by Mindy Reifer

Aging veteran reporter and White House correspondent Helen Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, following reaction to anti-Israel comments she made in a videotaped exchange with Rabbi David Nesenoff, at the White House Jewish Heritage Celebration on May 27, 2010.  Although Helen Thomas definitely needs to reconsider her current liberal pro-Palestinian stance, her admittance of such views does not necessarily warrant dismissal or even retirement.  The despicable nature and detrimental intent of her comments notwithstanding, the admission of liberal ideology on the part of a prominent member of the mainstream media is somewhat refreshing and even beneficial.

That a liberal bias exists in the mainstream media is hardly newsworthy.  Former CBS newsreporter Bernard Goldberg has devoted much of his recent work to informing the public of the liberal media bias he himself has witnessed first hand.  In Bias, Goldberg describes various ways in which the mainstream media attempts to corrupt the news, with methods ranging from slight “verbicide” to full exploitation of issues for political persuasion of the public.

Goldberg’s recent bestseller A Slobbering Love Affair details the one-sided press coverage of then-candidate Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, treatment that quite possibly influenced the election in Obama’s favor.  Particularly the media’s unwillingness to pursue or investigate reports that would negatively impact the public’s view of Barack Obama demonstrated how liberal media bias could manifest in a subtle, yet significant and consequential, manner.

Since 1996, the Media Research Center has worked constantly to expose the liberal bias that taints the county’s main sources of news and reporting.  The MRC’s website describes various studies all demonstrating that a majority of Americans believe the media is biased and most people, even a majority of Democrats, believe media bias influences the news that is reported.  Still, most reporters insist their biases do not influence their work.  And this denial of bias is perhaps much more dangerous to the truth than the bias is itself.

Although journalists are technically trained to report objectively, human nature is such that the biases of all people color their world view and taint many aspects of the thought process.  Bias can sneak in via the questions a reporter chooses to ask, the answers he selects to report, and the stories he aggressively pursues.

Helen Thomas’s recent anti-Semitic pro-Palestinian liberal rant not only re-exposed the liberal media bias that many reporters insist on denying, but also demonstrated that even the most professional of journalists might be fooling themselves when they insist that they can either conceal or push aside their bias out of journalistic integrity.

This past May was not the first time Helen Thomas exposed her highly controversial views.  Since resigning from her position as White House bureau chief for United Press International UPI in May 2000 and working as a columnist for Hearst Newspapers, Ms. Thomas has become increasingly more honest concerning her personal agenda.

One famous example occurred in July 2006, when Ms. Thomas asked an obviously anti-Israel “question” that prompted Press Secretary Tony Snow to respond, “Thank you for the Hezbollah view.” Similarly, a few days after Ms. Thomas made her remarks about Palestine, but two days before the video footage was released by the press, the following exchange took place during a White House briefing on June 1:

• Helen Thomas: “Our initial reaction to this flotilla massacre, deliberate massacre, an international crime, was pitiful. What do you mean you ‘regret,’ when something should be so strongly condemned? And if any other nation in the world had done it, we would have been up in arms. What is the sacrosanct, iron-clad relationship where a country that deliberately kills people and boycotts — and we aid and abet the boycott?”
  Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: “Look, I think the initial reaction regretted the loss of life as we tried and still continue to try to gather the relevant–”
  Thomas: “Regret won’t bring them back!”
  

And many other elements of the mainstream media express liberal bias on a daily basis.  In the same month that Helen Thomas raved that Jews should return to the very lands from which they were either expelled or decimated, George Stephanopoulos and Elizabeth Vargas discussed GOP women candidates winning four primaries on ABC’s June 9^th episode of Good Morning America.  The reason these women won big, according to George and Elizabeth- why Hillary Clinton, of course.  Elizabeth Vargas said, “So many women saying — doing so well, and many saying perhaps Hillary Clinton helped by running for President. All these other women about to possibly take office, high office, in those states.”

The liberal media all but completely ignored Sarah Palin’s GOP vice-presidential candidacy, in the very same election in which Hillary lost the Democratic presidential nomination.  According to the mainstream media, the fact that Palin supported Sharron Angle, Carly Fiorina, and Nikki Haley, and obviously spikes in their polling popularity subsequent to Palin’s endorsement, evidently, is nothing compared to the trailblazing Hillary Clinton has accomplished.

Helen Thomas, therefore, has provided an immense service to the general public, particularly to those who must constantly refute denials of the pervasive bias that permeates the mainstream media.  She has displayed to the world, on videotape, her political motives and prejudices, using such harsh words as reasonable people could argue would likely color her work.  Whether by dictating which questions are asked, which answers are reported, or which stories are pursued, media bias influences the news we are exposed to and the stories we follow.  Helen Thomas simply reminded the country that it is the job of each individual to seek further information, to take nothing at face value, and to suspect most mainstream media reports of liberal bias.

Transcript of Helen Thomas’s exchange with Rabbi David Nesenoff:

Rabbi David Nesenoff: “Any comments on Israel? We’re asking everybody today.”
Hearst White House columnist Helen Thomas: “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.”
Nesenoff: “Whoa! Any better comments?”
Thomas, laughing: “Remember, these people are occupied, and it isn’t their land — not German, and not Polish.”
Nesenoff: “So where should they go? What should they do?”
Thomas: “Go home.”
Nesenoff: “Where’s home?”
Thomas: “Poland. Germany.”
Nesenoff: “So just go back to Poland and Germany?”
Thomas: “And America, and everywhere else.”
— Exchange at the May 27 White House Jewish Heritage Celebration, posted June 3 at RabbiLIVE.com.

Of course, most of the 70-minute harangue was masochistically dedicated to whining about either why the public just doesn’t get their misunderstood genius-in-chief or how he’s been forced to clean up after George W. Bush created all the world’s evil.  Oddities such as anti-earmark stand were stirred among his usual bland optimism about the benefits of a limitlessly expanding federal behemoth that’s currently running a 14-figure debt.  His miniature spending cut serves as the equivalent of an alcoholic vowing to no longer buy vermouth.

The wholly insincere attempt to get deficit hawks and ticked-off moderates to accept him with a slight bit of small-government blather was transparently pathetic.  He spent even less time working to placate Tea Partiers than he did on national security, if that’s possible, which signifies how unwilling he is to budge from his socialist-leaning social democratic worldview. 

He’s dooming himself by not following the tack of the last Democratic administration.  Obama may be enough of an incurable narcissist to think that his venerable presence can single-handedly procure a victory for widely-despised progressive beliefs.  But the delusional golden child has, as usual, framed things precisely backward: having Bill Clinton in 1994 actually gave Democrats a greater advantage than Obama provides today.  Pursuing leftist policies ultimately results in lost elections either way.  But Clinton won in 1996 because he was a shifty cad who was willing to betray his principles.

