged on consequences, just look at the world around you.
You must ask yourself, is the world a safer place than before she was secretary of state? Everything she touched turned to crap, yet the Times opines she still would be a better military leader than her rivals—both Democrat and Republican. The Times also argued that Clinton had more experience and presented more policy ideas than her rivals in both parties. This can only be true if one ignores the policy papers put out by both Sanders and Cruz and the book that is still on sale by Trump. This can only be true if you believe, as the president stated in a recent interview, that after seven-plus years it is still Bush’s fault.
It’s amazing the things liberals believe so they can sleep at night.  If you listen to that interview by the president, which can be found on YouTube, you would think that both he and Hillary were not there for the last seven-plus years. With the help of a compliant media, they govern against the very policies they enact. People say: “You see, they agree also that things suck rocks, and they are going to do something about it.” Dammit, they did the very thing that people say suck rocks.
The Times praises her for her lifelong commitment to workers, particularly women. Ah yes, her commitment to women—except when she headed the Clinton war room during her husband’s runs for the Presidency in ‘92 and ‘96, when she tried to have women whom her husband preyed upon committed. Let’s not forget her commitment to women workers, especially those who worked for her whom it has been documented she paid less tham men who did the same job.
Yet, for the Times and her ardent supporters, her failures matter not. Polling shows that even if indicted (which I believe will never happen), 53 percent of her supporters would still vote for her. I have a friend who falls into that category. Man, when it comes to real or perceived Republican malfeasance, he is on me like ugly on an ape. But Hillary, ahh, that is a different story. To him, any Republican is more dangerous than a Democrat crook. He took the time to list all the things the media has said the Republicans would do if in power. Even though he reads my columns (or so he says) and even though when the Republicans were in power did they not commit any of these heresies, he will go to his grave believing what he has been told instead of his own lying eyes.
You see, like communists past (or actually any form of dictatorship), it is party, party, party before country. This is what we are up against. This mindset explains New York (both city and state), California, Chicago, Baltimore (who at this writing was still waiting for the snow plows to come) and this country. This explains why during Katrina people did not flee but instead drowned waiting for the busses that never came. This mindset that Democrats care, even in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and the party will not let us down—it’s downright scary.
This is what I say. What say you?
Guest: Political Commentators Bryan Fumagalli and Darren Rigger discuss the issues of the day
Wednesday 9:30 p.m.
Yorktown: channel 74
Peekskill: channel 15
February 3 & 10
1)  Check Out

2) Check Out Yorktown News:



CONTACT ME @: (it is atom (underscore) taxi)
For immediate reply:



Bazzo  02/04/16

No comments: