The Scandal Sheet

Liberally Biased Media endorse Dems to forget what the People want

2010-02-23T05:21:00.000-08:00

Today on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" notoriously biased journalist from The Washington Post Eugene Robinson endorsed a radical idea that Democrats should forget what the People in America want/don't want regarding Healthcare Reform & just pass whatever plan they want into law - while they still can!

Never mind that the People do not want the fatally flawed plans that the House & Senate have put up for vote... or that the White House version isn't any better - Robinson wants the Democrats to just pass their will into law before the November elections - when the People will most likely show Washington D.C. that they aren't behind the Democrats & their total control of the country anymore... and before an almost certain defeat of Democrats in general removes them from power in at least 1, if not both aspects of Congress.

That is about as Unamerican and partisan as it gets folks!!!

Never mind what the voters want, just force your will upon them & later on demands they say thanks - regardless of how damaging it is to the Country!!!

Robinson has always been liberally biased, as 99.9% of the NBC/Universal "journalists" and their affiliated media outlets are... but this puts him in the wacko category with the likes of Olbermann, Schultz, Maddow, Shuster, Matthews, Todd, Brewer, etc. in a way that hurts our Country... and this needs to be stopped before the liberally biased media that forwards the Democrat agenda at the expense of truth & to the detriment of America succeeds in stealing another election cycle - and before they succeed in damaging our Country further!!!

Irony of ironies!!! MSNBC's hypocritical way of using double standards to declare only the opposition guilty of hypocritical behavior

2009-03-06T15:24:00.000-08:00

Instead of doing the same old scam of misleading the viewers with yet another "Hypocrisy Watch" where you distort the facts to make republicans seem to be the ones to blame - when it's actually the democrats deserving the blame for several failures you choose not to report... and do a "Hypocrisy Watch" that gets the story right because the truth determines the outcome - not some agenda for the liberal cause?

If you cared to research the situation, you would see that Republicans aren't as bad off as you keep telling the viewing public - and it's actually the Democrats that fit the description you use to label Republicans.

The liberal media says that the Republican party is in trouble because they have nobody leading them - and the fabricated "Limbaugh" problem is used as proof...

But what would you call a party that has one person claiming to be the leader, and then has his agenda defeated by members of his own party as they try to prove that they are in charge?

Well, that is the Democrats since Obama took office.

The President claimed to be in charge as he told Congress how he expected things to work out... and then the House Democratic leadership showed Obama by their counter-productive actions that they won't listen to him telling them what to do... and as this is going on the Senate Democrats add to the problem by still not being able to get anything accomplished - even after two years of them being in total control.

Then add in how Obama's senior staff behaves in ways directly contradicting his campaign promise of leaving partisanship in the past...

Having two democratic strategists that are so partisan it borders on delusional behavior like Begala & Carville having daily secret meeting with Obama's senior people - resulting in the smoke & mirrors scam of distracting the American people with the fabricated Limbaugh drama to keep us from seeing how the Dems & the Obama Administration took the bad situation handed to them from Bush's departure - and making things exponentially worse by flawed policies - and you in the liberally biased media mislead the people by covering up the obvious flaws of the democrat's agenda as things keep getting worse.

It's been 2 years of Democrat rule in Congress, so still blaming Bush & co for the current debacle only makes you part of the problem, not the solution.

Your choice of still trying to find ways to blame Karl Rove long after he stopped having any say in public policy doesn't help solve the problem at hand... but holding Begala, Carville, Obama's senior staff (as well as other super-partisan democrat pundits like Mark Penn) accountable for what you call "operation chaos" when their efforts would be better used in finding a way to work with Republicans, not against them (or in spite of them) is the first step to a better day for all Americans.

Karl Rove isn't the boogeyman you want people to believe him to be...

But as bad as his ideas were to the American public as a whole way back when he had some clout to shape the Bush policy... what Obama's senior staff and super-partisan pundits are doing now is far worse than what Karl Rove ever did.

And allowing people to come on air and get away with personal attacks against Rush Limbaugh - using several offensive adjectives as he sunk to the low level of personally insulting someone just because they disagree with you.

What made this offensive display of unprofessional behavior by the guest commentator was the way Chris Matthews not only allowed the string of insults to be said on air without one word of discipline... Matthews clearly showed his approval of this unwarranted attack by loudly laughing for several seconds.

If you want to expose hypocrisy, the first thing you need to do is clean house at MSNBC of such unprofessional behavior before you can have any integrity at being the watchdog of being in the wrong.

If you have any integrity at all... you need to hold Matthews & his guest accountable for being a much bigger offender than what you believe Karl Rove is still guilty of.

If you fail to set Matthews & his associate straight... then you don't have a leg to stand on as you judge those who disagree with you... and not one tiny bit of moral ground to stand on.

If you can't or won't apply this moral standard to everyone - regardless of political affiliation or personal connection to you... then it's time for you to quit - if not then you would be the biggest example of hypocrisy!!!

Contessa Brewer & her delusions of grandeur

2009-03-05T21:21:00.001-08:00

I love to watch MSNBC because it's better than going to a comedy show. I have to laugh at how the on air personalities pretend to be actual journalists reporting news - when really they are just a bunch of clowns.

The latest example happened today when Contessa Brewer reported the story of Rush Limbaugh challenging President Obama to come on his radio program to debate the current issues - Democrat vs. Conservative.

As expected, MSNBC is bashing Rush & the Republicans... they try to make news by repeating ridiculous questions and coming up with crazy thoeries that demonize Limbaugh and attempt to portray Rebublicans as outdated, impotent dupes to Limbaugh's alleged political capital.

And when Contessa Brewer got her turn on air, she set a new personal record for stupidity - and I must say, that's some accomplishment because Brewer has a long history with being the village idiot at MSNBC/NBC!!

After berating Limbaugh and making fun of his challenge for Obama to debate him on his show Brewer loudly proclaimed that she found Limbaugh's comments funny - and then she explained how she had issued a similar challenge for Limbaugh to come on her program and debate political issues.

I almost felt sorry for her as she expressed how confused she was that Limbaugh seemed to have no desire to debate political issues with her - especially since he was implying negative things about Obama for not meeting his challenge while Limbaugh was guilty of the same thing... almost.

What Brewer fails to understand is that Limbaugh wouldn't consider meeting her challenge, and her cluelessness as to the reasons she'll never see Rush in her studio is both pathetic and a perfect example why she should never be allowed on air again.

Why would Limbaugh lower himself to debating Brewer? This is the person that couldn't tell when Tommy Chong was making fun of her when she tried to interview him on MSNBC during the Paris Hilton jail fiasco. Contessa had no clue at all about what Chong was trying to get across to viewers as he made her look like a 3rd grader who got held back twice.

Another sign of how unfit for the job Brewer is was when her interview went sour and she decided to try insulting Chong - implying that he might be stupid or brain damaged from smoking pot... she even went so far as to ask him if he had smoked anything that morning - as if his witty, sarcastic commentary was really just him not being very smart.

I'm sure Cronkite, Murrow, Walters, etc. totally approved of the way Brewer rolled her eyes at Chong in obvious disgust.

And this rude, condescending attitude is normal behavior for Brewer, as witnessed by the way she berated Limbaugh today, and again awhile back when she was rude when interviewing Rick Santelli who was on location at the NYSE.

Brewer was so obviously rude that another MSNBC on air commentator pointed out how rude she was at the end of the segment. This time, Contessa chose to also berate, demean, and make fun of someone Santelli had made the mistake of including in the segment's conversation... and I'm sure her wished that he never got on air since the result ended in a certain humilation for him on national tv.

But if that wasn't enough, Limbaugh could use the many examples of how unprofessional & unqualified Brewer is for making intelligent conversation with someone... not to mention conduct a professional & informative interview. If Brewer can't keep it together for the easy segments, what makes her think she's is ready for a hard-hitting debate on issues with an informed opponent who is a true believer in how right his views are?

When Contessa was talking to a reporter on location in Galveston in the aftermath of a devastating hurricane. As the reporter talks to Contessa about how Ike has caused chaos for so many people now without a home to go back to, and a graphic tells of the $16 Billion in estimated damages, Brewer shows her lack of professionalism by ignoring the tragedy & loss on camera to talk about a bug that is on the camera's lens. I'm sure those effected by the disaster took comfort in how Brewer gave a bug more importance than them and what they were going through.

And don't forget the time Contessa decided that she needed to put lip gloss on her lips more than MSNBC needed someone at the studio being seen paying attention to a reporter telling how there was a serious security concern at a Giuliani campaign event.

I guess you can't expect someone like Brewer to be interested if the topic is a natural disaster or a potential security risk event for a Presidential candidate... Contessa herself admitted that she loves "computer solitaire, ice cream (with a twist!) and Bloody Marys" - so it's understandable why bugs & lip gloss mean more to her than paying attention while real news is happening on her watch.

But I'm sure a big reason why Limbaugh wouldn't come to MSNBC for any reason, let alone debating political issues with anyone of the on air staff, might be the way MSNBC makes sure their point of view is the one viewers get to see, and the hosts of the MSNBC shows have many tricks they will use to make the opposing viewpoint seem ridiculous while also making theirs seem to be the only reasonable one to have.

People at MSNBC will berate, bully, censor, cut off, and even shout over a guest foolish enough to have a view that differs from the liberal talking points. No tactic is too low if it means forwarding the liberal agenda... even if it means reporting inaccuratly what the other side said as the host gets in the last word as the segment is wrapped up.

It's not like Brewer has a track record for getting the facts straight if it means the Republicans/conservatives end up looking good to the viewers... and you can forget a correction if it becomes obvious to everyone that a report is totally wrong.

Maybe Rush is concerned that Brewer will have another bad day like the time she totally misreported a story about John McCain. (never confirmed, and never corrected after the inacurrate reports aired)

How can you try to have an honest debate on important issues when the other person has no problem putting incorrect information out as undisputed fact??

And if that person is in control of how long the debate will last, has control over how the process happens, and is in charge of the footage and can edit it however they wish - having the final say on what the viewing public gets to see when they allow it to air?

Contessa Brewer is an idiot if she actually believes she has what it takes to debate any informed opponent on serious political issues. But she is delusional if she thinks that someone like Limbaugh - a person who muct be high up on the MSNBC list of people they consider "the enemy" - would fall victim to what would never be an honest debate.

Who in their right mind would allow such an obviously biased media outlet like MSNBC have total control over what the video of the debate would look for the viewing public if it gets recorded at the MSNBC/NBC studios by MSNBC/NBC employees?

The bottom line is that Rush wouldn't lower himself to play whatever crooked game anyone at MSNBC would try on him... but if he was crazy enough to give it a shot, you can be certain that he'd never let himself be reduced to sharing a stage with someone not fit to read the times for movies at a small town theater.

But it was fun watching Contessa report the type of stories someone like her should be lucky to get rather than waste airtime as she totally fails trying to read a real news story from the prompter. (remember when she fell for the "I'm not gay" prank pulled on her?)

The final slam to Brewer & her delusions of grandeur was watching her get relegated to reading stories about the Octomom's crazy 911 call, getting excited over Michael Jackson's insane idea to charge people around $500 to see him suck as bad as Brewer doing karaoke, show video of the judge throwing the book at a dumb criminal, an idiot getting hit by a train & thinking it was a good thing, and Robin Williams health issues, and Obama's gray hair drama, among other non-important stories - while the other people get to talk about real stories people actually care about.

Contessa should worry more about not looking like a total d-bag every day rather than trying to get in the big leagues by challenging someone to a debate - how stupid is she to ask for something that would only make her look completely unqualified to all who have nothing else better to do than tune in to her ramblng.

Oh, one final clue for Contessa...

Why would Rush debate you when you have never had an original thought worth saying on air? The only reason you sound halfway competent some of the time is because someone else is in charge of writing what you get to say as you "report"?? And even that only works some of the time since you have this habit of saying whatever dumb thought pops into that empty head of yours.

You would be an embarrassment if you were still on a local network affiliate... but it's so sad to see a national network let an airhead lower the quality standard and ruin what little reputation is left for MSNBC/NBC.

You should do us all a favor & quit... go spend more time on your solitaire, ice cream, & Bloody Marys... please.

So much for a "new era" of post-partisan politics by the Obama Administration/Democrats in Congress

2009-03-05T16:22:00.000-08:00

Rush Limbaugh is as much a Republican party leader as any of the
liberally biased talking heads at MSNBC are leaders of the Democrat
party. Rush is simply the very vocal minority of the Conservative
aspect of the Republican party - and even though he likes to think he's
a major player (in the same way that liberal
commentators/strategists/members of the media want the viewing public
to believe) he has no "political capital" to get his agenda done.

Unlike
the liberally biased members of the media at MSNBC/NBC, Huffington
Report, DailyKos, etc. - who have been rewarded by the current
Administration & Congressional Leaders for the hard work they did
during the election process as they mislead the American People with
liberal propaganda in place of objective news reporting (not to mention
whatever dirty tactic they could think of as they forwarded the liberal
democrat agenda - whatever it took as long as it meant stealing the
election for their democrat bosses)

Chris Matthews
bragged that he lets his personal opinions shape how he presents
information to the viewing public, not caring one bit about how a
journalist should conduct himself, as he (and almost everyone else at
MSNBC/NBC) gave up any sense of having integrity as they chose instead
to sabotage the process for one party over another.

Rush
Limbaugh has his right to express whatever opinion he wishes to
broadcast to his listeners - regardless of how stupid they may be...
but that doesn't mean he has the power to force his views on the party
as a whole, especially since his positions are on the fringe of the
movement, and people need to know that there aren't as many of people
who agrees with him as people want us all to believe.

Just
as Rush should stick to commentating & not trying to run the show,
his counterparts of the liberally biased viewpoint shouldn't be allowed
to have any more of a say than anyone else in this country. It's time
for the liberally biased media outlets like MSNBC/NBC to stop doing the
exact same thing they demonize Rush for trying to do for his party of
choice.

Unless pundits,commentators, opinionists,
"so-called journalists", bloggers, etc. hold themselves to the same
standards they hold the opposition to, then it would be better if they
just didn't say anything at all.

Like Obama said during the campaign - there's not red states or blue states... we live in the UNITED STATES.

So,
it's time the media tried to follow in those footsteps... and maybe
Obama's staff & fellow party members should get the memo about how
Obama wants to have a different kind of post-partisan era for his 4
year term... that way maybe "do nothing" democrats can work together
with "stubborn" republicans so they can fix the system they all helped
to break before it's too late for all of us here in the USA!!

Hypocricy Watch on MSNBC/NBC

2009-03-05T16:20:00.000-08:00

Why do you selectively choose how you frame each "story" to help Dems and/or hurt Republicans? Why do you only say Limbaugh wants Obama to fail, but not report the entire commentary with the context? Limbaugh wants Obama to fail IF his goal is to replace the capitalistic free market with a liberal Democrat version of Socialism - NOT that he just wants the President to fail in every way possible. That is misleading to say it the way you do, and it promotes the same agenda that the Obama Administration is using to take the focus away from how badly the Dems are destroying the country ever since people like you helped them gain power back in 2006.

Obama claims to want a different type of Administration - one that is post-partisan... yet he has his chief of staff conduct secret meetings with the most partisan of liberal democrat strategists. Obama has his staff do the dirty work for him while trying to fool people into buying his "new politician" scam. How can Obama let his senior staff consort with such delusionally partisan hatchetmen as Begala - secretly polling the public with opinion polls so loaded against the Republican Party that it must be hard for even the super biased MSNBC/NBC people to keep a straight face as you say whatever will make the typical dirty tactics seem perfectly ok.

And why do you guys say RNC chairman Steele is not doing so well at his new job, but make excuses galore about why Obama deserves less scrutiny on his performance over the same time frame?

Why is it ok for the WH to attack a radio personality as they force how the Republicans try to do their jobs... but say that's it's wrong for Republicans to call attention to how the WH is tarnishing the reputation of the Office of the President by attacking a citizen and hiding from the battle with the opposing party??

Why is it wrong for someone not of the Democrat/liberal affiliation to say they don't want Socialism to replace our way of living... but it was totally fine for Democrats to make outrageous personal attacks against the former President - basically saying he was either mentally challenged or totally incompetent? (and how about the way the liberal media said nothing when the Dems tried to destroy John McCain's reputation by making many comments that said he was not mentally competent and too old to be President)

no big surprise...

2008-09-22T14:04:00.001-07:00

It was no surprise when MSNBC proudly proclaimed that the new season of Saturday Night Live would have a Sarah Palin sketch where former cast member & writer, Tina Fey, returning to portray the Republican VP candidate... mostly because the entire NBC/Universal family is totally ok with expressing their liberal/democrat beliefs/opinions.

And because of the way the NBC/Universal family has an obvious lean to the left on the issues, it was pretty much a sure thing that the sketch would be one that pokes fun at Palin and her political party while also promoting the opposing party that is so beloved by this group of networks & other media outlets.

As anyone watching MSNBC on the Monday following that Saturday night can tell you, the sketch from SNL received total praise from what seemed like every single employee who was let on air for even the shortest time period.

If you had missed the show that night, you could easily come to believe that this wasn't just a simple sketch of comedy, but a historical event that will be talked about years from now as if it were Martin Luther King, Jr's "I Have A Dream" speech... if you hadn't seen the skit firsthand that is.

It was an ok skit, but nothing to brag about. When the time comes around next year, do get upset when it doesn't get nominated for an Emmy, let alone win the respected award for television excellence.

It was about as funny as any number of skits I could name from SNL's past year, but I can name at least 10 (or even a dozen) other things I have seen on tv over the past year that are much better than the way Tina Fey & Amy Poehler set the bar very low by putting several obvious and uninspired jokes into the skit.

I would actually say that the two women didn't put much effort intomaking a skit that would be intelligent, original, or even very funny - instead of just "phoning it in" as so many other SNL cast members (and former members) do when it comes to how they use whatever skills they might have as they attempt to make people laugh. I remember when SNL had cast members so talented that they couldn't help but strike comedy gold almost every time they were on the show... it's so sad to see how many of them simply do the same technique every time regardless of the situation (either because they can't or won't put enough effort into developing more than one character in their bag of tricks) like Adam Sandler, Will Farrell, Mike Myers, and even David Spade does in whatever they are doing at the time.

Another prime example of a lazy comedian (or maybe just a talentless one) who keeps going to the same old thing everytime long aftr it stopped being funny was when Chevy Chase showed up on "Morning Joe" that same morning to promote some charity cause his wife was associated with.

Chevy was so limited when he was chosen to do President Ford way back when that rather than try some half-assed impression (let alone an amazingly accurate one like so often done by Phil Hartman on SNL or even a Frank Calliendo on Mad TV) all we got from Chevy back then was his usual dumb trick of just flailing around like a drunk idiot who would use any fall to distract you from how bad his acting/comedy was that you couldn't wait for it to be over so he would leave your sight.

And like any of these people who can't even do that one thing they used to do anymore, Chevy resorted to answering questions on Morning Joe in a very loud & obnoxious old white guy tone as he just spit out some very partisan talking point as he made it very clear that he's a liberal democrat who is totally closed minded to any other viewpoint.

Which (finally) brings me to something I just heard on MSNBC about another former SNL cast member who was so untalented that after leaving the show he had no other choice but to do what Chevy did and run head on into the angry old white guy who also spits out the liberal democrat talking points and keeping his mind closed - I'm talking about professional d-bag, (and liberal political commentator) Al Franken.

Seems that Al is taking credit for at least part of the sketches on SNL recently where John McCain is made out to be as doddering of an idiot as Senator Byrd is on any given day in Washington.

Big deal... Al FRanken is still a Republican hating liberal as he tries to beome the worst thing any Minnesotan (and by extension, every American) would have to endure as he attempts to lower the quality of character (even for a Democrat in Congress) in Congress should be win his bid to be a US Senator in this fall's election in Minnesota.

It's no surprise that people like Franken, or the others at NBC/MSNBC who choose to let their liberal bias taint the way they do their job as an on air employee of a media outlet so obviously biased that they have stopped even trying to deny it anymore.

What did surprise me was that Senator Obama (or someone in his camp) had a moment of intelligent & origianl thought for once that resulted in Obama deciding to not appear on the same SNL episode that had the Palin skit on it.

It's not normal for these types to pass up a chance for double exposure - where you can attempt to slam your opponent while making yourself look as good as posible. But someone saw that having Obama appear on the same show that has a skit poking fun at the opposing party's VP candidate might come off as being too much for a reasonable person to consider acceptable... which probably was the correct choice.

There's no shortage of liberally biased media personalities tainting the airwaves - from Oprah's public comment that she would refuse to have Sarah Palin on her show until AFTER the election so nothing positive could happen to help the McCain/Palin campaign when Oprah made it publicly clear that she supports Obama 2000%

Or the many shows like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Real Time with Bill Mahar, any of the segments on Air America or MSNBC... hell, even such lightweight shows like ABC's The View, & The Soup and Chelsey Lately shows on the E! channel have taken a hard left when it comes to expressing their viewpoints.

It's so sad that the only examples of the opposite are just as idiotic like FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc make you want to throw up. Even the semi-reasonable Glenn Beck can't get through an hour without forcing his agenda down our throats.

I miss the days when news was unbiased, objective, and just reported the facts not attempt to force me to agree with them or be labeled a social pariah.

But I doubt it will end anytme soon... so what can a porson do?

In case you needed further proof...

2008-09-19T12:24:00.000-07:00

More examples of why NBC/MSNBC news are biased to the liberal/Democrat agenda - as if you needed more from the many I have provided in the past:

MSNBC makes a huge production of the Dems convention, shipping every possible member of the on-air staff to be on location, but not as much of an effort for the Republican convention the following week.

The only example of this that needs noted is how the big pooh-bah of bias (Keith Olbermann) was on location with Chris Matthews as they found new ways to praise the Dems, but Keith & Chris had to do a long distance tag team effort when time came for Olbermann to deal with the Republicans. No reason was given for this obvious unequal manner in which to cover the convention of the party Olbermann is paid huge bonus $$ to attack every night on his "news show".

The more and more often instances where off screen staff can be heard laughing loudly - and every time a Republican is the reason for the overt display of disrespect & unprofessional behavior.

More liberal media outlets & commentators are booked for the forwarding of the liberal Democrat agenda or whatever talking points the Obama campaign wants the viewers to see/hear instead of actual facts from objective reporting - while less conservative Republican commentators are booked to provide anything resembling "equal time".

Liberal commentators are allowed to make distorted/false comments unchallenged while conservative commentators can barely get a sentence on record because of the way MSNBC on air staff join in with the liberal commentators to prevent an actual debate of the issues... most of the time a liberal commentator isn't necessary because the MSNBC staff is already doing the Dems work for them.

Tucker Carlson, the network's only independent voice, was punished for being so open-minded by having his show taken from him so that Dan Abrams could fill that hour with his biased opinions. Tucker was reduced to political commentator for the network before basically disappearing from the airwaves on MSNBC totally.

The lone conservative on MSNBC staff, Joe Scarborough, was moved from a prime-time (ish) slot to the boondocks of airtime at MSNBC - the 6am - 9am slot. Joe had to deal with having his show being hijacked by other on air staff who range from the idiotic ramblings of Willie Geist to the overtly rebellious way Mika negates Joe's comments by inserting the liberal talking points as the final thoughts of any conversation topic.

But as if that isn't enough punishment to teach Scarborough to convert to the liberalism of MSNBC, Joe must endure being a guest on other shows where he gets treated with total disrespect by liberal commentators or even hosts while any point he might make gets discredited or made into a joke.

But the final example I need to provide is how MSNBC went beyond the point of no return at light speed by taking a member of the most radically liberal and blindly partisan commentators over at Air America and giving her a show of her own on MSNBC. Rachel Maddow was rewarded for being even more biased than Olbermann with a show that fills the time slot that Tucker once had what MSNBC should be airing every hour.

The original tucker show had equal time for both liberal & conservative views that he kept honest by his moderate viewpoint & objective presentation.

From there the format was changed to include Maddow from being 1 segment bit player to more of a full show side kick as she was allowed to force her views at the conservative guest that might get stuck with her.

Then we saw a steady progression of less Tucker (and objective views) and more Maddow (and biased propaganda/lies) on the MSNBC airwaves.

Now the network is so slanted to the left that you wonder if the Dems are paying them to do it - or if they are willingly doing the Dems work.

Phil Griffin & Steve Capus should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the network to far pass FOX News in bias while doing the American people a total disservice as they have made NBC/MSNBC into a place where only viewpoints that agree with the liberal Democrat agenda are allowed to prosper.

This should be totally against what the fcc should allow on the public airwaves... but I guess Capus & Griffin are totally ok with letting people like Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, Brewer, Mika, Shuster, Mitchell, O'Donnell, Gregory, Todd, etc forward the agenda of a party that is ok with spreading lies, propaganda, and other forms of biased views rather than being truthful, honest, objective, or professional.

So much for "integrity" that Steve Capus swore would be the foundation at NBC/MSNBC after the Imus scandal....

Robin Meade & CNN make a joke of journalism with sarcastic Bigfoot report

2008-08-15T07:01:00.000-07:00

Why is Robin so sarcastic in her reporting of the alleged bigfoot remains as she asks for our comments on the topic?

There is nothing saying that a large primate could not live in modern times & still mostly remain undetected. Other lower primates have shown amazing intelligence and if something like a missing link as a bigfoot is out there it makes sense they would be possibly smart enough to hide themselves from threats to their safety that we humans would be to them.

Look at such creatures as the Coelacanth, a "lung fish" that was believed to have gone extinct many millions of years ago... until a living member of that family tree was found alive about 70 years ago. Since then many other species that were presumed extinct have been found in remote regions.

Think of a recent event in the news where over 100,000 gorillas were discovered that changed our opinion of their status as an endangered species. Almost 1/8th of a million huge creatures avoided detection for many years... so imagine what a primate more closer to human intelligence could do in remote parts of the U.S.A. that even today remain basically untouched. There are millions of square acres of wild forest areas in this country that are basically the same untouched condition as when Lewis & Clark explored the northwest after the Louisannia Purchase.

As for Robin's question of how to validate any DNA samples offered as "proof" an acceptable answer doesn't require her repeated mentionings of some sample to compare with this alleged Bigfoot - even though no "verified" bigfoot DNA sample is on file anywhere.

All that is needed is for the DNA sample of the supposed Bigfoot to not be from a human donor, while also not being a match of any known primate's DNA signature.

If the sample is in good enough condition that the technicians can get DNA from it, then it is a very simple process to get the "signature" from the DNA sequence that the sample yeilds.

Primates like gorillas, chimps, etc have a DNA signature almost exactly like us humans, but the minute differences easily tell each species from any other, and science has taken a long time to accurately detail what separates the lower primates from each other, and from humans as well.

If DNA can be pulled from whatever biological material is offered for the sample, then there will be no problem telling if the DNA signature matches any of the many lower primates, that of humans, or if it is from another animal such as a dog, wolf, or other wild hairy creature.

If the sample is fake, that will be quickly known as well. If the hair is synthetic or of other fake origin, the technicians will know without any doubt.

To finally make the long answer come to an end to let Robin (and the rest of you wondering at CNN) know how it can be determined if the sample is of a Bigfoot even though nothing is around to compare for verification.