The different styles aren’t based upon fundamental ideological disparity: the thoroughly liberal Clinton basically shares Obama’s beliefs.  The difference is that the second president to be impeached would sell his grandparents’ souls if it meant gaining votes.  His calculating pragmatism always trumped his leftist tendencies, which is why he had to both check that day’s polls and listen to a Dick Morris lecture before he could tell you where he stood.  On the other hand, the incumbent is steadfast about what he believes, which is proof that the courage of maintaining one’s convictions isn’t necessarily a point of pride.

Obama can’t even negotiate correctly.  He’s only willing to suggest compromise as a first step toward getting his hyper-liberal ideals put into practice.  Most obviously, he only dropped the public option from health proposals as a means of eventually slinking us toward single-payer anguish.  He reasoned that, once we realized how wonderful it was to be hooked on federal meddling, we’d be begging for IRS-style health insurance.  Based on the state of the Democrats’ sundry proposals, we can go ahead and gleefully announce that he miscalculated.  Still, importing Canadacare remains the only instance where he’d favor free trade.

On the other hand, Clinton gave in to his opponents as a means of retaining power.  He notoriously abandoned his beliefs when faced with a similar situation to the Yes We Can Man.  Namely, Clinton gave up on his wife’s health care socializing scheme.  In lieu of remaining loyal to Hillary for the first time in their marriage, he chose an entirely different course and signed the Republican-backed welfare reform.  As a result, he actually did something that benefited the nation, not to mention that he subsequently got to be president until early 2001.

Obama won’t do the same, as he’s too much of a partisan to accept that his approaches are unpopular for a reason.  Nobody should be shocked by the failure of professed liberal presidents to create a benevolent government that generates both full employment and international goodwill.  But a small cluster of followers keeps falling for both the dreadfully counterproductive domestic policies and Hallmark-style sentimental approach to international relations.  As with disillusioned Clinton supporters, the most baffling thing about Obama’s deflated cheerleaders remains how they fell for the cheap optimism in the first place.

The counterfeit magic no longer fools anyone.  He’s alienating more former cult members everyday.  Meanwhile, critics don’t even bother with Obamessiah jokes anymore; there’s no need to, as the HOPE picture has officially become ironic.  His stubbornly liberal nature means he’s trapped, too: Obama won’t trick conservatives or right-leaning independents into turning and backing him.  Meanwhile, the left is going to level their most tired accusation at him, namely that he’s a sellout because he wants to cut a couple of bucks out of an unfathomable budget.  He was much more effective at uniting people when all he had to do was yap in a generically inspiring manner.

Obama’s meek attempt to promote hawkish budgetary ideas comes across like retooling a sitcom.  Roseanne, Dan, and everyone else can call the new girl “Becky” all they want, but we all know it’s not really the eldest daughter.  Similarly, the imperceptible cuts feel like an utterly phony ploy even by State of the Union standards.

The Secretary of State’s husband shifted eagerly along with public opinion.  By contrast, Obama only does so reluctantly, and with the aforementioned pretend concessions.  He’s obviously not interested in trying hard: triangulation doesn’t work if one is staking out a position midway between the David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel wings.

That unwillingness to discard big-government nonsense should lead to another difference between him and Clinton, namely the number of terms each serves.  Obama has famously announced he’s fine with returning to his sheltered version of private sector life after four years if it means being a good president as opposed to being mediocre for eight years.  Every conservative wag has pointed out that he’ll likely be the worst of both worlds as a one-term mediocrity.  His blind allegiance to policies that don’t work and are nearly universally disliked means the damage he inflicts will at least be contained to one Olympiad.

Unfortunately for both his prospects and the nation, Obama is enough of a leftist zealot that he’s unlikely to modify his goals or relinquish an inch of territory in the meantime.  As a result, fellow Democrats are retreating as the moderates sprint to join the other side.  He must be getting lonely, although it’s entirely his fault for scaring away most potential cohorts.

He should glean a lesson from the last Democratic president and realize the lone strategy for liberals who want to stay in office revolves around discarding liberalism.  Only Obama could govern so feebly as to make Bill Clinton looks sensible by comparison.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

On a global scale, the Obamanauts still maintain that all will come to like us because we did as we were told and elected a president who doesn’t seem particularly fond of the nation he allegedly leads.  His thorough unwillingness to admit America is exceptional was supposed to endear us to those who don’t like us.  The interest in winning the approval of jerks who thoroughly loathe us is baffling, especially considering that it has not worked.  At all.  Sucking up to comically villainous leaders has gotten us nothing, unless we count middle fingers from rogue nuisances who want to build nuclear weapons at their own leisurely pace.

But disregard that terrorists and thug nations strive to eradicate innocent life from the planet: the left is more concerned with the dangers to existence posed by smokestacks and exhaling.  Future people will giggle when they think about primitives fearing that being productive and comfortable would turn the Earth into a sauna.  Believing in global warming can’t be considered a religion, but only because there’s no Bible: adherents oppose recording anything on old growth-derived paper.  Ink is probably toxic to Mother Earth somehow, too, although they’ll never realize that what’s truly poisonous is their contempt for both human activity and the indoors.

As for domestic curiosities, the left still holds that health spending will plummet if we let the entity that’s numbed us to the phrase “trillion dollars” care for us.  The opposite is true: letting insurers peddle their wares in any state, extending the employer tax break to all, limiting insane malpractice lawsuits, and allowing consumers to choose what’s covered would all save health care cash.  So would underpaying doctors and having fewer technological and pharmaceutical marvels available.  Guess which course our Democratically-dominated Congress is pursuing?  And don’t worry: despite ripping off health providers, our government will figure how to fantastically overpay for inferior care in the name of guaranteeing equality.

It’s to be expected from the governing body that figures unemployment can be fought by borrowing indescribable sums from China.  The problem is that our current rulers don’t pay attention.  Here on Earth, businesses get compensated for spending money: employees work or suppliers outfit them with stuff in return.

By contrast, the stimulus was like giving an allowance to a junior high child, as recipients spend the funds without any ensuing productive contribution.  That works fine- when you’re eight years old and dealing with mom and dad.  Of course, the nanny state’s proprietors see us as their overgrown children, although they perversely resent successful progeny that made it on their own.

In broader terms, there’s also Obama’s unfortunate habit of making claims that can’t be proved or disproved.  Most notoriously, there’s his “created or saved” rhetorical construction.  The only genuine stimulus jobs appear to be those of stimulus job-counters.  Despite that, both parties know there’s no way to show the work.  Obama adamantly demands we accept that what he says is what happened.  His expectation of faith stands as an especially odd stipulation from someone who has never quite gotten around to picking out a neighborhood church.

The present administration’s media cohorts and suck-ups comply with the imaginary narrative, too.  Take how TIME Magazine chose enemy of wealth Ben Bernanke as its man of the year, in part because they claimed he kept a Transformers-type disaster from degenerating into a Revenge of the Fallen catastrophe:

But Bernanke also knows the economy would be much, much worse if the Fed had not taken such extreme measures to stop the panic. There’s a vast difference between 10% and 25% unemployment, between anemic and negative growth. He wishes Americans understood that he helped save the irresponsible giants of Wall Street only to protect ordinary folks on Main Street.

