Proof of Liberal Media Bias/Cpnspiracy

Excerpt from the Wall Street Journal:

Now, after learning I'd been targeted for a smear attack by a member of an online clique of liberal journalists, I'm inclined to amend my response. Not to say there's a media conspiracy, but at least to note that hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism.

My guess is that this and other revelations about JournoList will deepen the distrust of the national press. True, participants in the online clubhouse appear to hail chiefly from the media's self-identified left wing. But its founder, Ezra Klein, is a prominent writer for the Washington Post. Mr. Klein shut down JournoList last month—a wise decision.

It's thanks to Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller website that we know something about JournoList, though the emails among the liberal journalists were meant to be private. (Mr. Carlson hasn't revealed how he obtained the emails.) In June, the Daily Caller disclosed a series of JournoList musings by David Weigel, then a Washington Post blogger assigned to cover conservatives. His emails showed he loathes conservatives, and he was subsequently fired.

This week, Mr. Carlson produced a series of JournoList emails from April 2008, when Barack Obama's presidential bid was in serious jeopardy. Videos of the antiwhite, anti-American sermons of his Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, had surfaced, first on ABC and then other networks.

WSJ.com Columnist John Fund reports on a media scandal. Also, Columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady breaks down the President's pledge to end bailouts and analyzes the Fed Chairman's latest visit to Capitol Hill.
.JournoList contributors discussed strategies to aid Mr. Obama by deflecting the controversy. They went public with a letter criticizing an ABC interview of Mr. Obama that dwelled on his association with Mr. Wright. Then, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent proposed attacking Mr. Obama's critics as racists. He wrote:

"If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them—Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares—and call them racists. . . . This makes them 'sputter' with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

No one on JournoList endorsed the Ackerman plan. But rather than object on ethical grounds, they voiced concern that the strategy would fail or possibly backfire.

You can read the rest of the article here.

10 Most Liberal, Conservative in Congress

From this year's National Journal Vote Rankings:

The 10 Most Liberal Senate Dems
1. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
1. Roland Burris (D-IL)
1. Ben Cardin (D-MD)
1. Jack Reed (D-RI)
1. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
6. John Kerry (D-MA)
6. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
8. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
9. Chris Dodd (D-CT)
9. Dick Durbin (D-IL)

Most Conservative Senate GOPers
1. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
2. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
3. Jim Bunning (R-KY)
4. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
5. Jim Risch (R-ID)
6. John Thune (R-SD)
7. John Ensign (R-NV)
8. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
9. Richard Burr (R-NC)
10. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

The 10 Most Liberal House Dems
1. Rush Holt (D-NJ)
1. Gwen Moore (D-WI)
1. John Olver (D-MA)
1. Linda Sanchez (D-CA)
1. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
1. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)
1. Mel Watt (D-NC)
1. Henry Waxman (D-CA)
9. Kathy Castor (D-FL)
10. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL)

Most Conservative House GOPers
1. Trent Franks (R-AZ)
1. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
1. Randy Neugebaurer (R-TX)
1. Pete Olson (R-TX)
1. John Shadegg (R-AZ)
1. Mac Thornberry (R-TX)
7. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
8. Mike Pence (R-IN)
9. Steve King (R-IA)
9. Tom McClintock (R-CA)

Most Liberal House Delegations
1. MA
2. HI
3. VT
4. CT
5. RI

Most Conservative Delegations
1. ID
2. KY
3. SC
4. TX
5. GA

Bonnie Johnson Rips on Tea Party and Conservatives

Bonnie Johnson, whoever that is, wrote a very, very incendiary article on the Tea Party movement. It is pure garbage, with no use of facts, filled entirely with insults, subjective criticism and pure liberal drivel. Thanks to Steph for sending me the link. Here is the first little bit, you can read the rest on Tuscola Today. Make sure to leave some nice comments on their site.

One of the goals of the TEA Party movement is to persuade those who revel in hysteria and paranoia, that they have a superior understanding of the U.S. Constitution. They want you to believe our U.S. Constitution is being abused and ignored by our current President and Congress. It’s likely that Tom Wassa, who is teaching classes at the next three TEA Party meetings at the Vassar library, will denounce the accuracy of what is being taught in our schools and attempt to convince you that Republicans have the correct interpretation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You see, the Constitution Coalition is just one tool the TEA Baggers use in blaming the Democratic Party for not complying with the Constitution while denying that George Bush and Dick Cheney had the worst record in history for overriding the Constitution.

This week, it was announced that the success of the TEA Party movement is threatened by internal rifts and profiteering by leaders of these cult-like groups. Rifts caused the demise of similar populist groups back in the days of FDR when he also was the victim of conservative attacks at a time when our country was experiencing an oppressive economy.

Currently, there are at least seven TEA Party groups: the TP Patriots, the TP Express, the TP Nation, the New American TP, the TP Revolution, the Real TP and the Free Pocket Constitution. The groups are a fascinating compilation that seems to be dominated by false information promoted to influence public opinion or the government. They demonstrate a high degree of alarmism, doom and gloom coupled with a serious lack of journalistic integrity.