If the sample is a fake, it will be known. That means no Bigfoot was found and a hoax was stopped from being considered truthful info.

If the sample yeilds a DNA signature of some lower primate, that means no Bigfoot was found - but that someone came by that creature's remains and attempted to defraud us with a false claim. (possible criminal charges might apply if the sample was obtained in a way that harmed the animal as the men obtained it in this ordeal)

If the remains are of some creature known to science, but not of a primate species, then the Bigfoot will not be a Bigfoot, instead it will be the remains of whatever animal it used to be. (again as above, possible criminal charges could apply depending upon how the animal's remains got into the men's possession)

If the DNA testing yeilds a signature that is human, then the men will need to explain how they came across a dead person's remains and why they chose to hold on to it and misuse the corpse in a fraudulent Bigfoot claim.

BUT...

If the test results come back as being genuine biological material that has a DNA signature not matching a himan being, any lower primate, or any other known species of animal - but instead has a DNA signature of a creature similar to primates, but not falling into any primate known catagory... then it would be something new to the science catalog, and this would be an historic event because the claim of a Bigfoot could be called true.

If the DNA is of primate origin, but not human or any known primate on record, then what the creature would be, could be called Bigfoot, Yeti, or whatever you wish... or whatever the men finding the creature decide to name it. (scientifically of course, not just the common name)

BTW...

If the creature was kept after it died, then it would begin to decompose.

That means even a 7' plus creature could be put into a space such as a 6' refridgerator.

The body goes into rigor mortis soon after death, but that doesn't last forever. After about 36 hours the body relaxes enough to be placed in a cramped space... or haven't you seen any murder cases of note in recent years??

One major murder trial that comes to mind is how Ira Einhorn put his girlfriend Holly Maddux into a traveler's trunk that reports said was small enough to fit a child half Maddux's size... yet Einhorn managed to cram her adult sized body into a space seemingly far too small to fit her body - and if he hadn't left the trunk is his closet 18 months after the murder, Einhorn might never been found out.

By the time police found the trunk, Maddux's body was only about 35 pounds from whatever it was when she was alive. (which police say she was when Einhorn stuffed her into that trunk)

The body of any living creature goes through changes after life ends. That's why we bury our deceased loved ones no more than about 3 days after death, to avoid seeing them change from how we remembered them in life to what they become as death takes its toll.

Suppose the creature is real (we can debate the bigfoot aspect later, now is just a formerly living creature) - then it depends on many factors as to whether that thing would look like some fake or if it still looked real enough.

If it was placed in a freezer, that would effect the condition of the body, as would the change from cold storage to warm... ice turns to wetness, and a body looks waxy after a few days...

It's possible that a real living creature would end up looking like some cheap costume depending on many aspects of how the men kept the body until turning it over for examination.

Bottom line is I doubt that it's some fake these guys brought out for display... that would make them more of a laughingstock than when that lady tried to cash in by suing Wendy's for an alleged finger they allowed to be in their food served to the public... science showed far too soon that she was behind the fraud and that she was directly linked to the person who used to have the finger on his body.

And if they took/found a bear or some other zoo animal, then it won't be long before it is found out & the proper criminal charges land these guys in jail...

My guess is that is is a genuine body of some creature... and that science will let us know what exactly it used to be.

If CNN had done even an hour of google searching they could have found plenty of info to use in their "story" being repeatedly reported on air by Robin in total unprofessional fashion.

Heck, any hack could have come up with the "Hogzilla" hoax that went down a few years back. A network like National Geographic Channel did an investigation, and simple junior-level journalism found many flaws in the story of the mythical hog.

They found doctored features in the "proof" photo being used as evidence, and pushed the men to show where the body was buried - and after digging it up the truth was known without much effort.

Turns out the Hogzilla was about 25% smaller than the claim and even though this was probably the biggest wild hog found & killed... it was not the huge beast the men claimed it was.

So I challenge CNN (And Robin) to get off their asses and actually do some investigating before reporting this story anymore!!!

Send someone to the scene to get first hand reports & facts, get experts on air to give credible information pro/con about what this creature might be, have some assistant google enough info for the on air staff to not look way below the quality of Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert... for once.

Take out the personal opinions & sarcastic remarks, and have Robin show us she can do more than just read a teleprompter - even a trained monkey could mimic what she is doing.

Stop the amateur hour, and show us some real journalism!!!

Obama, the "silent accomplice" of the radical left

2008-07-11T18:10:00.001-07:00

There are two reasons Obama hasn't talked much about the opinion offered by Phil Gramm about the whiny Democrats in Congress & their liberally biased minions in the media...

1. What Gramm said was his opinion, and he is just as correct in believing it as the flood of pundits & "journalists" on the DNC payroll do in believing the exact opposite. Bottom line is that Gramm has more education & experience on the topic than all the blowhards demonizing him (also McCain and the President by extension) do. It's a subjective thing... I know several people that are "newly made Americans" that see many native born Americans as Gramm does... IF Gram was calling us the whiners rather than the Democrats in Congress and their blind followers. To many immigrants and "regular" Americans, this is still a good time to be an American...

No matter what the dem pundits, liberally biased media, & dem politicos want us to believe.

2. But the main reason Obama can do "nothing" is because the radical left has been doing that job for him - The number of people who use propaganda, rhetoric & outright lies to smear McCain is only outnumbered by the number of liberally biased outlets available and the even more numerous times allowed for these partisan attacks to be broadcast into the public consciousness.

Obama has an army doing his dirty work for him as he hypocritically clings to the "change" mantra of his campaign. Too many so willing to make mountains out of molehills so that the only "news" we hear is the schemes of the liberal left...

If enough of them keep saying the same smear attacks & lies often enough on every media outlet in bed with the Dems that means almost all we get as "news" is badmouthing of the Republicans that hides the many many stories exposing Obama's minions for what they are, that should be getting reported, but never do.

Obama's silence allows the partisan thugs to drown the truth in their sea of propaganda, rhetoric, & lies!!!

Obama is not a new beginning if he continues to let the radical left continue to sink the democratic portion of this election ever deeper into the gutter... he will be just another version of the type of politician that put us in the bad situation they tell us we are in.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. This silent Obama is as unpresidential as that criminal, the impeached "Slick Willy" Bill Clinton... or like the Republican version of the same - we don't need another Nixon or Clinton.

Obama needs to prove he is what he claims to be & put an end to the radical left's "swiftboat-like" smear agenda... if not, then he isn't even worth considering as we all should vote for McCain!!

A sudden & tragic loss that will take a very long time to get over...

2008-06-13T13:05:00.000-07:00

I can't believe that I am actually watching Tom Brokaw report on MSNBC that Tim Russert has passed away today!!!

I have many issues with the way the network has been taken over by people overly biased in favor of the liberal Democrat agenda... but Russert was a one man army holding the line of journalistic integrity...

You will be missed Tim - and the NBC/Universal media outlets will suffer the loss of its one true journalist.

Without Russert to keep hacks like Olbermann, Matthews, Shuster, & Abrams from completely destroying the reputation of NBC News it will be a very sad time over there.

It's gut-check time for Steve Capus... will he stand by his claim to integrity as when he fired Imus from MSNBC... or will he let the biased thugs continue to remove any trace of neutral (let alone conservative) reporting from the MSNBC airwaves - as seen by the way Olbermann was allowed to get Tucker booted from his show.

Goodbye Tim... God Bless!!

The perfect job for Hillary Clinton that benefits Americans perfectly

2008-06-06T10:28:00.001-07:00

People need to forget about the "dream" ticket (more like a nightmare ticket for the Dems & an easy win for McCain) - Hillary could better serve the people who she faught so hard to win the nomination for by becomming the next Senate Majority Leader!!

Let's face it, Dems will increase their majority in both houses of Congress this November, and this means that Hillary as Senate Majority Leader would hold alot of power in setting the agenda on several important areas.

She would be in control of if/when/how potential Federal appointees & Judicial nominees get approved, not to mention having control over what legislation gets to be voted on/not voted on that will allow her to set the agenda of what new bills possibly get signed into law.

It wasn't her husband, but the Congress (controlled by Repubs) that made the Clinton Presidency what the Clintons say was such a wonderful time to be an American... and the same will be true of the next Administration, regardless of which party is in the White House.

Hillary can become Senate Leader whether Obama wins in November or not, and she can then take credit for whatever legislation her Senate gets signed into law. That means she wins even if Obama loses this fall, and that sets her up looking very pretty for 2112 should she choose to run for President again.

But think of it... how much could a Senate run by Hillary (& a House run by Nancy Pelosi) accomplish if the President is Obama? The Health Care plan she wants for us all should have no trouble getting to Obama's pen... along with many of the other policy plans that the two Dem candidates had that were so alike that they are basically the same policies...

If Hillary plays it smart, she can take the job that she can do the most good at, while helping her party prove their ways are better for us than the past two terms under Bush II... and she can get the due credit while padding her resume for whatever she wants to do later on!!!

What could be more perfect???

I just hope that she can see the wisdom in this choice, and that her husband/campaign staff & consultants/supporters can get past their egos and not derail such a perfect plan for America's future!!!

MSNBC & their usual "selective bias" in reporting the "facts"

2008-06-06T10:04:00.000-07:00

Today Contessa Brewer had someone on commentating about strategy for the November election that made an interesting comment that caught my attention.

I wasn't watching the tv at the moment, I was facing my laptop when the commentator made his comment... but since I am only about 5 feet from my tv I heard him clearly. I wish I had been paying closer attention to the tv because I would really like to know who he was & what his affiliations are - so that I can possibly put his commentary into perspective and explain to myself why someone would do what he did.

Usually commentators are introduced as to being a republican strategist, democrat strategist, or affiliated with a particular party or candidate... but I have no clue who this guy was (I think his name was "Frank" something or other, but I'm not sure) offering his opinions to Contessa - so I won't say for certain what I think his affiliation is... but based on what he said I can sure guess, and I'll bet I am right.

Anyway... on to what got me posting here today.

When discussing how both Senators Obama & McCain will be trying to get votes in states not usually expected to go for their party this man expressed that he doesn't see either candidate being able to pull off a "50 state" campaign - and then gave his reasons why neither Obama nor McCain will change the way certain states vote, regardless of what they do before election day.

I don't have exact quotes from him for his examples, but it was the usual stuff pundits always say - like how New York & California will go Democrat no matter what, and how places like Utah, Texas, etc will go Republican... but that isn't my point.

I did hear how this commentator described the 1984 election, and how he selectively forgot how many states Ronald Reagan actually won that year.

He said something about Reagan "winning many of the states", but not all of them - and used this to prove that even in that lopsided win a candidate couldn't pull off an actual "50 state" campain strategy successfully.

Problem is that Reagan didn't just get "most" of the states that election... he won 49 of them, while Mondale ONLY managed to win ONE state (Minnesota, his home state) and D.C. Reagan won 525 electoral votes to Mondale's 13.

That's effectively pulling off the 50 state strategy because Mondale only won Minnesota by 3800 votes.

But before Reagan successfully pulled off a campaign strategy that Contessa's guest said can't be done it was successfully done my Nixon when he defeated McGovern by winning 49 states to McGovern's 1 (a close Massachusetts & D.C.) in his 520 - 17 electorial vote tally. (1 went to another candidate besides Nixon or McGovern)

My point is that I believe that Obama could pull off victories in states people think he can't win, and that he'll retain states that people like Hillary claim he can't win since he didn't get them in the primary votes.

I also feel that votes can be lost to McCain if Obama picks someone divisive or from the "old-school" of politics (Like Hillary or Ed Rendell) that he campaigned against in his message of "change we can believe in".

I just don't like how Contessa's guest selectively recalled elections of the past (probably out of political bias) in a way that proves the point he is making, even though the actual facts of the event he used as proof doesn't support his conclusion - because this is misleading to the viewers, if not outright false statements to forward an agenda.

What that guest did is just like how Hillary routinely misrepresented things to forward her agenda as she got away with tricking people to vote for her. (like how she got votes in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, & West Virginia based on how she "fights for working people to keep their jobs while the truth is that she helped her husband force NAFTA upon us and that caused many thousands, if not millions, to be unemployed & struggling to get by on next to nothing... this also applies to her health care plan when those newly unemployed lost their coverage)

It's time for people to be held to a higher standard, the truth should not be allowed to be subjective. Hillary & her kind have the right to their opinions, but not their own set of facts. People like Obama are here to hold them accountable to the truth of their crooked politics that got us all in the mess we are in today as a country.

Why Ed Rendell knows he's not right for Obama's V.P.

2008-06-06T04:37:00.001-07:00

Ed Rendell knows that he won't be Obama's choice for V.P. because he would never pass the vetting process very well. Rendell knows that his type of politics works for him as Pennsylvania Governor, but he is far to dirty of a politician to be acceptable for Obama's campaign of change. Rendell is exactly the kind of corrupt politician that has made D.C. as broken as it is today, and Obama would make a big mistake by asking Rendell to be on the ticket with him.

Rendell has a history of having an unhealthy relationship with a certain consulting firm - it's so close that you can hardly tell where his staff ends and the firm's employees begin. Many former employees of the firm now work for Rendell on his staff... and former Rendell staff members now work for the consulting firm.

This consulting firm gets so many government contracts that a local Pa newspaper reported that a huge portion of the yearly budget goes to this company... think of it as being Pennsylvania's version of how Halliburton is connected to Bush's Administration - with the same amount (if not more) of improper activity connected to how this firm gets so much work from the Commonwealth.

Rendell has been linked to many conflicts of interest while he has been our Governor, such as his connection to slot-machine revenue & rumored kickbacks... or how he & his henchman T.J. Rooney railroaded a property tax measure in law that is also connected to slot-machine revenues.

It wouldn't take much for Republicans to sink Rendell's ship should Obama choose him as V.P. - Rendell would be a weight that pulls Obama & the Dems under in November... and it would be an easy win for McCain because of Rendell's way of doing business here in Pa. It's a crooked system that works for him as Governor, but he can't get enough of the right people in his pocket for it to help Obama.

If you are curious, look up Pa Special Session House Bill 39 and research how it began as a bill that let school districts decide if they wanted property taxes linked to slot-machine revenues... and how Rendell's people didn't accept defeat when more than enough districts voted against the bill by coming back with the same crappy bill, without the option for school districts being able to decide what they can do by making it mandatory - and then look to see how Rendell, Rooney and other fat-cats like them get something for passing this into law & you'll see how Obama can't consider Rendell any more than he can the fatally corrupt & inept Hillary Clinton.

Obama needs to choose someone better than Clintons, Rendell, etc because the American People deserve better!!!

Dan Abrams (and friends), the "pot" and Fox News, the "kettle"

2008-05-09T19:32:00.000-07:00

Dan, you have some brass ones to say what you did about Fox News - especially when you consider how blatantly biased you (and MSNBC/NBC/Universal as a whole) are to the Democrats in general & Hillary Clinton specifically .

There is more than a mountain of incidents I could use as proof of this obvious fact, but I will try to keep it brief so that you can get back to forwarding the liberal/democrat agenda.

1. Awhile back Joe Scarborough admitted on air how Olbermann & his production staff overtly make fun at conservatives/republicans/the Bush Administration/Fox News/Bill O'Reilly as they go out of their way to "find" ways to mention these groups in every segment of his "news" show. Joe also told the viewing public how the big wigs at MSNBC gave Olbermann a huge bonus for his unprofessional behavior, even though he hasn't managed to put a dent in the enormous lead O'Reilly has in ratings over Olbermann's show.

2. Around that same time Chris Matthews responded on air (possibly because of the many emails I sent to MSNBC on this topic??) that he never said his show was "news", and that he is ok with having his show be an op ed program that takes his opinions/political beliefs as the foundation for the comments he makes and the questions he asks. (or should I say how he changes tactics depending upon whether his guests are democrat or republican) Matthews freely admitted that not only his program, but all of the NBC/Universal family of media outlets (television, radio, & print) didn't try to be unbiased, objective, or follow what is supposed to be professional journalistic integrity as you broadcast a biased viewpoint aimed at making your viewers follow whatever agenda you choose to promote.

3. As the Indiana Primary was about to reach the time when some of the polls were going to close, MSNBC on air personalities openly & freely admitted that you had an agreement "with Congress" to NOT make any early announcements regarding who might have won that state's election. Considering that the republican party has chosen their nominee & that Congress is under democrat control... the end result of that admission is a clear "smoking gun" proving that your network is working in consort with the democrats and their agenda.

4. My final point is a recounting of how you, yourself, are almost the worst offender of biased behavior as you go out of your way to demonize/attack the republicans (even if there is no just cause for the attacks) while also taking every opportunity to praise the democrats.

You & the NBC/Universal family are equally as bad as Fox News, and possibly worse than them because even with such overt evidence of your bias, you all try to deny the biased behavior while trying to deflect attention from this fact by claiming Fox is guilty of what you are doing.

Fox is wrong for being biased to the right... but you are even more wrong for being more biased to the left while trying to b.s. us all that you aren't.

Fox is a wolf in sheep's clothing for sure, and that is bad for journalism... but I have pointed out how you are even worse than this.

What is worse than a wolf in sheep's clothing, you might wonder... I'll tell you.

You are a wolf pretending to be a friendly wolf, as if we can drop our guard around you even though you are a wolf in our midst. It's like the fable (pardon the pun) of the fox & the goat. It goes like this.

The Fox and the Goat

A FOX one day fell into a deep well and could find no means of escape. A Goat, overcome with thirst, came to the same well, and seeing the Fox, inquired if the water was good. Concealing his sad plight under a merry guise, the Fox indulged in a lavish praise of the water, saying it was excellent beyond measure, and encouraging him to descend. The Goat, mindful only of his thirst, thoughtlessly jumped down, but just as he drank, the Fox informed him of the difficulty they were both in and suggested a scheme for their common escape. "If," said he, "you will place your forefeet upon the wall and bend your head, I will run up your back and escape, and will help you out afterwards." The Goat readily assented and the Fox leaped upon his back. Steadying himself with the Goat's horns, he safely reached the mouth of the well and made off as fast as he could. When the Goat upbraided him for breaking his promise, he turned around and cried out, "You foolish old fellow! If you had as many brains in your head as you have hairs in your beard, you would never have gone down before you had inspected the way up, nor have exposed yourself to dangers from which you had no means of escape." Look before you leap.

I challenge you at MSNBC to admit your bias, and that Fox is kettle... but you are pot calling Fox "black".

How was this allowed to happen???

2008-05-09T15:44:00.000-07:00

How is it legal for a candidate to "loan" their campaign money?

I can understand if someone like Mitt Romney wants to use his multi-millions in wealth to fund his campaign, but how did the concept of putting your personal money into your campaign with the ability to get that money back if/when enough donations come in to "re-pay" that "loan" to the candidate in question get by the people in charge of making the rules in the first place?

My problem with this practice is I feel certain that this could (and most likely IS in the case of Hillary Clinton) be an easy way for a candidate to bypass the rules by getting a huge sum of money from a "special interest" and passed off as a legitimate practice.

I have zero trust in the Clintons that this 11.4 million (give or take) actually came from Hillary Clinton - because she has shown time & time again that she has no respect for rules, or what is the "right thing to do" as she has said/done anything in her quest to win the nomination by any means necessary. (by hook or by crook)

The Clintons have a long history of shady dealings & will play by whatever rules fit the situation at any given moment - so it wouldn't surprise me one bit if she got that money from other corrupt cronies of the Clintons (like Ed Rendell, Eliot Spitzer, Jon Corzine, Michael Nutter, & TJ Rooney) if they get something of equal value should she become the next President.

This is a practice that needs to be removed from the process a.s.a.p. before someone gets elected to the highest office in the country because they got a paycheck from special interest(s) that get rewarded later for what should be considered totally improper for the election process, if not criminal!

Time for Bill & Hill to quit crying & claiming to be a "victim"

2008-04-11T17:40:00.000-07:00

Wasn't it Bill Clinton who said that politics is basically a contact sport, and if someone wants to run for office they better expect some hard hits, and if that seems too harsh then that person has no business running for office?

Why does he & his wife constantly cry & complain (most of the time wrongly) when yet another dirty trick they attempt to use against Obama blows up in their faces & hurts them not their opponent? Why is it ok for them to do what they say is wrong for others to do?

They have changed the message of Hillary's campaign so many times (depending on the state, or the issue du jour, or the weather, or what color tie Tim Russert is wearing, etc) it has ended up that her campaign is both for and against the major issues - sometimes both positions on any given issue happen at the same time period, or until enough people notice & they are forced to make excuses while coming up with another position - for the moment anyway.

If Hillary can't remember what she did or didn't do while he tarnished the reputation of the White House, then she has no business running for his old job, let alone anything beyond what a 6 year old can do. If Hillary gets tired & can't remember things correctly, what will happen if that infamous "3am call" ever happens with her to answer.

If Chelsea refuses to respond to tough questions like whether or not the way her parents handled themselves durring the "Monica" scandal - then she has no business stumping for her mom... at least that's what her daddy said about how the rules of campaign politics are played.

Oh, BTW, it was a no-brainer for her to say that her mom would be a better President than her father was... all Hillary has to do is avoid sexually abusing her interns; not sell the country's soul to countries like China, Dubai, Columbia, etc; maybe actually get a piece of legislation of her doing become law - and not take credit for the accomplishments of the opposing party that causes what people call "prosperity"; not pardon so many of her party hacks, friends, family as her husband did on his last day in office; etc.

Hell, all Hillary has to do to be better than Bill is for her to do even one positive act while trying hard to not totally screw things up even worse than Bill or George "Jr" did. I know of many 5 year olds that have at least a 50-50 chance of doing that much... but somehow I doubt Hillary would deserve half of that much of a chance to succeed.

I say better off letting the "new guy" who doesn't have a track record of corruption, failure, scandal, and the total partisan devotion that the Clintons have exhibited for over 30 years. Time for a fresh start tha Barack Obama offers this country... we are long overdue for someone like Obama to run the show in D.C. that has our best interests at heart, not his own.

When will people realize the truth?

2008-04-11T17:01:00.000-07:00

Bill Clinton hasn't lost his old charm like people are saying so often after yet another news-making debacle as he campaigns for Hillary.

I knew all along that this behavior wasn't a fluke, but what makes up Bill Clinton (and Hillary by proxy) at the very core of his being.

The recent incident of attacking the media for the Bosnia thing where he gets so many aspects wrong it makes swiss cheese seem like a concrete wall is just a continuation of how he looked directly into the camera and lied to our faces about Monica.

The dirty tactics, persecution paranoia, accusing others of the wrongs you yourself are doing, say anything/do anything if it gets the job done is what defines Bill & Hillary, and it's exactly what the people have had to deal with for far too many years from crooked politicians who say one thing but never mean it.

Hillary promised jobs to NY State in her 1st campaign... but after more than 250,000 were lost on her watch all she had were excuses and partisan b.s. to offer - while proceeding to scam us into believing she will somehow get it right this time - if we give her a chance. (as in hillarycare 2.0 or this pitch for new jobs)

Why do we seem surprised that Bill gets paid off (oops, I mean paid) from Columbia for a free trade deal under Hillary while she claims to oppose the deal? That's just a re-run of Bill getting paid huge sums from the Dubai people while Hillary tried to say she opposed that group running our seaports. Or how Hillary claimed to oppose NAFTA when it's on record that she spoke at a rally for the deal her hubby basically strong-armed us to accept like a mafia kingpin.

The Clintons have always been what people are just now seeing them to be. They are everything that's wrong with the system - all you need to prove it is look at all the corrupt, fat-cat, partisan bums who support her no matter what the facts say about how wrong they are on talking points. But if you need a hint, here's three:

1. Ed Rendell, the worst & most corrupt governor Pennsylvania has ever known.

2. John Murtha, the guy who barely escaped the ABSCAM ordeal because the "bribe" offered to him wasn't enough for his greedy corrupted ass.

3. Michael Nutter (Philly's corrupt mayor - and I don't mean Rendell when he was there) who knows what it takes to win Pennsylvania... making dirty deals & promising kickbacks to the Philly elite, because Pa. can be won if you win the 6 counties that make up the Philly metro area and do well in Pittsburgh. That's how Rendell became Mayor & then Governor & he's sold his soul to Hillary just like Nutter did in the hopes of a kickback should she win in November.

Three strikes... the Clinton's should be out this time. Maybe, if enough of you who usually fall for the Clinton lie machine wake up and see that the Clinton's aren't golden - they are just fool's gold. I hope enough of you see the true Clintons in time to stop the tragedy we would face if Hillary is our Democratic nominee for President.

The "Myths" of Hillary's campaign

2008-02-15T05:49:00.001-08:00

The Clinton machine is trying to hijack the election process by telling many "myths" not supported by the facts. Some favor Hillary (and whatever the "message" she is trying to forward that day) and others misrepresent Barack Obama's positions. Either way, it's proof positive that Hillary is not very Presidential, and undeserving of the Democratic nominee, let alone the job of President of the United States.

The biggest "myth" (I won't go so far as to call it the lie it really is) is that her proposed health care plan provides coverage for every American.

Her plan instead MANDATES that everyone get health care coverage, regardless of their ability to accomplish that goal. As Obama correctly points out, if people don't get coverage willingly (most likely due to an inability to pay for it) Hillary's plan FORCES them to purchase coverage, even if that means going after the person's wages.

This amounts to an UNFUNDED MANDATE and not a plan providing "universal" coverage for all Americans. And that is what used to be called "taxation without representation" in the old days... something our beloved Constitution says can't happen.

So, Hillary's plan is no better than the huge failure she tried years ago, and actually is far inferior to Obama's plan.

Another "myth" is about her vast experience.

If you go back the full 35 years, as Hillary wants us to, her "accomplishments" amount to this:

Failing to pass the bar exam until her 2nd try.

Not being able to notice the many affairs her husband engaged in and being gullable enough to believe his false claims to quit - over & over.

Zero courtroom litigation time, while becoming partner in the highly connected law firm as she engaged in several conflicts of interest helping Arkansas companies win big while her husband was Governor of that same state.

Numerous campaign funding scandals from questionable donors.

Wasting time/money while failing to come up with a viable health care plan that her own party helped defeat.

The many questionable pardons her husband gave while in Arkansas & D.C.

Not reading intel reports at her disposal as member of the Senate Armed Forces committee before voting in step with George W Bush as he marched us into Iraq.

Having no security clearance while being First Lady, while claiming to be a big part of the foreign policy of her Husband's Presidency.

Not attending any security meetings/cabinet meetings during that same time period, and even avoiding speaking to her husband during some key foreign policy crisis events.

Not having access to her husband's daily security briefs when claiming to effect foreign policy.

The prosperity of the 90's had nothing to do with her & her husband because Bill is taking credit for the gains of the final year of Bush 1's policies, and 2 years later Congress went under Republican control... meaning THEY (not he and/or Hillary) caused what happened to happen. Congress made the policies... Bill just signed them because he had to.

The legacy of Bill's 8 years is his failure to recognize the threat of Al-Qaeda & Osama Bin Laden... and his many failures to bring those terrorists to justice after several attacks on U.S. soil & other related interests.

Failing to be able to control her campaign staff/advisors/husband while running this campaign. (how can she run the country if she can't run her campaign?)

These "myths" of her experience and quality of her policy plans need to be exposed.