Or maybe he could have let the “irresponsible giants,” in TIME’s unbiased phrasing, go under, as used to happen in olden times when companies who incessantly screwed up didn’t exist for long.  Other businesses could have picked up the pieces of fallen competitors if we had just allowed the failures to fail; the survivors may have actually done a better job with the assets, too.

At worst, we’d endure an arduous transitional phase, which is far preferable to a semi-permanent corporatist state where the president wakes up and chooses what conglomerates survive after David Axelrod serves him his Corn Flakes and grapefruit.  The possibility that merchants may go out of business turns out to be exponentially preferable.

Why would anyone trust a government whose résumé is a bit light on productive accomplishments to repair, address, or assuage anything related to moneymaking?  After all, the legally-enforced belief that even the destitute possess the right to home ownership ultimately sunk the economy.  But that was simply the beginning.  Obama and Company still want to run health care, tell industrial concerns that they can’t burn anything containing carbon, and ensure the Sun extinguishes before union members accept a pay cut. 

The president, 60 senators, and a narrow slice of regular citizens may never accept that something like energy efficiency comes about when we trust brainy private companies to engineer better products.  But they don’t think much of the ingenuity of any people anywhere, unless the individuals in question pull down a government paycheck.  Actually, progressives like our species once we’ve been legislated and regulated into compliance.  They want us reliant upon the state for everything, excepting airborne security.

The fact they think they’re actually helping by distending bureaucracy embodies how they view both the world and us.  Thankfully, many are joining the already sizeable coalition that sees Obama’s baseless take on actuality for what it is.  Best of all, we can help them learn in a tangible way: voting his out office-holding followers this year before adding him to the unemployment rolls in 2012 will give them the chance to contemplate the nature of truth on their own time.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

I’m a right wing, reactionary, ultraconservative goon who doesn’t listen to Rush Limbaugh.  I don’t even know that I’m supposed to exist, as liberals are more likely to proclaim global warming might not be occurring than admit that I am real.  He’s one of those guys from whom I’m supposed to receive marching orders, and yet I’d have to research what station carries him in my locality.  I don’t care for his show.  But I’m still mad on his behalf.

Limbaugh won’t be buying a portion of the St. Louis Rams, as he was dropped from their prospective ownership group so abruptly as to even make neo-commie Van Jones feel sorry for him.  The difference is that, unlike Jones, Limbaugh didn’t say any of the radically dumb things attributed to him.  That’s why even those who would cringe at being classified as “Ditto Heads” should feel outraged that he was left behind due to left-wing perfidy.

I say all this as a lapsed follower, as I did listen to Limbaugh when I first seriously got into politics.  My timing was inadvertently perfect: this was during the Desert Storm era when he was acutely comparing each side’s advocates.

The host did a superb job of highlighting the difference between the decent, unassuming Americans who believed the nation was engaging in a war of righteous benevolence that was also in our self-interest, and the rabid hippies who clogged traffic and thought the phrase “No blood for oil” was the height of self-righteous cleverness.  His effort to distinguish the two confirmed to me that I picked the right faction.

But I eventually tuned in less frequently before not doing so at all.  Mostly, I found that the show was more about him than about politics.  His ego-focused pronouncements eventually sounded grating to me, and I drifted away to spend afternoons participating in sports practices, taking naps between classes, or watching Cartoon Planet.  Each seemed more interesting than a talk show that no longer held my interest.

Still, it wasn’t a partisan-based split.  Mr. Limbaugh and I would find that most of our answers matched if we filled out a political survey, as I’m sure he’d be relieved to know.  More importantly, I didn’t refrain from turning on my radio because the host was becoming too radical for even my grumpily illiberal tastes.  I never got the impression either listening full-time then or viewing clips on the news now that he was reading the minutes from a Klan meeting.

And yet that career-ending horrific quote remains elusive.  Limbaugh has endless opportunities to slip: he’s talking for a three-hour show five days per week.  And his coalition of adversaries still couldn’t muster any genuine dirt to disqualify him from owning part of the Rams.

Even worse, their imaginary dirt wasn’t convincing.  Did even Limbaugh’s archest foes think he really praised James Earl Ray?  Were they actually convinced he issued a theory about slavery’s crime-reducing properties?  Well, probably.  On a related note, his demonizing serves as the millionth demonstration of why MSNBCNN’s anchors spend their on-air time basically talking to themselves.

Their factual case against Limbaugh boils down to his remark regarding Donovan McNabb’s reputation six freaking years ago.  Of course, the comment was about the press, not McNabb himself.  But they only heard their nemesis say the words “overrated” and “black quarterback.”  Coincidentally, he was slamming the same media members who just savaged him for trying to invest in a business deal.  They believe in tolerance of everyone who happens to think exactly as they do.

His opponents didn’t stop for a second to consider whether Limbaugh’s take might have been legitimate even if many disagreed with it.  Instead, they just saw a conservative wondering if race was a factor and consequently decided that the debate was over.

Likewise, reporters and commentators never bothered to learn what he meant when he claimed that NFL games looked like contests between the Bloods and Crips.  It was about players acting confrontationally; the observation wasn’t connected to ethnicity.  But  journalists didn’t let him finish talking before they competed to see who could shriek, “Racist!” the loudest.

That’s why even those who don’t listen to Limbaugh can identify with his plight: you haven’t made it as a conservative until liberals brand you as a bigot.  Plus, those who don’t care for his program can still admire what he’s achieved.  In the end, a radio program that even some ideological allies see as a pompous exercise should be viewed as a business triumph.  That’s true with other companies, too.  While Starbucks, the Virgin Group, and Apple can each be annoying for their promotion of lefty values, each has managed to offer consumers something they wanted in the most capitalist of ways.

In a similar vein, non-listeners should note that Limbaugh’s success came organically in a free market.  Word of mouth allowed him to reach new markets and dominate among dozens of competing stations.  Notably, he did so without, say, corporate or government funding.  But NPR and Air America , respectively, are free to pursue any business model they’d like, even though both their opinions and ratings show that they don’t like business.

That respect should extend to his views.  Limbaugh is like Ayn Rand.  There are hundred page-long sections of Atlas Shrugged that are drearily, stridently harsh to the point of being nasty.  It’s also particularly tedious to be lectured on the case for atheism by an author who viewed herself as a godlike entity.

But both the tin-eared novelist and bravado-laden broadcaster express many ideas that conservatives would at least find sympathetic in principle.  We can agree with each of the two, theoretically, sometimes.

More importantly, as with Ms. Rand, Limbaugh irritates the right people.  In fact, I may start listening to him again just to irk his enemies.  And who knows?  Maybe I’ll find the program more amusing and compelling than I did when I decided to turn elsewhere for commentary.  If nothing else, watching his critics fume and stammer over his continued success might be entertaining on its own.

