Tea Parties and Media Bias

The mainstream media (MSM) has been portraying the recent "tea party" demonstrations as being stirred up by rich businessmen, right wing extremists and racists. Nancy Pelocy (Democratic speaker of the house) characterizes these tax day demonstrators as astroturfers, rather than "grass roots" protesters. This is blatantly false.

I strongly disagree with the massive federal spending during the Bush administration. I disagreed with the 165 billion dollar Bush"tax rebate" program, when individuals were sent "$600 tax rebates. I also strongly disagreed with the 700 billion dollar TARP program that was pushed by Bush and McCain. I disagreed with the bailouts of banks, insurance companies, securities firms and automobile companies that were supported by both the Bush and Obama administrations.

Most of the tea party demonstrators are opposed to big government and big government spending regardless of the political party that is responsible. I watched FOX News host, Glenn Beck, at a tea party at the Alamo in Texas yesterday. Beck got louder cheers when he blamed Republicans than when he blamed Democrats for irresponsible spending. Beck, myself and most demonstrators blame both parties, yet the MSM characterizes the tea party demonstrators as anti-Obama right wing extremists. They seek out demonstrators with extreme views to interview and then claim that they are representative of the entire crowd.

There is little difference between the economic policy of the two parties, other than the current administration is spending more and faster than ever before. The same could have been said about Bush at the time, but now the spending has become exceedingly reckless because many say that it will be impossible to repay our debt because of the current level of spending.

The MSM (main stream media) doesn't tell you that there are many Democrats also present at these tea parties. I am fed up with the current crop of politicians on both sides of the isle and so are most demonstrators. Although there are those who have specific right wing agendas that the MSM focuses on, most demonstrators are protesting against big government spending and the ever increasing the size and scope of the federal government.

Also, the MSM has coined the phrase "tea-bagging" to describe these demonstrators. They often use this double-entendre because "tea-bagging" is a word used to describe a sexual fetish. The MSM is now commonly referring to these demonstrators as "tea-baggers" which is a vulgar insult. This not-so-subtle insult is intended to humiliate the hundreds of thousands of legitimate "tea party" demonstrators. It is tantamount to calling civil rights demonstrators the "N" word. The mainstream media has lost all their journalistic standards. They are giggling like juveniles while using the term tea-bagging. Read the following column by Matt Taibbi of rolling stone magazine then click on the video to hear double-entendre by mainstream CNN journalist Anderson Cooper:

The so-called journalist, Matt Taibbi, wrote the following:

I have to say, I’m really enjoying this whole teabag thing. It’s really inspiring some excellent daydreaming. For one thing, it’s brought together the words teabag and Michelle Malkin for me in a very powerful, thrilling sort of way. Not that I haven’t ever put those two concepts together before, but this is the first time it’s happened while in the process of reading her actual columns.

Previously Michelle Malkin’s writing was on the edge of unreadable; she’s sort of like Ann Coulter, only without that tiny fraction of P.T. Barnum/Mick Jagger-esque self-promotional flair that makes Coulter at least vaguely interesting. When you read Ann Coulter, you know you’re reading someone who would "F" a hippopotamus if she thought it would boost her Q rating. That’s a rare quality and it commands one’s attention.

Michelle Malkin doesn’t have that. She’s just a mean little dunce who’s wedged herself into a nicely paying career as a GOP spokesclown, and she’s going to ride that gig for as long as it keeps gas in her minivan.

And that’s fine, good for her. But that doesn’t make her readable. However, this move of hers to spearhead the teabag movement really adds an element to her writing that wasn’t there before. Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose.

In this next set of clips, see how CNN reporter Susan Roesgen, argues with conservative "tea party" demonstrators. In the second clip she is shown sympathetically interviewing liberal activists. The contrast is stark.





Why is this CNN reporter pushing Obama's agenda and demonizing those opposed to it, rather than conducting objective interviews?

Finaly, here is an example of extreme liberal bias, and the wholesale, demonization, degradation and hatred of demonstrators at the April fifteenth tea parties. Click on the following video to hear the vitriolic rantings of actress-activist Janeane Garofalo, interviewed by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.


I maintain that this bias is the rule, not an exception. The MSM has become blatantly biased in their support of Obama and his policies to the point that they throw journalistic standards out the window in an effort to discredit and demonize public opposition to Obama's policies.

Is The Earth On The Brink Of An Ice Age?

On the global warming front, I read an interesting article today from Pravda, of all places. Of course I do not place much credibility in that state run publication of Russia. But in recent years, our own NY Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, Miami Sun Sentinel, the San Francisco Chronicle and most other newspapers across our country have been promoting a liberal democratic party agenda, rather than objectively reporting the news. The clearest examples of this is the coverage that they have been giving to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), the Obama campaign, Governor Palin, George Bush, the Iraq war and the economic downturn. I would put the credibility of Pravda on the same level as the aforementioned publications. But I digress.

This Pravda article made a compelling case for an upcoming global cooling cycle. Some of their ideas are very similar to the ideas that I wrote about on my blog, before I ever read about them anywhere else. When I read an article that comes to the same conclusions that I have arrived at by using reason, common sense and my personal experience, I know that I am on to something.