The other thing needing to be exposed as wrong is how she is allowing the double standard go on about wanting to "follow the rules" about how the Super Delegates should vote because to do so will benefit her - while trying to "break the rules" (rules she agreed to when the time came up) about trying to force the stripped delegates from Fla & Mi because they favor her ultimate goal.

Her campaign is the dirtiest ever, even worse than anything Nixon ever did or what people claim this Bush administration has done.

It's like the ridiculous "right wing conspiracy" Hillary claims has been after her & her husband for years (that doesn't exist, and never did) while all the crying of unfair treatment they claim the media gives to her.

It's all b.s. & people need to stop allowing her to get away with it.

If we allow Hillary to hijack the political process and let her get away with stealing the nomination from Obama... we will be to blame for the tragic results of letting her force her version of "change" upon us.

The end result of a Hillary Presidency after 4 years will be a HUGE Republican victory in 2010 & 2012 - mark my words!!!

The Democrats won't win - no matter how much they cry!!

2008-01-28T19:24:00.000-08:00

Regarding the issue of how & when the troops are going to be reduced, Democrats aren't going to get their say on the matter and that's the way it should be.

They aren't the ones who determine that, the President - The commander In Chief - is the one who will decide.

The main reason Democrats want a say is so that they can try to take credit for what this Administration has done. People (like the blind partisan cultists on here who go along with the democrat party line without question) have tried to pin the Iraq situation to Bush like an Albatross... even to the point of denying the progress and successes of the surge plan enacted by this Administration.

And now that Bush has made such major progress as a major reduction in troops by year's end - the Democrats want to try and take away the due credit by demanding a say in the plan.

That's not gonna happen with this impotent, do-nothing Democrat "controlled" Congress, even if they could do anything besides fall flat on their asses.

Congress deserves no credit for the progress, and no say in how that decrese will happen.

And people like that COWARD Virginia Senator Jim Webb, need to get it in their heads that the old ways of partisan democrat politics has been rejected by the people of America (as seen by today's huge support of Senator Obama) - and those like Webb, Clinton, Reid, etc need to get in line with how things will be.

Democrats aren't going to win the White House in November... hell, they better pray they can keep ONE of their prescious Houses of Congress - so those who manage to survive the purging of the Clinton-esque partisans who are the problem with D.C. and the state of things in America today better be willing to work with whichever Republican who gets inducted into the White House next year.

The BEST the Democrats can hope for is that enough of them follow Teddy Kennedy's lead today by supporting Barack Obama as the face of the party for the years to come. It's about time that party exhibits the type of integrity, unity, and unselfish behavior that Obama seems to display in all that he does. I wish them the best, but I won't expect much from them. There's far too many of the Clinton types fighting for power that it will be hard for the "good" Democrats like Obama to win out.

The Bill/Hillary dirty tactic conspiracy

2008-01-28T04:43:00.001-08:00

I find it odd how Joe bounces between how he feels the Clinton campaign will do/say anything to win and one that isn't so quick to criticize any given tactic.

Awhile back Hillary was on National TV saying how she will be the Democrat nominee, and when asked what would she do if she weren't, she express that she would be, so any other thought is not necessary.

That interview showed how Hillary will not accept defeat, and I totally believe that everything that has happened so far has had her stamp of approval on it.

We all know how control-oriented she is, and how much of the problems with Bill's Presidency came from her taking control over issues she had no business being involved with... so why should things change now?

Do you really think that Hillary would let Bill screw up her chance? Sure she will let him do the dirty work for her so that she can try to claim to be above that mess, but I have no doubts that she is endorsing the Bill tactics/comments - if not the one suggesting he do them.

There's no doubt that Hillary (and her staff/surrogates/supporters) will do/say anything so that they can have her win the Democrat nominee... and it's a shame that not enough Democrats & voters can see how bad this is for our country - hopefully enough of you will in time to stop her & to put someone with integrity like Obama in that spot, someone with a decent chance to win in November.

Bill Clinton & potential voter tampering in Nevada?

2008-01-28T03:29:00.000-08:00

I'm so glad to finally hear someone say what people have been thinking - but it's time for Joe to go even further!!
He was totally correct about Bill Clinton lying about voter tampering in Las Vegas... but what I would like to see is someone like Joe go on record as to what this tactic by Bill Clinton was all about.
The result of Bill Clinton (and the loyal Clinton campaign staffers and/or commentators on MSNBC) saying this about Obama's campaign (when at best it was Obama supporters) was to get people to vote for Hillary.
This is in effect voter tampering because it used lies & false accusations about Hillary's rival that resulted in potential votes for her that she probably wouldn't have received otherwise.
Will someone ask the Nevada organization involved with regulating this matter to look into Bill Clinton and any improper/illegal actions resulting from these public comments?

Is Tim Russert (and the entire NBC news division) working for the Democrats?

2008-01-25T05:15:00.000-08:00

Tim Russert shouldn't get praise for the way he handled the debate last night. He asked questions that were blatantly partisan against the candidates, and even seemed to go as far as being in league with the Democrat Party.

Why should Mitt Romney have to give specifics for his strategy against Hillary (and let's not forget how Russert kept forcing Bill Clinton into the conversation) Clinton for a general election?

First off, Romney doesn't have the nomination yet. To ask him about something that may never happen on his part isn't a professional & Unbiased question, it was more like a badgering interrogation from a hostile enemy.

And even if Romney was the Republican nominee, why would he foolishly give away his strategy against the dirtiest tag-team American politics has ever known?

Was Russert acting on a direct request of the Democrats, or was it just natural for someone who is known as having a bias in favor of the Democrats? Was such underhanded plotting against the Republican candidates sanctioned by Russert's superiors, or was this just him being a rogue conspirator helping his Democrat buddies?

The question about the Iraq War was phrased in a very specific way that made it impossible for any candidate to successfully respond, unless they went beyond the strict boundaries given to them. And when they did (because none of the candidates were going to fall for Russert's cheap trick) answer honestly Russert basically tried to accuse them of avoiding the question, because he would try to force them into answering under his terms.

To ask anyone if the war effort was justified considering the losses suffered by our troops is exactly as asking the old political dirty trick of asking a candidate "when did you stop beating your wife?" - because Russert left the Republicans with two negative options without any way for a positive result.

Russert was trying to force the candidates to either say the war was wrong, which leaves them fatally flawed later on in the process leading up to the general election and open to a Democrat attack on the comment - or the candidate would come off as if they were oblivious to the sacrifice of those who have died in this war that obviously had many mismanaged moments to date.

Russert tried to block any attempts by a candidate wishing to say they supported the decision to go to war but regretting the way it had been mismanaged until recently when certain Administration staff had been replaced - while also deepkly regretting even a single loos of life to our troops.

Why did Tim Russert choose to disgrace himself and MSNBC by imitating the dirty political tricks of the Clintons with his loaded question?

I am amazed that Russert was allowed to get away with such an unprofessional tactic by MSNBC. It only proves how far the left is willing to go as they attempt to hijack the legitimate political process in favor of success. It's a sad day when winning matters more than integrity, and even worse when networks like MSNBC promote the liberal/democrat agenda. Just because they believe another network to be in league for the other political party doesn't mean it's ok to follow them by acting without morals and integrity that used to define the conduct of any branch of the journalistic field.

The Clintons up to their old tricks again!! (or still)

2008-01-24T12:35:00.000-08:00

Bill Clinton still can't tell the truth from a lie, let alone ever be able to tell something that isn't a lie... and Hillary is getting as bad as her husband.

It amazes me how these two always blame others for the very actions they themselves are doing, and how they actually seem to believe their own b.s.

Bill Clinton lost all credibility when he went on camera and lied about his unpresidential behavior with Monica Lewinsky, and he hasn't stopped his deceitful ways since then.

Clinton only had 2 years with a Democrat controlled Congress, so he can't take credit for the positive policies they accomplished. But even if he did do something other than the many debacles & scandals of his 8 years in office, it wasn't as good as he would have us believe. I guess Clinton forgot about the dot com bust that signified a bigger percentage loss for the stock markets than what we are going through now.

But here are the real accomplishments of the Clinton era:

Waco, Tx
Ruby Ridge
Elian Gonzalez
Atlanta Olympics Bombing
Oklahoma City Bombing
WTC bombing (1st event)
Hillary's fatally flawed "universal" healthcare (30 million uncovered)
Monica Lewinsky
Selling the Lincoln Bedroom to Chinese diplomats for DNC donations
Giving away our top secret nuclear technology to the Chinese
The twin embassy bombings in Africa
The USS Cole bombing
The African genocide wars
The Bosnia, Kosovo, etc ethnic cleansing
Allowing Bin Laden to form Al Qaeda & get strong
Numerous adulterous affairs after the 1992 "confession" & promise to quit
The numerous questionable pardons to fellow Democrats & drug kingpins
Pardons for family members & former business partners
Vince Foster's "suicide" in wake of Whitewatergate
Numerous campaign donations from improper donators
Conflict of interest after conflict of interest
Sanctions on Iraq killing over 500,000 Iraqis
Not keeping N. Korea or Iran in check
Allowing the Khmer Rouge to wipe out its own people
Choosing not to follow up on getting Bin Laden 3 times prior to 9/11
Getting impeached by the US House of Representatives
Getting disbarred for unrelated events
About 100 questionable pardons on his final day in office
Lying about what he did wrong & taking credit for things he didn't do
Distorting the accomplishments of the opposing party in total partisan fashion

And things haven't changed one bit since he left office... and too many people are once again believeing his & Hillary's lies. But hopefully enough of you will come to your senses to prevent another failed Clinton administration.

The danger of believing the Hillary Clinton "experience" myth

2008-01-18T04:43:00.000-08:00

The Clinton campaign has been throwing around the term "fairy tale" frequently in reference to Senator Obama's qualifications for President.

It's typical of them to try to portray others with the exact negatives that plague Hillary Clinton, not her opponents.

Hillary's experience is the biggest myth that people are taking as fact, and it's a major part of why the Democrats are in serious trouble as more and more people are accepting the lies as truths with the goal of getting as many people to believe that Hillary is the most qualified candidate on the Democrat side of the fence.

Hillary has a history of failure, while also being in total denial of how inconsequential her time as First Lady in Arkansas & the White House really is. And then there is her record of either inept behavior in the Senate, or voting in line with the current President but criticizing him for actions he took with her permission.

Hillary failed the D.C. bar exam, and had to go to Arkansas for another try before finally passing the test - but never using that license in actual court litigation.

She wasted much time and money when she came up with a fatally flawed health care plan (called "universal" but had twice as many people uninsured as the one she now demonizes Obama for promoting) while being blind to the continued sexual indescretions her husband did under her nose.

She chose not to read classified intel documents at her disposal, even though they could have given her better insight on serious votes about the Iraq War that might have allowed her to not vote in step with this President she hates so much.

She never had a security clearance, never sat in on a security briefing, never had access to her husband's daily intel briefing memo, and chose not to be involved with several foreign policy incidents while she was First Lady... yet she claims to have more foreign policy experience than her rivals - even Gov. Richardson who was an integral part of several international crisis negotiations.

She has had many scandals from cattle futures, to shady campaign donations, to Whitewater, to selling pardons & renting out the Lincoln Bedroom... yet she claims to be capable of changing the status quo that the American Public hate so much.

It is Hillary & her people who are living a fairy tale... and hopefully enough Democrat voters can see through the lies being told to them in time to stop her from preventing a decent Democrat capable of winning in November like Obama from getting the nomination slot.

Let's hope enough of you can see the truth and not the lies the Clintons are telling you so that you can vote the right candidate for the job for the nomination... if you do that & put Obama where he belongs on the November ballots, I feel that you will be rewarded with a successful election and the country will benefit as well. The other side of that is that Hillary would at best cause you to lose the White House this time by losing, or she will do far worse damage to this country than 5 George W Bush's ever could!!

Mika Brzezinski's secret link to Hillary Clinton (and why she blindly defends her)

2007-12-26T09:43:00.000-08:00

Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" is totally ignoring the FACTS behind a NY Times report detailing her lack of foreign policy experience.

Maybe it is because Hillary worked for Jimmy Carter's 1976 Presidential campaign as a field coordinator in Indiana and how Carter appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation that is behind Mika's bias towards Hillary? We all know how Mika's father was a member of the inept Carter Administration, so she probably met Hillary back then and formed the bond that causes her to defend Hillary so blindly.

All Mika needs to do is focus on the FACTS to see how little experience Hillary received when her husband was in Office:

Hillary did NOT have a security clearance - meaning she did not have access to classified information and could not have an informed opinion on any serious subject.

She did NOT attend National Security Meetings, and did NOT have access to the President's daily intelligence briefing - meaning she was totally clueless about any matter of importance in her husband's Administration.

Hillary did NOT get involved with three major crisis situations of her time as First Lady (Haiti, Somalia, & Rwanda) meaning she has no real basis to claim an real foreign policy experience.

Another situation where Hillary could have involved herself with was another missed opportunity because she was so upset with her husband over his affair with Monica Lewinsky that she wasn't on speaking terms with him when the idea of possibly bombing Afghanistan & Sudan came up among his advisers.

Hillary did NOT read classified documents that were at her disposal as a member of the Armed Services Committee - meaning she made uninformed votes on many serious matters of State. (like the war in Iraq)

Mika is either very dumb or very gullible if she thinks that Heads of State treated meetings with Hillary as they did with her husband or his Administration.

Secretary of State Rice has more foreign policy experience than Hillary did in total. A First Lady on a foreign trip is equal to being seated at the kiddie table for a holiday meal.

Mika is confusing quantity of time with quality of service.

But if that is not enough to discredit the Clinton campaign's myth of Hillary being more qualified than the rest of the contenders, here's some other things to consider:

Hillary couldn't pass the bar exam on her first try. After failing in the D.C. exam she went to Arkansas and passed their bar exam to get her license to practice law. Her initial failure in D.C. and then success in Arkansas played a huge part in her changing her mind and finally marrying Bill Clinton.

Even though she earned the right to practice law in the courtroom, Hillary almost never put her education to use in practical terms. This shows that even when she takes time to gain valid experience, she won't use that experience.

When Bill Clinton stood accused of having an affair with Gennifer Flowers, Hillary believed him when he claimed that he would never do it again. As her husband proved those statements to be a lie over and over again it showed that Hillary is either too stupid to know when someone is lying to her, or she was an equal partner in Bill's deception to the American Public all the way through Monica Lewinsky.

From Hillary's campaign management we can tell that she is either someone without scruples that will lie to cover her dirty tactics - or she is someone who can't control the people under her command. Either way, this disqualifies her as a legitimate candidate.

Hillary's campaign also teaches us that she will take money from anyone, regardless of criminal past or reputation - and only distances herself from these people IF the improper behavior is discovered.

When Hillary tried to force feed a flawed healthcare plan upon America, she showed us how she can't manage a staff of people or achieve successful results - while wasting time and taxpayer dollars without meeting the goal of the task given to her.

It's like when Barak Obama refuted the experience tactic by saying that this current Administration was full of people like Rumsfield & Cheney who had tons of experience... and look where it got us. It's far worse to have someone full of bad experience in charge - than to have someone less experienced, but full of common sense.

If you actually go by the standard Mika is advocating... then Mika has foreign policy experience from the time she & Amy Carter ran down the Israeli Prime Minister with a golf cart!!!

Get a clue Mika - you are the newscast equivalent of "The View" co-host Sherri Shepherd because of how dumb she is.

Denial, or Deception?

2007-12-20T14:46:00.001-08:00

I can't tell if the many (almost beyond count) people working either directly or indirectly for the benefit of Hillary's campaign are in denial of their actions, or if they are just trying to deceive people into believing untrue statements/actions being perpetrated to help Hillary win the spot on the Democratic ticket.

People come out of the woodwork to defend the dirty tactics being used by people on the behalf of Hillary. Look at how many people have had to leave the campaign and how many donation dollars returned once people see the way Hillary is running her campaign.

It's laughable at how these people deny any conscious wrongdoing by anyone even remotely involved with Hillary's campaign, while going about doing the exact things they claim others are wrong for doing.

It's totally untrue that Hillary was forced by Obama into waging such a dirty campaign... just as it's totally false that Obama was the first to take the low road by allegedly attacking Hillary unfairly.

It's also a lie that Hillary is getting scrutinized more severely than other Democrats... to the contrary, she is getting special treatment from all of the liberally biased media outlets. (unless you call being endorsed by the Iowa newspaper as being unfairly scrutinized)

It's nowhere near true that Hillary is the best candidate able to change the status quo... mostly because she is the epitome of all that is & has been wrong with partisan politics in D.C.

If Hillary is so certain that Obama's health care plan is so terrible... why won't she at least admit that it is 100% better than the fatally flawed plan she tried to force upon us back when she was gaining all of her "experience" as First Lady? (Obama's 15 million not covered seems way better than her 30 million not covered from the old "Hillarycare", don't you agree?)

But beyond that, the media is not accurately and evenly portraying how Democrats do things the same as Republicans do.

Hillary is praised for airing an ad that has the same intention & methodology as the one that Giuliani is being ridiculed for airing. (same exact snarky & fake attitude behind a political ad disguised as a holiday message)

And the race in both parties is equally chaotic, with no clear front runner... yet only the Republicans get negative comments - while Democrats (three of whom are in a statistical dead heat after the clear front runner lost her almost 30 point lead) are praised as being better than Republicans.

What ever happened to objective and unbiased reporting instead of propaganda getting aired to forward the liberal agenda.

It's beyond time for this underhanded political tactics to be used... because it is the American People who will suffer.

words matter (and offensive behavior has consequences)

2007-12-14T16:33:00.000-08:00

It wasn't that long ago that a certain Senator from Virginia lost his bid for re-election mostly because he was caught on video saying something inapropriate. (even though his opponent had been equally guilty of the same behavior, but minus the video evidence as proof)

George Allen's comment that was taken as a racial slur stuck with him even after several apologies...

So why shouldn't Hillary Clinton get judged by the same standard as Allen after a very senior members of her campaign staff committed an offensive act of equal severity - regardless of her face to face apology to the subject of the attack?

Whether she approved of what was said about Barak Obama beforehand (which I totally believe) or if she was totally clueless of what her senior staff was up to (or the even worse possibility or her being powerless to control her people - even if it's tactics enacted by her husband on her behalf) Hillary's campaign deserves to suffer the same fate that George Allen's did.

Unless Democrats have no moral standing and choose to take a totally hypocritical path if it means they win the '08 election. (which I believe will happen, going by a long history of such behavior by the Democrat Party... which they manage to get far too many voters to agree with them to the detriment of our Country)

Regardless of who said/did what - or who was behind such offensive tactics - Hillary Clinton is the one who should be responsible. It's her campaign, and she should have the integrity to run her campaign by that wise & worthy rule of "The Buck Stops Here!"

If she can't (or won't) take full responsibilty for anything that happens as a result of her campaign... then she has proven herself to be totally UN-Presidential - and absolutely unworthy of the Democratic nominee.

Hillary talks alot of how this Administration has damaged the American reputation in the eyes of the world... it's ironic that she is allowing her campaign to be an identical twin of what she is demonizing.

So much for her being the "agent of change", huh?

Show Hillary & her people that she is not what America needs right now... do NOT vote for her in any election she is in!!! Show Hillary that words mean things, and that actions have consequences when you cross the line of acceptable behavior as her people (and she) has on a daily basis.

Why Hillary Clinton doesn't deserve your vote

2007-12-14T16:31:00.000-08:00

Recent events that relate to the race for the Democrat candidate for President all point to certain failure for the Clinton political machine, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.

There's no up-side for Hillary because she's damned no matter what she does in terms of damage control.

She either ends up looking like she has no control over her campaign staff, or having the same non-existent credibility that plagues the current Administration.

If anyone believes that the cocaine "slip-up" wasn't approved by either Hillary or Bill, then you're as dumb as the Clintons believe the American Public really are.

But let's suppose that she didn't know what such a high ranking member of her campaign staff was going to do... that totally disqualifies her for being President of the United States. If she can't keep such a simple group in line, then what will happen when a serious crisis happens? So much for her alleged experience and ability to lead "from day 1" if this is how she is allowing her campaign be run.

Hillary & her senior staff (including her hubby, the Ex-President) are waging a "win at all costs" campaign that will stoop to any low level if it means Hillary gets a few more potential votes.

The Clintons and their staff have not only "re-written" the past, they have flat out lied about issues as they try to fool people into believing that Hillary is the right choice for the Democrat ticket.

They try to make us forget that her original health care plan (one she called "universal") left twice as many people without coverage than what she claims Obama's plan might do. (her 30 million uninsured makes Obama's alleged 15 million seem like progress) They also don't want to talk about the shell game scheme as a way to pay for her new "universal" plan.

Recent comments by Hillary about no clue about 9/11 are clearly contradicted by such credible sources as the 9/11 Commission. (check MSNBC's archives for the many failures the Commission place on the doorstep of Hillary's Presidency... which also includes Hillary since she is claiming her tenure as First Lady as part of her immense experience she has over every other Democrat & Republican running)

And why are they making such a fuss over the concept that any candidate wishing to be considered to have a legitimate claim on being the Next President contender be required to have foreign policy experience beforehand?

The way I look at things, only 1 out of the previous (and also the current) 8 or so Presidents had actual foreign policy experience before becoming President. Although many had some military service, I'd say that only George H. W. Bush (who ran the C.I.A.) had the level of foreign policy experience that the Clinton Campaign seems to be referring to as their litmus test. Personally, I don't consider that Bush as having the right qualification for the job. Although I respect almost all of the former Presidents being mentioned, I would have to go all the way back to Eisenhowser for someone I feel had the type of experience in foreign matters that the Clinton Machine wants us to judge the potential recipient of our vote by.

Hillary is either delusional or just stupid if she actually believes that the type of meetings she had while being First Lady are equal to what happened when her husband went somewhere on behalf of the American People. I hate to burst her bubble, but what Condi Rice does is about a thousand times more substantial than Hillary's most significant act while her husband was President. Being the First Lady at some State function is the equilivent of sitting at the "Kiddie Table" for Thanksgiving. (And if something happened where Hillary was privy to issues of the highest importance, then I'd have to say that serious breaches in security occurred on each & every time she put herself in that arena - but I doubt that will ever be discussed seriously)

I'm getting lost in the minute details of the many reasons why Hillary doesn't deserve to be the Democratic candidate in the '08 election, let alone our next President... I'll get back on track by simply listing some of the serious flaws to Hillary Clinton's claim as the person her party should have on the ballot come next fall.

Her campaign staff is plagued with people of little or no scruples who will do/say anything to help Hillary win. They make the Enron boys look like saints by comparrison. They will try to get away with any dirty trick, and then use some lame excuse when one of their dishonest deeds gets the opposite result intended. (Who cares if they apologize when it's obvious they don't mean it)

Hillary has also been caught having many people working to raise funds for her campaign that make John Gotti look like "Honest" Abe Lincoln. And then there's all her huge sums coming from corporations, special interest groups, and people who Democrats like to say are behind many a Republican victory... but their liars/propaganda spreaders (I mean spinmeisters) try to portray her as being the exact opposite of the Nixon-esque villan she is.

Hillary has a record of being very Republican (or at least a "loyal Bushie" like Joe Lieberman is trying to be) since taking office as a Senator for the State of New York. She has even imitated the President in how little time she spends actually performing her duties that the People of New York elected her to do. Look back to see how soon after she took her second oath of office that she basically abandoned her post to be a full time campaigner. (it was about 2 or 3 weeks before she forgot about being a Senator & became a Presidential wannabe) And the few votes she has made were either gross mistakes, or acts of partisan divisiveness resulting in what has been a "do nothing" Congress ever since the Democrats scammed their way into being in control of both houses of Congress.

And since Hillary is claiming her husband's time in Office as hers... let's not forget these reasons to vote for someone else:

Whitewater

Bimbogate

Hillary's "success" in the cattle futures market as a rookie
Selling the Lincoln Bedroom to the highest Chinese bidder to fill the Dems pockets

Allowing top secret nuclear information just walk out of Los Alamos

Ruby Ridge

Waco, Tx

1st World Trade Center bombing

Al-Quaeda/O.B.L. rise to power & many terror acts

Vince Foster's "suicide" just prior to him potentially making known how many criminal acts the Clinton's committed.

Hillary's association to Communists while "protesting" Viet Nam war

Hillary failing to pass the D.C. Bar exam after law school

Hillary's inability to know what adulterous acts Bill was up while not being able to know he was still lying to her & the U.S. People (either that or she knew what he was doing & helped cover it up)

How Hillary failed to read classified documents available to her regarding terrorist acts leading up to 9/11 as well as the faulty intel that got us into Iraq. She didn't do what she could have done in her position to help stop the Iraq debacle

Her paranoid delusions about a Conservative Republican "conspiracy" she claims has been after her & her husband for decades

Her total lack of integrity while also having an absolute hypocritical foundation that taints everything she does/says

I'm tired of listing things, even though I could go on & on... I have more than proved my point as to why people should vote for ANYBODY but Hillary Clinton. She is not the "agent of change" that her people want us to believe. She is exactly what is wrong with politics & D.C. that needs to be removed like a cancerous tumor.

If I were voting for a candidate for the Democrat nominee (we all know I'm not since I'm a Libertarian) I would totally vote for Barak Obama because he has integrity that Hillary never had.

Hell, I'd even consider voting for Obama (did I really just type that?) if - after becoming the Democratic nominee that is - he would have the sense to ask Harold Ford, Jr to be his V.P. running mate. That's a ticket that a conservative Libertarian like myself would have no problems crossing over to vote for. I would be proud to have an Obama/Ford Administration even though I'd rather have a Huckabee/Tom Ridge one...

I say we could do alot worse than a Obama/Ford Jr Administration... the worst case scenario is a Hillary Clinton Presidency (regardless of the V.P.) with "Slick Willy" roaming the halls of the White House again!!!

Please people, (those of you on the Left) - don't allow such a tragic thing to happen to our Country... do NOT vote for Hillary in any election she might be on the ballot!!

Zeitgeist

2007-10-30T19:13:00.001-07:00

I came across this very interesting movie called "Zeitgeist" that really got me thinking. It's a very powerful movie that talks about some very serious subjects that effect all of us. (like God, Government, and money)

Here is a bit of what the movie is about from a website I found:

Zeitgeist The Movie is a film by Peter J. exploring the relationship between Christianity, the September 11 attacks and the Federal Reserve Bank. It was released in 2007 on Google Video and is available for free distribution.

Divided into three parts, (Part I: “The Greatest Story Ever Told”, Part II: “All The World’s A Stage”, and Part III: “Don’t Mind The Men Behind The Curtain”), Zeitgeist is designed to prompt the audience into questioning their own beliefs on the subjects of US involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Christian theology, the Federal Reserve System, and the decreasing status of personal freedoms in the United States of America due to introductions of laws and organizations such as The Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.

Here is the website with more info on the movie:

http://filmguide.wikia.com/wiki/Zeitgeist

Here is the website associated with the movie:

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

And here is a link where you can download the movie (free!!) for you to watch, think about, discuss, and pass along:

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/dloads.htm

Please pass this along to others so that more people can check it out.

Even if you don't agree with everything this movie has to say... it still has much for you to consider.