Seriously Bonnie, who the hell are you? What gives you the right to say any of these things? What actual knowledge or understanding do you have of the Tea Party movement? It's goals? Ideology? Purpose? The answer is none, zero, nada. You are a flaming liberal, drama queen, whiner, closed minded hater. Stick to what you know, and write about the benefits of tofu, and why Birkenstock makes the best sandals.

Letter from a Deranged Liberal

I love when liberals are sad, because things didn't work out the way they wanted. I'm even more happy when they are angry, because that means things are going terribly. That is why I was so happy to come across this letter posted on Moonbattery. The letter is from some wa-wa baby, drama queen, bleeding heart of a liberal, expressing their white hot rage over the people of Massachusetts exercising their democratic muscle, sending the administration a strong message. Via Moonbattery: AIDS-addled drama empress Andrew Sullivan posts the following letter from an equally deranged reader, who is apoplectic over the people's recent expression of their will: I can't remember the last time I felt such overwhelming rage toward a group of people as I have felt toward the Republican Party and the conservative movement since President Obama's election. I simply cannot grasp what motivates these people, what compels them to thwart even the smallest attempts to clean up the enormous destruction they wrought under Bush and Cheney. Irresponsible, hateful, mendacious, sleazy, destructive - these words do not even begin to describe them. I am unemployed and have not found a new job after almost a year of searching. I have a mortgage. I also have a preexisting medical condition, thanks to emergency surgery I had to undergo nearly 18 months ago. My unemployment benefits expire in five months, my COBRA not long after. Like untold millions of Americans, I am preparing for the worst as the economy slogs through its agonizing turnaround. I voted for Obama with proud but open eyes, knowing full well not just the magnitude of the tasks he faced, but the pure, unrestrained malevolence of his opposition. Health care reform will unquestionably help people like me. And now some low-rent hairdo, whose sole claim to fame is posing naked for some ladies' magazine way back when, may happily destroy whatever chance this country has at moving in a more just, humane, and morally and fiscally responsible direction. As you stated, the Republican Party of this new century is shot through with nihilists. Unabashed nihilists. But what leaves me shaking with anger damn near every day since President Obama's inauguration is the pure smugness and nonchalance of their nihilism. Palin, McConnell, DeMint, Boehner, Cantor, Rubio, Scott Brown and the rest of the Ailes- and Limbaugh-warped GOP: Would you trust any one of these goons to greet you at Wal-Mart, much less govern our country? The question answers itself. They literally care nothing for America. They have spent the past decade doubling the national debt, running up record deficits, indulging the depradations of Wall Street, expanding Medicare by a trillion dollars while refusing to cover the cost, needlessly and shamelessly cutting taxes by two trillion dollars while again refusing to cover the cost, degrading the Army and Marine Corps to the point where it will take them both at least a decade to recover, jailing and torturing detainees and lying about it, manipulating intelligence in order to invade Iraq out of some sick neocon thirst for vanity and glory. I could go on, but that would take hours, and only make me angrier. Suffice to say that Republicans lecturing the country about fiscal responsibilty, economic recovery, governing - or anything else, for that matter - would be like Mick Jagger lecturing Mother Teresa about excessive promiscuity. Karl Rove and Dick Cheney were thankfully not present at America's founding. But their political descendants will certainly be present at America's demise.

Harry Reid: "Negro-Gate"

From the new book, "Game Change" by journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, Harry Reid was quoted as saying: Barack Obama could be elected president because he is “light skinned” and lacks “Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Of course Obama accepted his apology, as did the NAACP. NAACP: "The way he said it was quite awkward, but nonetheless, not offensive. That what he said was actually part of a calculus as to why he believed Barack Obama could be elected in this country today."

Had Harry Reid been a republican? Well, that would be quite different, wouldn't it?

Harry Reid: Obama ‘Light-Skinned’ ‘with No Negro Dialect’
'A POOR CHOICE OF WORDS'



Reid holds his ground
Wilder: Reid owes U.S. an apology
Norton defends Reid, warns GOP
Feinstein stands by the leader
And so does Al Sharpton
Cornyn doesn't expect Reid to resign
GOP: Lott-Reid double standard
Steele in 2002: Lott should keep his job
Steele rips Reid's '1950s mind-set'
Dems launch defense to save Reid
Coulter to Sharpton: 'Did He Ask You to Stop Using That Negro Dialect?'...
Blagojevich: 'I'm blacker than Barack Obama'...



RNC CHAIR CALLS ON HARRY REID TO STEP DOWN AFTER RACE COMMENTS...
Top Dem leader defends 'negro' remark...
Black leaders accept US senator's apology for race remark
Sen. Harry Reid and the 'double standard'
Should Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid step down as leader over 2008 remarks ...
Will: Not a 'Scintilla of Racism' in Reid Race Remarks
Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy during '08 primary: Obama would have been serving us coffee few years ago
Georgetown Professor: ‘This President Runs From Race Like a Black Man Runs From a Cop’

Transgendered People Protest Avatar Because None of the Characters are Transgendered - Wait, What?

No Transgender Aliens - No Avatar!
Say GLBT Activists

In December 2009, TG activists got their gender bending underwear in a twist over James Cameron's block-buster movie, Avatar. Their problem on this occasion was not that Cameron's film is transphobic. It doesn't even mention transgenders.

