WTF is the Vice President thinking???!!!???

I know you usually read about me ranting about liberals, Democrats, and the hypocrites at NBC/MSNBC, but I am not a Republican by any means.

I consider myself to be a Libertarian (even if Sammy says that this means I'm really a Republican who isn't into the "God" aspect so much) and independent of the partisan stupidity that seems to be everywhere these days. I always say that I will call the Republicans on their b.s. just as easily as I do the Democrats (and the affiliated cultists mentioned above) - but this entry will show you all that I actually mean what I say by that comment.

I finally can't let this one go... I must comment or I would be as hypocritical as the people I rant about in this blog when they attack the opposing party just for the spite of it and not because of any factual basis.


So, those of you who love to hate me, enjoy this entry while it lasts. I'm sure you'll mark this day on your calender as if it was the day that Halley's Comet returned. :)


Of course, the topic of this blog entry is how Vice President Dick Cheney has obviously lost his mind in his attempt to remain exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of Americans, not to mention that of the other Vice Presidents before him and/or elected officials in general.

I can't defend how this man has repeatedly pushed the boundaries when it comes to how he conduct's the Peoples' Business in his role as Vice President. I never had any faith in him being the right man for the job... but his comments/actions recently warrant that I vent some of my frustrations about this man.

His claim that he isn't part of the Executive Branch of our Government, because he is also President of the Senate - which is part of the Legislative Branch is what I consider to be a misuse of power for the sole purpose of allowing him to avoid having to be monitored by the famous "checks and balances" that our Founding Fathers felt was necessary. It is this critical function of the three branches to keep any one branch from going beyond their power we give to them as elected officials.

I understand the need for some things to remain hidden from the eyes of the public when it comes to National Security - but I don't agree with they way this Administration in general (and the V.P. in specific) broadly defines what should be and should not be kept secret.


I'm not going to waste my time with a long entry explaining why I know that Dick Cheney is wrong, and why he needs to comply with the rules that the rest of the Bush Administration (as well as all elected officials) must follow as stated in the Laws of this country.

I might do that, but it's not necessary. To prove my point all I had to do was visit the website for the White House at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ and the one for the U.S. Senate at http://www.senate.gov

First let's address the fact about the Vice President that seemingly contradicts what will come afterward. It comes to us from the chart defining how the Senate is organized at this URL:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/e_one_section_no_teasers/org_chart.htm

This chart explains that Article I of our Constitution creates the Legislative Branch and its two parts - the Senate and the House of Representatives.

This chart further explains that the Vice President is part of the Senate because he is the "President of the Senate". with his chief duty being in charge of breaking a "tie" should a vote consist of equal votes both for & against.

We know that this position is usually held by the "President Pro Tempore" of the Senate and not the Vice President.

So, even though he has duties in the arena of the Legislative Branch, this is not where the Vice President "exists" in regards to which branch he belongs to. (even if he gets paid from funds that begin from the Senate budget)

Here's what the website for the White House has to say in reference to the Vice President:

President Bush's Cabinet

The tradition of the Cabinet dates back to the beginnings of the Presidency itself. One of the principal purposes of the Cabinet (drawn from Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution) is to advise the President on any subject he may require relating to the duties of their respective offices.

The Cabinet includes the Vice President and the heads of 15 executive departments-the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, and the Attorney General. Under President George W. Bush, Cabinet-level rank also has been accorded to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency; Director, Office of Management and Budget; the Director, National Drug Control Policy; and the U.S. Trade Representative.

I'll repeat the most important piece of information from this section:

The Cabinet includes the Vice President and the heads of 15 executive departments.



So, by very definition, the Vice President is part of the Executive Branch, as defined by Article II of our Constitution. That pretty much takes care of any other argument people might make to change this fact.

But, here's another piece of this puzzle that supports the validity of the fact about the Vice President not being part of the Executive Branch.