Keith Olbermann - hate monger

2007-10-11T18:21:00.000-07:00

Keith Olbermann never misses a chance to stoop to the typical liberal hate mongering. Once again he takes the low road by making ad hominem attacks on conservatives for no reason other than they are not ultra-liberal like he is.

Why MSNBC allows Olbermann to tarnish their journalistic reputation with unprofessional op ed programming is a mystery deserving of investigating. (never mind, it's obvious... they love the money to be gained from Olbermann's never-ending promotion of the liberal agenda)

It's sad to see that MSNBC condones the way Olbermann hurls insults at anyone not of his beloved liberal Democrat persuasion.

Why won't someone show an ounce of integrity and say that Olbermann is out of line when he does things like call Ann Coulter "Coultergeist"?

Where is Tim Russert, Dan Abrams, Brian Williams, etc when Olbermann stoops to the grade-school level as he did when he used words like "stupid" and "liar" in reference to Glenn Beck?

Why is it ok for Olbermann to go to such extreme unprofessional lengths when all Glenn Beck did was make an incorrect comment about Lewis "Scooter" Libby? Beck didn't make his comment on purpose, it was an honest mistake when he said that Libby went to jail when the truth is that Libby missed out on his jail sentence by means of President Bush commutating that sentence. It's not as if Beck said Libby wasn't convicted or some other untrue statement... he only got a minor point wrong while trying to make a larger point.

But Olbermann decided that this gaff deserved public ridicule, and he misused his show by turning it into a bully pulpit to abuse people who don't agree with him & his biased viewpoint.

And he did the same offensive behavior by calling Ann Coulter a name, simply because he doesn't agree with an idea in her new book.

If Ann Coulter believes that Jesus intended for Christianity to perfect the Jews that's her right to say so. It by no means makes her anti-semitic as Olbermann declared on his show. Although I don't totally agree with that idea being forwarded by Coulter, I have to admit that it's a concept worth debating.

Reputable religious scholars agree that Jesus wasn't trying to start a NEW religion with his teachings but trying to take Judaism on a new path. That was what made him dangerous to those in power at the time. A new religion wouldn't have threatened their power base the way a new version of the existing Judaism would have done. So, what Coulter offers is possibly as legitimate a description of what Jesus had in mind as any version of Christianity offers today.

For Olbermann to insult Coulter for what she believes is totally in opposition to the concept of Free Speech.

And for MSNBC to condone Olbermann when he acts in such an obviously biased manner while exhibiting offensively unprofessional behavior is just another example of why MSNBC is no better than Fox News.

Such obvious pandering to the liberal agenda on the Public Airwaves should never be tolerated.

Ben Affleck - "actor/activist", or just "hypocrite" ?

2007-10-11T16:14:00.000-07:00

I like Ben Affleck as an actor, really. But I don't think he should be trying to pass himself off as a credible commentator of politics.

It bugs me when celebrities try to push their opinions on the public, as if their status in our society means their opinions matters more than the "average joe".

I'm not saying they don't have a right to voice their opinions, I just don't feel they should be using their celebrity to influence people like it's being done most of the time.

I have no problem with celebrities using their status to help a worthy cause, but I think it's an abuse for them to use their celebrity to sway public opinion on political issues.

It's one thing to have Michael J. Fox raise public awareness and/or raise funds on the topic of stem cell research... it's another thing for the Dixie Chicks to publicly offer their opinion of the President to the people attending their concert.

People look up to actors, musicians, athletes, and other celebrities - it's not proper to use that enhanced public perception to promote a particular political party.

I go to a movie, concert, sporting event, etc to see a performance... I don't want to be told how I should think on an issue when I came to be entertained.

It's nice that these people have opinions, I just don't care to hear them. A celebrity's opinion shouldn't matter more than mine, and when celebrities use their status to influence people it's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the way our Government does business.

That's why they set up the system to prevent the domination of large states/cities over the smaller states and/or towns in this country.

It's in the spirit of that concept that celebrities shouldn't use their status to influence our decisions.

But even beyond that idea, another reason I oppose this behavior is because far too often the celebrities aren't following through with their comments. It's hypocritical (even offensive) for someone to tell me what I should be doing when they aren't doing the same.

Which brings me to Ben Affleck.

I haven't read anything of his recent actions, but I know that Ben Affleck hasn't had a good track record of voting. The Smoking Gun reported how Affleck had voted in only 1 election over a ten year period, and failed to vote during the 2000 Presidential election - even though he travelled the country with Al Gore trying to promote voting among young people.

Anyone remember Paris Hilton when she joined Sean "P. Diddy" Combs in his "Citizen Change" campaign? In case you missed it, Paris (along with Ludacris, 50 Cent, and others) was photographed wearing a "Vote or Die" t-shirt for ads to promote voting. The problem was that not only didn't Paris or Ludacris vote, they didn't even register so they could vote! (to his defense, 50 Cent has an excuse - he is not allowed to vote, being a convicted fellon)

What is the point of promoting a cause if you don't follow what you expect of others?

There are serious issues for potential voters to consider before they vote next... it's an insult to the process if hypocritical people influence our decisions?

MSNBC should have chosen a better person instead of Affleck to have on Hardball with Chris Matthews... but what else do you expect from a biased network like MSNBC? Of course they'll put anyone who promotes the liberal agenda they love so much - regardless of a simple fact that the person they put on air to talk about politics doesn't even vote.

Jimmy Carter and "Glass Houses"

2007-10-11T16:11:00.000-07:00

I'm not a total fan of this current Administration, but I have to speak up when a hypocrite opens his big mouth as Jimmy Carter has done. (once again!)

Jimmy Carter has some nerve talking about this Administration the way he does. All anyone has to do is examine his Administration to find many examples of blunders far surpassing what he feels this President & Vice President have done.

I commend Carter for his humanitarian efforts with Habitat for Humanity and what he has done through the Carter Center, but his legacy will be that of a man who tarnished the reputation of the Off ice of the President of the United States of America.

What Carter did to this Country is far worse than what is going on now. His failed policies caused so much harm that it resulted in the worst defeat by an incumbent President ever. His comments about Heads of State ranging from Clinton and George W. Bush to Tony Blair and even Israeli Prime Ministers demean the Office he once held as well as discredit his good points.

Tucker Carlson rightfully points out how hypocritical it was of Carter to blast Cheney for not serving in the military, considering how Carter pardoned the many draft dodgers who fled to Canada rather than serve in Viet Nam.

Chris Matthews was correct (am I really saying that?) when he stated that Carter should make a speech about what he feels are mistakes of the current foreign policy rather than make these tabloid-like comments in a hit-and-run fashion.

Lynne Cheney commented on how these public comments by Carter seem to come at a time when Carter has a new book for sale. That's improper for Carter to use his former position to get publicity from inappropriate comments so that he can sell more books.

Jimmy Carter has the right to express his opinions... but it's pathetic for him to use his former position & his reputation to forward the liberal agenda by spouting partisan rhetoric.

When Carter does things this way it only makes him look like a bitter old man who is still upset over losing his bid for re-election. The result is as someone described previously: Jimmy Carter is proving himself to be ever more increasingly irrelevant in today's world.

Carter's policies were terrible. The economy suffered double-digit inflation, there were very high interest rates, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth, with price inflation causing interest rates to rise to unprecedented levels.

Compare how bad the economy was under Carter with how well it's doing today. That's enough to discredit Carter's declaration of this Administration being "the worst" in history. But when you add in how Carter gave away the Panama Canal with other foreign policy disasters like what happened in Iran & Afghanistan and it's very clear that Carter is a pot trying to call the kettle black.

Jimmy Carter should have listened to the wise saying of "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" - if he had then he wouldn't come off looking so foolish.

"It's not about the money"...

2007-09-20T15:39:00.000-07:00

Dan Rather is full of shit when he says it's "not about the money" as he sues his old network for 70 MILLION dollars.

Rather was wrong when he tried to smear the President about his military service record, and his unprofessional tactics warranted his dismissal.

It's totally is about the money... and Rather doesn't deserve one penny!!

Dan Rather needs to get an ounce of integrity, and just admit that he reported a story that he knew wasn't factual... and that he allowed his personal beliefs cloud his alleged journalistic professionalism by putting opinion & propaganda in place of objective fact.

Dan Rather is no longer relevant in the world of news reporting... he needs to realize that & just go away.

The hypocricy of the "Jena 6" incident

2007-09-20T15:36:00.000-07:00

It is disgraceful that the Black Community is trying
to excuse CRIMINAL behavior!

The hanging of a noose, although repugnant, is not a
crime. One could argue it is protected under the 1st
Amendment as free speech, but it is not a crime.

To say that it is ok for 6 people to physically
assault a person of another ethnicity is WRONG both
morally and legally.

People like Mos Def, Ray Nagin, Jesse Jackson, & Al
Sharpton are excusing criminal behavior just because
of the color of the 6 men involved - and that is far
worse than any psychological effect seeing a noose
hung from a tree might have caused anyone.

Mos Def is demanding that the law be ignored so that
he can excuse the CRIME committed by people of his
ethnicity - when he should be calling for adherence to
the LAW, regardless of what his race is. Excusing an
assault of a human being just because of what has
happened in the past is a total miscarriage of the
"Dream" mentioned by Martin Luther King Jr.

This is not a "modern day civil rights" struggle... it
is a disgusting example of how special interests are
hijacking & violating the legal and political process
of our country.

Anthony Barbieri (a.k.a. Jake Byrd) the guy who loves famous people

2007-09-19T14:11:00.001-07:00

That guy who was mugging for the cameras when O.J.
Simpson's attorney was giving a press conference is
Anthony Barbieri doing a character he calls Jake Byrd
for the Jimmy Kimmel Live show. "Jake Byrd" was seen
defending people like Michael Jackson & Paris Hilton
in recent trials for Kimmel.

This guy shouldn't be allowed to get away with being such an idiot in public, and Jimmy Kimmel
should get some flak also for putting this guy up to the stupid crap he does just so that
Kimmel can put it on the air for ratings.

But anyway... back to the story at hand.

Here is a link to a story about Anthony Barbieri at
associatedcontent.com website:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/278429/anthony_barbieri_fools_court_tv_news.html

If you don't want to check out the link, here is the
text of that article:

Ever heard of Jake Byrd? Maybe you recall his
appearance at the Michael Jackson trial or have seen
him at Paris Hilton's news conference? Would you like
to meet him sometime in your life? While Mr. Byrd
seems like a funny acquaintance to make, chances are
that you will never meet him. This is simply because
he doesn't exist. If you do meet him, shake his hand
for me, I'll be impressed!

Jake Byrd is the creation of Anthony Barbieri who is a
famous comedy writer who has written for famous shows
like Jimmy Kimmel Live and done voices for Crank
Yankers. On the Jimmy Kimmel Live show he makes fun of
his fictitious character with the sketch "Jake
Byrd...Celebrity Avenger!" He has made Court TV News
and The New York Times believe that he is an actual
person.

He led The New York Times to believe that he is real
by appearing at Michael Jackson's trial in 2005 while
pretending to be a psycho fan of Michael. He even told
the news that the day of Michael's acquittal would be
a great one for those who sleep with little boys. I
find this extremely controversial and strikingly funny
at the same time.

He was also shown on television at Paris Hilton's news
conference wearing a hat that declared "Let her Live!"
I find this to be hilarious and genius! He has even
created a fictitious life for himself complete with a
false occupation. He claims to work in Chino,
California as a tropical fish store associate. To fool
television networks and newspapers takes guts and
skill and he obviously possesses both in copious
amounts. I suppose it takes a bit of craziness and
good humor, which I respect as well.

Anyone who will try and support the freeing of Paris
Hilton will more than likely get shot on site, but he
brazenly showed up to her news conference as Jake
Byrd. He showed he was on her side by wearing a hat
showing his support of the heiress. That will shut
those celebrity supporters up! Can't he be sued for
this? Is he exercising freedom of speech? Is he
insane? Anything involving Paris Hilton lately is
hysterical to me, so I believe that he is just
ingeniously funny.

I have never heard of anyone else pulling stunts such
as these, but I am sure that others will try and
follow in his footsteps, and likely be arrested! While
some may copy, I believe that no one will ever be able
be as believable as Anthony Barbieri. Like a Xerox
copy that fades and distorts each time it is
duplicated, likewise will be the fate of those
aspiring to be like Anthony...or Jake...whatever. Now
that the cat is out of the bag, I suppose we will not
see any more of Jake Byrd and his identity scams.
Alas, he shall be missed. I just love a guy with a
sick and twisted sense of humor.

Be sure to see "Jake Byrd" on Jimmy Kimmel's show
tonight. (b.t.w. why is his show called "Live" when
every night they display a disclaimer of either
"Previously recorded" or "Recorded earlier" to let
people know the show isn't ever live?)

"This Side" of "The Truth"...

2007-09-17T16:56:00.000-07:00

Tonight Chris Matthews uttered this phrase on his editorial disguised at news program. "This side of the truth" once again proves that Matthews isn't interested in the reality of a situation - he wants to forward the liberal agenda any way he can.

Matthews also exposed himself as a liberal when he said to John McCain: "We have always considered you to be one of us, even though that gets you in trouble on the Right".

That is a clear admission that he is not on the Right, but on the Left - and this is another example of how Matthews is part of a group at BSDNC that wish to forward the liberal agenda at all costs.

Matthews is in line with Odorman with a liberally biased editorial program that pretends to be an objective news show. Last night on CNN we saw how Glenn Beck (an admitted conservative who doesn't claim to be a journalist) point out how Odorman compared Fox big wig Rupert Murdoch with the K.K.K.

Beck also brought up how Odorman misleads the public by the way he "only" labels the last segment of his "Countdown" show as being an opinion - giving the very obvious implication that everything else is "news". Beck called this very hypocritical of Odorman, considering how Keith is demonizing FNC for the exact behavior he himself put on the air everytime he airs his show.

Glenn Beck is a more reasonable conservative, unlike Bill O or Rush... and it's good to finally see someone other than myself point out the hypocricy of people like Odorman here at BSDNC. Beck was clear to mention that he isn't like those other conservatives that are just as guilty as Matthews & Odorman in misleading the public with their opinions being passed off as objective news-reporting.

A third example of Matthews adhering so blindly to his liberal propaganda was when he refused to accept credible information given to him from a commentator - just because the info opposed what Matthews believes to be the "truth". (his version of the "facts" as he spins them, that is)

BSDNC editorialists like Matthews & Odorman distort the "facts" to benefit their liberal puppetmasters, and it's ironic how they will demonize those on the Right, even when the "facts" show them to be wrong.

It's rhetoric for Odorman to count the days since "Mission Accomplished" was declared, even though the actual mission of removing Saddam Hussein from power WAS ACCOMPLISHED!!

Matthews called the conservative commentator "judge shopping" when he stated his source of a connection to 9-11 and Iraq... just because General Petreaus said something under oath. Nothing like not letting the facts get in the way of making your liberally biased propaganda argument on your show that gives you the final word to put your opinion in place of the opposing facts.

BSDNC has ZERO integrity for allowing people like Matthews & Odorman spew the same **** (only in the opposite political direction) as those offenders at FNC.

Here are some other ways BSDNC skews the news to "their side" of the truth:

Demonizing the Republicans (and the Bush Administration specifically) for timing the Petreaus hearings so close to 9-11... when it was the DEMOCRATS who run Congress that was in sharge of when the hearings were held.

Demonizing the current Administration for using 9-11 to promote their war in Iraq... while showing their footage from that tragic day for hours on end OVER & OVER!!!

For demonizing the President over not bringing the troops home, but failing to point out how EVERY Democrat in Congress is in line with keeping them in Iraq even if the Dems with the White House in '08.

For not pointing out that the Dems could END THE WAR NOW if they just had some backbone and defunded the war... but that won't happen and BSDNC knows the Dems would never do that, even though they keep telling us that the "People" gave a "clear mandate" to the Dems in the last election.

Selective reporting & liberally biased editorials passed off as objective journalism... BSDNC is exactly the same as FNC - so will Odorman admit that he is like the K.K.K. as he did when he compared Rupert Murdoch to that group of SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS from back in the day??? (I doubt you'll get that admission - or even a nod that the group Odorman compared his nemesis to was created by his beloved Dems)

Oh the irony (and hypocricy) of Hillary!!!

2007-08-27T09:14:00.001-07:00

Just a few moments ago on MSNBC Chris Matthews (ever in his liberal bias) pitched a "softball" partisan question to Hillary Clinton regarding what she feels the standards should be for the next Attorney General.

I find it interesting that she mentioned things like "moral standing" when you consider how her husband's administration totally lacked any moral standing.

I guess Hillary "forgot" (like Gonzo does all the time) about how Janet Reno disgraced the office of Attorney General with such debacles as Ruby Ridge & Waco, or how her & her husband wouldn't meet the standards she offered today with such scandals as White Water, The "renting out" of the Lincoln Bedroom to "special interests", The Vince Foster "suicide", the pardons of Clinton family members & business partners, and the many sexual affairs that she helped hide/excuse.

I am amazed at how Hillary has also forgotten how her husband fired a U.S. Attorney who had jurisdiction over prosecuting the White Water scam criminal case which they were involved in, to assign someone sympathetic to their cause because he was a longtime friend of the Clinton's.

Or how Hillary doesn't recognize that there was equal cronyism in how her husband put Reno and Foster into their jobs as how this President placed Gonzo & Harriet Myers into theirs.

And the way Hillary continually attacks this Administration for being too secretive when she hypocritically refuses to have any documents from her time as First Lady be released until AFTER the 2008 elections is just too much.

Hillary is beyond "fatally flawed", she is the WORST possible person to be considered for the highest office in our Country!!! She needs to step down from the race... or the voters of Democrat affiliation should call for her to do so... IF any of you have an ounce of integrity, that is! (I don't expect to find any though)

"Gutlessness"???

2007-07-12T17:12:00.001-07:00

Keith Odormann over at MSDNC (their "true" name since they gladly forward the liberal left agenda of their DNC puppet masters) talks about gutlessness in regards to this current Administration. I find this funny, especially since that is exactly how Odormann (a more accurate name for Olbermann since his hot air editorials stink to high heaven) acts in his ongoing cowardly campaign of lying to the American People - as well as the behavior of his beloved impeached Bill Clinton's administration.

Tonight Olbermann once again laid blame on this Administration for Osama Bin Laden & Al-Qaeda, while failing to mention that this wouldn't be a problem if Bill Clinton would have done even a half-assed job at dealing with the many events that happened under his presidency.

For those of you like Olbermann with selective amnesia, here is a link to some MSNBC news articles that detail how Clinton totally bungled the Bin Laden situation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3907198/

But Olbermann would never admit that his beloved impeached president could possibly be even a tiny bit responsible for the current situation regarding Al-Qaeda & Osama Bin Laden.

He also will never admit that these events have anything to do with how 9/11 happened, or how the current state of security is effected by these total failures of Clinton's administration.

Somalia: 1993 - When Clinton decided to leave Somalia, Osama Bin Laden came to believe that the U.S. would not last in a battle that was drawn out over a long period of time and was very messy in casualties.

Waco, Tx: 1993 - President Clinton orders government agencies to go after a religious sect that is deemed to be dangerous. After a 51 day stand-off, it is believed (according to the Clinton Administration) that the Branch Davidians set the fires that caused the deaths of approximately 80 people and their leader, David Koresh.

World Trade Center Bombing #1: 1993 - Bombing that caused the death of 6 people and injuring over 1000. It took the Clinton Administration until 1997 or 1998 to "realize" (you'll see why I use this word rather than giving them credit for obtaining the knowledge of who perpretrated the bombing) that Osama Bin Laden's terrorist group Al Qaeda was behind the bombing.

Oklahoma City Bombing: 1995 - To commemorate the 2nd anniversary of the disaster at Waco, Tx - former Desert Storm Army Gold Star winner turned anarchist/terrorist - detonated a bomb that killed 168 people and injured about 600 more. THANKFULLY for the Clinton Administration, McVeigh allowed himself to be caught (thinking he would be sen as a radical & revolutionary... but when he realized that a daycare was part of the building he bombed, he knew he would be seen as a monster - which is how history describes him) - or most likely his military training would have prevented the Clinton Administration from solving the crime.

Atlanta Olympics Bombing: 1996 - Eric Rudolph, homegrown terrorist/serial bomber, detonated a home-made bomb durring the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta... killing 2 people & injuring over 100 people. He managed to hide out in a forrested area until 2003 when one of the local residents finally decided to provide government officials with information that allowed them to capture Rudolph.

"Unabomber" bombing spree: 1993 - Ted Kaczynski, college professor turned terrorist/serial bomber went on a spree (starting in 1979 and lasting intermittedly until 1998) that killed 3 people and injured 23 more people - according to his plea agreement.

U.S. Foreign Embassy Bombings: 1998 - A precision-timed bombing of two US Embassies of separate East African countries kills 257 people and injures over 4000 people between the two locations. A local branch of Al Qaeda takes credit for the bombings. After some scrambling for information on the terrorist group, the Clinton Administration has the organization's leader, Osama Bin Laden, declared as "Public Enemy #1".

ABC Interview with Osama: 1998 - John Miller of ABC News interviews Osama Bin Laden in Southern Afghanistan. In the interview, Osama declares to the American public (and to the Clinton Administration who declared him "Public Enemy #1") that he is changing the fatwa he declared two years earlier. Previously he called for all Muslims to attack/kill any American military personnel that is part of the "occupying force of the Holy Lands" (a reference to US Troops being stationed in his homeland of Saudia Arabia as part of joint relations between the two countries) - but now he calls on all Muslims to rise up and attack/kill Americans (civilian and military) whereever they may be found. He has informed the Clinton Administration on National TV that he is declaring a Holy War that will include US soil, if given the chance... AGAIN. It is because of this interview (and NOT because of any hard work or investigation done by the Clinton Administration) that the world knows who was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the twin bombs in the US Embassies in Eastern Africa. After this interview, it cannot be claimed that an attack from Al Qaeda is unexpected, even on US soil.

USS Cole Bombing: 2000 - Osama Bin Laden's terrorist group, Al Qaeda attack the USS Cole as it is in the Aden Harbor, Yemen. The number of Navy personnel that are either confirmed or presumed dead is 17, and 40 were injured. Eventually, 2 men were executed & another four were given prison sentences ranging from 5 to 10 years. The bombing of the USS Cole was preceded earlier that year by a failed attempt to bomb the USS The Sullivans.

But biased tools of the liberal left agenda don't want to talk about how they & their cowardly kind have made this country to be in the serious risk of an attack that currently exists - because that would mean they would have to speak truthfully, as well as admit that they put our country in danger because they refuse to let go of their political beliefs, no matter how wrong these beliefs are shown to be.

Olbermann is gutless in how he takes MSDNC's millions received no doubt from the pockets of the DNC, MoveOn.org, and other special intrest groups of the liberal left.

Olbermann should be ashamed of himself for broadcasting opinion in place of fact, solely for the benefit of his liberal masters.

Someone needs to put this biased propaganda to an end so that these con artists can no longer scam the American People on the Public's airwaves.

About Michael Moore and his cowardly kind...

2007-07-12T16:29:00.000-07:00

It's easy for Michael Moore to talk about health care - especially when you consider that he isn't one of the people who has to worry about not having one of his health concerns taken care of.

Moore was on the TV Guide Network for an interview, and he bragged how he has THREE health care plans from being in the film industry.

Why is it people who aren't effected by a situation the ones who try to force others to do what they feel is right for them?

Michael Moore has a total disconnect from reality in regards to this situation because he will never be faced with any of the problems he claims exist in the health care industry.

It's nice to see that he cares about the problems others face, but it's obvious that Moore isn't concerned with solving the problem or helping others not as fortunate as he is.

The bottom line is that Moore is all about making money while attacking Republicans.

He is just one of the many on the liberal left who wish to hijack our political process while promoting the agenda favored by his party of choice.

Moore is a hypocrite, just like when he made a comment in one of his books about the American Dream.

Michael Moore told his readers that they will never become rich, as we are lead to believe anyone can as long as they work hard & do the best they can. Moore says that it's a waste of time for people to believe that they could win the lottery (or any other way of becoming rich) because it is never going to happen for them.

This coming from a man who went from rags to riches because he followed his dream of making documentaries. He became rich against the odds... yet he seems to not want anyone else to experience the finer things he has.

Moore is just like the people at moveon.org, Cindy Sheehan, or Keith Olbermann - who want their beliefs to be the way things get done, no matter how much in the minority those beliefs may be.

It's like Chris Matthews when he proclaims his view of how "Democracy" works.

Matthews is heard saying that Democracy is when you get someone with ideas & passion arguing with another person of ideas & passion to debate - then having the people listening to the debate decide who is "right".

The only problem with this is that Matthews is pushing a system where a vocal minority can win out over a majority that is less vocal. This is why biased news networks like MSNBC (and FOX News on the other side of the political spectrum) are so dangerous - because they get people to accept as fact something that is not an unbiased telling of the facts.

It's propaganda rather than truth, and when people are fooled into accepting someone's agenda as fact - then democracy is no longer democracy, it's closer to dictatorship.

Michael Moore tells only the details that support his objective, and leaves out that which might prove his theories to be wrong. That is something that is as wrong as when a con artist lies to his victims so that he can scam them to his benefit.

Usually a con artist seeks money from his victims, but these con artists like Moore, Matthews, Sheehan, Olbermann, etc want to con people into voting the way that benefits their chosen political party. (well, Moore also gets monetary profit when people pay to see his propaganda filled "documentaries" that also forward his political agenda)

This is how the American Public were tricked into giving power over to Democrats, when it wouldn't have happened if the people weren't fooled by lies forwarded by these con artists. We have seen that these Democrats have not shown themselves to be deserving of the power that they gained by trickery. Hopefully the public will correct this error when the next elections happen.

The American People will not be served well as long as people like Olbermann, Sheehan, Moore, Matthews, Air America, MoveOn.org, Bill Maher, Al Franken, etc are allowed to lie to us and dress it up as fact.

We deserve better, and those guilty of this treachery should be punished.

What Democrats are up to...

2007-07-09T13:55:00.000-07:00

If you're wondering why Democrats like Senator Schumer and Congressman Conyers are trying so hard to get members (past & present) of President Bush Staff/Administration to testify under oath is not to "get to the bottom of" whatever subject applies to the many investigations they have initiated - it is for petty spite!

The reason Democrats won't accept the Administration's offer to have these people testify without being under oath or with a record of testimony given is because this won't give Democrats any potential comment that can be used to "Scooter Libby" more members of this Administration.

The Democrats know that no laws were broken when certain U.S. Attorneys were fired. The people crying about foul play know that the President can fire those attorneys for any reason he sees fit (as long as it doesn't violate established Federal Laws) because they serve at his "pleasure".

There is nobody that can be punished for criminal behavior, UNLESS Democrats can succeed in getting someone to say something under oath that can be proven to be untrue.

All that the President needs to do is just say that it doesn't matter who might have been involved in any discussions leading up to those firings - because he has every right to fire them and Congress has no authority over the matter.

Democrats can cry that politics motivated the firings, and it doesn't matter at all. By very definition of the term "political" everything that goes on in Washington D.C. is politically motivated.