While it’s marginally less fun than watching football, irritating the left remains one of the best sports around.  Deprived the opportunity to own a chunk of an NFL franchise, Limbaugh is at least a hall of fame competitor when it comes to the verbal-based activity.  It’s beyond a stretch to call him an athlete, but Limbaugh is nonetheless still winning far more contests as an opinionated agitator than he would with a St. Louis team that’s currently 0-6.

 Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.

For years conservatives have blubbered and blustered about liberal media bias.  In the past the liberal agenda promotion was subtle, now the mainstream media is basically one giant cheerleading squad for Team Obama. What is obvious and maddening to you and me, is still an accepted form of journalism to many people.

The problem is that most Americans either don’t recognize it for what it is or don’t know where else to turn for information. For all our technology and forward movement, Americans are still pretty traditional. They turn on ABC, CBS or NBC out of habit. They know the anchors. They know the sets. They know the basic order of the programs and they find it comfortable. Just because something has been around for a long time does not give it integrity or ethics. The networks are entirely lacking in both. Familiarity is the only thing keeping the networks alive and don’t even get me started on MSNBC. They don’t even pretend to report anything positive about free markets, the tea parties, Sarah Palin or America, for that matter.

One problem conservatives face is proving to others that the media only tells one side of the story. If you need help backing up what your gut has told you for ages, look no further than the Media Research Center. It’s hard to remember details from individual news stories and with MRC, you don’t have to. They do the hard work for all of us. Subscribe to their daily digest and get a succinct, easy to understand analysis of the previous day’s television coverage.  Sure it’ll make you hot under the collar but we all need to remain that way these days to stay on top of what is happening in our nation and our world. Get mad and have the unbelievable statistics to justify your anger to friends and family. Show them the truth about network television (and most cable sources) and challenge them to avoid further brainwashing by finding a more trustworthy news source.

Americans need to take ownership in what they read and watch. They need to investigate for themselves so they don’t fall into the lazy and comfortable practice of being spoon fed just what the Left want them to hear or see. The MRC arms you with the ammunition you need to motivate yourselves and others away from the Kool-Aid drinkers and back to reality.

From its website: “The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America’s conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public’s understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed Media Research Center.”

Read Bernie Goldberg’s new book for more information on media bias.

It has come to my attention in the last few days that a few of my liberal friends and readers misinterpret the title of my blog, With Bias. Rest assured that while I offer my opinion which admittedly is with conservative bias (hence the title), I also offer up citations for the reader to follow up on and draw their own conclusions.

It’s important to understand, when I started my blog about a year ago, it was because I was inspired by a friend after a discussion about my growing concern for the lack of public interest in what was happening in this country. In choosing a name I considered how most writers present themselves, and decided to take a fresh new approach, I’d tell the truth. Just put it out there, I am a conservative, therefore everything I write will probably reflect that stance. I saw this as an opportunity to be honest, something I wish those in the media would try occassionally.

The “With Bias” title is ironically amusing to me and I’m sorry if you don’t get the joke. Allow me to explain. As I have stated previously I have been a republican since I first saw Ronald Reagan, and I’ve been a news junkie almost as long. In college I spent many an hour watching 24 hour coverage of whatever the news of the day. During the raid on the branch dividian complex, I barely made it to classes flipping back and forth between CNN and MSNBC. While working at my first real job I took lunch breaks to watch the Clinton deposition hearings. I know I’m kind of a freak, I’m okay with that.

It wasn’t until after 9/11 that I started to really notice a difference in the news coverage. I had primarily been a CNN or MSNBC viewer, but during the coverage of 9/11 I began introducing FoxNews into the rotation. I found myself drawn to the coverage on FoxNews, because they seemed to be on our side, and when I say our side I mean the American People, not Republicans. What I realized in watching them report stories side by side, is that they all three would cover the exact same story, but depending on the verbiage, tone or editing of the segment conveyed entirely different messages. When FoxNews presented an issue for discussion, they presented both positions. It was at this time I realized that Republicans have spokespeople too, and apparently a significant number of congressional members as well! (Who knew?) Because when you’re watching any of the aforementioned ‘news’ reports with discussion panels, if they have a conservative voice at all it’s either someone who voted republican once by mistake or a complete nut job.

As I became more committed to FoxNews as my television source for news, the outcry from the left and their gunslingers the mainstream media became louder. This was when it started to become more clear to me. The goal was to silence the one channel that dared to offer both sides of the story and allow the viewer to decide what to think about it. Bernard Goldberg blew the lid off the liberal infiltration of the mainstream media with the release of his 2001 book, Bias: A CBS Insider exposes how news media distorts the news. Goldberg was probably seen as traitor to many as he worked for CBS for over 20 years, but he brought light to the dark side of the headline business. One of his more memorable chapters discussed the fluctuating number of stories on the homeless population depending on who was in the White House, not on how many actual homeless people there were.

The concept of Liberal Bias while new to many is all too familiar too those of us on the right. We’ve watched for years as our candidates and elected officials have been subjected to assaults on their character and intelligence. Don’t get me wrong it is always appropriate to ask a public official his or her views on the issues, that is something of which I like to see more. What is not appropriate is framing or editing the questions, segments or articles in a manor that reflect the “journalists” own personal opinions.

A strange phenomenon occurs when Republicans talk on mainstream media outlets, they never finish a sentence. Weird I know. This happened most recently John McCain when a half sentence showed up on every news outlet, comedy routine and Obama ad, “the fundamentals of our economy are strong”, McCain was quoted as saying, his detractors took this as McCain is out of touch, but ignored the second half of the statement “but these are challenging times”. In this political season I’m not surprised that the Obama camp jumped on this chance to gain ground, but the media has no excuse.

According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs the average sound bite in 1968 was 42.3 seconds, now its down to almost 8 seconds. If we’re only hearing an average of 8 seconds from a candidate on any given topic, how are we to make a good decision? Not to worry, the media will tell you what to think. You see studies done by the center have also found that more time is dedicated to commenators discussing the candidates rather than giving more time to the candidates themselves. Here’s something to think about while you watch this year’s election coverage, according to another study done by the Center, during the 2004 Election coverage John Kerry received 60% positive comments or reports, while George W. Bush received over 60% negative coverage across all major networks. Ask yourself when was the last time you heard something positive about McCain on a major network? For a real brain teaser try that one with Sarah Palin.

In this election cycle bias came up first during the primaries but for the first time that I can remember it wasn’t a republican getting the ‘works’. Hillary Clinton’s camp complained of unfair treatment during the debates, and demanded apologies from MSNBC over inflammatory comments made on air by one of their anchors. You can imagine my confusion when they ended up suspending two of their anchors, as I had never heard of such a thing these people had called Bush every name in the book, but his Christian name and nothing. Say something about “pimpin out Chelsea” and pack your bags.

