Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.

One doesn’t even necessarily need the press to brainwash the fools in the US. Which are perhaps a majority now a days. Conservative press have yet to graduate from propaganda 101, let alone 201.

The power equation is a bit imbalanced.

The Left’s primary weakness is that their internal security must be at the maximum, otherwise they risk being infiltrated and destroyed as they did to the US.

Journalists that go into the world, learn the truth outside the control of Leftist propaganda, are more dangerous than REpublican senators. Their termination is a safety valve for the Left.

In terms of judicial execution of terrorists and enemies of humanity, that should really be a personal judgment. All too many people wish to out source the dirty work to others, as if they can be trusted to know red from black.

In a way, because people cannot reach the Left’s strong hold in America to damage it in any successful manner, oversea casualties can stoke that buried emotion of resentment.

Those that do not consider themselves capable of lethal force, often fantasize about people dying due to the push of a button or by the hands of others. In the case of the former, it is merely a fantasy, for they believe it would either not happen or that they would not be capable of pushing the button when it really happens. In the case of the latter, it is easy to brush off as the consequence of some other madman’s cause and not in anyway directly related to themselves as the origin point.

MJR, a true believer is someone who is already prepared to kill or die for the cause. Because they believe in the cause.

How many of the Left are prepared to die? How many are prepared to kill? So far the ratio is no more than the Revolutionary War times, when 10% of the population lead the other 90% in war or exile.

The enemies that the US military power should have been killing weren’t foreign terrorists. They shouldn’t have been water boarding terrorists. They shouldn’t have been assassinating and killing those overseas. They should have been applying the full power of whatever they had in cleansing America of domestic enemies, enemies of humanity, aristocrat lords of Detroit, Chicago, New Orleans, and every other Democrat fiefdom in existence of slavery and serfdom.

For the greatest enemy is never outside the gates, but the traitors within.

I suggest that belief is a feedback phenomenon: “they believe in the science” ^because^ it fits “their progressive control agenda”, ^because^ “they believe in the science”, ^because^ it fits “their progressive control agenda”, ^because^ “they believe in the science”, etc. ad infintium.

As to “ignor[ing] contradicting science completely”, yes: since it doesn’t fit the feedback loop, contradicting science gets ignored — or stifled, suppressed, punishable by banishment from the mainstream. But they do believe whatever part of the “science” furthers their agenda (ignoring/suppressing the rest), which in turn buttresses their belief in that part of the science, which in turn furthers their agenda, which in turn . . .

HELLLLP! [ smile ]

For example, Michael Kelly, the first US reporter killed in the Iraq War?

Kelly was critical of the political establishment in both political parties, as well as of the power structure in Hollywood. He authored, for instance, a devastating critique of Ted Kennedy that ran in GQ in 1990 and was reprinted by that magazine upon Kennedy’s death; he skewered Al Gore numerous times over the years.

Kelly was a supporter of US military intervention during both the Clinton Administration and George W. Bush’s administration. He was an outspoken critic of the anti-Iraq war movement. He coined the term “fusion paranoia” to refer to a political convergence of left-wing and right-wing activists around anti-war issues and civil liberties, which he claimed were motivated by a shared belief in conspiracism or anti-government views.

In September 2002, Kelly sharply criticized former vice president Al Gore for a speech that condemned the Bush administration’s efforts to generate support for the coming invasion of Iraq. In a column in The Washington Post, Kelly wrote Gore’s speech was “wretched. It was vile. It was contemptible.” He said Gore’s speech “was one no decent politician could have delivered” and was “bereft of anything other than taunts and jibes and embarrassingly obvious lies.”

Or how about Daniel Pearl?

Steven Vincent?

One of the many reasons why when I learned of a “journalist” getting killed in Iraq or Afghanistan it troubled me not in the least.