But the fact that politics most likely had everything to do with the firings doesn't effect the President's ability to fire those he appoints at his desire.

All of these investigations and crybaby pundit editorials trying to punish someone for what the President had every legal right to do is just the pathetic desperate attempt of impotent Democrats who just want to look like they aren't still the "Republican's Bitches" even when they are in power of Congress.

The same thing applies to the outrage being seen regarding the "Scooter" Libby commutation of sentence.

The President has full authority to commute the sentence (or fully pardon) anyone he chooses. Congress has no basis in law to attempt to punish this Administration for something they disagree with.

Where was the same outrage when their impeached president, Bill Clinton, handed out over 90 pardons on his FINAL DAY IN OFFICE??? I have listed in detail in previous blog entries the reasons that prove that Clinton acted far beyond anything the Democrats accuse President Bush of doing.

Oh, and to Chucky Schumer... if you want to accuse this Administration of having something to hide - he needs to remember how his impeached president Clinton perfectly fit this description in regards to the Whitewater investigation. (with the help of his buddy Vince Foster, before his "suicide")

What did we have the election for?

2007-07-09T12:26:00.000-07:00

Liberals & Democrats tell us that the American Public spoke out loudly & clearly during the last elections.

If that's true (which I don't accept - it was a load of **** that they want us to believe & their buddies at MSNBC say it often enough that the mindless masses believe the lie) then why aren't Democrats doing what they supposedly were elected to do?

Why are they not passing laws that take care of our border security? Why haven't they done anything about illegal immigration? Why haven't they got us out of that senseless war in Iraq? Where's the many things the Democrats promised to have done by now?

Didn't the American People elect Democrats (and not re-elect Republicans) because they wanted results? Why hasn't people like Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid made good on the things they said to convince us to put them in power?

Why, instead, has this Democrat run fiasco chose to do NOTHING positive? Why do we hear excuses about how they can't get anything done? They are the majority, right? Can't they do anything even when they are in charge?

Why is the only thing Democrats seem capable of doing is launching investigation after investigation that only shows how stupid they really are?

Why must they keep trying to question what the U.S. Constitution says is within the powers of the Executive Branch?

Why do the Democrats insist on trying to hijack our political process with partisan tactics?

How many more non-binding resolutions must we be forced to accept (ones that can't even get passed, or even get to a vote most of the time even!) before these people who scammed their way into power actually do the job they were elected to do?

How much longer must the American People who wanted change & action by their elected officials endure such impotent & ineffective behavior from Democrats that have shown themselves to be no better than the Republicans they replaced in power?

Is it any wonder that even MSNBC can't spin the fact of how this Democrat Congress has an EVEN LOWER approval rating than that of the President & Vice President??? (I didn't think that they could manage to pull that one off, but they did)

I say enough of the investigations! I say that laws need to be passed (damn the threat of veto) that will accomplish the things we elected you to do!!

Bring our troops home!

Secure our borders!

Deal with illegal immigration! (doing nothing is not acceptable any more than amnesty is)

Raise our wages, not your own!

Take care of our veterans!

Give us affordable health care/prescriptions!

Lower our tax burden!

Stop intruding into our private lives!

Hold this Administration accountable for its excesses of power!

Stop diving this country between liberal/conservative, red state/blue state, Democrat/Republican!

Hold your party to the same standard you do the opposite party & stop the hypocrisy!

Do something ANYTHING, just stop this current spiral of destruction! (hell, impeach someone... at least that's doing something that will have a positive result - unlike these investigations & crybaby tantrums!)

I love my country... but I'm ashamed of the people who make up the government.

2007-07-04T04:45:00.001-07:00

Since Keith Olbermann has lost all grip on reality, his sanity, and what behavior is expected from someone who has won an Edward R. Murrow award... I have taken it upon myself to do what Olbermann/his production crew either are incapable or unwilling of doing.

I have done research to find out if there exists condition(s) that accurately the distorted "facts" that barely can be seen in his editorial program as he continues his never-ending agenda of misguiding and/or flat out lying to the people he is supposed to be providing unbiased reporting of only the facts existing for a story.

Here are events where a President used his Office to either commute the sentence or fully pardoned someone convicted of crimes that qualify as that described by Olbermann on 2 successive nights.

Unfortunately, these actions were not those of the current President that Olbermann loves to blame for everything wrong/evil since the dawn of time... these are the actions of a man who fully & accurately lives up to all of those unprofessional/insulting comments uttered by Olbermann recently.

I am, of course, referring to impeached former President, Bill Clinton.

Those like Olbermann who cried like a baby, saying that President Bush exceeded his authority by commuting the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby - they exposed either their laziness or their ignorance of what authority the US Constitution gives to the President in this area.

When people like Olbermann & Matthews repeat untruths, distortions, and/or flat out lies intended to have people believe their propaganda, they sink far below any level of offensive behavior than anything they (falsely) accuse the President and his Administration of doing.

When these partisan hypocrites call this Presidental action as being totally improper due to Libby having such a close relationship to this Administration, they fail to mention when impeached president Clinton did EXACTLY the same type of thing when he pardoned these people:

Former Democratic Senator Dan Rostenkowski

Former Director to the CIA (and Clinton apointee) John Deutch

HUD Secretary under Clinton, Henry Cisneros

Impeached Judge (now current Democratic Congressman) Alcee Hastings, and the man who helped get him impeached, William Arthur Borders, Jr

When people like David Shuster called this event as being that of someone who has a very close relationship to the person doing the pardoning an abuse of power - he could have used these two Clinton pardons to more accurately describe abuse of power to benefit friends:

Roger Clinton, the half-brother to then Governor Clinton

Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, who paid the President's brother-in-law, Tony Rodham, over $100,000 in his successful bid for their pardon. (money Rodham later was forced to return)

If Olbermann believes that the President was a coward for not personally announcing this action - but doing so by way of an almost totally overlooked press release... what else could he do but also call his beloved impeached president Clinton a coward for the MULTITUDE of pardons he granted in what was the "final moments" of his Presidency???

If sending out a press release instead of publicly stating the event is cowardly... then granting pardons so close to leaving office that you prevent anyone from holding you accountable for so many questionable actions is about a MILLION times more cowardly!!!

And if professional crybaby/political prostitute Joe Wilson honestly believes that the President is basically admitting guilt in the related matter by the way he is allegedly "buying the silence" of Libby to prevent anyone else from being found guilty of wrongdoing... does he feel the exact same way about the way impeached president Clinton CLEARLY rewarded his long-time friend/business partner, Susan McDougal for keeping quiet about how guilty Clinton was of crimes (not mere "wrong-doing" that is actually permissible aspects granted to the President that partisan crybabies want people to believe as being improper when it is nothing of the sort) in the same criminal case McDougal was convicted in?

How else could Wilson describe the way Clinton waited until AFTER McDougal served her prison sentence before granting her a full pardon (not a mere commutation of prison term, while keeping real punishment for wrongs Libby committed) in the last moments of the Clinton Presidency???

Well, considering how much Wilson has become a whore for the liberal democrat agenda... I suppose he could say it was a wonderful act of kindness done by a saint of a person. I'm sure he would say whatever the people pulling his strings tell him to say.

But these liberal/democrats are on a witch-hunt... and damned if they will let the truth or their ever increasing hypocrisy prevent them from saying things that they would never apply to their own when they have done the same - and worse!!!

And if the argument about Olbermann's show not being news, but "entertainment", "opinion", etc. makes it somehow ok to present on a network that advertises having a "fuller spectrum of news" that doesn't promote any "agendas" or have a bias towards one political viewpoint over another... then why isn't that the way Olbermann is described on MSNBC's "Meet the faces of MSNBC"???

Here is the URL of that webpage.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080446/

On this page you can see how MSNBC has chosen to describe Olbermann by using words/phrases like "MSNBC Anchor", "host", "reporter", "contributor", "broadcaster", and "writer". (the description of Olbermann being a "commentator" describes his time at ABC Radio, and not covering his time at MSNBC)

As mentioned above, Olbermann an Edward R. Murrow Award , and there is no mention of opinions or editorials being part of the qualifying aspects for someone to receive this award. The award is given for excellence in news reporting, not for entertaining or editorial programs.

If you look up the word "journalism" at Dictionary.com - this is what you find under the American Heritage Dictionary:

The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.

By very definition of the word, what MSNBC allows people like Chris Matthews & Keith Olbermann to broadcast on the Public Airwaves doesn't even come close to meeting the qualification of this term that is supposed to describe a news network like MSNBC.

But here are some terms (that aren't aspects of what defines journalism) that accurately describe what type of activity MSNBC passes off as journalism:

Editorial:
An article in a newspaper or magazine expressing the opinion of the editor or publisher.

Opinion:
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

Propaganda:
1. Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.

2. Information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

And finally, a word that Steve Capus spoke on MSNBC in the wake of the Don Imus scandal. Mr Capus claimed that this would be THE benchmark standard that he would hold ALL MSNBC on air staff to - and that he would do so in a strict manner so that the type of offensive & unprofessional behavior that resulted in the removal of Imus from MSNBC would not happen again.

Integrity:
Adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.

Sadly, because of such "used car salesman" reporters like Olbermann & Matthews... MSNBC doesn't have ONE IOTA of this necessary requirement of journalism worthy of an Edward R. Murrow.

Now that we have defined what journalism is supposed to be - this establishes without any doubt that MSNBC is falsely advertising what they are doing with the Public Airwaves.

The Susan H. McDougal award

2007-07-03T15:19:00.000-07:00

If Chris Matthews wants someone to name the "award" he feels should be given to Lewis "Scooter" Libby, he shouldn't call it the "G. Gordon Liddy" award... he should call it the "Susan H. McDougal" award.
Susan McDougal (born 1955 in Heidelberg, Germany) is one of the few people who served prison time as a result of the Whitewater controversy in the United States, though fifteen individuals were convicted of federal charges. She was born Susan Carol Henley, the daughter of James B. Henley and Laurette (Mathieu) Henley.
Susan McDougal was married in 1976 to James B. McDougal, also of Little Rock, Arkansas. The McDougals were partners with Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the failed Whitewater real estate venture in the 1980s, and were convicted along with then-Gov. Jim Guy Tucker (D) in obtaining millions in illegal loans, including a $300,000 federally backed loan for Susan McDougal, through a small business investment firm owned by David Hale.

She was convicted on May 28, 1996, and spent time in prison for four counts of fraud and conspiracy relating to the Whitewater scandal. She was later charged with (and acquitted of) embezzlement against noted conductor Zubin Mehta.[1]
She also spent 18 months in prison including 7 weeks in solitary confinement for civil contempt of court. U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright sentenced her after McDougal refused to answer three questions from Whitewater prosecutors before the grand jury empaneled by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to investigate the Whitewater deals. These questions included whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial, particularly when he denied any knowledge of an illegal $300,000 loan. During that trial, the government's star witness, Arkansas banker and former municipal judge David Hale, claimed that then-Governor Bill Clinton had discussed an illegal $300,000 loan with himself and McDougal.

McDougal received a full Presidential pardon from outgoing President Bill Clinton in the final hours of his presidency in 2001.

This is a more accurate event that was described as "Cronyism" or as "cowardly" in timing is this FULL PARDON (not a mere commutation of sentence) of McDougal!

If ever there was a reward of pardon for keeping quiet about things that could seriously harm the President who pardoned the convicted criminal... it is Clinton's pardon of McDougal.

Why doesn't MSNBC seem outraged by the way that Bill Clinton cowardly waited until the final moments of his Presidency to give a full pardon to a person who could have surely caused him to be not only indicted, but convicted of his guilty actions of the Whitewater criminal case.

If liberals & Democrats feel that the President is "buying Libby's silence" with this commutation (and dangling carrot of a possible pardon in the future) - then they MUST also admit that Bill Clinton MOST DEFINITELY bought the silence of McDougal by waiting until AFTER she was released from jail (and just before he no longer could pardon his long-time friend & business partner) before cowardly saving his own ass from rightfully being prosecuted successfully for crimes we all know he committed!!

But liberals & Democrats are the party of hypocrisy, and they totally condone criminal behavior in their own while always trying to absolutely crucify Republicans for the exact same behavior!!!

If you feel Libby deserved prison time... will you also admit that Clinton deserved equal punishment since he was convicted of the exact same crimes???

If you feel this commutation of sentence (not the McDougal full pardon) is anyway wrong, then what do you say about these pardons that Bill Clinton had no problem doing, and no liberal or Democrat said one word against them???

Roger Clinton, the half-brother to the then Governor for cocaine possession.

Former Democratic Senator Dan Rostenkowski for his part in the Congressional Post Office Scandal.

Former Director to the CIA (and Clinton apointee) John Deutch.

Clinton's HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros.

Impeached Judge (now current Democratic Congressman) Alcee Hastings, and the man who helped get him impeached, William Arthur Borders, Jr.

Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, who paid the President's brother-in-law, Tony Rodham, over $100,000 in his successful bid for their pardon. (money Rodham later was forced to return)

And let's not forget Clinton business partner, Susan McDougal - who was rewarded with a pardon for not doing duty her civic duty to fully & completely about the criminal activities of the President in that same case.

Is there one or two standards in play here???

It's time to stop this offensive behavior on the Public Airwaves!!!

2007-07-03T04:59:00.000-07:00

After that insane outburst by Keith Olbermann last night it is time that the management must take steps to correct such unprofessional & offensive behavior.

If you do not at LEAST suspend Olbermann for his totally unfactual & biased commentary then I will ask the thousands of subscribers of my blog to send emails to your network, the parent company, as well as file complaints with the FCC.

I am all for freedom of speech, even that of such obvious bias like Oblbermann and the typical NBC/MSNBC comments - but this has gone far beyond the level of offensive behavior that Don Imus was removed from the airwaves for doing.

MSNBC still advertises that they offer news without a bias, or with a specific agenda (in an ongoing ad hominim attack of rival FOX News) while proudly allowing such equally biased comments/reporting from people like Olbermann and Chris Matthews.

It's a blatant hypocrisy that either needs to be correctly defined, or something that must cease to happen on the Public Airwaves.

Where was Olbermann's equal reporting of the many pardons of his beloved Bill Clinton? There are many on record that are either for the same offense that "Scooter" Libby was convicted of - or for crimes far worse.

Why did Olbermann fail to express equal outrage at the pardon of Verla Jean Allen, for "false statements to an agency of the United States"?

What about even more outrage at the pardoning of people like Nicholas M. Altiere, Chris Harmon Bagley, and David Roscoe Blampied - who were convicted of being serious dealers of cocaine?

Could it possibly be because these people were pardoned by Bill Clinton - and it's not a problem when Democrats are seen doing the exact same activities that Republicans get crucified for doing?

If Olbermann was so upset because Libby was a member of the Bush II Administration, why didn't he explain that President Bush did for his fellow Republican what Clinton did for at LEAST six Democrats who had been convicted of various serious crimes?

You would certainly think that Olbermann would have to report (in the spirit of "a fuller spectrum of news reporting" how Clinton went even farther than Olbermann accuses Bush of doing - when Clinton gave a pardon to his own Half-brother, Roger Clinton, or Clinton's business partner, Susan McDougal, when Olbermann ranted about it being so wrong to pardon someone with such a close relationship to the pardoning President... but you would be sadly mistaken!

Why don't we hear such long-winded editorials from Olbermann about how improper it was for Clinton to reward McDougal for keeping quiet rather than doing her obligation to testify truthfully & completely - when not doing so meant that the President (who eventually pardoned her) would have also been convicted of serious crimes in the same criminal case.

If NBC/MSNBC, its management, or Olbermann had any integrity at all, they would have included that this pardon was a reward for not causing Bill Clinton to be convicted of crimes he committed, but never faced justice for due to the silence of McDougal paid for by the eventual pardon.

And if Olbermann believes that this Libby pardon was done in a cowardly fashion because the President didn't go on TV to announce it, but left it in a press release... then why didn't he say that Clinton's pardon of McDougal in what was the "final hours" of Clinton's Presidency??

Why does Olbermann repeatedly include damaging information about Republicans, when he always "forgets" to do the same about his beloved Democrats??

And why does the management allow him to get away with such selective reporting??

Could it be because the result is a huge amount of revenue from advertisers who want to be associated with such popular bashing of this Administration & Republicans??

It is no secret that Olbermann has been rewarded in the MILLIONS of dollars for doing the very thing he did on his show last night... this tells us without a doubt that his behavior is not only tolerated, but approved of.

But this was the same with Don Imus before the people said it was enough... and once again it is time for NBC/MSNBC to do to Olbermann what they did to Imus.

Olbermann needs to be at least suspended, if not fired for his actions last night. It is the last straw in a long history of offensive behavior on air.

If NBC/MSNBC management doesn't have the integrity to do what must be done... then it will be up to the people to take action and force their hand until the correct action against Olbermann is done.

It is time for the management to either take action against Olbermann... or for them to go on air to admit that this "used car salesman" type of journalism is their preferred way to conduct business on the Public Airwaves.

If they will not act, then we will. America is watching you NBC/MSNBC - how will your legacy in this historical matter be defined for all time?

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

2007-06-27T20:03:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-27T17:53:00.000-07:00

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"

2007-06-27T14:36:00.000-07:00

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.

When will someone speak up against the atrocity?

2007-04-04T14:42:00.000-07:00

Who were those two guys on Tucker's show tonight? (Wed April 4, 2007)
I haven't heard such BLATANT biased commentary on a "so-called" news network, ever!
Even by the usual radically-left leanings of MSNBC this was incredible! From all of the vemon these two commentators spewed at the President I wouldn't be surprised if Keith Olbermann gave them their talking points.
Those two were VERY unprofessional, obnoxious, and flat out rude as they cut off Tucker or talked over him as he spoke (as Tucker always does) with common-sense, neutral observations of what is factually going on with the situations being debated.
Joe is mild for being the LONE conservative voice among the crashing thunder that is MSNBC's liberal propaganda rants. He's reasonable, unlike his counterpart on the other blatantly biased "news" network. (of course, I refer to Alan Colmes on Fox NEWS Network)
Tucker is a true Independant who will actually report truthful accounts of who is to blame for whatever is being called "news" at MSNBC these days. He doesn't spin things to benefit the Dems or to slam the Republicans - like everyone else there (but Joe, of course) does & tries to claim they aren't as bad as those evil Fox conservatives.
Even those angry liberal blowhards - Bill Mahar & Al Franken don't get as bad as those two guys did on Tucker's show! I don't think that those a-holes Robert Novak & Rush Limbaugh have ever gone on air and spoke as rudely & stupidly as those two did tonight!!
Their information (they called them "facts" & the "truth") had the absolute inaccuracy of Rosie O'Donnell's recent comment that "fire has NEVER melted steel EVER in the history of time". (had Rosie taken 5 minutes to "Google" the topic she would have seen how steel gets melted by fire & heat all the time to form the metal into whatever it is needed to build things... But she - like the MSNBC propagandists - chose to make an obviously false statement rather than admit her point of belief is wrong!!)
A wise man once said "It's better to keep your mouth shut, and be thought a fool... than to open it up, and remove all doubt." Sadly, the MSNBC drones working for the liberal left puppet-masters don't follow this wise advice.
When is Dan Abrams going to admit that the ship he's running at MSNBC isn't objective, neutral, unbiased, or even remotely what could be called "news reporting"? Why doesn't his boss, Phil Griffin, force him to admit the truth?
The answer is simple.
It's popular to bash the Republicans & the Administration. The country was duped into believing the MSNBC propaganda... and the fraud that MSNBC perpetrated upon America was the reason the election went the way it did - and it's why MSNBC has made our country weaker by breading cowards who mindlessly believe the liberal agenda that MSNBC is willingly pushing down America's throats.
MSNBC parades liberal commentator after liberal commentator to repeat their lies & propaganda - because when they spend hour after hour repeating the lie... the people too stupid or too lazy to think for themselves eventually believe the lie to be the truth.
The Democrat Party depends on Americans being too dumb or gullible to realize that Soylent Green is PEOPLE - because without the sheep willing to follow blindly they can't keep their positions of power in D.C.
That's why the Dems are for programs like Social Security, Welfare, Affirmative Action, raising Minimum Wage, quotas, etc...
These are the tools the Dems use to keep many people too poor to survive without them in power. They use scare tactics to get their votes, while raping the very soul of the people they claim to represent.
The country didn't loudly vote against the War - as the Dems & MSNBC want us to believe.
If that's so... then why did Joe Lieberman (the most pro-war Dem around) get re-elected as an Independant?
Recently Keith Olbermann tried to force Bill Mahar to agree with his assertation that the Bush Administration was responsible for the death of Pat Tillman.
Bill Mahar (a man who is so radically liberal that he called the 9/11 terrorists "brave" and the Administration "cowards") couldn't hold his nose to swallow that crap!
Bill Mahar repeatedly told Keith that you couldn't make that leap... no matter how many times Keith kept trying to find a new way to say it & get Bill Mahar tricked into agreeing with him.
Keith ended his segment with Mahar by praising him & his HBO show...
And didn't even take a breath as he moved on to the next story - an interview with Pat Tillman's mother - an interview where Keith held tight to his ridiculous claim of minutes ago (the very same thoery that the much praised Bill Mahar had completely ripped apart) even in the face of reason - reason coming from the wacko Mahar.
It's the same behavior that caused Olbermann to deny that his "buddy" Bill Clinton was to blame for any aspect of 9/11, Al-Qaeda, & Osama... even those the facts are obvious & stated as such by no less than the 9/11 Commission!!!
But Keith knows better than them!!! He has the blind faith in his inquisition as those of the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials did before him.
It's time for MSNBC, Dan Abrams, & all those who would actually wish to be journalists to speak out against the liberal bias plainly in view.
If this isn't stopped from happening in the future it's as culpable as those "moderate" Islamic believers who remain silent as the radical terrorists commit atrocities... or as bad as the silent Germans who let Hitler rise to power rather than admit the truth - even if it means having to admit your side is wrong.
MSNBC's liberal bias weakens our country. Someone needs to speak up & say that increased ratings isn't worth making our country too blind to see the danger that is being created by such behavior & irresponsible "reporting" of propaganda as fact. This is far worse than what the Bush Administration has done by waging war in Iraq & creating terrorists who might later attack our shores.
MSNBC & liberals want us to believe that Republicans are "wolves in sheep's clothing" (and that may even be true) - as if that's the worst thing that could happen.
A wolf in sheep's clothing isn't what we need to be afraid of... because there's something worse than that.
MSNBC & liberals (Democrats) are the thing that is worse.
What is that, you ask? I'll tell you.
The reason you need not be afraid of a wolf in sheep's clothing (Republicans) is because the disguise is always so obvious that the sheep can tell the wolf trying to fool the sheep into believing the wolf is really a sheep.
What needs to be feared is the wolf that presents himself as a FRIENDLY wolf. Nothing to fear, he says, I'm friendly... I'm on your side.
And when the sheep drop their guard... the "friendly" wolf (Dems & MSNBC) devours the sheep who fell for the scam.
Dan Abrams, MSNBC, & especially Keith Olbermann & Chris Matthews should be ashamed of themselves for betraying the trust of the people they claim to be looking out for!!!
I wonder how they can sleep at night, or live with themselves knowing they are the friendly wolf about to devour the fooled sheep!!!
When will it end? Hopefully it will happen before it's too late - MSNBC & the liberals (Democrats) will have the blood on their hands when the eventual result of their ratings hungry propaganda agenda attack against America becomes the next 9/11!!!

Playing Politics

2007-03-22T12:47:00.000-07:00

Democrats are being hypocritical, as usual, by playing politics in the most recent of their never-ending "scandals" they claim the Bush Administration has being perpetrating.

I'm not sure I believe that all 8 of the Federal prosecutors were fired for "just cause" due to performance... but for Democrats (and their liberally biased bretheren, the media) to portray the "Bushies" as being the only ones to have fired prosecutors for "political" reasons.

First off, let's define politics so that we may understand what is, and isn't "political".

pol·i·tics [ póll i tiks ] noun
Definition: activities associated with government: the theory and practice of government, especially the activities associated with governing, with obtaining legislative or executive power, or with forming and running organizations connected with government.

So, by the very definition... ANY reason for firing the prosecutors would qualify as "political".

Now that we have that out of the way...

Some idiots (ie: Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, & the Carpetbagger Report - just to name a few) Want to either "spin" or flat out dent the FACT that Impeached President Bill Clinton did a very similar move when he was in the Oval Office. Slick Willy disguised his move by firing all 93 of the Federal Prosecutors to cover up the fact that he was replacing a Republican with one of his cronies in the very important jurisdiction of Little Rock, Arkansas.

Why was the an "important" jurisdiction & the move so improper?

It's because there was the little matter of the Whitewater scandal that was being investigated by this jurisdiction. By replacing the prosecutor with someone who was not only friendly to Clinton - but his friend - it guaranteed that no charges would ever be put against Bill or Hillary Clinton for their wrongdoing in the Whitewater fraud scam.

That was FAR WORSE than any of the firings that have recently happened!

The Impeached President put a cronie in the exact position that would keep him & his wife from being held accountable for their crimes.

While firing the prosecutor who successfully prosecuted "Duke" Cunningham smells of retribution for doing her job... it isn't as bad as abusing the Office of the President to assure that you don't get held accountable for commiting crimes.

One of the firings seems to be justifiable, from what I have seen of the facts so far.

If a prosecutor is told about potential voter fraud being perpetrated by a candidate (regardless of political party) and that prosecutor chooses NOT to investigate the alleged crimes as soon as he learns of the potential criminal behavior... that prosecutor is willfully avoiding performing the duties he was hired to do - and he should be fired immediately. It's not proper to wait until after the election to investigate (let alone decide whether to prosecute) and anyone who fails to do their duty of the office they hold deserves to be removed from that position.

Democrats are posturing by handing down subpoenas to certain White House staff members. They know that NOTHING criminal happened in the firing of these 8 prosecutors. What these Democrats hope to achieve by getting people under oath & on the record is to "Scooter Libby" Karl Rove. They hope to get him in a position where he is caught lying under oath so that he can be prosecuted for perjury. If they can get this to happen, then it can be a way to finally get Karl Rove removed from his position of influence & power within the Bush Administratation.

Democrats fear Karl Rove because he is far more intelligent than anyone they have on their side. Karl Rove gets results & they want to negate this advantage the Republicans have over them.

That's it, plain & simple.

The bottom line is that the Democrats want Karl Rove gone so that they can have an advantage in the next election cycle.

And THAT is playing politics... but the hypocritical Democrats won't ever admit the ulterior motive behind this cowardly move of the subpoena.

H.P.V. vaccine does not equal an endorsement for sex!!!

2007-03-15T12:47:00.000-07:00

It should be a crime for people to impose their morals upon others... especially if by doing so it could result in someone having to suffer (and possibly die a painful death) from something that could have been avoided in the first place.

I am sickened by the actions of certain people in Texas who are trying to prevent Governor Rick Perry's H.P.V. vaccine mandate from going in effect.

I have heard people spew out "excuses" (not reasons that are valid) like vomit, that are a type of scare tactic that will end up putting thousands of young women in danger if these people succeed.

Their top talking point would make me laugh, if it wasn't such a serious subject.