It was also during the primary that SNL took it’s famous swipe at CNN for their moderation of the debates between Clinton and Obama. The mock host offering Obama a pillow while grilling Hillary on tough topics. It may have been the first time in my life I felt bad for Hillary Clinton, those who had worshipped her, traded up for a bigger prize putting Obama in the White House. This was also about the time that the ‘anchors’ at MSNBC started getting ‘chills up their legs’ and uncontrollable giddiness at the mention of Obama’s name. It wasn’t until the melt down during the RNC convention that MSNBC was forced to take Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann’s anchor title away. Seeing this shift in public tolerance for openly liberal bias, CNN is now making a run to the middle adding new screen icons “No Bias, No Bull” and I’ve actually heard them use the word liberal without cracking a smile. Ironically it’s now CNN accusing SNL of Liberal Bias in their recent skits involving John McCain and Sarah Palin.

While I’ve focused primarily on television this bias can be found in all forms of media. From the pages of fading newspapers to the world wide web. Talk radio offers the last bastion of hope for conservative thinking people in this country. Many democrats see these dissenters as a threat and are attempting to silence them with a return to the fairness doctrine. A regulation specifically designed to eliminate the competition in the market place of ideas. This is considered fair to the left.

The liberal bias I’m talking about surrounds you everyday, not just in the news but in entertainment as well. The next time you’re in line at the grocery store look at the magazines. Look not only at the sheer volume of covers dedicated to Barrack Obama, his family or his wife, but also the glowing headlines that accompany the articles. Compare that to the tabloid coverage of Sarah Palin on the same shelves. So while my blog may be “With Bias” I am forthcoming with that information, many of the “news” sources should be so truthful. If they came right out and said “I’m in the tank for Democrats” then continued on with the report, at least you’d know they were being honest.

Originally posted at WithBias.net

Handwritten note, on the back of her birth announcement, from Sarah Palin. This was after the election, away from the limelight, when no one important was looking.

Dear Mr. Steele,

I just received your latest survey, which you called a crucial project, without the likes of which the RNC cannot create a plan. I must respectfully disagree. The RNC has a problem, and the ultimate result of that problem was seen this election cycle. Barack Obama, as much as I despise what he stands for, did not ask people what they wanted, and ask for their money at the same time, BEFORE promising to act on the peoples’ desires. The RNC has got to change this. You speak of wanting to stand for every grassroots leader and individual who shares your values. Well if this is true, why does the RNC not reflect all of our shared values? Why is it that I am still reading about juvenile bickering in the headlines of even Fox News? Have you even thought of what a laughing stock the latest “disinviting of Sarah Palin” makes us look to any and every voter who may have been on the fence? Sure I’ve seen your apology over the Rush Limbaugh “is an entertainer” bit, but it rings hollow. It reeks of “political strategy.” If you honestly felt that way, why apologize? And if you didn’t feel that way, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU SAY IT? Rush Limbaugh is not just an entertainer. He is an entertainer, for certain. But he, like Sarah Palin, has a specific set of goals, values, and ideals for America (if you don’t remember them, they’re the ones that our party stands for), and he does not apologize for them. He calls it like he sees it. Much in the same manner as Rep. Michele Bachman calling out Geithner and asking him to show her where he was Constitutionally given any of these newfound authorities he is claiming.

Michele Bachman questions Geithner's constitutional authority.

There is nothing wrong with that. You should be embracing that. There is a place for “moderate Republicans.” It is called Independent. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If this party is still the Republican party and if our values are still worth having, shout them from the rooftops. Let no person question what you believe and what you will fight for. If we (the Republican party) don’t even know who we are or what we stand for, I can assure you that no one is going to want to take a stand with us. Who jumps to a ship that they know is sinking? No one does, I’m afraid.

I have listened to your commentaries on Fox for quite some time before you became the Chairman, and at that point, I was all for you being the Chairman, or perhaps a candidate. But you seem to have abandoned your true values and ideals for the sake of “strategy.” The only “strategy” that we need is to get back to our conservative (fiscal, moral, and size of government) values and ideals, and be steadfast in them. Then, and only then, should we DARE to ask for anyone’s money in support of those values. We cannot contribute to the gossip in the headlines, our moral values tell us that we should be above that. And our critics know this, which is why they jump with glee every time they hear a rumble, because they know it will be so well received in the main stream media.

Michael Steele - Chairman of the RNC.

If you have not figured out why so many average, heretofore uninvolved or uninterested citizens have backed Sarah Palin, I will attempt to explain it to you. She is who she claims to be. Her record in the past, and of the present, reflects the conservative values that we hold dear. She does not apologize about those beliefs or voting records. She does not change her stance to go along with some newfound strategy. One can never win when pretending to be someone he/she is not. People WILL donate if they are hearing Sarah Palin speak as a voice for the RNC because they believe that she truly does support and would vote the way our values sway us. I have the utmost respect for Newt Gingrich. But “uninviting” a loved and admired speaker does NOTHING to help in our efforts, and is probably about as anti-strategy as you were able to be. Did you poll your constituents to see where we stood on the uninvitation? No, I know this because I didn’t get an email about it. I read about it in an article in which the author couldn’t wait to point out to America how ignorant our party has become.

I will share something with you that I shared with Sarah Palin a few days after the election. I voted, for the first time in my life, this past election. I am 32 years old, a mother of 4, and am very conservative. I live in Texas, and for the most part, it is felt here that we’re a Red state, so I’ve always felt that my vote didn’t matter that much. And to be honest, I’ve never been moved by a politician before because they always seemed to talk the talk when it was strategically prudent, and then act in another way that helped them best in the polls. You all seem to know on a basic level that you are our employees and were “hired” on our behalf, but at your cores, you all disregard that when it comes down to it. Sarah Palin was different. Representative Bachman seems to be different as well. She is speaking up, however unpopular it is, to highlight the lack of constitutionality of many of the President’s initiatives. That could turn out to be political suicide. But what these 2 women seem to have grasped, that most of you have not, is that even if you don’t win another election and it is some other Republican who takes your place, it is NOT ABOUT YOU. It is about what is best for our country. If you truly believe that Conservative values of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the value of life are best for America, then wear that on your sleeve. If one or two or three people speak out against you for it, so be it. THAT is what being a leader is about. Even those few who don’t like what you are saying will admire and respect you for staying true to who you are and what you claim you stand for. For the record, I sent a handwritten letter, 2 days after the election to Sarah Palin, detailing much of what I’m telling you now. What would you have done in response? Probably sent me a generic form letter thanking me for support, with my name merged in, and a scanned signature, so that you didn’t have to take time out to actually sit down and care about me on a personal level, right? That’s what most politicians do. Do you know what Sarah did? She, when no one was looking, the cameras were gone, I didn’t matter on a global scale, sat down and handwrote me a note back. She wrote it on her son, Trig’s, birth announcement, and mailed it back to me. It would have been easier, I’m sure, to have a staffer do a mail merge for the bags of fan mail she was getting, and I’m sure she does that sometimes. But please take an example from her. Get back to basics. Stand for our Constitution, and the values, as written, of the Republican party, and then just run with them. You have the ability to send out these mass emails asking for our thoughts. Well then REALLY LISTEN TO US, and act on what we say, even if you don’t think it is strategically the best move. We are the ones voting, and whatever it is that we want IS the best strategic move because if we don’t feel that you support our values, we not only aren’t donating, but we’re not wasting our time to get out and vote or convince others to.