Vice President's Ceremonial Office

Former Office of the Secretary of the Navy

In addition to the Vice President's Office in the West Wing, the Vice President and his staff maintain a set of offices in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB), which is located next to the West Wing on the White House premises. The Vice President's Office in the EEOB is called the Vice President's Ceremonial Office. This restored, historical office served as the Navy Secretary's Office when the EEOB housed the State, Navy and War Departments. Today, the Vice President uses the office for meetings and press interviews.

The offices that the Vice President uses for business are located either IN the White House or ON White House property.


If he weren't part of the Executive Branch, then he wouldn't have his office on White House property.



So...

Even though the Vice President has some duties outside that of the Executive Branch, Dick Cheney knows damn well that he is a member of the Executive Branch.

He doesn't want to admit this next part... but I'm sure that Cheney knows that he MUST BY LAW comply with the transparency that is our Checks & Balances system. He can't choose what he can do and what he doesn't need to do.

And I don't accept any potential argument that President Bush gave Cheney a different set of rules post 9/11 when that "shadow government" was created. If something like that did happen, I believe that the President went beyond his power if he gave the Vice President exemption from the normal rules a Vice President must follow.

If that happened, then it needs to be corrected, and possibly those involved need to be punished for such transgressions.



BOTTOM LINE:


This Administration needs to go on record that the Vice President is subject to the same rules of all elected officials and the members of the Executive Branch.

Full disclosure as is appropriate must happen immediately, and everyone needs to comply to all rules/laws that apply.


If a position of secrecy is continued in conjunction of an attitude of aggression towards the Laws of the Land by the Vice President's Office (and this Administration) then Congress needs to do their sworn duty & apply the necessary Checks & Balances to correct the situation.


Whatever that may mean - our Country deserves no less if our integrity is to be maintained.

The very un-Presidential (and cowardly) John Edwards

John Edwards proved beyond any doubt that he doesn't deserve to be our Next President by his actions/inactions over the past 48 hours.

The former Senator allowed his wife to pull a stunt that was designed to put Edwards in the news again while also serving as a means for him to pander money for his lagging campaign.

As if that wasn't bad enough, Edwards sunk to the level of total hypocrisy by doing the very things he was attacking others for doing.

Let's begin by how John Edwards cowardly let his wife do his dirty work for him when she called in to Chris Matthews on his opinion propaganda program, "Hardball" on the admittedly liberally-biased MSNBC.

Elizabeth Edwards called in to attack the very controversial Ann Coulter in a move that was obviously designed to put her husband back in the news while also getting money for his campaign at the expense of Coulter.

This is something that shows a new low for the even descending Edwards campaign. It's disgusting for John Edwards to use his wife in a way that would make Coulter look like a scumbag if she tried defending herself against the attacks of Elizabeth Edwards. It's pathetic for the Edwards campaign to use the fact that his wife is known to be a cancer sufferer - because it's a move that could only be a lose-lose for Coulter.

If Ann doesn't respond to the lies, distortions, or untruths being said by Elizabeth Edwards then the rhetoric & propaganda would be seen as the truth - even though it is not.

BUT... if Coulter responds to the comments (as the Edwards campaign knew she would) then she gets painted as someone who has no integrity or morals for going up against someone stricken with cancer.

Either way, the Edwards people try to claim a victory when they don't deserve any kind words for such offensive behavior.


Elizabeth Edwards accused Coulter of being a negative influence on the political process. But the fact is, Ann Coulter wasn't making any attacks on John Edwards while on "Hardball" - let alone make the specific attacks that Elizabeth Edwards mentioned. It is true that Ann Coulter has said some bad things about John Edwards, but that was in the past. Some of the things Elizabeth Edwards was referring to happened between 6 months to 3 years before Coulter appeared on "Hardball".

One of the specific comments that Elizabeth Edwards accused Coulter of saying, was never actually said by Ann Coulter. But that didn't prevent Chris Matthews to allow Mrs Edwards to twist what Coulter did say so that the Edwards campaign could claim they are under attack from Coulter with "hate mongering" speech.