To say that giving these young ladies the vaccine is an endorsement to have sex is just ridiculous! These two things have nothing in common. By that reasoning, a person could equally say that allowing young girls to wear bikini swimwear is an endorsement for sex - because we all know that when young boys see cute girls half naked... they immediately must have sex!!!

A vaccine MUST be taken before the person would coem into a situation that might allow the disease to happen. You don't get a flu shot after you get the flu, why would you want the young girls to wait until after they are in a position to have already had sex?

The vaccine is safe... it's endorsed by many agencies, both govermental & civilian.

And the reason for the mandate was not to circumvent the authority of the parents... it was so that the medical insurance companies couldn't deny paying for the vaccine by reason of it being "elective" and not necessary. The opponents of this mandate know full well that there is a simple process to "opt out" if a child's parents don't want their daughter to have the vaccine. And it makes no sense that people should be afraid that their name would be collected on some list that would be used as a way to persecute any parent who chooses to opt out of the program. That's a sign of severe paranoia for these people to jump to that conclusion when no evidence supports that claim.

I'm sure that any young girl being vaccinated would be given information about what the vaccine does & does not protect, and that the vaccine is not protection against other S.T.D.s or even pregnancy. To think that a person would only receive a shot and be sent on her way without being told anything is another sign of how unrealistic the thinking of the opposition really is. To do that would be negligent & almost assure that the child would fall victim to other situations that any reasonable person would surely also want the child to avoid.

And if these people opposed to the vaccine mandate think their young girls aren't having to deal with the possibility of having sex so young... then they are like an ostritch with its head buried in the sand. Being in denial of such potential activity is like playing Russian Roulette with 5 bullets in the 6-shooter.

I have a 14 year old son, and I have already spoken to him about the dangers of having sex so young. I'd much rather he have the knowledge of what could happen than to not speak of such things & find out afterward he did something out of ignorance & now much suffer the consequences. I have raised my son a certain way, & I trust him to make the right choices in any situation he may face. If he doesn't do as I would hope he would, then I will be disappointed. BUT... I'd rather be a disappointed parent than one who has to deal with the consequences of what has happened because my child didn't have the information/tools that could have prevented an unfortunate situation.

Never is "better safe than sorry" the most sensible plan of action to follow!!

These are the FACTS:

H.P.V. is the known cause of certain types of cervical cancer.

About 6.2 million people get H.P.V. each year in the U.S.

The American Cancer Society estimates that over 9700 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer (and about 3700 women will die from it) this year.

The vaccine is safe for 11 & 12 year olds... even as young as 9 year olds.

The vaccine has been proven to be almost 100% effective against the 4 types of cancer it is designed to protect against.

The best & most sensible way to prevent this from happening is to have the vaccine given to girls before they become exposed to the potential of H.P.V.

It is my opinion that anyone who actively prevents this vaccine from being made available to as many girls as possible is responsible for anyone who gets H.P.V. - especially if it could have been prevented if not for the actions of these people opposed to the vaccine being used.

Cervical cancer is a painful way to suffer & die... and unnecessary when you consider we have the ability to prevent it from happening to many of the people who might get it.

How could a person live with the guilt of knowing they did something that caused women to suffer & die a horrible death - just because they wanted to push their morality on others??? I know I couldn't look in the mirror if I helped prevent girls from receiving a vaccine that could have prevented them from getting certain types of cervical cancer.

How about you?

Check out this link to a website with information about H.P.V., cervical cancer, & the vaccine before you let even one more young girl become a victim to this preventable condition.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm

Part 1 (of 2) rant on "Donald Trump"

2007-02-05T07:01:00.000-08:00

WARNING: I havn't been online regularly since about 2 months ago, so I have built up some frustration and feel the need to vent on some topics that have me pissed off. This will be a 2 part entry, and it most likely will end up being very long. If you think you might regret spending time on these entries that you can get back, this is your chance to avoid the time it will take to read the entire entries. If you choose to read the entire entries, you can't blame me if you feel it was a waste of your time because this is your warning. ;->
The 2 parts of this rant will overlap because the topics are related. They will intertwine, but they are also separate enough that I want to divide them up into two entries. Enough of the introduction & disclaimer... let the venting process begin.
I want to start by saying that I think Donald Trump is a major-league DOUCHE BAG! If you haven't been keeping track of him lately, I'll explain in great detail why I came to this conclusion.
Recently Donald Trump was fined for having a huge flag flying from an 80 foot pole on one of his properties, even though he knew it would violate the local ordinances. Trump refuses to take down the flag that is a nuisance to his neighbors, because he claims the local ordinances are infringing on his rights of free speech & expression. I say it's just another example of Donald Trump's ego & his belief that he can do whatever he wishes, regardless of what rules/laws he is breaking. It's a way for him to express that he believes that people with money can choose which rules/laws they will follow, and which ones they won't - because the rich are better than the poor, who have no choice but to follow the law.
Also, Donald Trump was "awarded" with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. I put the word "awarded" in quotes, because he didn't actually win this distinction. Donald Trump didn't receive the star for any accomplishment, he received it because he paid the money required for them to put the star with his name on the Walk of Fame. Another example of Trump flaunting his wealth by buying his way into a catagory that used to be reserved for people who earned their fame by actually doing something noteworthy.
Then Donald Trump fired his longtime assistant (a woman who successfully ran one of his golf courses and also appeared with him on "The Apprentice") because he was jealous of her growing fame & the numerous endorsements she was getting. It was a repeat of how Trump trashed his one-time friend, Martha Stewart, when it looked as if her version of his show "The Apprentice" might get better ratings than his show would. Donald's ego caused him to do whatever it took to get Martha's version of his show cancelled, rather than have him enjoy the success of a friend.
Another way that Donald Trump has earned a spot on my shit list is by getting into the arena of selling liquor. There's a "super premium" vodka with his name on it. I don't see how a vodka named "Trump" would be a good idea, or how the people producing this vodka feel it deserves the title of being a "super premium" vodka. To me, this is like a person giving themself a nickname - it doesn't catch on with people because the chosen nickname is usually an inaccurate description of the person who gave themself the nickname. (an example would be a geeky dude trying to get away with "Tank" when he is more like a "PeeWee")
I never knew there were "premium" vodkas, let alone "super premium" ones - and I have been drinking vodka for a very long time. Back when I first got my driver's license, my buddies & I would pool our money together so we could get as drunk as possible. To me, there were only 2 types of vodka - ones that tasted good, and the ones that tasted like shit. Then there was the ones with some flavor added, so that makes them different from the ones that didn't have an added flavor. I still don't see any real difference between the super expensive vodkas and the average priced ones. (the cheap ones that taste like shit are different, but you forget the bad taste as soon as you get a bit drunk... so it's only the extra price that you'll notice)
I am not dumb enough to spend the extra money on a vodka like Grey Goose, Belvedere, or Vox - when I know that my Stolichnaya 100 proof will do just fine. I also know that I can buy two of my bottles for the price of the "premium" vodkas, so it's not worth me wasting the extra cash on something that I won't enjoy any better than my less expensive brand. (and don't even get me started on how clubs get all retarded with the prices, because I know how many "shot" you get from a bottle - so of course I'm going to tell off that snotty NYC bartender who tries to explain why $9 plus a "mandatory" gratuity is reasonable)

But the main reason I have come to the decision that Donald Trump is a Douche Bag is over his fued with Rosie O'Donnell. The reason why he & Rosie are feuding will be a big part of the second part of this rant, so I won't repeat myself here. I can give you enough reasons why Trump is an asshole without getting too specific just now.
Rosie commented on her disapproval of a decision Trump made. I agree with her, even if I'm not a big fan of Rosie O'Donnell. And Trump made it worse by how obnoxious he became & by how little class he exhibited when responding to Rosie's comment.
Rosie made a valid point when she called Trump's morals into question. She even had some truth on her side when she brought up some of Trump's failed business ventures, and how he escaped it all by using bankrupcy as a way to restructure some of his companies. The end result is a situation full of success, but there were periods of severe debt & the bankrupacy filings that came before the eventual profits. Rosie never said that Trump filed bankrupacy on his personal income, but that's the implication Trump tried to use when he threatened to sue her.
Even if she did say that about him, that didn't excuse all of the insults that Donald Trump hurled at Rosie as a way of "fighting back" to the "bully" he claimed Rosie to be. For someone who claims to be the epitome of class & professionalism it was a perfect example of why he is the exact opposite of the image he tries to portray.
Trump took the "low road" that he claimed O'Donnell of doing when he used words like "ugly", "fat", "degenerate", "loser", as well as claiming that Barbara Walters didn't like Rosie - even though she hired Rosie to replace Star Jones as a co-host of "The View". (Trump's claims that everything Rosie does is a failure is totally without merit when you consider how the ratings for "The View" have never been higher than those beginning when Rosie joined the show)
Donald Trump went on show after show, hurling insults at Rosie while also hyping the new season of his show "The Apprentice" that would be starting soon. A man of good character wouldn't have kept a fight going, while also using the free publicity from all the people reporting on the feud to promote his show. (a show that has been declining in ratings as of late) It's a moot point, because if Trump had any character at all, he wouldn't have engaged in a public agrument with a woman. A "classy" guy wouldn't be caught dead being seen as the sexist that Trump shows himself to be.
But Trump went beyond sexist bullying of a woman. He added a homophobic tilt to his comment when he said that Rosie should be grateful to have her girlfriend Kelli - because Kelli deserved someone much better than Rosie. Trump also said that Rosie should hope that he doesn't send on of his friends over, because if he did then they would steal Kelli away from Rosie. (it wasn't clear if Trump was talking about a male or female friend that would "steal" Kelli away from Rosie, which adds another level of classlessness to his behavior)
All of this because Rosie called his morals into question, brought up the fact that Trump wasn't always a total success, and then swooping her hair in a gesture that imitated her idea of how bad his comb-over looks. Only someone with tons of ego would allow that to bother them to the point that they had to attack the way Trump did.

The ONE thing in Trump's life that has any class at all, is his daughter, Ivanka. It's sad that she has to put up with her father's bad example while she does a respectable job at showing what a person with class can act under the same situations. When Jimmy Kimmel asked Ivanka about the feud, she avoided getting dirty with the mud that her father has plunged deep into. Ivanka didn't make any negative comments, and managed to redirect the conversation to something more positive. Donald Trump could learn alot from his daughter... if his ego didn't get in the way.
If Donald were smart, he would do as his buddy, Hugh Heffner, did & let his daughter take over the main responsibilities of running his company. Playboy has done well since Hugh's daughter, Kimberly, took control of most aspects of the Playboy empire... I'm sure the same would happen if Ivanka was to be in charge of Trump's companies. BUT, I can't see Donald Trump giving up the spotlight (let alone control) even if it would be more profitable that way. His ego wouldn't allow him to do such a thing.
And because of that, Donald Trump will never be an example of "class" or "professionalism" in my opinion. But I seriously doubt he even cares what someone like me thinks, so I guess it doesn't matter.

Words mean things

2006-11-02T19:16:00.000-08:00

I can't believe people defended John Kerry when he said what he did.

I know what he & his people claim was supposed to be the wording of his "joke", but that doesn't matter at all.

It's what your 1st impression is when you initially hear the words that came out of his mouth that matter.

I know that he was trying to be funny as he insulted the President, but that's not what he ended up saying. And what he did say could reasonably be taken as Kerry insulting the troops in Iraq. And for that, he should have apologized.

He's not a stupid man, regardless of how badly he & the President did at Yale. He knew right away that he said it wrong, and he should have said so - RIGHT THEN. Had he done that, nobody could have said squat against him.

But he's a smug prick and highly arrogant. He hates Bush, and he let that hatred cloud his judgment. The apology would be to the troops, and not Bush. He could have apologized to them & not have to feel like he lost any points in his continual war with Bush. But he couldn't see it that way, and refused to apologize - until his fellow Democrats called for him to do it.
And I have no respect for him by doing it on his website. He was on TV for the original comments, he was on tv for his attack apology, so he should have gone on tv & apologized.

Kerry has no place insulting the President on intelligence. They both went to Yale & they both averaged a "D". (Bush was 1 point higher, but they both were below an 80 average.) Kerry voted for troops to be deployed in Iraq, so they are "stuck" there because of him just as much as they are because of the President.

But you have to realize that Kerry has a history of bashing the troops. He came back from Vietnam and testified that his fellow soldiers were committing atrocities. Kerry became a member of "Vietnam Veterans Against the War" and participated in war protests. He has said that the troops "terrorize women & children" in Iraq and has accused them of committing war crimes. He has said that a draft would prevent the troops from only consisting of uneducated ethnic minorities. So what he said about only dumb people getting stuck in the military might be his actual opinion on the people who makeup the troops.

Remember, John Kerry is a smug, elitist who thinks he is smarter & better than everyone. (especially the President & his administration) And don't forget that he has animosity towards Bush over the 2004 election results. It shapes him and everything he says/does.

Do I think he would intentionally insult the troops at an event that would be broadcast to the world & scrutinized by everyone on the news networks? No, I don't think he's that stupid.

But you must admit that what he did say isn't a clear reference to the President. If you go old school and diagram the sentence, you can't point to Bush as the subject of the comment.

He was talking to students. And since he didn't reference Bush in that sentence, the "you" in the beginning is the students. And until he references someone specifically, they continue to be the subject. And that is why his words are seen as insulting the intelligence of the troops in Iraq.
Now, if you review the entire section a few times - maybe even read the transcript of what he said - and you think about it for awhile... then you realize that he tried to make a joke about the decision that Bush made in sending troops to Iraq. It's a high brow way of calling the President "stupid" - which I don't find funny.

A US Senator should act more dignified. You don't insult the office of the President. You can disagree with the man & his policies, but don't attack the Office with a juvenile attempt to be funny.

I promise you that the people who hate us are loving every minute of how Democrats have been stooping so low to insult the President, The V.P., and other members of this Administration. By doing that, we are not focusing on them, and they are the enemy, not Democrats or Republicans.
I like the way Harold Ford explained why Kerry needed to apologize. To me, everyone else was just playing politics, especially Hillary.

Kerry knew that what he said could reasonable be seen as insulting the troops. He should have apologized for the way his words came out wrong, and for how he mistakenly said something that could be taken as an insult. Do it, do it quickly after it happened - and then your opponents have nothing to use against you.

But it's 2 days later & it's still in the news... and that means it's another day when real issues are passed over for partisan politics.

And we, the American People, end up being the loser.

More commentary on Chris matthews & MSNBC in regards to the offensive comments made by John Kerry

2006-10-31T15:45:00.000-08:00

AGAIN, I ASK CHRIS MATTHEWS & MSNBC:

WHY DIDN'T YOU SHOW THE VIDEO OF KERRY'S ORIGINAL COMMENTS SO THAT WE COULD SEE EXACTLY WHAT KERRY SAID & IN WHAT CONTEXT HE SAID THE WORDS???

Why deceive the viewers by reporting an biased viewpoint that is more an EDITORIAL than an objective reporting of the FACTS???

Tucker Carlson had access to the video, why didn't Chris Matthews?

Why was Matthews allowed to present his OPINION as if it were FACT?

Chris Matthews was censoring a Republican commentator, while helping a Democratic commentator continue to lie about what Kerry actually said!!

IF Chris Matthews wanted to offer an OPINION, why didn't he say so - rather than say that only his way of looking at Kerry's comments is the RIGHT one, and to disagree with him is to be WRONG???

Why was Matthews allowed to keep someone with an opposing view from expressing that view? Chris Matthews was practically berating the Republican commentator, implying that he must be stupid if he couldn't understand what Kerry MEANT TO SAY rather than accepting at face value WHAT KERRY ACTUALLY SAID???

Why was the Democratic commentator allowed to speak freely while his Republican opponent was being prevented from speaking freely by Matthews (who was talking over him, bullying him, implying he was either wrong or stupid) and allowing the Democratic commentator, who was acting as a "tag team" partner for matthews in the censoring attack on the opposing view???

It is said that the first casualty in any war is the TRUTH... and that's what Matthews was allowed to do in his "report" on what John Kerry said yesterday.

It's a terrible shame for a network that is supposedly about objective journalism to allow such biased opinions to taint a report and to actually lie about the factual events of the incident being reported on.

I keep coming back to my question of "why didn't he show the tape?", but I also want to know why he didn't at least admit that it is POSSIBLE that he is WRONG and that Kerry actually DID what he's being asked to apologize for???

Here's what matters in this situation:

It's isn't what Kerry MEANT to say, it's that he said things that people took as him insulting the Troops!

There is NO WAY POSSIBLE that Chris Matthews can say that the comments were totally misunderstood - because EVEN THE PEOPLE THAT WERE AT THE EVENT where Kerry said the comment in question took Kerry's words in a bad way!!!

You can CLEARLY hear the crowd make "boo" sounds and otherwise making a negative opinion sound to what Kerry had said. So... to THEM it sure sounded like Kerry had just insulted the intelligence of our Troops - why can't Chris Matthews at least remain OBJECTIVE when reporting the news & allow room for an opposing view to what he believes?

Sure, once you EXAMINE Kerry's words for a long time... you can see what he actually MEANT to say - but didn't say properly. It's the REASONABLE conclusion that Kerry was INTENDING for people to see the subject of the comment as being the President - AFTER YOU TAKE ENOUGH TIME TO GO OVER THE WORDS MORE THAN A FEW TIMES - but if you just take the words at face value by listening to them 1 time, you get another impression than the one Kerry (and Mathews) wants people to believe.

And it's dishonest for Matthews to say that the people can get the correct interpretation of the comment SOLELY from Matthews reading what the A.P. reported that Kerry said!!! If Matthews didn't see the video (which I KNOW he did, but didn't allow his viewers to see) then he couldn't POSSIBLY put the comment in the proper context or emotional mood.

Instead, what Matthews did by reading it in the tone he BELIEVES Kerry had MEANT them to be taken... he has altered the context of the factual nature of the event, which by definition makes his report to be an UNTRUE account of the event in question.

So, if he presented a erroneous account of the event, Matthews can't tell anyone who disagrees with him that they are wrong.

ANOTHER IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER ON THE TOPIC:

It doesn't matter what John Kerry had MEANT to say, or even what Chris Matthews BELIEVES that Kerry MEANT to say... what matters is how people received the words THAT WERE ACTUALLY SAID.

If someone is offended by Kerry's comment, then NOBODY can say that the offended person is wrong!!

And if Republicans (like the President) consider those words to be an insult to the Troops, then it MUST be considered that Kerry DID make offensive comments!!

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY:

If the people who were present when Kerry made the comments in question made sounds that expressed a negative reception of his comments - then someone like Chris Matthews who are so removed from the actual context of the event because they didn't witness it firsthand, or even see the video of the event - it becomes IMPOSSIBLE for a person like Chris matthews to be able to tell another person that their opposing OPINION is absolutely WRONG because Matthews has the CORRECT opinion!

News reporters are supposed to be NEUTRAL, UNBIASED, and REMOVED from expressing their opinion when they report the news. You can't be objective when you tell someone who disagrees with you on what someone else MEANT TO SAY in a speech that neither person witnessed!!

I challenge MSNBC to denounce the biased opinions of Chris matthews when he reported his viewpoint as fact without allowing any consideration for an oposing view!

I challenge MSNBC to call for Chris Matthews to apologize for abandoning his duties as a reporter when he allowed his opinion to taint what should have been an objective unbiased reporting of what actually happened!!!

If MSNBC & Matthews refuse to accept this challenge, then I call for you to post a disclaimer at the beginning of Hardball and repeat the disclaimer when returning from commercial - the disclaimer should state that the program is NOT a news program, but an hour long EDITORIAL of Matthew's OPINIONS and it should also state whether MSNBC shares the views of Matthews, or not!!!

To not do so would show the world that MSNBC is no better than FOX News when they forward the conservative Republican viewpoint every chance they can!!!

This is "gut check time" for Matthews & MSNBC. We will see if either Matthews or MSNBC has even 1 ounce of INTEGRITY left at all.

A sad day in the history of Journalism

2006-10-31T14:50:00.000-08:00

Why didn't Chris Matthews show the actual video footage of Senator John Kerry's recent remarks that insult the intelligence of U.S. Troops in Iraq?

Matthews showed Kerry's angry response to calls by Republicans for Kerry to apologize to the Troops, as well as Senator McCain - but when it came to showing the video of Kerry's original comment (which is very much available because MSNBC has shown it several times on other shows) Matthews chose to read Kerry's words.

This is a VERY dishonest way of Matthews (and by MSNBC???) to try and spin the offensive incident by Kerry in a way that makes Kerry to be misquoted by the Republicans & conservative commentators.

BUT, if the actual video had been shown, there would be no way that Matthews could pull off this inaccurate portrayal of Kerry's comment - because the video CLEARLY shows Kerry to have said exactly what Republicans say he should apologize for!!

I can't quote Kerry verbatum, BUT, the comment by Kerry clearly said that if you can't get a good education, then you'll get stuck in Iraq.

Kerry tried to excuse this comment by saying that he MUST have rushed his comment, because what he MEANT to do was include the word "us" between the words "get" and "stuck" so that the phrase states "get US stuck in Iraq" and not "get stuck in Iraq".

This is a shameless attempt to cover up what he said, by deflecting the actual topic of that comment from the Troops to that of the President & the current Administration.

Chris Matthews (and MSNBC as well???) has made himself an accomplice to Kerry's offense by the way he has mislead the viewers. Kerry's comments speak for themself, there was only one reason to READ his words rather than SHOW THE VIDEO of Kerry's comment - and that is to FALSELY report what actually was said.

This is just one more example in an ocean of examples how Matthews in specific, and MSNBC in general, have tried to sway public opinion (and by extension the way people vote on election day) by forwarding the liberal Democrat agenda.

BUT, this is going too far, because now Matthews (with the permission of MSNBC one must ask???) is engaging in deceptive behavior with the intended result of making people believe Kerry's lie that he didn't say what he actually said.

Kerry is lying about what he said, and who the subject of his comment was. Matthews is trying to make people believe this LIE by reporting something as fact, that can be proven as the lie it is.

Well, it WOULD have be proven as a lie, IF Matthews had shown the VIDEO of the event in question, rather than choose to READ an A.P. reporting of what Kerry says that he said.

It would be different if the video wasn't freely available so that Matthews could show what Kerry said in his own words. BUT, when Matthews chose to READ the words that some other source REPORTED that Kerry said... then it leaves room for an altering of the actual words, and it gives a FALSE report of the events, by putting a biased SPIN on the words Kerry said.

It is widely known that Matthews is biased to the liberal Democrat point of view. He freely admits to working for one of the most partisan Democrats to ever be Speaker of the House of Representatives. He has a biased opinion deep within him, and it is so obvious that even the blind can "see" that he is willing to forward the liberal Democrat agenda every chance he can.

So... again I ask:

Why didn't Chris Matthews show the VIDEO of the original event where John Kerry made comments that people say are offensive to the Troops? Why did he choose to READ what the A.P. reported as being Kerry's words? Why wasn't the viewers of Hardball allowed to see the ACTUAL EVENT on video that is freely available on MSNBC - so that the people could make their own decision as to what Kerry said & who was the subject of his comment?

Why was Matthews allowed to spin this incident in a way that agrees with Kerry's false interpretation the comment that is the subject for Matthew's report? Why didn't someone at MSNBC step in and prevent Matthews from lying to the viewers when he chose to become a fellow conspirator in the lie about what Kerry actually said - and what Kerry wants us to BELIEVE he said?

Why does nobody else but me seem to care that MSNBC has become the liberal Democrat version of FOX News? Why is nobody else saying that this is an offensive example of biased journalism & selective reporting by Chris matthews. (and MSNBC for allowing him to get away with lying to the viewers while covering up for a liar like John Kerry)

The video speaks for itself.

Had Chris Matthews done the PROFESSIONAL, RESPONSIBLE, & OBJECTIVE thing when reporting this event - he wouldn't have shown VIDEO for what Kerry's RESPONSE to the incident was, while NOT SHOWING the video freely available to him of the actual event in question.

It was the wrong thing to do for Matthews to show (and MSNBC to permit) video for one action, while not showing video for the other action. Either show BOTH video clips, or DO NOT show any video clips when reporting the incident.

To go about reporting the incident the way Matthews did only demeans the proud institution of Journalism.

And for Matthews to read the transcript a SECOND time and then offer his OPINION about what he feels Kerry's words "clearly say" is an offense equal to what Dan rather did that cost him his position as anchor on CBS news!!

If this wasn't enough, Matthews followed up his biased commentary by saying that he would like to put the President on a "lie detector" so that we could see that he is lying!!!

AGAIN, I ASK CHRIS MATTHEWS & MSNBC:

WHY DIDN'T YOU SHOW THE VIDEO OF KERRY'S ORIGINAL COMMENTS SO THAT WE COULD SEE EXACTLY WHAT KERRY SAID & IN WHAT CONTEXT HE SAID THE WORDS???

Why deceive the viewers by reporting an biased viewpoint that is more an EDITORIAL than an objective reporting of the FACTS???

Why New Yorkers should NOT vote for Hilary Clinton

2006-10-27T16:42:00.000-07:00

There are so many other reasons to dislike her, but I will focus on the one I feel is most important when deciding whether she deserves your vote, or not.

I think the most important issue is her refusal to make a promise to complete a full term in office should she get re-elected to her Senate seat.

Think about it:

If she is going to run for President, that means she will only spend about 9 months serving the people of New York as Senator before she will abandon her duties to start campaigning for the Democratic nomination for President.

Why should the people of New York waste a vote on Hilary when she won't be earning her paycheck less than a year before her 2nd term begins?

What good is she doing for the people she is elected to serve as Senator if she isn't doing her job the entire time until the 2008 election is over?

I find it to lack integrity for her if she doesn't resign from office once she decides to seek the Democratic nomination. IF she chooses to seek the nomination, of course. But you know that if she does choose to seek the nomination, that she will not give up her position as the junior Senator from New York. She will hold on to the seat as a back up plan, should she either not get the nomination - or if she does, but fails to become the next President of the United States of America.

And THAT is something I find to be terribly lacking of integrity - to run for President while robbing the people of New York of a Senator who will represent them in office. Basically, if Hilary won the Democratic nomination, but lost the election - that would be a period of 22 months that New York would not have a Senator earning her paycheck & not performing the duties they elected her to do.

Do you think that Hilary would do the honorable thing of repaying New Yorkers the pay that she didn't earn?

I seriously doubt that she would.

Just like I doubt that Hilary would do the more honorable thing by resigning from office when she chooses to seek the Democratic Party's nomination for President.

But, if Hilary had one ounce of integrity she would be 100% honest with the people of New York and tell them that she won't be completing a full term if re-elected because she intends to run for President in 2008. Well, she won't complete a full term IF she wins the 2008 election... but she won't meet her full duties that she is elected for if she abandons her job as Senator to go off campaigning for President less than a year after she begins her second term as Senator. (IF she wins the election... but I think we know that's a "done deal")

What do you expect from her, really? Her husband lied to the people of Arkansas when he ran for re-election as Governor of Arkansas. He said that he would serve a full term if they re-elected him, and NOT abandon them by running for President.

As we all know, he won re-election as Governor... and then went back on his promise to complete the term when he ran - and won - the election to become our 41st President. (Yes, I said 41st & not 42nd as people make the mistake of calling him. Go back & count... he was the 41st man to hold the office - even if people choose to count the non-consecutive terms of Grover Cleveland as being different Presidents.)