Please don’t turn me, and the many others out there who have found a love and passion for involvement with our government, off to the idea. Please don’t put us back on the bandwagon that believes, “my vote doesn’t count…they will tell me one thing and then act in another way to better their political standing.” Please show me that you are still a person, and not just another part of the political machine. I’ve attached a scanned copy of the note that Sarah Palin wrote me, front and back. I’m only sending it, hoping that you will look at it, and see what such a small gesture, can mean to someone, and how actually caring about how we feel can make us supporters for life–and you have to know that with that support comes our pocketbooks. Please don’t be so naiive and do the RNC such a disservice as to ask for our money BEFORE you have adopted and acted on our values and ideals. Show us that we can depend on you not to change with the Washington winds, and the money and support will come. Myself and many others, will be your grassroots movement at the most basic level, but you have to stand for what we believe in. That simplistic idea is exactly how a man as extreme as Barack Obama landed himself in the Whitehouse so easily. He promised to do what his constituents wanted, the whole way through the campaign. He may be changing his tune now on some issues, but when he needed the support, he got it by reflecting the Democratic values. He wasn’t telling them his values were the only ones and that people could vote for him or no one. This is the feeling that many of us get from the RNC at the present time. I’m frankly shopping around looking for another party. I can’t consider myself Libertarian because of their stance on Abortion. I truly feel that THIS–the Republican Party–is where I belong, but please get back to what the party has always claimed to stand for, no apologies, no excuses.

With the greatest respect and hope for a positive change,

Natalie Nichols

Originally posted by Natalie at 1conservativemomma.wordpress.com.

By all accounts, Medicare is bankrupt and Social Security isn’t far behind. We will continue to have an elderly population in need of these services, even if we can’t afford to keep the programs running. It is a simple fact of life that everyone ages. We start to notice that we can’t remember what we used to know. We might not be as physically strong as we once were. Before we know it, we’re officially, the elderly. There was once a time when the elderly were looked upon as the pillars of wisdom in our society. Our grandparents could provide insight into years past, keep traditions alive, and impart a knowledge that can only come with age and experience. As I read reports today of the waning health of our programs for the elderly, I couldn’t help but see the correlation with abortion. If you’ve read anything I had to say in the past, you probably are thinking, “abortion…again?” Yep. You guessed it. Hear me out before you dismiss the correlation.

In my previous article regarding single issue voters, I highlighted how similar our society’s acceptance of abortion was to the Nazi philosophy of exterminating the “undesirables.” For whatever reason, be it “mental health,” “financial woes,” or even just “life circumstances,” some women make a “choice” to have an abortion. If you’ve ever heard a debate between a pro-life person and a pro-choice person, you’ve probably heard the argument that “we already have many homeless and starving children around the world…if we do away with abortion, who is going to pay for all of those unwanted babies?” This is where they throw in the idea that conservatives care about the babies until after they are born and then we disregard them. Of course that argument is ludicrous but they don’t care about logic, if they want to make a point, they’ll say anything.

Where am I going with all of this? It’s simple. Liberals whole-heartedly support giving women the choice whether or not to feed, house, and care for the babies that they are carrying, by allowing them to abort them before they are born. They list any number of reasons for supporting this. The PC reason is that it is the woman’s body, however if you argue against that, the real motivators come into play, such as financial burdens. I just read a comment regarding birth control legislation where the writer said this, “If they want to ban any family planning, then here’s what needs to happen. Everyone of them need to take on a foster child or two or three. If they want these unplanned pregnancies to happen, then put their money where their holy jaw is, and start supporting these kids.” The comment implies that conservatives who do not support contraceptive distribution have no right to feel that way because they are not the ones paying for these unplanned children after they are born. Following that logic, one can surmise that this person feels that the abortions are an ethical solution to a financial dilemma. There are many who feel this way, whether they say it or not.

Likewise, I’ve heard the argument made that unwanted babies who are not aborted end up being abused, and that it would have been better for them to have been aborted, rather than be born. In order to spare them the suffering that these victimized children endure, they argue that we should kill them before it happens. They argue that this is “more humane.” Oddly enough, this is the same argument that The Humane Society makes for euthanizing unwanted animals: There is not enough money, not enough food, and not enough homes for the unwanted animals so we euthanize them in order that they don’t suffer later. 

This brings me full circle to the reason for writing this article. We have had programs in place for the elderly which are now bankrupt, or on the verge of bankruptcy. Yet we continue to have people who need those services and are dependant on them for their health and well-being. What will happen if and when those programs cease to exist? Do we continue to go down this road to Liberal Land? If so, how far do we take it? Who is going to pay for the elderly to receive medical care? If they are lucky, they have families that can assist them. Some of them do not. Who is going to house those who live off of Social Security alone? Who will feed them? When the programs have been bankrupted and there is more being paid out than coming in, what will become of the elderly population?

Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist. She thought that the world would be a better place if we stopped the poor and the undesirable (to be read “the un-white”) from procreating, and stopped their babies from being born if they ended up pregnant. This is a quote from a letter written by Margaret Sanger in 1939:

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts.

Yay women’s rights! Doesn’t that make you feel empowered? Another lovely quote from Margaret Sanger for your reading displeasure, “”The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” ~Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race.  Sanger promoted birth control “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” Birth Control Review (Nov. 1921).  Do you know who else was a eugenicist? Adolf Hitler.

The Nazi eugenics ideology spawned the T4 Euthanasia Program. Maybe you’ve heard of it. This was where they convinced medical doctors and mental health professionals that it was a humanitarian effort to kill off the elderly and the handicapped. The Encyclopaedia Britannica article linked above states that, “the Nazis referred to the victims as “burdensome lives” and “useless eaters.” According to bureaucratic calculations, the state could put funds that went to the care of criminals and the insane to better use—for example, in loans to newly married couples.”

A former T4 killing centre in Hartheim, Austria.

Let me sum this up if you haven’t been following. Planned Parenthood, our nation’s number one sponsor of abortions, was started by someone who believed that she was being a humanitarian by ensuring that those who were not “desirable” did not “breed.” She shared the views of Adolf Hitler, which were that eugenics were a great way to further the “master race.” Hitler and his followers decided that it was financially, and eugenically, wise to systematically cull the elderly and the “useless eaters.”