The alleged comment was actually something that Coulter referenced another person saying. She made the comment to point out how liberals & Democrats are hypocrites when it comes to holding their own to the standards they want conservatives & Republicans to follow.

The comment in question was when Bill Maher said that he wished Vice President Cheney would die in a terrorist attack so that our troops wouldn't have to in places like Afghanistan.

When Maher said such an offensive comment NOBODY on the liberal left expressed outrage.

BUT... when Ann Coulter said that she shouldn't have joked about the sexuality of John Edwards because of how people on the liberal left demonized her for saying the offensive comment that she did - that she should have just said that she wanted Edwards to die from a terrorist attack because of how nobody reacted to maher's comments.

There's a subtle difference in what Coulter actually SAID from what Matthews & the Edwards campaign want you to BELIEVE Coulter said. For those of you infected by the liberal propaganda machine... I'll explain the difference.

Coulter never said that she wanted Edwards to die in a terrorist attack... she said that IF she would say that, then the same people who let Bill Maher get away with ACTUALLY saying that about the Vice President should also let her get away with saying the same thing, only about one of their own.

Coulter was being sarcastic, because she knows damn well that the same people who applauded Maher for his comment would be the same people who would call for her to be stoned at the city gates. It's sad that those she was talking about when she made that comment would be too dim to understand the point she was making.


But people like Matthews & the Edwards campaign can't use something that points out the hypocrisy that taints every facet of their being - they choose to distort the facts so that it benefits their agenda. All they need is enough people who will fall for their lies so that they can gain from their unprofessional (not to mention un-presidential) behavior.


That was just one aspect of how Matthews & Elizabeth Edwards attempted to gain from attacking Ann Coulter. There's much more to talk about.

Chris Matthews was trying to prevent Ann Coulter from responding to the accusations that Elizabeth Edwards hurled at Coulter. Then Matthews went on show after show (NBC/MSNBC show it should be noted) trying to spin what happened to the benefit of John Edwards. But what else would you expect from a guy who admits that he is ok with letting his political views effect how you get your news from him. He thinks it's as patriotic as such people as Thomas Paine when he offered editorial opinion as a way to spark the American Revolution. (note to Matthews, it's not the same - it's the exact opposite)


Another un-presidential tactic that John Edwards himself is guilty of is when he actually LIED about the phone call his wife made when Edwards appeared on "Hardball" the next day.

In case you missed his LIE, I'll bring you up to speed:

"Hardball" producer, Tammy Haddad, explained just minutes before John Edwards appeared on the show that Elizabeth Edwards called in prior to the start of the show asking to speak with Coulter. Tammy Haddad brought this idea to Coulter, and Ann agreed to having Elizabeth's call be part of Coulter's appearance on "Hardball". To repeat the main point, Mrs Edwards called in prior to the show starting, and it was known to all involved that she would be addressing Coulter.

BUT... minutes after Tammy Haddad tells the "Hardball" viewers about this aspect of the previous night's show - John Edwards offers a version that conflicts the facts. It's no surprise that John Edwards version makes his wife appear in a better light than what she deserves.


John Edwards wants us to believe that his wife called in AFTER seeing what Ann Coulter was saying about her husband in specific, and Democrats in general. It paints his wife as someone defending her husband after Coulter was out of line on that night's show.

Nice picture... it's just not even close to the truth.

The call was a planned move, and it was obviously designed to benefit John Edwards by getting him airtime as well as gaining him financially.


If John Edwards had any moral integrity, he wouldn't have IMMEDIATELY used the situation on his website, as well as in emails to people so that they could try to get millions in donations before the end of the next quarter. But (according to Edwards himself) it's ok for him & his wife to attack Coulter while exploiting the situation for monetary gain - you know how hypocrites follow the "do as I say, not as I do" policy.