That was actually their problem. In what has to be the silliest protest ever planned, GLBT organizations protested 'Avatar' because it didn't have transgender aliens in its story-line. Here were their reasons - straight from the TG horses mouth:

1) To make all people aware that heterosexual arrogance, assumptions or exclusions of alternative sexualities in movies is no longer acceptable. Diversity and tolerance are human rights.

2) To speak out for all gay, bi-sexual, genderless and transgender people who are not represented by any character in Avatar.

3) To educate people about Evolution and humanity's transition to transgenderism.

Further protests, for the same stupid reason, are planned around around the Oscar ceremonies on March 10 if the movie gets nominated for an Oscar or two.

Charles Dickens didn't mention gays or transgendered people in Nicholas Nickleby, should we boycott him as well? Wait here is something, most all movies, television shows, newspaper articles, radio shows, songs, albums, internet postings and every other source of media, don't mention gays or transgendered people, let alone have characters representing them. Perhaps you should ban all media. Stupid, stupid, stupid. What a bunch of morons. This is such a classic example of taking something way too far, to the point of pure ridiculousness. Honestly, it's just stupid.

Keep the Change

Two Articles on Political Correctness

The Consequences of Obama: Terrorism is Back
By Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

"Under Obama, the hunters have become the hunted as America inverted her priorities. Those who have been working to keep us safe have, themselves, come under scrutiny for profiling, harsh interrogation techniques, and a failure to give terrorists constitutional rights they don't have."

http://www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=1787

AND:

When Terrorism Hits You Are On Your Own

"The experts I speak with tell me point-blank that our nation and the world are not prepared - or refuse - to confront radical Islam. That is what the terrorists are counting on as they prepare for their next strike."

http://townhall.com/columnists/DouglasMacKinnon/2010/01/05/when_terrorism_hits_you_are_on_your_own

Thanks Stephanie F.!

Progressive Professor Trashes Obama

Now I'm Really Getting Pissed Off

DAVID MICHAEL GREEN

Hey did you hear about the iconic African-American guy who plays golf, and whose relationship with the public is in a free-fall lately? No, as a matter of fact – I’m not talking about Tiger Woods.

You know, I’ve really been trying not to write an article every other week about all the things I don’t like about Barack Obama. But the little prick is making it very hard.

Like any good progressive, I’ve gone from admiration to hope to disappointment to anger when it comes to this president. Now I’m fast getting to rage.

How much rage? I find myself thinking that the thing I want most from the 2010 elections is for his party to get absolutely clobbered, even if that means a repeat of 1994. And that what I most want from 2012 is for him to be utterly humiliated, even if that means President Palin at the helm. That much rage.

Did this clown really say on national television that “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of you know, fat cat bankers on Wall Street”?

Really, Barack? So, like, my question is:

Then why the hell did you help out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street?

Why the hell did you surround yourself with nothing but Robert Rubin proteges in all the key economic positions in your government?

Why did you allow them to open a Washington branch of Goldman Sachs in the West Wing?

Why have your policies been tailored to helping Wall Street bankers, rather than the other 300 million of us, who just happen to be suffering badly right now?

Are you freakin’ kidding me? What’s up with the passive president routine, anyhow, Fool? You hold the most powerful position in the world. Or maybe Rahm forgot to mention that to you. Or maybe the fat cat bankers don’t actually let do that whole decision-making thing often enough that it would actually matter.

But, really, are you going to spend the next three interminable years perfecting your whiney victim persona? I don’t really think I could bear that. Hearing you complain about how rough it all is, when you have vastly more power than any of us to fix it? Please. Not that.

Are you going to tell us that “I did not run for office to be shovel-feeding the military-industrial complex”? But what – they’re just so darned pushy?

“...I did not run for office to continue George Bush’s valiant effort at shredding the Bill of Rights. It’s just that those government-limiting rules are so darned pesky.”

“...I did not run for office to dump a ton of taxpayer money into the coffers of health insurance companies. It’s just that they asked so nicely.”

“...I did not run for office to block equality for gay Americans. I just never got around to doing anything about it.”

“...I did not run for office to turn Afghanistan into Vietnam. I just didn’t want to say no to all the nice generals asking for more troops.”

Here’s a guy who was supposed to actually do something with his presidency, and he’s turned into the skinny little geek on Cell Block D who gets passed around like a rag doll for the pleasure of all the fellas with the tattoos there. He’s being punked by John Boehner, for chrisakes. He’s being rolled by the likes of Joe Lieberman. He calls a come-to-Jesus meeting with Wall Street bank CEOs, and half of them literally phone it in. Everyone from Bibi Netanyahu to the Japanese prime minister to sundry Iranian mullahs is stomping all over Mr. Happy.

And he doesn’t even seem to realize it.

Did you see him tell Oprah that he gave himself “a good solid B+” for his first year in office? And that it will be an A, if he gets his healthcare legislation passed?

Somebody please pick me up and set me back on my chair, wouldya?

I am seriously beginning to worry that this cat is delusional. He has lopped off twenty full points from his job approval rating in less than a year’s time, falling now below fifty percent. His party, once dominant in generic congressional election poll questions, is today almost even with hated Republicans in the public mind. Last month, Obama’s inverted coattails (don’t even ask where those go) got two Democrats clobbered running for governor in New Jersey and Virginia. The otherwise obnoxious George F. Will (very) rightly points out that in Kentucky, “a Republican candidate succeeded in nationalizing a state Senate race. Hugely outspent in a district in which Democrats have a lopsided registration advantage, the Republican won by 12 points a seat in Frankfort by running against Washington”.