Throughout time, societies have “disposed” of their elders. In pre-civilized times, according to the book, Elder Abuse, the elderly were killed so that the strength of younger adults could be maximized. As this excerpt from Elder Abuse provides more detail:

The Hudson Bay Eskimo “strangle the old who are dependent on others for their food, or leave them to perish when the camp is moved.” In these societies, the old were killed in order to conserve resources, and mores were developed for the young to be cruel to the elderly so that the elderly would want to die: “The central Eskimo kill the old because all who die by violence go to the happy land; others have not such a happy future.

To many, this woman is someone's beloved mother or grandmother. In the future, will the culture of death and abortion lead to one where she is nothing more than a financial burden we're not willing to take on?

So where do we go from here? Do we wake up from this nightmare and realize that we have a moral obligation to end the culture of death. Even if some believe that those deaths are a humanitarian effort, we must stand up for those who do not have a voice. If we don’t, we could be looking at a future filled with a “pro-euthanasia” movement. I’m sure that it sounds far fetched, but so did socially acceptable eugenics–that is before the great Margaret Sanger had her way. Is the liberal society we live in one that would one day give the caretakers of the elderly a “choice?” After all, the idea that “it’s my body, it’s my choice” is not too far off from, “it’s my house/food/money, it’s my choice.” Would we then allow the children of the elderly to elect to euthanize their aging parents if it wasn’t financially prudent to keep supporting them? If so, what about those who don’t have families to make the decision? Does it then become up to “the state?”

Of course with Nationalized Healthcare, a simple lack of providing treatment for certain incurable treatments would be “the state’s” easy way to enforce this euthanasia without having to say it out loud.  This is remniscent of those earlier societies that either took their elders off to a remote island to let them starve to death or simply packed up and moved their nomadic tribes, leaving the elderly and disabled behind to die alone.  I’m sure you’ve heard reports of family members living in Canada or Europe with National Healthcare who are heartbroken that the government withheld this or that lifesaving treatment from their loved ones, and the result was death.  What is this, if not a government endorsed euthanasia?  The obvious and most logical next step is to give the caretakers the choice to euthanize their elderly charges when and if they become too much of a bother.  Having socially accepted abortion certainly opened the door for this line of thinking.  Isn’t the strongest argument for being pro-choice the idea that the embryo or fetus is not a fully functioning human being yet?  Well that is easily reversed after we’re no longer of much use to society.  When we age, we are often not fully functioning human beings.  Sometimes we are completely dependant on our caretakers for even the most basic of life functions, much like a child in the womb or newborn.  I can’t count the number of times that I’ve heard a pro-choice person say that because babies cannot eat, drink, or eliminate without the help of someone else, they are not given the same right to life.  I argue that this logic could be applied to the elderly and disabled with the same misguided “humanitarian effort” in mind.  We can no more sanction the killing of our elderly “for financial benefit” than we can the aborting of babies for these reasons of self-preservation.

“It’s people who think like you that make me want to leave the country.”

This was the final declaration in an exchange between a teacher and student in a class on diversity for future educators. Sure, it was prefaced by an, “I respect your opinion, but,” and was bookended by a throaty chuckle, but no amount of pre and post game damage control could wash the stink off that statement. What made my nostrils really burn, however, was when the class continued, save a few more comments about the overarching debate topic, without so much as a cough out of place.

The topic of discussion on that particular day was equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities. Our professor had such a politically correct mindset that I’m sure many of us wondered, among other things, where she drew the line on what is or is not a disability. While many of the students questioned the professor’s statements by simply pressing her for explanations, one particular student dared to say she disagreed with her views and attempted to explain her reasoning. After a brief exchange of words, the professor uttered the aforementioned statement. Something this vitriolic in any other context would be an outright insult, but within those four walls, it existed entirely without repercussion. Not surprisingly, the girl who spoke up was picked on multiple times by the professor in our next session.

It makes me wonder if anyone else will speak up again.

Forget the fact that this woman stopped another student from using the word “handicapped,” flat out refused to answer a question about whether or not she believes we should attempt to cure paralysis, and thinks that curing disabilities is as incendiary as attempting to cure someone of being black; she is the professor. We are the students. One would think that alienating students for their opinions would be a classroom no-no.

This is nothing new, however, for anyone with a dissenting opinion of the liberal college norm. So many professors think they can say whatever they want, make anyone squirm, and keep anyone quiet because at the end of the day, they’re holding the winning hand. I can tell as many “When Professors Attack!” stories as I want (and I will), but in nearly all of them, I must admit that I choose to keep my mouth shut and instead calculate my GPA. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll speak my mind frequently without fear of consequence, but it has gotten to the point where I need to pick my battles. That’s right: College is a war.

One experience that comes to mind was a class I took last semester. It was a required class for all students to fulfill core credits, so already the thirst for knowledge was quite palpable. We would study and discuss works like the Bible and Oedipus Rex, but more often than not, the conversations would dissolve into a lighthearted debate of social issues and, eventually, politics. Mind you, I was taking this class during the 2008 presidential election, a time of discomfort I can so vividly detail that it would take us into a whole other profile of college life. My professor, in an attempt to intimidate, presented a strong and seemingly volatile personality to his students. Every time he said, “What do you mean by that?” one would think he relished the sound of skin crawling so much it was probably his ringtone. It must have been some power trip.

In our final class, before we departed for winter break, we handed in our final portfolios and discussed the election. As a group, we had examined it before, but all memory of those conversations was erased from my brain after this incident. At the beginning of the semester, he claimed to be a member of the Republican Party, which seemed so new and refreshing, but what he expressed to us just before our departure didn’t sync up with that assertion. He completely trashed the Republicans, John McCain, and, with a special fervor, Sarah Palin, making fun of her because “she’s hot, but she has no ass,” or that she’s a crazy religious nut who speaks in tongues, or that she is exploiting her “sick child.” He became visibly disgusted when people tried to compare her to Hilary Clinton. My favorite, however, was when he exclaimed, “The right has lost its way! Christian conservatives don’t want a woman in the White House. What are they doing? They were so obsessed with not having a black man as president that they got behind Palin.” I experienced an extra layer of discomfort and isolation because all of the students in the room (from what I could see) felt the same way and wholeheartedly participated in the defamation. Meanwhile, I was clenching my fists and staring at my flash drive on his desk, containing twelve hours worth of work. And 25% of my grade. A bit of light from the open window winked sheepishly on its black surface, as if to ask me, “is it worth it?”

So conservative students sit in this torturous limbo. Our instincts urge us to raise our hands and bring to the table all the evidence and ethical grounds for feeling what we feel, believing what we believe, but we conclude that with the possibility of our grades in the balance, the costs outweigh the benefits. When I think of how my professor in my diversity class treated that student (who may or may not be conservative), I am saddened because this professor and I do see eye to eye on a few things. Both of us have brothers with disabilities, and I might have benefited from sharing my experience, but now all I feel is estranged and withdrawn.

So much for a valuable education.