It's very sad how the Edwards Campaign has to sink to spinning this incident way beyond belief on his website. If you go there (and I won't give him any publicity by giving the URL here) you see that they have video of Coulter with this (wishful thinking) caption:

"Ann Coulter Attacks! The right wing is running scared - watch Coulter's disturbing new attack."

I didn't see any fear coming from Coulter. In fact, I feel that she ended up looking better than Mrs Edwards did, even if Chris Matthews wants you to believe the opposite.

But I want to get back to more of John Edwards being totally un-presidential.


John Edwards blasted Coulter for having "no shame", not being anywhere near the "mainstream", being a "hate monger" who was part of the "crazies" who are hypocritical while lowering the standards of the political dialog. His wife also accused Coulter of misleading the young women & other people attending her interview on "Hardball".


This coming from people claiming that they are taking the moral high ground while their opponents resort to insults and other attacks on the poor Democrats.


If that doesn't show a clear picture of how John Edwards & his wife are hypocritical... here's what Chris Matthews allowed people to say about Ann Coulter after John Edwards finished attacking Coulter while prostituting himself.


Chris attempted to have a "debate" on the event being talked about. I say "attempted" because he didn't start by asking an objective question of his guests... he began by making a statement showing that a conclusion had already been made as far as Matthews was concerned.

The "debate" began with Matthews saying "Ann WAS wrong." - rather than "Was Ann Wrong?" or even "Who was wrong?"


Then Matthews allowed people to refer to Coulter as an "idiot", "sexist", "outrageous", "vile", and the "Anna Nicole Smith of politics" who hits "below the belt".

Chris Matthews referred to Coulter as being a "Gattling Gun" of debate because of the way she goes about her debating a topic.


These comments came from people who claim to be totally unlike the people on the other side, while doing the very things they accuse their opponents of doing.


That description of the "debate" sure seems to be exactly the type of offensive behavior that John Edwards & his wife say lowers the dialog to the point of preventing any progress.

Why is this behavior wrong when conservatives / Republicans do it... but acceptable when liberals / Democrats do it? (the answer is that it's NOT ok for anyone to do it)


Another example of why John Edwards should never be our President is when he said that people shouldn't buy Ann Coulter's books... BUT they SHOULD send him money, even though he's as guilty of the things he accuses people like Ann Coulter (and also Karl Rove, someone who had nothing to do with the even in question, but was attacked by Edwards anyway) of doing.


I challenge John Edwards & Chris Matthews to correct the flase statements they have made at the expense of Ann Coulter (and Karl Rove) by going on the air and devoting equal time to explain to everyone that Ann Coulter didn't say the things she was being accused of when she appeared on "Hardball" on 6/26/07. I'll let them mention that she DID say these things between 6 months & 3 years ago... but not recently.

I call on John Edwards to take down the Coulter video from his website, stop trying to get donations by using Coulter as a talking point, (especially when the "attack" in question was totally fabricated by the Edwards people for the sole purpose of using for their gain) and to return ALL money they received from using Ann Coulter.


That's a fair request when you consider that both John Edwards & his wife want Ann Coulter to give up her 1st Amendment right to free speech. If they want Coulter to stop talking about them, then the Edwards campaign must hold themselves to the same standard.


If John Edwards refuses to practice what he preaches for others... he should immediately drop out of the Presidential 08 race!!


If John Edwards can't (or won't) show that he will do what he expects of his opponents, he's a hypocrite in addition to a coward who let his sick wife do his dirty work for him while being the exact type of person he demonizes in his opponents!!


P.S. for John Edwards:

You can't claim to be a "man of the people" after earning your millions from hedge funds. The "people" could never afford to get involved with such rich elitist activities.

You also can't be one of us if you have a professional stylist come to you for a $400 haircut. If you really were one of us, you'd never participate in such a gross waste of that large sum of money. Do you even realize how many Americans don't even have $400 in their weekly paycheck... let alone having that amount around to waste on something that costs $15 at the local mall for the same haircut?