Here is an excerpt from my article entitled: "The Global Warming Myth Revisited":

Another thing that I discovered is that co2 is also dissolved in the oceans just like in soda pop. When the ocean temperature rises, co2 is released from the ocean into the atmosphere. This may explain why the records show that global temperature rise, always precedes the increase in co2 in the atmosphere. Articles that I have recently read reiterate these conclusions that I have come to on my own using reason, logic and common sense.

Here is an excerpt from Pravda's article entitled: "Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age"

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

If we do not even know if the climate is warming or cooling, how can we know what action is necessary to safeguard healthy living conditions for all of humanity?

It is a fact that colder temperatures would be far more harmful to humanity than warmer temperatures. Colder temperatures would result in less land that is suitable for farming, less land suitable for habitation, more deaths due to freezing temperatures and increased disease due to more frequent winter conditions.

Let's suppose that CO2 emissions are actually causing the Earth's climate to warm. This would have a positive effect on life on earth, if we were entering an "ice age".

Also, humanity's reliance on fossil fuels has enabled the world population to grow to over 6 billion. This population explosion was made possible because of the advances that a reliance on fossil fuels has brought about. These advances include: mechanized farming techniques, refrigeration, air, ground and sea transportation of food and other vital goods, home heating and air conditioning, the availability of speedy emergency services, the availability of modern medicine, the availability of fresh drinking water, the availability of water for irrigation, the availability of indoor plumbing, etc.

If we dramatically reduced or eliminated the use of fossil fuels before finding a suitable, safe and environmentally safer substitute, we would reduce the worlds limit to sustain human life, and billions would die unnecessarily.

This is why we should not rush into any global solutions "half-cocked". There may be unforeseen negative consequences.

John McCain and the Mainstream Media, Shill for Obama

The following is a great article, from greensboro.rhinotimes.com , about the root cause of the meltdown in the mortgage market and the deliberate misreporting of the truth by the mainstream media. The facts in this article are exactly in line with what I have been hearing on most all conservative talk radio programs that I listen to. These facts and names are blatantly missing from most mainstream media reports, and also, surprisingly missing from John McCain's talking points that I have heard in his stump speeches and debates with Obama.. Only once did I hear McCain implicate Congressman Barney Frank [D] (Chairmen house banking committee) and Senator Chris Dodd [D] ( chairman, Senate committee on banking) , in this financial meltdown. This was in response to an irate supporter at a McCain rally, who demanded that McCain tell the truth about the root cause of the meltdown in the mortgage market and demanded that McCain name names. McCain also conspicuously omits speaking about his own role in pushing for legislation to reign in the out of control GSEs (Government Supported Enterprises), of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two years ago. It seems to me that McCain actually wants Obama to win the election. It is clear to me that the mainstream media, and even John McCain himself, are influencing this election in favor of the Democrats.

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
by Orson Scott Card
October 20, 2008

An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.................

Click here for the link to the entire article by Orson Scott Card.

Rants, Runts and Ramblings

Recently I have been noticing that many people label any opinion that they disagree with, as a "rant". To my understanding, "rant" is an emotionally charged word. I define a rant as: A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation, where emotionality supersedes rationality. Are there other common definitions that I am not aware of? The term rant implies that opposing opinions are emotional and unreasoned and should be summarily dismissed without debate. I attribute this, and many of our modern day societal problems, to the "feminizing" of our society.

Generally speaking, women rely more heavily on their right brain (emotional and artistic) and men have a stronger left brain which relies more heavily on reason and intellect. Both are needed to complement and contrast each other and form a complete human society. This is why it is so important for children to be brought up in homes that contain a loving compassionate nurturing mother and a strong, reasonable and pragmatic father. This is the way God and nature created the vast majority and this is what I consider to be normal. There is no denying this obvious truth. In today's modern society, I am seeing the feminizing of men, due to the decline of the intact nuclear family. Also emotional, half-truths and propaganda are spread by activists and amplified by the media, universities and the arts.

This feminizing has risen to the level of our political leaders, public schools, universities, media and the arts. Boys are taught to be more sensitive, that crying is natural, normal and nothing for a boy to be ashamed of. Boys are taught to run away from a fight, rather than confront an enemy who threatens them and "theirs". Boys are taught that competition is unfriendly and that good sportsmanship should rise to the level of a world where there are no winners and losers. Many schools have discontinued playground games such as dodge-ball and tag, because they are too aggressive. Some schools have stopped keeping score at sporting events, so that there are no losers. Some school plays alternate the lead part so that everyone gets a chance to play the lead, no matter how inept they are. These are all "feminine" views.

I believe my views to be mainstream, reasonable and obvious to anyone who is able to remain objective. Activists on the left, particularly feminist and homosexual activists, often alter public opinion by bullying their detractors with unfounded charges of prejudice, hatred and homophobia. I believe that these unfounded attacks are just as harmful, if not more harmful, than true prejudices, because their aim is to suppress opposing views with emotion, and manipulate public opinion with half truths and outright lies ".