Wow. Obama is now wrecking state senate races! What’s next? Will local Republican candidates for sheriff win office just by opposing the embarrassment in the White House who chooses abysmal policies and then refuses to fight for them, lest he should ruffle any feathers?

“For Democrats, the red flags are flying at full mast," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart in a recent AP article. "What we don't know for certain is: Have we reached a bottoming-out point?”

Au contraire, Peter. Au contraire. I think anyone more sentient than a newborn amoeba can answer that question. The first thing to note is that the economy is not coming back anytime soon, if it comes back at all. Unless, of course, you’re a fat cat Wall Street banker. Then you’re just fine, because the Bush-Obama administration took care of you quite nicely, thanks very much. The rest of us poor slobs out here in real-world land, on the other hand, got a “jobs summit”.

I can’t even begin to describe how insulting Obama conducting a “jobs summit” is to me, or what an unbelievably ham-fisted piece of public relations that was for the White House, which is increasingly showing itself not just to be sickeningly regressive, but also fully inept. I think I speak for a whole lot of Americans when I say that, one year into his stewardship over a destroyed economy that was actually atomizing for at least six months before inauguration day, I don’t want my president sitting around a table, running a dog-and-pony show, pretending to kick around ideas on how to generate jobs. I wanted him to have those ideas, himself, before he was inaugurated. I wanted those to be real ideas, that produce real jobs for real Americans who are really hurting. I wanted that to be, and still be, the be-all and end-all of his presidency, not some distant fourth-place priority, behind healthcare and the White House dog selection process. And, especially not some fourth-place priority behind jive healthcare reform.

Which brings us to the second answer to Mr. Hart’s question. If Democrats think they’ll be screwed next November because of unemployment, wait till Congress passes this healthcare monstrosity. Or doesn’t. At this point, either way they’re gonna get slammed for it, and rightly so.

If they don’t pass anything, they will be seen as unable to govern. This perception will be quite true because they will have failed to pass a major piece of legislation, despite having 60-40 majorities in both houses of Congress and control of the presidency. It doesn’t get much better than that for a governing party in the American system. But it will be true in an even more profound sense, because the whole priority structure of the Democratic agenda is wrong. Sure, people want healthcare reform right now (especially if it were to miraculously also have the virtue of being authentic healthcare reform), but what they really want, overwhelmingly, is jobs. This choice of priorities is the equivalent of, say, invading Iraq when you’ve been attacked by people in Afghanistan. Surely no president would be that stupid, right? Surely any political party would realize the costs of having priorities so divorced from those of the voters, right?

On the other hand, the Democrats and their hapless president are probably in worse shape if they actually pass this legislation. Especially now that it’s been stripped of nearly every real progressive reform imaginable, it has become an incredibly stupid bill, from the political perspective. It will force people who can’t afford it to spend a giant amount of money on lousy insurance, without any real choice to hold down costs, and it will fund this by hacking away at the Medicare budget. No wonder an insurance industry lobbyist broadcast an email last week declaring: “We WIN. Administered by private insurance companies. No government funding. No government insurance competitor.”

But here’s a little riddle that any sixth-grader can easily figure out, although it seems to have eluded the brain trust at the White House: If insurance companies are winning big-time, then who is doing the losing? Something tells me that if Democrats are dumb enough to pass their own legislation, voters will provide them the answer to that puzzle in November of 2010, and then again two years later. What could be stupider than saddling thirty-five million Americans with a new monthly bill that will probably represent the second or third biggest item in their budget, in exchange for crappy private sector health insurance that is unlikely to pay out when needed, and wastes a third of the dollars paid in premiums on bureaucracy and profits anyhow? Slapping big fines on them if they don’t pony up for the insurance, perhaps? Yep, that’s in there too.

This bill alone could mobilize legions of people to go to the polls and vote for whichever party didn’t do it, and I’m pretty sure the GOP won’t be shy about reminding Americans who that is. I mean, if Democrats were searching for legislation less likely to win them votes, why didn’t they just bring back slavery or the debtor’s prison? Why not come out for pedophilia? It would have been so much more efficient. At least they wouldn’t have spent the last year looking like idiotic bunglers who, in addition to sponsoring really unpopular ideas, also inadvertently left their testicles at the coat check and have spent the last thirty years trying to find their way back to the gala.

Ah, but wait! If you order now, there’s more!

As I understand it, the bill doesn’t even actually force insurance companies to cover people, at least in the sense that they can charge prohibitive amounts to those with whatever they define as pre-existing conditions. You know, like the young woman who had a policy but died when she was denied cancer treatment because she had a bad case of acne as a teenager.

This will be a total train wreck for the Democratic Party. Already, the public opposes the plan by a ratio of 47 to 32 percent. And they haven’t even been handed the bill for it yet. And they haven’t even had their premiums skyrocket yet. And they haven’t even seen insurance corporation executives buy small countries for use as second homes with the increased compensation they will be floating in. And they haven’t even found out what this does to their Medicare yet. And they haven’t even seen the impact on the national debt yet. And they haven’t even realized that the ‘good’ parts of the bill don’t go into effect until FOUR YEARS from now.