And finally...

To the "people" you claim to represent... the war isn't a "bumper sticker slogan" - it's a harsh reality!!!

You have proven that your sense of reality is way off the mark.

NBC/MSNBC admit to biased "reporting"

Recently three comments were made on MSNBC that prove beyond any doubt that the network not only has a liberal bias, but that it is o.k. to present a biased version of the "facts" and call it news reporting. After viewing these incidents on MSNBC I have come to the conclusion that NBC/MSNBC can no longer be called a network of journalism.


1. Recently on "Hardball" Chris Matthews took up a topic that I and one the people that offers input to this blog have been constantly bringing to the attention of the management & on air personalities of NBC/MSNBC.

Chris Matthews (as well as one of his liberal commentators) admitted that it is not necessary to remain objective when you are reporting the news to people viewing your programs. The consensus of this "debate" was that you can have a bias toward a particular political viewpoint, and that it's ok to allow this viewpoint to determine how you present your stories to those viewing the program.

This wasn't the end of the discussion, Matthews allowed this opinion to be further defined.

Matthews said that there was only one news network even TRYING to have an objective, unbiased viewpoint when reporting the news. It wasn't a surprise when Matthews revealed that this single network trying to live up to what journalism is supposed to be about was NOT NBC/MSNBC but ABC!

What WAS shocking to me was that Chris Matthews had no problem admitting to the world that he believes that presenting a news story to your viewers in a way that promotes one political viewpoint over another was similar to when people like Thomas Paine wrote his articles that helped spark the American Revolution!!


For those of you who don't blindly follow the rhetoric/propaganda of the liberal machine, these two situations have nothing in common.

Thomas Paine was writing editorials that offered why he believed that his opinions were correct for the people in the Colonies, and why he felt that the status quo was wrong for the people.

When a network uses the Peoples' Airwaves to report the news stories of the day, it is under the assumption that the report will be an objective, unbiased telling of what the story is about - without giving favor to one side or the other. People expect that what they are being told what Sgt. Joe Friday of "Dragnet" would say as being "just the facts" and nothing more.


But here we have a member of the NBC/MSNBC networks freely admitting that they have no problem with pushing their political viewpoint to whoever will watch their TV shows and read the newspapers/magazines affiliated with them.

It's bad enough to know that Matthews and his associates present their "version" of the news, but it's even worse when these people act in this manner while demonizing FOX News network for doing the exact same thing - only doing so for the opposing political viewpoint.

The final straw of this hypocrisy on this topic is when NBC/MSNBC promotes themselves in commercials promoting their shows as being the opposite of what they actually are. It's laughable to sit through a commercial where show after show with obvious liberal bias is portrayed as offering a "fuller spectrum of news" It's even on the MSNBC website, as seen with this logo graphic.

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Art/SITEWIDE/colors_promo.standard.jpg

I guess this would be true, if you are talking about going from the lightest blue to the darkest blue.
(I'm sure many people missed this reference to blue being the color typically describing Democrats & the liberal
viewpoint. Chris Matthews frequently uses the term "True Blue" when talking about real liberal Democrats)

I find it ironic that the logo graphic used on the website uses the color blue (and various shades of blue) - but then maybe it's no accident considering how consistently NBC/MSNBC shows their liberal bias.

So, NBC/MSNBC portrays themselves as being unbiased, objective, and offering a more total look at all sides of the news... while freely admitting that they actually present a biased version of the news that is pro-liberal and anti-conservative.


2. Dan Abrams recently proved the second aspect of how NBC/MSNBC is operating in a hypocritical manner when presenting their version of the news.

Dan was "guest hosting" for Joe Scarborough on the MSNBC show "Scarborough Country" when he admitted on air that the show (in specific, so we can reasonably assume that this applies to NBC/MSNBC in general) wasn't about "a free debate of the issues".