One example that comes to mind occurred in San Francisco, in the early 80's. Before famous author and conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage achieved fame and notoriety, he volunteered in a San Francisco "free clinic" which was run by two homosexual doctors. Savage has earned a doctorate degree at Berkley and studied epidemiology among many other subjects pertaining to nutrition, botany, and natural healing. Savage was personal friends with these two "gay" doctors, who he often socialized with. During the early 80's, Savage noticed that many young, otherwise healthy gay men, were becoming afflicted with an unknown horrible disease that often lead to death. Savage was aware of the unsanitary conditions of the popular "gay bath houses" in San Francisco and reasoned that the activities going on in them was ripe for spreading an epidemic. Although savage had no proof that these bath houses might be spreading disease among San Francisco homosexuals, he called for closing all San Francisco bath houses in an effort to be prudent and avert a widespread epidemic among homosexuals and save many lives.

When Savage made his views public about shutting down all San Francisco bath houses he was vilified as a homophobe and a "gay basher". The gay doctors fired him from the clinic and disowned him as a friend. Gay activist's condemned Savage's ideas as hateful and anti-gay. He was only trying to avert a deadly epidemic that he reasoned was imminent based on his education, reason and common sense. Savage was dumbfounded because he had friends in the homosexual community who had now turned against him.

As it turned out, several years later it was discovered that a new virus called AIDS was responsible for the numerous illnesses and deaths in San Francisco's gay community. Later it was discovered that this disease was spread by unprotected anonymous gay sex, which was common in the bath-houses. If the gay activists would have used reason and listened to Savage, rather than using emotion to condemn him, many lives could have been saved. Eventually all of San Francisco's bath-houses were shut down because they were considered a breading ground for the deadly virus AIDS. However this truth never stopped the gay activists from labeling Savage as an homophobe and gay basher. To this day, Savage is vilified and demonized in the gay community.

Do you find any truth in my post or am I merely ranting about rants?

Former Press Secretary Tony Snow Dies, AP Rips His Memory

I was astounded at the callousness in which an AP article eulogized Tony Snow today. There it was, on my home page, when I clicked on the Internet and the Yahoo home page came up.

I am usually critical of Yahoo news for not having real news, but celebrity news, scandals, fashion, and articles of interest for today's demoralized popular culture instead. Now I am wishing that they would return to their popular puff pieces, rather than tearing down the best presidential press secretary of all time on the day following his death. They reprinted this eulogy, turned smear piece from the AP, which has become a propaganda machine for the far left, just like MSNBC and Newsweek magazine.

The article started off as as any obituary would. It listed his accomplishments and career. They quoted President Bush's warm remarks, remembering his past secretary, who stepped down from his post about a year ago. Oddly, the article did not mention the family Snow left behind, a wife and three children. However, the article suddenly took a sharp turn to the left and bashed Snow as an uninformed, confrontational, show-boater. Snow was anything but those inaccurate charges. He was one of the most informed, humble and friendly journalists that I had ever heard. However, he would not allow unfounded attacks and smears to go unchallenged from the white house press corps or anyone else. This is probably why, the mainstream media and the AP had turned against him. They also used Snow's death as another opportunity to Bash President Bush. How classless of them to rip Snow apart on the day following his death.

Quotes from the AP article: "With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster's good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses."

"Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation."

"Although a star in conservative politics, as a commentator he had not always been on the president's side. He once called Bush "something of an embarrassment" in conservative circles and criticized what he called Bush's "lackluster" domestic policy."

I first became aware of Tony Snow about 15 years ago, when he was an occasional guest-host, filling in for a vacationing Rush Limbaugh. Although I tuned in to hear Rush, I was not disappointed when I heard Snow instead, I continued listening and I began to look forward to Snow's guest host appearances. In later years, I looked forward to seeing Snow on Fox news as a guest and a host on the Fox news channel.

When President Bush appointed Snow as his press secretary, I was thrilled that the white house finally had a surrogate that would not be afraid of holding the extremely liberally biased white house press corps at bay. Tony Snow did not let me down. When the press corps laid into Bush's policies with loaded and hateful questions, Snow always, politely, humorously and informatively, put them in their place. Snow exposed the liberal bias in the press and at the same time he clearly and accurately explained the president's policies.

In stark contrast, several weeks ago when journalist Tim Russert passed away, the entire media, press and TV, held a week long eulogy and praise-fest, as if Russert's life was the second coming of Christ. Russert was also a dedicated journalist who was also a stickler for the facts and a very likable fellow, just like Snow. Russert had a passion for his work and devoted himself to it, just like Snow. Both men were adored and admired by their wife and children. Both men were devoted to their family, faith and country. The only difference was that Russet leaned toward the left and Snow leaned toward the right.

I am outraged that the AP has taken this solemn occasion of a great newsman's death to perpetuate their dishonest criticism of anything or anyone conservative.

Here is a brief clip of one of the countless times that Snow faces a hostile press corps, and puts the reporter in his place and answers his question. Time has now proved that Snow's answer was correct, as the surge of troops in Iraq has been successful..