You know, elite Republicans may be sociopaths, and they may be lower on the moral totem pole than your basic cannibal, but they’re not stupid. I bet they’re salivating at the idea that this thing passes. I bet they’d even have Olympia Snowe vote for it if necessary, just to put it over the top. They must be laughing their asses off at this gift. All they have to do is oppose it right down the line, then say “Told ya so!” at the next election, squashing the pathetic Demognats, one after the next. Hey, even if worse comes to worse and the thing eventually becomes popular, they can always wait a decade or two and become champions of the new publically beloved healthcare system – just like they did for Medicare, Social Security, civil rights, etc.

This is President Nothingburger’s great gift to America, along with doing nothing about jobs, doing nothing about the Middle East, nothing about civil liberties, nothing about civil rights, and now doing nothing at Copenhagen. Regarding the latter, the world is literally on fire, and he jets in, gives a speech haranguing the delegates that “Now is not the time for talk, now is the time for action”, then splits even before the vote in order to beat the snowstorm headed to the east coast that might delay him getting home to his comfy bed. I’m not kidding. You can’t make this s--t up, man.

This guy is killing me, though at the same time I still can’t quite figure him out.

Here’s what I get: This president is a corporate hack. Like Bush or Clinton, he has constituents, alright – but you and I are not on that particular list.

Here’s what I don’t get: He is radically tanking, at a moment when people no longer have patience for those kind of politics anymore.

Here’s what I get: This president has his fingers in many pies, as he needs to, ranging from global warming to economic implosion to two wars abroad to massive federal debt.

Here’s what I don’t get: Why does he bother to do these things in a way that pleases no one, and only dramatically undercuts his own political standing? Why does he refuse to make anyone his enemy, thus making everyone his enemy?

Is he just massively deluded? I wouldn’t have thought so, but watching the guy give himself a very good grade for 2009 – straight face and all – during the same year he’s lost twenty points off his job approval rating, and at a moment when even blacks and gays are deserting him, you know, you have to wonder.

Is he happy just to be a one-term president – just to say he’s been there and done that, and then sell some more books – even if he is reviled as one of the worst in history? Maybe. But what about the rest of us?

The rest of us, indeed. It’s been quite some time since anyone in the White House ever cared about that sorry pack of rabble.

Obama looked like he could’ve been something different. He ain’t.

Thanks Barb!

Noam Chomsky is a Dead Head

How out of touch is this guy? He thinks he understands, but obviously he doesn't. William F. Buckley was 1000x intellectually superior to this dead head.

"So take right now, for example, there is a right-wing populist uprising. It's very common, even on the left, to just ridicule them, but that's not the right reaction. If you look at those people and listen to them on talk radio, these are people with real grievances. I listen to talk radio a lot and it's kind of interesting. If you can sort of suspend your knowledge of the world and just enter into the world of the people who are calling in, you can understand them. I've never seen a study, but my sense is that these are people who feel really aggrieved. These people think, "I've done everything right all my life, I'm a god-fearing Christian, I'm white, I'm male, I've worked hard, and I carry a gun. I do everything I'm supposed to do. And I'm getting shafted." And in fact they are getting shafted. For 30 years their wages have stagnated or declined, the social conditions have worsened, the children are going crazy, there are no schools, there's nothing, so somebody must be doing something to them, and they want to know who it is. Well Rush Limbaugh has answered - it's the rich liberals who own the banks and run the government, and of course run the media, and they don't care about you—they just want to give everything away to illegal immigrants and gays and communists and so on..."

Full interview here

NPR's Liberal Bias

I know a lot of conservatives that listen to NPR, apparently unaware of it liberal bias. Make no mistake, they are very liberal, and they even admit as much:

National Public Radio is properly understood, even by the media, as radio by and for liberals, not the general public. As Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz puts it, the media landscape stretches "from those who cheer Fox to those who swear by NPR."

(...)

Last week, NPR’s own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR’s talk programming. The daily program "Fresh Air with Terry Gross" – a 60-minute talk show about the arts, literature, and also politics – airs on 378 public-radio stations across the fruited plain. Gross recently became a hot topic on journalism Web sites for first having a friendly, giggly interview with "satirist" Al Franken, promoting his obnoxious screed against conservatives on September 3, and then on October 8, unloading an accusatory, hostile interview on Bill O’Reilly. She pressed the Fox host to respond to the obnoxious attacks of Franken and other critics. Dvorkin ruled: "Unfortunately, the [O'Reilly] interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias....by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop."

The news reports on NPR should be cause for greater public concern. Under the guise of "objective news," reporting, the left is actively advancing its political agenda. On the October 17 "Morning Edition," host Bob Edwards launched into a long "news" report on the flaws of the Bush foreign policy, observing: "Overall, the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around the world. The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under scrutiny more than ever." The Middle East "road map" was "in tatters," Iraq and Afghanistan were "highly unstable." NPR may as well have suggested it was time for a different president.