President Barack Hussein Obama campaigned on being a better person than Washington was used to.  He essentially claimed that he would put an end to childish bickering.  He said that he’d pool everyone’s thoughts and ideas and promised to open up the White House to the public, making this the most transparent administration, thus far.  Well, he did, sort of.  If you count exposing anything that Obama seems to think will be damaging to the legacy of the previous administration, National Security be damned. He was going to be truly bipartisan, welcoming all ideas…and he does, so long as they are in step with his own.  He has token republicans in his cabinet, although that is about as bipartisan as he gets.  He was going to stamp out lobbyists influence, until he started appointing them.  He actually signed into law, on his first day as POTUS, an executive order stating that lobbyists could not serve in positions directly related to their prior employer for two years.  What he neglects to advertise is that this same law has a HUGE loophole which essentially nullifies it.  If the administration wishes to appoint a lobbyist, there is a waiver for that.  So basically this law is in place to look pretty.  It makes people think we’re keeping the lobbyists out of power, while making sure that the powers that be are able to put the lobbyists into positions of power. 

He has let Republicans come to the table, just long enough to snap a photo for the MSM.  Who really cares what they have to say, right?

In one of his erroneous statements, our President said, “In eighth grade math, we’ve fallen to ninth place.”  Well we are in ninth place, but considering we were in 28th in 1995, climbed up to 19th by 1999, and in 2003 we were up to 15th place.  By all accounts then, 9th place is something to be applauded.  Typical of his administration though, Obama chose to use a fact that most American citizens wouldn’t dig deep enough into to realize that the actual statement was a falsehood.  Don’t believe me, my liberal friends, just check politifact.com.    This is an example of the idea that it truly doesn’t matter WHAT Barack Hussein Obama actually says, but what is significant and memorable to his flock is HOW he says it.  They have given him an artistic liberty, if you will.  He’s free to take any factual statement and twist and distort it to suit his needs.  Much like the way he dismissed his prior pro-abortion voting record where he claimed “there was already a law on the books that addressed the issue.”  All the while knowing that the public doesn’t generally actually go back and READ the laws that were on the books.  If he says there was a law, there was a law, right?  Wrong.  There was a law on the books that dealt with protections if an infant was born alive, but that law left it up to the abortionist, who by the way was being PAID to perform the abortion, to determine whether or not the child he would abort would warrant any of those protections.  Most writers that I’ve seen who reference his deceptions regarding the “old Illinois law” simply paraphrase that law for you.  I commend them for at least doing that much, someone had to.  But then again that takes into account the possibility that you aren’t already enamoured with Obama and might actually listen to reason.  If you are one of those who simply brushes off these FACTS as “spin” then click the link above.  This IS the actual “law on the books.”  It’s quite long, and it is quite hard to find, so I wanted to make it as easy as kindergarten.  All you have to do is click and read.  Pay particularly close attention to section 6, subsection 2 (a).   That’s the part that Obama is pretending doesn’t exist.  Obama lied–Ahh, I just heard him on the news in his latest speech as I typed this…”Thank God for ‘change.’”  Yes, that is most definitely what The One has brought us, isn’t it?

Speaking of photo-ops, what a great photo op the government had in NY yesterday!  Terrified citizens running for their lives all the while jets are scrambling in a way that is remniscent of the days of lore.  What was that song?  “Have you forgotten?”  Obviously, the powers that be have forgotten.  Just like Obama seems to have forgotten many of his tag lines from the campaign days.  There is a very clear reason for that though, the POTUS seems to have forgotten that he is not still campaigning.  When the going gets rough, up there in Washington, the latest modus operandi is to launch a whirlwind media blitz.  They don’t actually take any real action, they just make one-liners and have a few staged questions from audience plants.  Bada bing!  They’ve got instant public approval!

Obama promised transparency all throughout the campaign.  He promised to shine sunlight on Washington.  He stated that all “nonemergency” bills would not be signed without giving the American public–that’s you and me–an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.  This was an out and out lie.  But hey, in all fairness, Mr. Obama did take the transparency idea somewhere.  He doesn’t want you to see what he or his administration is doing, per se.  But he has no qualms about shining sunlight on what the blame-it-on-Bush administration did.  Let’s get real though, it’s the first trick any magician learns.  Keep their eyes trained on this hand so that they have no idea what is going on behind your back in the other hand.  With one hand, he’s allowing the tactics that kept you and I safe since September 11, 2001, to be shared with our enemies–thereby undermining our national security.  With the other hand, he’s breaking promises right and left…pushing through bill after bill with the utmost haste.

He promised he would sit down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions.  Well, that hasn’t happened yet, but he did write him a letter.  *crickets chirping*

We all remember the praise that Obama got during the debates for stating that he would go “line by line” to root out earmarks.  Is that another instance where if he says he did that, it must be true?  Because in actually reading the bills, which he did not do, I’m finding that to be another flat out lie.

The administration actually orchestrated a dramatic confrontation between an outspoken talk radio host and members of the Republican party, and then reveled in the results.  If you haven’t been paying attention, this is yet another example of the magician’s trick.  Keep looking at the feuding Republicans, and pay no mind to the man behind the drapes.

In the most shocking turn of events, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report labelling peaceful, concerned citizens as potential domestic terrorists.  Fortunately all of the protestors and picketers who have views in line with the administration escape this sort of “profiling.”  It is perfectly acceptable to assemble, to be staunchly “pro-choice,” to be anti-Bush, or any number of leftist ideologies, in this day and age.  But the second a group of conservatives actually finds their voice, they are villified.  Lord help us and hope that no crimes are committed against any who fall under this category of “potential domestic terrorists” because our government was so irresponsible with their labelling.  I guess they think they are covered as far as vets go since Napolitano clumsily “apologized” for offending the veterans.  Somehow I missed her statements of apology to the conservative soccer moms of America for causing many to think that we might just snap at a moment’s notice and start stockpiling AK-47s. 

 I’ll leave you with an Obama quote, as shown on politifact.com.

“Make no mistake: We need to end an era in Washington where accountability has been absent, oversight has been overlooked, your tax dollars have been turned over to wealthy CEOs and the well-connected corporations,” Obama said at an Oct. 1 campaign stop in Wisconsin. “You need leadership you can trust to work for you, not for the special interests who have had their thumb on the scale. And together, we will tell Washington, and their lobbyists, that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. You have. They will not run my White House. You’ll help me run my White House.”

 Not too long after this statement, he was quoted as saying, “I won.  I think on this one, I trump you.”  What?  Did he think he was above using the schoolyard phrase as so many of us are used to hearing it?  He would have scored more points with third graders if he’d have just broken out in a round of, “We won, we won, we shot the b.b. gun!  You lost, you lost, you ate tomato sauce!”  In short, the Obama administration’s first 100 days has been chock full of partisan attacks, veiled threats against private citizens exercising their collective first ammendment right to peaceably assemble, and flat out lies.  Gee, I can’t wait to see what they have in store for us next!