Abrams (the General Manager of MSNBC) did to prove this attitude lacking in free & open debate of opposing viewpoints was to silence John Ridley, an invited guest of the show. This is odd, mostly because Ridley is known as being liberal in his political viewpoint on most issues while voicing his opinions on websites & network programs known for their liberal bias.

If this happened once it would be bad, but it happened on two separate "Scarborough Country" shows that Ridley appeared on with Abrams as the "guest" host.

The second incident became a news story when it appeared that Abrams had "blacklisted" Ridley from appearing on MSNBC. At the time, Ridley was part of the on air staff of another MSNBC program called "Morning Joe". This was the morning show for "Scarborough Country" host Joe Scarborough - it offered a different on air dynamic because it had Scarborough (a former Republican Congressman who calls himself an "independent" voice of conservative views) with Ridley and news reporter Mika Brzezinski as his liberal counterparts.

People began to flood MSNBC with emails basically calling for Abrams to stop preventing Ridley from being on MSNBC. (of course, the official comment to that idea from MSNBC was that Ridley wasn't being prevented from being on MSNBC, and the real reason behind his absence for a few days was due to Ridley not being available for that time period) John Ridley was back on "Morning Joe" a few days after the show addressed that alleged issue... but this was a temporary situation. As of this morning (Wed. June 27, 2007) John Ridley's "spot" on the show was being filled by MSNBC producer, Willie Geist, who also works on the other "token" non-liberally biased show on MSNBC - "The Situation with Tucker Carlson". (which I think was shortened to just "Tucker" awhile back when the format of the show was changed from very independent to an obviously less independent voice)

It should be noted that "Morning Joe" had comedian Chuck Nice as guest commentator for a few days. (I'm not going to offer any opinion about the obvious fact of Chuck Nice being African-American as is also the case with John Ridley because although it might be relevant, I don't want to devote time to this aspect of NBC/MSNBC not having a very diverse ethnic representation for the "main" time slots on the network schedule) Chuck Nice did a great job on a show about politics - when you consider that he's a comedian and not a pundit - and that he normally appears on shows dealing with pop culture & celebrities, not politicians.

Why he was replaced for Willie Geist is unknown. Not that I have a problem with Geist, he's one of a very few group at MSNBC that isn't either obviously biased or following along with the liberal bias to keep his job. NBC/MSNBC has a reputation for getting rid of people with conservative or independent viewpoints - at least the ones they can't force into either hiding their views to the public or be willing to allow their program to be altered to minimize/erase any independent appearance to be seen.


Dan Abrams isn't the only one at NBC/MSNBC to prevent people from expressing opposing views while helping those who agree with the liberal viewpoint to get their comments heard.

Chris Matthews prevents open debate of issues by also silencing anyone opposing his position. A recent example is how Matthews tried to keep Ann Coulter from responding to the comments of the wife of Democratic Presidental Candidate, John Edwards.

Matthews allowed Elizabeth Edwards to say comments that were either improper, incorrect, or not relevant - while not allowing Coulter to defend herself to the attacks.

Then Matthews appeared on programs aired on NBC & MSNBC where he offered his biased opinion about who "won" the debate, when it was clear that his opinion was not an accurate portrayal of what actually happened. He also failed to mention how he helped "gang-up" on Coulter and basically "stacked the deck" against Coulter by not allowing a fair debate on his show.

Then, to compound his biased presentation of the incident, Matthews allowed John Edwards to spew rhetoric for 15 minutes on the following day's episode of "Hardball". John Edwards was attempting to make people believe that Coulter was in the wrong for her actions, while doing the exact same things he was accusing Coulter of doing.

John Edwards showed how hypocritical he is by calling Coulter names, attacking her (and even Karl Rove, who wasn't even involved with the incident) with comments that prove beyond any doubt that he is not the person for the job of being our next President. John Edwards showed how un-Presidential he is by engaging in the very tactics that he demonized Coulter for allegedly doing.