Other's in the media admit the bias as well. The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz:

Veteran Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz admitted recently what many conservatives have long argued: taxpayer-funded National Public Radio (NPR) leans heavily to the left politically.

“With the rise of Fox News and conservative talk radio and NPR on the left and certain liberal cable programs, there is, polls have shown, that people like hearing opinions that reinforce their own,” Kurtz said on the September 30 edition of CNN’s “In the Money.”

Even the liberal MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough says:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well I just want to say, I love NPR and I listen to NPR, but I've been listening to reformed, pot-smoking hippies for the past thirty years on NPR with a very substantial left-wing bias - and I don't care that they eat tree bark like Euell Gibbons, and I don't care if they are still smoking pot in their sixties. They put on great radio. But for NPR - for NPR, the leadership at NPR to question the bias of Fox News is a joke. They have been biased - again, I still listen to them, because like "The New York Times" they are the best at what they do. But, please, that is a laugh. NPR -

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: It's very soothing listening, too.

SCARBOROUGH: It is soothing, it is very soothing. Just put a mirror to your face, NPR.

Listen to NPR if you want, but don't think it is any different from other major news outlets, it is very much the same liberal sludge.

The Axis of Idiots

From the Podium:
J. D. Pendry, Retired Sergeant Major, USMC

Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the "runner-in-chief."

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You're a fake! You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese.. Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken.. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt, and washed up old fool. You're not a Marine, sir. You wouldn't amount to a good pimple on a real Marine's ass. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.

American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer..

You are America's 'AXIS OF IDIOTS.' Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.

Semper Fi,
J. D. Pendry - Sergeant Major, USMC, Retired

Verified with stupid snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/jdpendry.asp

Good Night for GOP and Conservatives

The elections went well yesterday, as positions were wrestled away from Democrats, and the people let Obama know that they were unsatisfied with the direction his administration is going. Bob McDonnell, a Conservative Republican, won the state of Virginia's Gubernatorial race, by 18%.

In New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie won by 5%.

In New York's 23rd district, Conservative Party Candidate Doug Hoffman, was able to force the liberal RINO, Dierdre Scozzafava, out of the race. He probably would have won too, if it weren't for the 100,000 + morons that voted for her, even though she was no longer running. Even though Owens beat out Hoffman, it sent a strong message to the GOP, letting them know we won't elect RINOs, we want conservatives.

Republican (if you can call him that) Michael Bloomberg won NYC's mayoral race, after putting up $100 million of his personal wealth.

And perhaps most significant, Maine became the 31st state to ban gay marriage. Yay! Take that, sodomizers.

Despite the media reporting that the Dems are in trouble, Pelosi and Obama seem to be ignoring the election results, and continuing their push to make America a socialist country.

Hey Liberals, Want to End Poverty? We Have the Answers

Now, I firmly believe that a lot of what Democrats and liberals want, can actually be achieved through conservatism. Crazy idea, I know; but it's true.

Liberals and Democrats are always talking about helping the poor. They are strong advocates of social welfare. Because of this, they get the vote of many poor people. But tell me, what dividends have we seen? Has poverty been cured? Even helped, to a noticeable level? Nope. A while back, Glenn Beck talked about this exact thing.

But although the problem may unite us, the solutions don't. And perhaps nothing illustrates that better than what's been happening in Detroit, Michigan, and Buffalo, New York.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly a third of the residents in those cities are living beneath the poverty line, the highest rates among large cities in the entire country.

No matter what side of the political aisle you're on, that is nothing short of appalling. Yet if you ask people what we should do about it, you'll probably hear answers that inexplicably break down right along party lines.

Is there a perfect answer? Probably not. But what bothers me is that people stubbornly stick to their solution, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's not working.

For example, Detroit, whose mayor has been indicted on felony charges, hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo has been even more stubborn. It started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn't stopped since.

Unfortunately, those two cities may be alone at the top of the poverty rate list, but they're not alone in their love for Democrats. Cincinnati, Ohio (third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri (sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey (10th), since 1907.

The only two cities in the top 10 that I didn't mention (Miami, Florida, and El Paso, Texas) haven't had Republicans in office either -- just Democrats, independents or nonpartisans.

Over the past 50 years, the eight cities listed above have had Republican leadership for a combined 36 years. The rest of the time -- a combined 364 years -- they've been led by Democrats.

Five of the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates (Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark) have had a Democratic stranglehold since at least 1961: more than 45 years. Two of the cities (Milwaukee and Newark) have been electing Democrats since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line in 1908.

Two cities, 100 years, all Democrats.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, the asylums in those cities must be as full as the soup kitchens.

Clearly, the Democratic approach doesn't work. Social welfare, by itself, leads to cycliality; poverty leads to welfare, welfare leads to dependence, dependence leads to poverty.

So what is the solution? Well, I believe conservatives have the answer.

One step in the right direction would be school choice. late great economist Milton Friedman first proposed the idea in the 1960’s. School choice simply refers to allowing parents to use tax vouchers in order to opt out of sending their children to public school and instead sending them to a private school of their choice. You know the touted "public option" in proposed health care reform? You know how liberals claim that this would create competition? Well, think of this as the inverse of that. This would create a "private option" in education. Creating competition with government run schools could be a very good thing. When students have access to a good education, they have a chance to make something of themselves. They have a chance to get good jobs to support themselves and their dependents, without taking handouts from the government.