We know that Hilary is equally unscrupulous as her husband, so we shouldn't expect any better from her when she is confronted with a similar situation.
I only pray that she doesn't have the same successful result as her husband did when she makes her bid to become the next President.

Although... it might be interesting to have a cycle of Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton - Bush. (I predict that 2012 will be a time for Jeb Bush to run, and that he will either win in 2012 or in 2016)

Political Ads, "Mudslinging" & "Dirty Politics"

2006-10-27T10:47:00.000-07:00

I am paying close attention to all of the political ads as we get closer to the election on November 7th. I am looking at ads in races of all the states, and not just my home state of Pennsylvania because I like to be informed as a voter - just in case some of these other races end up appearing in the National race for the 2008 campaign.

One race that has really upset me is the Senatorial race in Tennessee, where a very dirty ad about Harold Ford went to what I consider to be a new low.

The ad mentioned that Ford had attended a Superbowl party dponsored by Playboy magazine. The undertone of the ad was racist - in my opinion - and played upon the irrational fear of African-American men having sexual relations with caucasin women. Harold Ford is an African-American, and a man of faith who attends religous services. I think it is appalling to imply he has done anything inappropriate without actual proof.

I saw a Republican strategist on MSNBC make the error when talking about the ad by saying that Harold Ford was at the Playboy Mansion for this party - which is 100% false. Many people who have been to parties like this have come to Ford's defense by saying that the events are so crowded, and that he was almost assuredly being escorted by someone, that the chances for Ford to be in a position to engage in any inappropriate activity is almost zero. From what people who attend these types of events have said, you get rushed from meeting one person to another so quickly that you don't really get a chance to say much more than "hello" before you are pulled away to the next person you "must" meet.

To falsely state that a party for the Superbowl was actually at the Playboy mansion when it wasn't is a gross example of that Republican strategist lacking any integrity. His comments were said to get a reaction from people too stupid to think for themselves, and when either side does this it is very wrong.

If I were a registered voter in Tennessee, I would be offended by this. Even if I didn't already like Harold Ford for the Senate seat... this ad would cause me to change my mind & cause me to vote for Ford.

I would do that, even though I know that by putting Ford into that Senate seat it puts the Democrats that much closer to gaining control of the Senate. I like him as a person & as a candidate I feel he is the right choice for the position... I don't care if it would mean to the "Big Picture", even though the result would make me want to move to Ireland! :)

When tactics like this are used, it's usually because the opposing side has nothing to offer, so they try to put focus on the negative qualities of your opponent. From what I have seen, this usually backfires on the person who employes the dirty tactic... but this doesn't seem to keep people from going to the mudslinging well, especially as election day gets closer.

Another example of behavior that has me wanting to either vomit or punch the offending person in the face, is the way Rush Limbaugh reacted to a political ad by Michael J Fox in support for stem cell research & a candidate who shares Fox's position.

Limbaugh mocked the way Michael J Fox was moving about in the ad. It wouldn't be an issue, but Fox suffers from Parkinson's disease, and his involuntary movements are symptoms of his disease. For Limbaugh to make fun of Fox is bad enough - but when Limbaugh accused Fox of purposely not taking his medication to ilicit a more sympathetic response from viewers of the ad... well, that is something that will surely reserve Limbaugh his very own place in Hell!! That's way beyond what people should condone, and Limbaugh should be treated the way that the Dixie Chicks were after they offered their opinion about the President while on tour in England. He should be shunned like the pariah that he is until he gets a clue that his behavior is not within the bounds of a human being. (as if Limbaugh should even be talking about a person taking medication or not, taking his own history into account)

I consider myself to be a conservative, but I am for stem cell research. I do not take the extreme position that says it is akin to murder to "destroy" an embryo to harvest the stem cells needed to do research. Those people need to get a grip on reality & not exclude a line of research that has the potential to save lives - by saying that it is destroying lives in the process. That position makes no sense and only serves to prevent a cure from being discovered sooner than it will be by not allowing stem cell research to continue.

Getting back to using political ads in a dirty fashion... I do not approve of how the opposing side has recruited celebrities to appear in ads to counteract what Michael J Fox has gained for those who are for stem cell research.

One particular example of what I consider to be a "low blow" is the recruitment of actor Jim Caviezel - the actor from the movie "The Passion of the Christ" to oppose the views of Fox on the topic of stem cell research. I am appalled by this because Caviezel portrayed Jesus in the movie... and this is a subliminal way of answering the popular question of: "What would Jesus do?"

And now I will bring up the Senate race in Virginia.

Incumbant Senator, George Allen has been a victim of some serious mudslinging by Democrats who want his Democratic opponent, Jim Webb, to take that seat.

Weeks prior to the election much was being made of comments that Allen said on the campaign trail. He pointed out to the audience that Webb had a staffer following Allen as he went across the state filming Allen's words. (presumably so that Webb's people could disect every word to find anything that could be used against Allen) The result was George Allen calling the Webb staffer a word that is supposed to be a racial slur. Allen referred to the man & used the word "mecaca" - a term that is used negatively to describe a person of dark skin in the French Colonial area in Africa.

Supposedly it is a word that Allen's mother should have known about because of where she is of French Tunisian descent, but no proof exists that Allen ever heard the word from his mother at any time prior to the incident when he called the Webb staffer (who is of Indian descent, NOT African) the term.

I could tell a story from my youth that relates how innocently a racial slur could become part of a child's subconscious without that person realizing the actual meaning of the word... but it would take too long & go way off topic - so I will save that for another time.

But that doesn't mean I am excusing Allen for saying the "mecaca" comment. It also doesn't mean that I believe he is a racist, because I don't see that as proof of anything other than him being foolish with his words.

This comment was the subject of many news reports & commentary by people wishing Allen to lose his Senate seat. It was just one way that people (who had no basis to debate Allen on his excellent record for the people of Virginia) to take focus away from what really matters in an election. That's why those same people kept digging into Allen's past for more dirt to use against him.

It's why we heard about how Allen was fascinated with "Southern" culture, even though he grew up in California. It's why we heard how Allen had a noose & a Confederate flag in his office, and alleged examples of Allen being a racist.

People were bringing up alleged comments that Allen made from THIRTY years ago! Stories were printed that misreported the facts, and people who never actually heard Allen say the "N" word went on record as "knowing" that he used that word frequently... 30 years ago.

But, when Jim Webb admitted that he himself had used that word as a youth, so many years ago... the same people condemning Allen tried to downplay the words Webb admitted to using - because they couldn't let their guy be called a racist for doing the exact same thing they were calling Allen for. That doesn't help the Democrats win that Senate seat... sot Webb is NOT a racist for saying "nigger", BUT Allen IS a racist for saying the same word. I'm sure it makes sense to the Democrats, when they filter it through their double standard lens.

And now that Jim Webb is in the news for what he wrote in some novels back in 2001... the same people who felt that Allen's past (from 30 years ago) is so relevant now are saying that Webb's past (from ONLY 5 years ago) is NOT relevant, so we shouldn't even discuss it.

Nevermind that Webb writes about the type of behavior that is far worse than what Democrats accuse former Representative Mark Foley of... Webb is a Democrat, so whatever he does is ok.

Jim Webb wrote about an incident that he supposedly witnessed (along with about 300 people, or so we are to believe) back in Viet Nam - where a man engages in a sexual act on his son. Webb's novel seems to romanticize the act, and his supporters claim it's not relevant to the election, and says nothing about Webb's character.

I think that is DOES show a lack in character if Webb witnessed the heinous act & did nothing about it! Isn't that what Democrats accuse Republicans of in the Mark Foley scandal?

In a side note about Foley, I saw a Democratic strategist get away with calling Foley a "pedophile", when it is 100% false. There is no proof that Foley engaged in sexual activity with a minor - which is what a pedophile is. He seems to have had inappropriate message exchanges with people who were over the age where it would be considered a pedophile - IF Foley actually went on to have a physical relationship with the former Congressional pages. BUT, since Foley waited until the pages were over 21 before engaging in sexual relations... he is NOT a pedophile. But Democrats casually ignore that important fact when they play dirty politics.

Back to Allen & Webb and how the Democrats apply the double standard:

It's ok to bring up all of Allen's past, no matter how far back you go, when talking about how he shouldn't be re-elected to the Senate. It is NOT ok to talk about the exact same issues of Webb's past, even from 5 years ago, when talking about why he shouldn't become Virginia's Senator.

It's funny to listen to the strategists as they say Webb's past is irrelevant, while trying to pack in as many of Allen's past deeds into the same sentence. If just ONE news personality would ask them why it's ok in Allen's case, but not Webb's & force the strategist to answer the question (rather than just rehash Allen's past) you would probably see the person's head explode from all the hypocricy.

Another example of "dirty politics" is when people take comments that Vice President Dick Cheney recently made out of context.

Cheney was asked a question about "water boarding" and he was fed the term "no brainer" in the question. When the Vice President asnwered the question, the answer was used against him, as if the term "no brainer" was a comment by the Vice President, and not the interviewer.

That's disingenuious, and another example of "dirty politics" used by reporters when they are forwarding an agenda.

The Vice President never initiated the term "no brainer" when talking about water boarding, he was forced to reply to the term in a way that made him look like he supported that tactic - because the interviewer "painted him into a corner" by the way he phrased the question.

No matter who is doing it... it's wrong. Unfortunately, it happens for too often, and the debate never ends up about what really matters.

Harold Ford is a decent man, and deserves to be the new Senator from Tennessee. George Allen is not a racist, but a man who has done tremendous good for the people of Virginia while he has been serving them through the many political offices he has been elected to. Michael J Fox is a decent man who is trying to help find a cure for a terrible disease, and shouldn't be mocked for the disease he is afflicted by.

People who engage in dirty politics as a way of avoiding the issues, should be chased out of politics because they do no good for the people of this country.

Pennsylvania and three races of concern

2006-10-27T09:32:00.000-07:00

I have not been a total fan of Rick Santorum, mostly because I liked the man he replaced - former Senator Harris Woffard - even though Woffard was a Democrat. I do not agree with every position that Santorum takes as a very conservative Republican. (I consider myself to be conservative, but not to the degree of Santorum. I am a Libertarian, not a Republican.)

I do respect Santorum for how he stands by his positions, even if they are unpopular. I guess this goes back to how my Dad had taught me to mean what you say, and say what you mean - and to not change your opinion just because it becomes unpopular. I was taught to admit being wrong, if that becomes obvious... but never to change your position just to please others. I grew up believing in the idea that if you can't count on a person to keep their word, then you can't count on them at all. If you don't have that integrity - then you are nothing, and have nothing to offer people when it comes to your character.

So, for that, I respect Santorum - even if I don't agree with some of the positions he takes.

Because of that, I will vote for him on November 7th.

I feel he is the better of the two candidates for the Senatorial seat up for grabs. I have no faith in his opponent, Robert Casey, Jr. because I don't see his as a person who stands for anything and I don't feel that he is a man of integrity at all.

And my opinion isn't swayed by the negative political ads that Santorum has aired about Casey.

I wish that Santorum hadn't sunk to the level he had with some of the earlier ads, where Casey is portrayed as being in league with some very shady people. I think the subject could have been addressed in a much better way that didn't need to mudsling.

I do like the most recent ad where Santorum points out Casey's opinions on topics that matter to me: such as border security, protecting the country against nuclear threats from countries like North Korea & Iran, and the war on terror.

In another important race, that between Ed Rendell & Lynn Swann for Governor - I will be voting for Swann over Rendell.

I am less concerned that Lynn Swann is inexperienced as a politican, than I am at the blatant corruption of Rendell. I could go on & on about how corrupt Rendell is, and has been since his days as Mayor of Philadelphia, but I won't. I will just say that I do not like the negative ads that Rendell has aired in an attempt to sway voters from choosing Swann for Governor. I would much rather have someone who is inexperienced but willing to try something new, than a crook who is trying to get richer at the expense of Pennsylvanians while helping his buddies get richer along with him.

One final race in Pennsylvania I will mention is a local one with State-wide consequences.

Blair County Commissioner, John Eichelberger won the Republican nomination in the primary over long-time incumbant, President Pro-Tem of the Senate Robert Jubelirer. I feel that Eichelberger has done the citizens of Blair County (and Central Pennsylvania by extension) a GREAT dis-service! Eichelberger took away the position of power that this area had in Jubelirer by defeating him in the primary.

I'm sure that Eichelberger has good intentions, but - should he win the Senatorial seat on November 7th, he will go to Harrisburg as a 1st term Senator, one with no "connections" and this means he will basically be impotent as a Senator. What can he accomplish for the area he represents when there is nothing to gain by other, more established, politicans by helping him get whatever legislation Eichelberger wishes to get enacted into law? The Central Pennsylvania area has lost their powerful voice when Jubelirer didn't win the primary. Jubelirer was basically the 2nd most powerful man in state politics, and he made sure that the Blair County area didn't get ignored at the expense of Pittsburgh & Philadelphia. Now, there will be a new President Pro-Tem in the Senate - someone not from this area, and won't care one bit about what happens here.

By what Eichelberger did by winning the Republican nomination was assure that Central Pennsylvania is going to be ignored when it comes to funding projects that would help the citizens who live here. With a new President Pro-Tem of the Senate who doesn't have any idea what goes on here in this area, and a freshmen Senator with no connections or hope of being able to get anything done... the Blair County area is going to suffer greatly.

And we have John Eichelberger to thank for that.

My main problem with Eichelberger (beyond the way he divided the Republican Party in Central Pa.) is that he never gave up his job as Blair County Commissioner while running for the Republican nominee for this Senate District. That means he was not earning his pay because he was out campaigning when he should have been doing his job. If he had some integrity, he would have resigned his position as County Commissioner when he chose to run for the State Senate position being held by Jubelirer. That way, the citizens of Blair County would not have been bilked out of the tax dollars we paid that went to Eichelberger's salary when he wasn't doing his job.

So, not only did he steal money from the taxpayers of Blair County... Eichelberger has assured that Blair County (and Central Pennsylvania by extension) will lose a powerful voice in state politics - which means the area will greatly suffer because of Eichelberger's egotistical need to be State Senator.

I know almost nothing of the Democratic challenger for this Senate seat, but I will be voting for him come November 7th. I can only hope he defeats Eichelberger... and that we can oust that dishonest egomanicial disruptive force from his County Commissioner seat when the next time he is up for re-election.

I just hope that this area doesn't suffer too much from losing a good man like Jubelirer. But when the area feels the consequences from Jubelirer not being the President Pro-Tem of the Senate... I hope that Eichelberger will apologize to all the people whose lives he has negatively effected.

Oh, those "devious" Republicans!!

2006-10-26T06:15:00.000-07:00

If we are to believe the liberals & Democrats, the Republicans in power are a current version of Machiavelli.

Every time we see a news report dealing with positive actions by Republicans it is always mentioned that this is a "political move" only because the mid-term elections are days away.

Are Democrats & liberals so cynical that they can't give credit where it is due? Or maybe it is because they themselves can't make a move unless it has some ulterior motive or is forwarding an agenda that they believe the Republicans are doing the same thing.

My father used to say, "A thief is the first person to lock his door at night" meaning that if you are a certain way, you expect everyone else to be that way too. This is probably why Democrats & liberals accuse Republicans of having an agenda behind the positive actions they have achieved recently.

Another thing I find interesting about Democrats & liberals is how they will accuse Republicans of being devious or calculating, but they won't allow anyone to even consider the idea that Democrats in the House of Republicans knew of the inappropriate actions that Mark Foley was doing for years... and that the Democrats held onto this information so they could release it at a time when it would do severe damage to Republicans only a month before the mid-term elections.

We hear about how Nancy Pelosi is very intelligent, competant, and a good member of Congress.

If that is true, then she MUST have known about Foley's actions! And if she knew, then it also means that she either DID NOTHING about his offensive behavior, or PURPOSEFULLY held onto the information so that it could be used against Republicans in the upcoming elections.

If either of those things happened, she should be removed from office.

If Nancy Pelosi truly didn't know about what Foley was doing, then she is far too stupid to be competant as a member of Congress - and should be removed from Congress.

The same goes for ANY Democrat who has been in Congress since 2000, when Foley's actions were allegedly so obvious that his fellow Republicans are being accused of covering up for him.

If Democrats can put Republicans under the microscope for what they either didn't do or actively did so that Foley could do his misdeeds, then it is only appropriate that they themselves are put under the same microscope to be examined for the same things.

Donald Trump was recently on Larry King talking about many topics, Mark Foley among them. If someone like Donald Trump knew about Foley's sexual preference... then Democrats in Congress should have known the very things that they accuse Republicans of knowing.

If they didn't know, then they are too stupid to see the obvious - and should be run out of office at light speed.

But, back to those crafty Republicans and their political maneuvers.

The falling gas prices are because Republicans are getting their "Big Oil" connections to manipulate prices - so that Republicans can take credit.

The recent signing of the Border Fence Bill into law was timed so that Republicans could take credit in election ads.

The recent announcement of "benchmarks" in Iraq was done so that Republicans can take credit for progress in the war effort in their election campaigns.

The date for the verdict in Saddam Hussein's trial on November 5th is deliberately timed as being 2 days before the election so that Republicans can take credit in their campaigns.

Republicans have manipulated the stock market's record gains & the early reduction of the defecit so that they can take credit, as well as having something to take attention away from the Foley scandal. (something that Democrats seem to mention in every sentence they utter over the past month)

The obvious problem is this:

If Republicans are so smart & calculating, then why are Democrats like Nancy Pelosi & Joe Biden saying that Republicans in general and the President in specific are dumb, out of touch, incompetant, and other ways of calling them stupid?

You can't have it both ways. Either the Republicans are too stupid to be in office, or they are so smart that they can manipulate events to their maximum benefit.

Which is something to be expected from a political party like the Democrats - who have nothing to offer the American Public. That's why they keep the debate on what they feel is wrong with Republicans. If they get the voters' focus on that - and not what the Democrats have as an alternative - then they might win some seats in the upcoming election.

But if people ask the Democrats what their plan is, they will find out that the Democrats don't have a plan. They have an idea - that of not doing what the Republicans are doing now - but that doesn't say what exactly they will do. The options of what could be done are limitless.

One possibility is that Democrats will turn D.C. into a three ring circus.

It's the most likely result, since they are too stupid to notice someone in their midst who is trying to "get it on" with Congressional pages.

With such gross neglegence & incompetance shown by Democrats... a circus is the BEST we can hope for. I pity the country if enough people are gullible that they fell for the liberal Democrat propaganda that they vote Democrat on November 7th & the control of the House & the Senate change to the Democrats.

I'm just glad that the border fence hasn't been built yet... I may want to move to Mexico before the Democrats can totally ruin the country!!

Will the real Keith Olbermann please stand up?

2006-10-26T04:58:00.000-07:00

If you regularly watch MSNBC you might get confused and think that there are at least 2 Keith Olbermanns at the network.

This is because it seems that even Keith doesn't know what type of "journalist" (and I use that term very lightly) he wants to be.

If you watch the promo ads for his show you get the mixed message that Keith is either supposed to be taken seriously - as if he belongs next to people like Walter Cronkite & Tim Russert, or that he's funny, trendy, and in touch with today's youth - like Jon Stewart.

The problem is these are two contradictory qualities - you can't be both at the same time. Well, unless you are neither, and are just trying to be whatever will be acceptable to the target audience you are addressing at the time.

And that is the best description of Keith Olbermann: He's a hypocritical phoney who will do and say anything as long as it will get him ratings.

In a promo ad for MSNBC's 10th anniversary they had the various hosts of the MSNBC shows talk about their shows in soundbites. The part where Keith describes his show was edited after a few airings - because Keith made a typical insensitive comment. He talked about his show should be appealing to the masses, because he & his staff enjoy it. The offensive comment dealt with how Keith & his staff are the A.D.H.D. type, and his show is fast paced enough to keep even them interested... so this means everyone watching it would also stay interested.

It's these kind of insensitive comments that Keith just tosses out for the public consumption that shows he doesn't belong on a network that is supposed to be reproting the news. News is a reporting of facts, and has nothing to do with the opinions of the person doing the reporting. Keith can't get through 5 minutes without his opinions being clear. It's an op-ed program, not news - and MSNBC should have to put a disclaimer on Keith's show so that the public knows that the program has a slanted & biased viewing of the news events he reports.

I find it laughable how MSNBC & Olbermann try to portray Keith as a journalist of integrity and gravitas, when previous promo material equate Olbermann's show with Jon Stewart's fake news program on Comedy Central.

Is Keith a fake journalist - like Jon Stewart, or a serious journalist - like Walter Cronkite? I don't think Keith knows which one he wants to be. It's easier for him to be both, that way he can try to court the many demographics for maximum ratings. I guess Keith has no problem being a total hypocrite so that he can get ratings, because he will conveniently apply double standards when it suits him.

An example of his hypocritical use of the double standard is when he recently bashed the President for endorsing a Republican incumbant who has admitted to having an affair. Keith asked why the President, who Olbermann described as being part of a "Moral Majority", would openly support someone who has admitted to acting in an unmoral way by committing adultery? By doing this, Keith calls the President's integrity into question.

The problem with that is this:

Keith has promo ads that proclaim him to be the one how determines which people are morally fit, and which are morally deficient. This implies that Keith is a person of high moral standard, and because of this he is qualified to judge whether other people are fit or unfit - in the area of morals.

If this is true, then why does Keith openly support Bill Clinton - an man who has been found to have adulterous affairs with several women?

If the President is wrong and lacking integrity for supporting that incumbant politician... wouldn't that also make Keith equally wrong and lacking integrity for how he supports Bill Clinton?

But you won't ever see Keith address his hypocritical positions, because that would mean he would have to admit that he's 100% fake & phoney - and doesn't deserve a show as a "journalist" on a news program.

I call for MSNBC to put up a disclaimer on Keith's show at the beginning so that viewers know the program is not about the news, but an editorial from someone who is biased to one political direction... and that the host is hypocritical by the way he will do & say anything to get ratings - and have no concern for what his double standard hypocricy says about him.

I don't expect MSNBC to meet this challenge I have made, because they lack integrity as much as Olbermann does.

The "Double Standard" trick

2006-10-22T04:28:00.000-07:00

I want to state that I am not a Republican. I am a Libertarian. I do not vote specifically for one party over the other (I am referring to the Democrat & Republican parties since most people only think we have 2 political parties in this country) but I will admit that I do consider myself to be "conservative" when it comes to politics. But that alone doesn't mean I must be a Republican. I have many issues with how that party does business, which is why I will not register as a Republican for political purposes.

Even though I find fault with how Republicans do business, I have more of a problem with how Democrats and other liberals want to conduct the business of governing the "People".

It is because of this that I have recently been bothered by the ramblings of a member of the liberal Cult that is the Democrat Party. Although I find this mindless drone to be amusing, I now find myself having to address this lemming in a blog entry.

If the cowardly person known at "GT" (Is this a man or a woman? I can't tell for sure one way or the other.) were someone of character, they would allow me to view their blog & have an option for me to comment on their blog. But, for some reason, I can no longer see any entries at the URL http://taketheusback.blogspot.com/ and there is no means for me to send a message to "GT". I say above that "if" this were a person of character they wouldn't have hidden from me as they seem to have done. Truth is, if they were a person of character... then they wouldn't be a liberal Democrat, would they? :)

Why am I bringing up this "GT", you may ask? I will tell you:

This is the 2nd comment that "GT" left on my blog. Besides being filled with errors & untrue comments, it's an example of how Democrats in specific - and liberals in general - act when someone points out their flaws. They resort to insulting the person who doesn't agree with them, and then they offer either untrue information as "fact" or they selective cite some article, poll, or report to make their point of view appear to be correct - especially when it's not.

Here is the comment that "GT" left for me on this blog:

Liked your comments on my blog since they prove my point. You mention in here the Gerry Studds scandal, as you did in your response on my blog. Funny thing with trying to mislead people is you often end up looking like a fool. Studds actually had a relationships that started WHEN THE YOUNG MAN WAS LEGAL AND OF THE AGE OF CONSENT(SAME WITH CLINTON, WHAT 2 GROWN ADULTS DO IS FINE REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK). FOLEY WAS GOING AFTER YOUNG MEN UNDER THE AGE OF CONSENT, HENCE DIFFERENT ISSUE. And Duche, if you did any research, you would realize that almost every Democrat has asked Jefferson to resign and they stripped him of all of his posts, guess research isn't your strong suit unless it's to back up your "not a republican, just campaign for them" sort of Fox News approach to fact checking. Reading your blog post makes me wonder about your sanity and if you live in the real world or Bush's lala world with the rest of the sheep. I think it's the latter. Keep up the good republican fight(you really shouldn't try to mislead people, it's very unbecoming, at least us Democrats don't claim to be other parties to try to look independant)
--Posted by GT to The Scandal Sheet at 10/19/2006 07:19:42 AM

Since "GT" has foolishly chosen me as an opponent, (and because "GT" is so cowardly as to not allow me to directly respond to this comment) I will address this comment & the relating subject matter in this blog entry.

1. Gary Studds did NOT have a relationship with someone that was "legal" or "of the age of consent" as we are lead to believe from the comment by "GT".

Gary Studds, in fact, engaged in a sexual relationship with a 17 year old boy. He fully admitted this on the floor of the House of Representatives when he was censured by the House Ethics Committee back in 1983.

Well, let me clarify something. I am not 100% certain about what the "age of consent" was for the District of Columbia or in Portugal back in 1973 as Studds was having anal sex with a 17 year old Congressional page, but he definitely was under 18, so that would make the boy a minor in any state of the country.

And the fact that this was someone who was a current Congressional page at the time makes it more relevant to the current position being spouted ad nauseum by Democrats & liberals. (The one where they assert that Republicans aren't protecting our "underage" children who are in Congress as part of the page program because of what Mark Foley "allegedly" did.)

Foley is a scumbag, there's no deny or defending that.

BUT... there has not been ANY proof that shows Foley was doing anything inappropriate with someone who was currently a Congressional page. The one person who has come forward to be interviewed has stated very clearly that Foley didn't contact him until AFTER he left the page program. And this person further stated that he never had a physical sexual encounter with Foley until he was 21 years old!

In case you can't do the math "GT", that's 3 whole years above the age of 18 - clearly making the former page an adult in what he himself called a "consentual" sexual encounter". Contrast that to Studds physically having sex with a 17 year old who was a current Congressional page when he was under the age of 18. I have to look into the specifics of the law at the time, but I don't think a 17 year old can legally give consent - so that would not only make Studd's anal sex encounters with the 17 year old inappropriate, it might also have been rape.

But, getting back to Foley & the page who has come forward.

In a article reported in an L.A. newspaper, the former page stated that Foley waited until the person in question was above the age of 21 - he said that this was because Foley would NEVER engage in this type of behavior with someone who is "underage". This was something that I heard reported on MSNBC just 1 time over a period of 8 hours that they were repeatedly mentioning the more negative aspects of Foley's inappropriate behavior while he was in Congress.