It needs to be noted that Matthews was untruthful when he talked about what Ann Coulter said, both on his show and on previous occasions. But this unprofessional behavior is totally ok with the way Matthews believes news can be reported.

For instance, Ann Coulter NEVER said that she wished John Edwards would die in a terrorist attack. But, that's exactly what Matthews said several times since her appearance on his show.

What Coulter DID say was a reference to a comment that Bill Maher said that he wished happened to Vice President Cheney. Ann Coulter commented how nobody (especially Chris Matthews) was outraged by Maher's comment that was so out of line, that in the future she should just say that John Edwards should suffer the same fate as Maher wished for Cheney.

She didn't actually say that she wished John Edwards be killed in a terrorist attack... she pointed out that IF she would say such a thing that people wouldn't be able to say she was wrong for it since nobody said Maher was wrong for his comment saying the idea for real rather than just reference the idea.

It's a subtle difference lost on people like Matthews, Edwards, Olbermann, or anyone who mistakenly accused Coulter of saying something she never said.

But it doesn't matter to the liberal gasbags who will forget about the facts when they want to attack a conservative.

Chris Matthews needs to publicly retract how he misreported what he claims Coulter said. He also needs to set the record straight and admit that Coulter didn't say anything that could be spun as an attack on Mrs Edwards when she called his show to blind-side Coulter.

That is a must, unless NBC/MSNBC & Matthews want to show the people that the "truth" and the "facts" have no place on their network.


Matthews will berate any conservative (even a member of Congress) on his show if they make any statement he disagrees with - while allowing Democrats to say totally ridiculous statements no matter how little sense they make.


I find it ironic (and totally hypocritical) that Keith Olbermann had the gall to put the banner "errorist agenda" in one of his never-ending attacks on a Republican. (Rudy Guiliani in this instance) That is a term that totally describes the way NBC/MSNBC goes about misleading/lying to the people they spew their propaganda (I mean, news) to.


3. The third example of MSNBC admitting to an agenda in their reporting was when Joe Scarborough recently told the world how Keith Olbermann goes out of his way to say things and put segments on his program that are aimed at attacking FOX News and their opinion giver (this network is no better than NBC/MSNBC) Bill O'Reilly.

Scarborough admitted that Keith and his producers seek to get O'Reilly to respond to their unprofessional tactics - to the point that they all have a huge laugh when they succeed in their goal. This is definitely not acting with "integrity" as Steve Capus claimed would be the way things are done in the aftermath of the Don Imus firing.

Scarborough explained how Olbermann was rewarded (in the range of millions of dollars) for his stalking attacks of O'Reilly and FOX News. That doesn't seem to describe a network with integrity, does it?



So... to sum this mess up:

1. Dan Abrams (General Manager of MSNBC) admits that NBC/MSNBC is not a place for open debate of opposing viewpoints, while the on-air personnel censor/silence the opposition while promoting those of like opinions.

2. Joe Scarborough admits that people who act without integrity, attack the opposition, and distort the truth in their reporting get richly rewarded for being as unprofessional as possible.

3. Chris Matthews admits that his policy (obviously endorsed by NBC/MSNBC) of having his political bias distort the stories being reported on NBC/MSNBC (and their affiliated newspapers/magazines) so that they promote one political viewpoint over another is the PATRIOTIC thing to do - in the spirit of such founding fathers as Thomas Paine.


With nobody speaking out at the hypocrisy of this corporation that defrauds the American People every time they forward the liberal propaganda agenda - it's time for someone, ANYONE to have the courage to stand up and say that NBC/MSNBC should not be allowed to poison the public airwaves - and take action to resolve this grave offense.

I'd ask for Tim Russert to rise to this challenge... but it's obvious that he has sold his soul to people like Dan Abrams, Steve Capus, Phil Griffin, and the liberal agenda they serve.

It's a sad day when Tim Russert, the last true journalist we had in America, allows his once revered profession to become a prostitue to special interest.