Another good step would be the elimination of the income tax. When the government gets it's hands out of our pockets, we have more money to spend. When there is more money to be spent, people can afford to provide for themselves, it's simple. Where would government funding come from, you ask? Who cares. If they don't have enough funding, I guess they will just have to downsize, and stick to doing what the constitution says they should be doing.

Another good idea is the concept of earning your welfare. If someone is able to work, but still needs help, then they are capable of earning that help. Want free food? Sure, but you will have to donate your time at a cannery, helping to supply food to others. Need some money to get bye? Sure, but you will have to volunteer at the VA hospital, keeping veterans company, and cleaning out bedpans. This approach would not only provide free labor, it would also teach a sense of responsibility and worth, as well as discourage people from freeloading.

There are many other viable options, but these are certainly a good start.

Scozzafava is a Tool

So Dede Scozzafava bowed out of the Upstate New York congressional race on Saturday. Apparently her good looks just weren't enough.

She claims her reason for dropping out was:

"In recent days, polls have indicated that my chances of winning this election are not as strong as we would like them to be. The reality that I've come to accept is that in today's political arena, you must be able to back up your message with money—and as I've been outspent on both sides, I've been unable to effectively address many of the charges that have been made about my record,” she said in a statement.

Oh, sure, it was the money wasn't it? You baby killing, gay marriage lovin' RINO? No, the fact is, Scozzafava was absolutely no different than Owens, her democratic opponent. That's why it was so easy for the Conservative Party to oust her from the race. Given her liberal views, it is very unsurprising that she is giving her support to Owens, and not the conservative candidate.

The GOP is trying to grab on to some of this momentum, claiming they can use it to their advantage in ousting Obama, and gaining seats in the House. Problem is, it isn't true. This isn't their movement, it is ours, the people, the conservatives of this country. What they still don't realize is, they will actually end up losing more seats, if they don't start proffering up some conservative candidates. Conservatives are going to continue to put up their own candidates, and that is going to mean a split vote among Republican voters. With Republicans losing half, or more, of their votes, they are doomed to become an even larger minority. How can they prevent this? How can they take advantage of the conservative movement? They can go back to being a conservative party by giving us conservative candidates. Conservatives are giving the GOP a choice: go conservative, or go away.

Conservatives take aim at leaders, Crist, other races
Republican Scozzafava Backs Democrat in New York Congress Race
The Take: The grass roots prevail in NY
Obama White House versus conservatives in NY congressional race
The House in 2010: Five seats that could change parties
Boehner stresses GOP big tent in wake of Scozzafava election shakeup

So True

From an e-mail I received:

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he doesn't want anyone to have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to stand up to his enemy.
If a liberal sees a foreign threat, he wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a minority is conservative, they see themselves as self-sufficient.
If a minority is liberal, they see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
If a liberal is down-and-out, he wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
If a liberal doesn't like a talk show host, he demands that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
If a liberal is a non-believer, he wants any mention of God or religion silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
If a liberal doesn't have health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for it.

Of course there are exceptions to everything, but the point is still made.

Thanks Donna!

Bogus Sexual Harrasment Charges

Moonbattery.com had a nice post on sexual harrasment I'd like to share. He talks about a case of bogus sexual harassment charges:

Professor Thomas Thibeault made the mistake of pointing out — at a sexual harassment training seminar — that the school's sexual harassment policy contained no protection for the falsely accused. Two days later, in a Kafkaesque irony, Thibeault was fired by the college president for sexual harassment without notice, without knowing his accuser or the charges against him, and without a hearing.

Here's how the politically correct educrat brass responded to the professor's thought crime:

Thibeault was summoned to EGC President John Bryant Black's office. … Black told Thibeault that he "was a divisive force in the college at a time when the college needed unity" and that Thibeault must resign by 11:30 a.m. or be fired and have his "long history of sexual harassment … made public." This unsubstantiated allegation took Thibeault by surprise. Black added that Thibeault would be escorted off campus by Police Chief Drew Durden and that Black had notified the local police that he was prepared to have Thibeault arrested for trespassing if he returned to campus. At no point was Thibeault presented with the charges against him or given any chance to present a defense. Refusing to resign, Thibeault understood that he was fired.

As for his "long history of sexual harassment," it apparently consists of this:

[O]ne day after Thibeault expressed his concerns, his colleagues were pressured to produce evidence of "sexual harassment." A central item of evidence apparently was Thibeault's reading aloud of non-sexual excerpts from the book An Encyclopedia of Assholes to colleagues in a faculty break room-with the alleged element of "sexual harassment" arising simply from the book's title.

Even this much evidence is superfluous in a sexual harassment charge. Simply declaring yourself to be offended is proof that whoever you say offended you is guilty.

The point he makes from this, and I'd like to echo is, this same process is used by liberals on several fronts, most notably, and most recently, the false accusations of racism against Joe Wilson. If you dare question them, they will do their best to defame you. Politicians know this, and it scares many of them away from confronting the obvious lies, and awful legislation that is presented daily by the left. I say grow a pair, and deal with the repercussions like a man. Eventually this tactic will be exposed, and the left with be portrayed as the bad guy.

Jimmy Carter Calls Joe Wilson a Racist

Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst to President Barack Obama during a speech to Congress last week was an act "based on racism" and rooted in fears of a black president.

"I think it's based on racism," Carter said in response to an audience question at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."

Oh dear. What dimwitted, half-witted, lamebrain dolt said that? Oh wait, it's former President Jimmy Carter. Listen Jimmy, go take your medicine and watch some TV, and quit opening your mouth, because you are tarnishing your legacy. Oh wait, you don't have a legacy capable of tarnishing, I forgot.

We should be allowed to speak our minds on important issues, without fear of being ostracised, name calling, and public defamation. This is a typical liberal strategy. Speak out against them, and they call you every name under the book, hoping one sticks. That way, you won't dare speak out again, or your political career will be ruined.

They also love to play the polarizing card. Call someone a racist, fire up the minorities, keep them angry, keep them down, and come election time, promise them a solution that they never intend on delivering.

(source)

The Shortest Books Ever Written

OUR CHRISTIAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS &
HOW WE HELPED AFTER KATRINA
by Rev Jesse Jackson & Rev Al Sharpton

THINGS I LOVE ABOUT BILL
by Hillary Clinton

Sequel:
THINGS I LOVE ABOUT HILLARY
by Bill Clinton

MY LITTLE BOOK OF PERSONAL HYGIENE
by Osama Bin Laden

THINGS I CANNOT AFFORD
by Bill Gates

THINGS I WOULD NOT DO FOR MONEY
by Dennis Rodman

THINGS I KNOW TO BE TRUE
by Al Gore & John Kerry

THINGS I LOVE ABOUT MY COUNTRY
by Jane Fonda & Cindy Sheehan.
Illustrated by Michael Moore

AMELIA EARHART'S GUIDE TO THE PACIFIC

A COLLECTION of MOTIVATIONAL SPEECHES
by Dr. Jack Kevorkian

ALL THE MEN I HAVE LOVED BEFORE
by Ellen de Generes & Rosie O'Donnel

GUIDE TO DATING ETIQUETTE
by Mike Tyson

THE AMISH PHONE DIRECTORY

MY PLAN TO FIND THE REAL KILLERS
by O. J. Simpson

HOW TO DRINK & DRIVE OVER BRIDGES
by Ted Kennedy

MAKING AMERICA BETTER
By Nancy Pelosi

And finally,

HOW TO RUN A COUNTRY, AND KEEP YOUR APPROVAL RATING UP
by Barack Obama

Via Amy Oops

Obama's Betrayals Can Unite Us All

For months I contemplated the idea of discovering the one common denominator that could unite all Americans regardless of our persuasions and backgrounds. It was definitely a struggle considering the vast amount of research that kept leading me back to our differences. But along the way, I did notice that our showcased divisions were simply by an unscrupulous design.

Continually and consistently pitting us against each other – ‘haves’ versus ‘have-nots’, liberals versus conservatives, and so on – is actually due to politicians who seek power over a divided people, for in division we are weak. Many leaders have systematically divided the masses in order to manipulate the transfer of power from the people to the government. When we are distracted by our differences – politically, spiritually, financially, etc. – we fail to clearly see the looming big picture that will ultimately affect us all.

Barack Obama’s portrayed beliefs assert that the citizens of this country must sacrifice for the betterment of the collective. However, he manipulates our differences in order to divide the American people into groups – divide and conquer. But there is one important detail that Obama has definitely miscalculated. He banked on the notion that the collective was made up of enough faithfully blind followers that would implement his every wish and command. Instead he has painstakingly realized that regardless of the alluring bait dangling in front of us, we are a collection of individuals capable of evaluating and deducing from our own perspectives. And throughout Obama’s tactics to divide our nation, he has betrayed many of these groups.

Obama betrayed veterans when he proposed that service-related injuries be charged to their private insurances. He betrayed police officers when he proposed a major cut in the funding to the families of slain officers and when without knowing the facts, he stated that they acted “stupidly” in the arrest of Harvard Professor Gates. He betrayed postal workers when he implied that they were inefficient and lacked the necessary skills to succeed. He betrayed the fiscally conservative when he championed a pork-filled stimulus plan and embarked on a record setting spending spree. He has betrayed the Christians when he insisted that Georgetown University conceal any symbols or writings that represented Jesus Christ. He betrayed the Jews when Israeli’s Chief of Staff received an unwelcoming reception at the White House and when he awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson. He has betrayed gays and lesbians when he promised to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act but has failed to do so. He betrayed the employees of insurance companies by reflecting them as greedy and subject to investigation. And most surprisingly, he betrayed the liberals when he flip-flopped on his insistence of a government-run option within the Health Care Reform bill.

There is no doubt that I have missed many groups, and my sincere apologies to those who have been omitted. But based upon Obama’s accumulative actions, it is now readily apparent that we actually do have something in common, despite all of our differences, in which we can unite. It must also be said that Americans are strongest when we identify ourselves as individuals first. And as such, we should stand united as the one common denominator for the collective can be summed up as follows: Sooner or later, Barack Obama will have betrayed us all. So if one’s allegiance incorrectly leads you to believe that he eventually won’t betray you as well, it is undoubtedly only a matter of time.