It makes you wonder why they wouldn't mention this fact as often as everything else they reported. Could it be because this shows Mark Foley as being less of the "sexual predator" - a term used frequently by Democrats, liberals, and the liberally-biased media to describe Foley?
If he was a gay man having consentual sex with a 21 year old man, it doesn't make Foley look as bad as if he were roaming the halls of Congress looking to have a physical sexual encounter with a 17 year old Congressional page...

Oh wait, that's EXACTLY what Studds was doing!!! So, why are Democrats & liberals saying that the Studd's situation isn't relevant when talking about Foley?

2. Another topic in the "GT" comment was how Bill Clinton having an adulterous affair with Monica Lewinsky is ok, because they were 2 adults having a consentual sexual relationship.

Why would I have a problem with "Slick Willy" getting it on with Monica? I'll tell you why:

Bill Clinton campaigned for the Presidency by going on TV and admitting his affair with Gennifer Flowers. Hillary was by his side as he said he had done wrong, but that he was sorry. He also claimed to have learned his lesson, and wouldn't be doing such things again. He used this as a way to counteract claims that this lack of character disqualified him for becoming President. He wanted us to forget that he lied to his wife as he was committing adultery. We should give him another chance, because his wife did.

Forward through many other women that Clinton had indiscretions with to Monica. Forget for now women like Paula Jones & the others that Clinton met as he used his position of power to get what he wanted sexually, as any other sexual predator would. For now, we just want to talk about Bill & Monica.

Monica Lewinsky was an intern at the White House. Basically, Clinton was her boss - just like if she were a cashier at WalMart & Bill was the store manager. If what had happened was actually going on in my WalMart analogy, Bill would have been fired for having an inappropriate sexual relationship with an employee while "on the clock" for WalMart.

Much of the physical aspect of their sexual relationship happened either "in" or "just off" the Oval Office. This is when Clinton was conducting business for the American People who elected him into office. We didn't elect him to masturbate while Moncia was masturbating for him, or for him to get oral sex - we elected him to handle the People's business.

I'm not saying that if Monica were never an intern at the White House, and the affair had happened "after hours" that I would approve... but I might be willing to listen to idiots like "GT" when they try to say it was a private matter between 2 consenting adults. I'd still say it was wrong, and an example of Clinton being unqualified to lead the American People as the President... but I woul;dn't be as upset about it as I am considering he was doing it when he should have been trying to catch Osama Bin Laden & preventing 9/11.

I'll give a comparrison to Foley from the Clinton scandal:

So much is being made about Foley "allegedly" exchanging inappropriate instant messages with a FORMER page at a time when he should have been on the House Floor for a vote on the War in Iraq. Democrats & liberals are just outraged that Foley would do this when he should have been doing the job he was elected to do.

So, why weren't these same people as upset & outraged when Clinton was getting a blow job from Monica in the Oval Office while Yassar Arafat was forced to wait to meet with Clinton in the Rose Garden of the White House?

Maybe we wouldn't have as much tension in the Middle East if Clinton spent more time doing his job and not getting a blow job?

But the Democrats & liberals wouldn't think of applying the same standards to themselves as they do to Republicans!!!

The Bush Administration is under fire because it looks like people either altered the visitation log or they didn't completely & accurately log every time Jack Abramoff was at the White House. Sure, it has legitimate consequences considering that at least 2 Congressmen have been indicted over Abramoff's illegal actions as a lobbyist...

But why didn't people make as big of a deal when the same thing happened for Clinton as he had Monica visit him many times at the White House that aren't in the log record? Witnesses verify Monica's claims, but Democrats & liberals don't mind. If Clinton lied about Monica visiting the White House... were other visitors kept from the record to keep Clinton's misdeeds from being known?

Remember, this is a President who sold our nuclear secrets to China - by means of "donors" who were granted such treats as a) meetings with the President; b) trips on Air Force One; and c) nights in the Lincoln Bedroom depending on how much they gave Clinton for the Democratic Party. What other ways did he betray our country while he was busy hopping in bed with the Chinese & getting some from Monica?

3. In regard to William Jefferson and his bribery scandal, "GT" again misleads while trying to inform what happened.

The only reason that the Democrats voted to strip Jefferson of his position was because if they didn't do something, then Speaker of the House Hastert was going to do much more. What Democrats did was inadequate at best, and not what they would demand be done if Jefferson were a Republican. They would jump right to the extreme of demanding a resignation from Congress if Jefferson were a Republican.

But since he's a Democrat, things like the Congressional Black Caucus take the position that NOTHING should be done to him because he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Nevermind that a sting operation was conducted where he took a $100,000 bribe, and when his office was searched, $90,000 of the marked bribe money was clearly found in his refridgerator. What did the Democrats say about it? They said that his office should never been searched because it's off grounds as him being a member of Congress.

A similar defense was being offered when another Democrat was found to be driving while intoxicated & in an accident. The claim that he couldn't be questioned or detained because he was on his way to vote (which was a total lie) was tossed out so that the police couldn't use any information about this Congressman's alleged intoxication could be used against him.

Or when another member of Congress assaulted an officer who wanted to take a closer look at her because he didn't recognize her as being the member of Congress she claimed to be... Democrats & liberals said she was justified to assault the officer - the race card was even tossed into the mix as a justification for her assaulting an officer trying to do his job.

But back to William Jefferson:

Nancy Pelosi said that Jefferson should step down from his position on the House Ways & Means Committee "only until his situation is clarified". Meaning, if he doesn't get charged or indicted, he can return to his position of power. I'm guessing she's hoping there can be some means of getting the $90,000 found in his freezer excluded from the record so Jefferson can get back to work for her. Nevermind that he's guilty as sin... he has work to do for them!

But forget all the "facts" getting in the way of "GT"'s comment to me. I just love how "GT" went right to insulting me - in true liberal Democrat fashion. It's a tactic that is used by the likes of Al Franken & his ilk to attack their opponents when they don't have facts on their side.

It's really sad that "GT" was too lazy to use spell check, if so, then I wouldn't have been called a "Duche" when it's spelled "douche".

I also like how my sanity is called into question, when it's "GT" who is definitely in need of psychiatric help.

And I am accused of being just like FOX News as I campaign for the Republicans. How funny. :)

I love how "GT" claims that a Democrat would never claim to be of another party so as to appear independant. The problem with that is this: You can always spot a liberal Democrat! They can't try to hide who they are, and they are never independant.

I am not a Republican, as I have said many times before this. I am an outside observer to the Democrat - Republican battle, even if I fully admit to being a conservative.

I am way more objective than "GT" or any other liberal/Democrat will ever be. I do not follow any party line, nor do I spout propaganda as "GT" does.

I take a look at the situation, and I give an honest telling, based on "facts" - not feelings like "GT" does.

Oh, and one tidbit to show I am not trying to "mislead" or hide anything (as "GT" claims I do):

In that same incident where Studds was censured in Congress... there was a republican who was also censured. This Republican was having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old FEMALE page.

It should be noted that when the Republican admitted doing wrong & offering an apology, he did so facing the other members of the House.

Studds turned his back on his fellow Congressmen & faced only the Speaker of the House, like the coward he was. Then he held a press conference.... and went on to staying in his office, being re-elected 5 more times before retiring in 1996.

Compare how Democrats reacted to him sodomizing a 17 year old boy who was a current Congressional page - to how Democrats reacted to Foley, who merely sent inappropriate messages to FORMER pages & only having sex with them once they were 21 years old.

And they want us to believe that only the Democrats are fit to be in power... whatever!

And to "GT"... don't be a coward & hide from me. Either stand behind your opinions & allow someone to prove you wrong... or don't offer a comment, only to hide afterward.

Oh yeah, and please, get professional help. I think your medications have run out.

Help support this cause

2006-10-16T00:15:00.000-07:00

Tonight Comedy Central is having a benefit for Autism education called the "Night Of Too Many Stars".

Here's some info about the program:

"The Night Of Too Many Stars" is Comedy Central's first live, on-air and online special event, Night of Too Many Stars: An Overbooked Benefit for Autism Education will be held at New York City's Beacon Theatre on Sunday, October 15.

"Night of Too Many Stars" is designed to raise awareness of autism. This live performance will benefit the Alpine Learning Group, the New York Center for Autism Charter School and other autism education programs.

The funds raised will support educational facilities that have recently opened or are about to open their doors along with those very well-established model schools that are now developing innovative programs to provide vocational and life skills for adults with autism.

Proceeds will also support outreach programs that provide training and consultation to families of very young children in their homes.

Additionally, a portion of the proceeds will benefit Autism Speaks, the nation's leading autism advocacy group.

For more information about autism education, please visit www.nyc4a.org or www.alpinelearninggroup.org .

For more information about autism advocacy and research, please visit www.autismspeaks.org.

It's a very worthy cause, and I am sending out this info to everyone I know so that they have a chance to help out.

I don't have alot, but I donated $20.

If you wish to help you can call the toll free number 1-877-974-8633.

There's a secure way to donate if you wish to donate online by going to this URL:

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/night_of_too_many_stars/index.jhtml

You can also send a check or money order by mail to:

N.Y.C.A. 477 Madison Avenue Suite 420 New York, NY 10022

(make the check/money order out to "N.Y.C.A.")

Please help, even if it's only by sending this message to everyone you know. Every little bit will help, and I'm sure those who will benefit from your donation will greatly appreciate it.

Here's another way you can help those in need:

http://www.cafepress.com/never_run

Benefits those effected by the tragedy of 9/11/01 and show your patriotism by going to this site and supporting this cause as well.

Don Imus is the only one at MSNBC with integrity!

2006-10-13T16:31:00.000-07:00

On Sunday morning I watched MSNBC from Alison Stewart all the way through Contessa Brewer. I think I spent about 8 full hours watching MSNBC, I'm not certain because the whole morning & early afternoon blurred into about an hour of broadcast time.

This is because MSNBC reported one story, with 2 or 3 other stories briefly mentioned at random intervals before going back to the one story being talked about. I can barely recall what other topics were discussed that day because The so-called "scandal" set into motion by former Rep. Mark Foley was being shoved down my throat every possible moment of airtime.

It's no wonder the polls that were talked about that day seem to indicate that the public is not happy with Republicans, that the public seems to feel that Democrats are now better on moral issues & defending us against terrorism, or any of the other things that these obviously biased & leading poll questions were designed to "prove". When a network spends 8 hours in one day (and repeats this propaganda reporting over actual news reporting every day) pushing an agenda... people will eventually start to wonder if it's the truth - even if there's an obvious bias in the "reporting". (It's like the saying goes, "If you say a lie often enough, and loud enough... people will eventually believe it". That's why the truth is said to be subjective, because a "truth" is only something you can get a person to believe - whereas a "fact" is based on reality, not feelings or beliefs.)

There was an obvious liberal bias in the reporting of that day's "news". One example is how the alleged accusations of a former page (an anonymous source at that, something that calls into question the believability of the alleged information & should have caused both MSNBC & the L.A. newspaper to NOT report what is basically unsubstantiated rumor) were being repeated over & over - BUT one tidbit of information that wasn't damaging to Foley & the Republicans was only mentioned ONCE.

I am referring to the bit of info where the anonymous former page said that Rep. Foley told him that he would NEVER engage in inappropriate behavior with someone who is underage, because of it being a crime.

Why wasn't this bit of info repeated over & over with all of the assumptions & other comments that amount to mere conjecture?

Is it because this comment gives the public a more accurate picture of former Rep. Foley - one that isn't a pedophile or sexual predator, but simply a gay man engaging in gay sex with another consenting adult?

If a benign picture of Foley is reported, then the public won't believe all of the liberally-biased propaganda that MSNBC reports to them in the attempt to sway public opinion. A Foley who is engaging in mutually consensual (non-illegal) gay sex doesn't serve to demonize the Representative in specific - which means the general implication of the Republicans as a whole being morally deficient doesn't work to a rationally thinking person.

And that isn't something that the liberally-biased MSNBC can sell, so it mentioned it one time. Most likely some producer either realized the implication of the comment, or was told about it from someone else... and the decision to "forget" to keep reporting this piece of information was made.

Another example of selective reporting is when Contessa Brewer had opposing guests on air to debate the topic. The usual liberal bias didn't remain unnoticed by the conservative guest. He was either the first to notice, or the first to be brave enough to call Contessa & MSNBC on the biasness because I haven't seen anyone say on air what he did.

Contessa cut the man off when he tried to speak on topic about how the Democrats also have moral scandals. Later, when the liberal guest went WAY off topic, Contessa allowed him to go on - because his comments either bashed Republicans or pointed out their flaws.

When the conservative guest tried to bring equality & fair play into the debate, he was ridiculed by his liberal opponent & censured by Contessa.

The liberal guest was rude & unprofessional. He insulted the conservative guest with many ad hominem attacks such as purposefully mispronouncing his name in a way that was insulting. This was one of many immature comments that Contessa allowed him to hurl at the conservative guest. Neither Contessa nor the producer of the news working at the time didn't even stop the liberal guest when he literally said "SHUT UP" to his conservative counterpart. How is this fair & unbiased, let alone professional by MSNBC?

Two things that MSNBC ignores in their biased reporting are these subjects NOT seen on any MSNBC program:

1) If the actions of former Rep. Mark Foley in regards to the Congressional pages was so obvious that his fellow Republicans just HAD to know about it for years... why wouldn't the Democrats in the House of Representatives also know about them? Congressional Pages are people used by all of the members of the House not assigned to specific Congressmen, so the pages who came into contact with Foley would also come in contact with Democrat members of the House, as well as other Congressional Pages.

MSNBC has been reporting of the Democrats' outrage towards House Republicans who MIGHT have known about Foley's actions but didn't say anything to the general House population, let alone the American Public. This ignores the almost certain reality that at least one House Democrat also knew of Foley's inappropriate behavior.

Mark Foley was known to be a gay man, and it looks like a fellow gay Republican House member knew way back in 2000 of Foley's behavior. Are we to believe that for SIX YEARS the House Democrats were kept in the dark?

If that is true... then the House Democrats are stupid... if it's not the truth, then the Democrats are just as guilty of whatever it is that Nancy Pelosi is accusing of the House Republicans.

Why is MSNBC only reporting about Republicans being to blame, and not including House Democrats? Is it because that to report Democrats being as potentially culpable as the Republicans it prevents them from being able to paint the Republicans as having moral deficiencies while Democrats are morally superior?

And why aren't the polls asking the public whether they look poorly at the Democrats for either: a) being too stupid/gullable for not knowing sooner, or b) whether Democrats MUST have known and kept quiet - making them just as guilty as Republicans?

2)Why is it not relevant to bring up incidents when a Democrat has engaged in behavior that is equally inappropriate ... if not worse?

MSNBC is allowing their liberal guests to comment about how the Republicans are supposedly failing to accurately represent the "moral values" they claimed to have when they took control of Congress so many years ago... while preventing any mention of how the Democrats repeatedly show that they are just as guilty, if not more so.

Why is it ok to talk ad nauseum of what people like Delay, Abramoff, Cunningham, and other Republicans/conservatives... but it not ok to also mention Democrats who have committed actions of low moral character?

Foley is allowed to be the poster boy for all Republicans as an example of their moral failures, and this is being given as reason to give power back to Democrats.

If you believe Democrats, they wouldn't have acted as negligently as they claim Republicans acted in regard to Foley's actions & an alleged cover-up.

HOWEVER, when a Democrat in Congress was actually having sexual relations with underage Congressional pages/interns... he wasn't told to resign by his fellow Democrats - he was allowed to remain in his elected office & was REELECTED 5 more times!!!

When a Democrat was actually running a prostitution ring out of his residence was he forced to resign by his fellow Democrats? NO, he was allowed to remain in office - and is still there to this day!!!

And when a Democrat was President and engaged in adulterous sexual behavior with an intern IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND WHILE "ON THE CLOCK" FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC did his fellow Democrats in Congress force him from office? Of course not, they did everything possible to keep a sexual predator in office!!!

This is just three examples of Democrats allowing Democrats to engage immorally reprehensible behavior, just so they could keep the power of having the offending Democrat in office... while now saying that it's a totally different situation now that the offender is a Republican.

The proper way to describe this behavior by Democrats is as them having a Double Standard. And when someone acts like that, they are a HYPOCRITE!!!

When Bill Clinton was committing adultery with Monica Lewinsky while he was supposed to be conducting the business of the American People his fellow Democrats said it was a "private" matter, and none of our business... but now that it's a Republican being accused, it's not a "private" matter at all and it's very much our business.

How is it any different when Foley allegedly was engaging in sexual messaging with a Congressional Page (whether former or present) and when Clinton was receiving oral sex from an intern while he was making phone calls (with government officials, whether they be U.S. or foreign) as he was conducting official business?

And when recent reports of Clinton potentially in a conversation with a married woman that was described as being sexual in nature... why is that not ok to talk about in response to how Foley & Republicans being the only ones guilty of moral transgressions? Why is the incident made out to be a "joke" or of no consequence, just because the husband of the woman that Clinton was talking to in a sexual way was Ashton Kutcher - host of a tv show about pranks & practical jokes?

Wouldn't it be relevant if a member of Congress was found to be in possession of $90,000 cash that was given to him as a bribe from what turned out to be an undercover agent of the government agency that was investigating the Congressman for criminal behavior when talking about morals? It probably would, if the Congressman in question were a Republican - but since he is a Democrat, MSNBC doesn't bother to mention this incident, or allow others to comment on him.

To allow any mention of these 4 examples of Democrats who have engaged in morally deficient behavior would negate any idea that it is only Republicans who are guilty of moral transgressions. It would also allow people to realistically judge members of Congress as individuals, and not in the general terms of a political party.

In the courtroom MSNBC & liberals would not be allowed to behave this way. In a forum where the truth, equality, and fairness are mandatory so that justice can be possible. You can't tell people about the positive qualities of someone involved with the trial without the opposition being allowed to bring up their negative qualities. If you want to assure that the negatives can't be brought into record... then you can't "open the door" to a character debate by bringing up only that which benefits you. It's a shame that MSNBC doesn't follow such principled behavior because they are doing the public a great disservice.

News isn't supposed to have an opinion, it's supposed to be neutral & just report the facts. It's hypocritical & ironic that MSNBC (Keith Olbermann especially) likes to point at FOX News for being biased towards the conservative viewpoint... when MSNBC is obviously just as guilty of biasness, only towards the liberal viewpoint. Dan Rather was disgraced & eventually booted from his position as news anchor at CBS when his liberal bias became public.

It was correct that he be removed from that position since he couldn't appear to be neutral when reporting the news, and MSNBC (and FOX) should follow such a professional benchmark with all of their news reporters who appear on air. To allow a biased opinion (of either viewpoint) is not professional, it is engaging in the spreading of an agenda by means of propaganda. This should fall under the subject of political commentary that requires "equal time" from the opposing view - or be punished by the appropriate government agency as being biased speech.

Keith Olbermann tries to paint himself as a serious newsman. He wants people to think he should be considered among such noteworthy newscasters like Cronkite, that he can be trusted. Which is interesting when you consider that promotional ads for his show "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" had compared the show to Jon Stewart and his show "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" - even though Stewart's show is a comedy program making fun of the news programs rather than an actual news program. I see that as being a contradiction - you are either a respected news program or a comedy program. The people who watch Jon Stewart appreciate his take on the news, but he isn't on par with a respected newsman like Cronkite - even if he is extremely popular & many people (unfortunately) get their news from his show spoofing the news.

Keith is probably the most biased among a biased bunch. His whole "hook" is his Bush-bashing (and Republican-bashing by extension) and also by his relentless "stalking" of Bill O'Reilly with the sole purpose of bashing & slandering him. I guess Keith figures that by mentioning O'Reilly's name every chance he can... that this will result in others mentioning him - giving Olbermann a level of awareness in the public consciousness that he wouldn't normally have (and didn't earn of his own merit) thus resulting in his ratings boost. It's a "ride the bandwagon" type of boost that comes from people who have been whipped into a frenzy from all of the other propaganda being force fed to the public by MSNBC - and not a genuine boost in ratings because people actually want to watch Olbermann because he's talented, trustworthy, or likable.

It's like how the housing boom finally began to end - because enough people said that it couldn't last much longer often enough that people stopped showing confidence in the market... resulting in the predicted end of the boom. It's a self-fulfilling process that isn't a result of untainted events, but a situation where "cause & effect" is thrown into reverse.

The result of Olbermann using this tactic of bashing Bush, Republicans & the anti-O'Reilly commentary is that Keith's show has (allegedly, if you believe MSNBC as the source) doubled in the ratings race.

Keith is on air opposite of the #1 show in all of cable news, that of his nemesis, Bill O'Reilly on FOX News, so it's no wonder why he uses O'Reilly to boost his own ratings.

Recently Olbermann interviewed Bill Clinton in what MSNBC proclaimed as "The Olbermann Interview" - as if 20 years from now history will see this moment as being noteworthy. The promo ad also described Olbermann as being one of the most respected journalists of our time, or some such description equating Olbermann as a modern day Cronkite.

What the "interview" really was can only be described as the journalistic version of Olbermann performing oral sex on the former President. It's ironic that Clinton accused a member of FOX News as being a tool or a puppet of his conservative masters, when Olbermann was the epitome of being a willing accomplice to whatever message Clinton wanted to spread. There were no tough questions for Clinton from Olbermann. It could honestly be said that it couldn't have been a better example for the liberal cause - even if Michael Moore directed it while Al Franken, Bill Maher, Howard Dean, & Nancy Pelosi wrote the script!

Even though the September 11 Commission stated that the Clinton Administration shared blame for the tragedy of September 11, 2001... Olbermann didn't question the former President about it. Clinton was allowed to deny any wrongdoing while shifting blame to the current Administration. Days later Olbermann was all about blaming President Bush with accusations coming from former Clinton. Why should Keith accept Bill Clinton as a source when his claims are contradicted by the September 11 Commission?

You would think that a group made up of 5 Democrats & 5 Republicans would have be unbiased, as we have seen them to be. They are the epitome of being an objective 3rd party - yet Olbermann chose the word of a man who has been proven to be a liar, a thief, an adulterer, and possibly a traitor to his country over this impartial group.

Keith siding with Clinton over the September 11 Commission is proof of him being a tool or a puppet for his liberal masters. It also shows that he should not be on cable tv where he can sway public opinion with propaganda when he is supposed to be reporting the news in a neutral fashion. In the very least, it proves that he should be described as a journalist of integrity or high stature.

When Olbermann mentions O'Reilly, FOX News, President Bush, or Republicans in a negative light, he does so because he knows it will boost his ratings. He is pandering to the lowest common denominator, and that is sad. Keith's show is the political version of Jerry Springer, and that has nothing to do with what the news is supposed to be about.

MSNBC & Olbermann want people to believe that he (and MSNBC as well) is a journalist of high regard, that he should be put in the same category of people like Walter Cronkite. We are being told that he is someone of integrity, and that we should trust him to be neutral when he reports the news to us.

But when Olbermann (and MSNBC) allows his political views/opinions to shape how & what he reports... then the process becomes tainted - it's no longer news, but an Op Ed piece at best... it's the forwarding of an agenda through propaganda at worst.

But... back to Imus.

He also deserves props for taking on the corrupt politican who lied to people (a group inculding Imus' wife) so that he could get support for his Bill to get passed... only to be the sole reason that a Bill supported by Imus (and many members of Congress) is blocked in committee - a committee that this corrupt politician, Joe Barton, happens to run.

Joe Barton has tried to get Imus censorced or gagged by going to people at MSNBC he felt were in control of Imus. This cowardly tactic failed, and has served to give Imus a boost of energy in his campaign of awareness against this politician.

Good for you Don - keep up the fight!!!

Selective journalism & the effect on public opinion

2006-10-10T08:14:00.000-07:00

How "certain" can Hillary really be? (And why are the Democrats so stupidly blind in the acceptance of what they are told is the "truth"?)

2006-09-27T21:16:00.000-07:00

How can Hillary be "certain" about anything when it comes to her husband, the Former President, Bill Clinton?

Wasn't she so "certain" that her husband wasn't cheating on her... only to find out that she had NO CLUE what her husband was up to - because he had been having affairs with MUTIPLE women over MANY years!

EVEN AFTER the Gennifer Flowers incident when she stood by his side, claiming she was "certain" that he wouldn't do that ever again... and the former President DID do it again!! Not only did Hillary's husband have another affair... he did it RIGHT UNDER HER NOSE with an intern at the White House!!!

SO...

How can Hillary have the audacity to get up in front of America and it's citizens proclaiming loudly & boldly that she is so "certain" about something she obviously isn't qualified one tiny bit to comment on.

OH...

If Senator Clinton says that if her husband & his staff had a memo clearly stating that Osama Bin Laden wanted to attack America and Americans - that they would have done something about it...

Why didn't they do something to stop him when he boldly was interviewed by John Miller of ABC News in 1998?

Osama clearly announced that he was extending his fatwa against the "West" to include the United States - and this would mean attacks on US soil, because Osama wanted to KILL Americans!!!

That is as clear an indicator as the memo received by the Bush Administration in August of 2001...

In 1998, President Clinton announced, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.”

So the mutiple times that the CIA had Osama on camera of an unmaned drone, that was him using every means at his disposal?

I think that video that remained hidden until years later is clear proof that former President Clinton DID NOT even attempt to honor that pledge he made to the American people.

And since we have proof that the President and his staff FAILED to follow through with that promise OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN ... doesn't that make Senator Clinton's recent comments to be A TOTAL BUNCH OF CRAP???

If it's not crap, the only other thing it could be is a PACK OF LIES!!! (which is exactly what the Clinton's have given the American public from the very beginning of their political lives)

And that's a pretty pathetic excuse that the former President WANTED TO either capture or kill Osama when those chances presented themselves... but he wasn't allowed because the CIA and the FBI just wouldn't let him!!!

WAIT... Isn't another term for the President of the United States of America - the COMMANDER IN CHIEF ???

What that means is this: Bill Clinton was the one who made the final decision... NOT the CIA or the FBI!!!

They are there to offer their advice, but the President could disregard that advice and if he gave the order to proceed - they would have to obey, or risk TREASON!!!

If former President Clinton wasn't strong enough so that even if his decision went contrary to the advice of his CIA Director & his National Security Advisor... then he never deserved to be the Commander in Chief in the first place!!

Oh wait, he was much more interested in being the FORNICATOR in Chief while he was trading away our Nuclear secrets to the Chinese who were giving donations and being allowed to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Maybe if Billy-boy didn't spend so much time either sticking a cigar up Monica's butt or getting a hummer from her, being a traitor for giving our nuclear secrets to the Chinese who bought his (and th Democratic Party's) loyalty, being an accomplice in the cover up of Vince Foster's murder (who was involved in the cover up of the Whitewater scandal) and playing golf with Vernon Jordan & talking about "pussy"... MAYBE, JUST MAYBE he could have gathered up some BALLS to tell the people under him what to do???

I mean, he did tell the American people that he would do whatever it took, for how ever long it took, to get Osama.

Just another of the many million lies or unfulfilled promises of "Slick Willy" Clinton.

I WILL ADDRESS SOME THINGS THAT THE DEMOCRAT "SHEEP" REFUSE TO ADMIT:

FIRST, The 9-11 Commission DID say that there were failures by the Clinton Administration that lead to the tragedy of September 11th, 2001.

I know, all you blind sheep of the Democrat faithful don't want to hear that, let alone believe it... but it's a fact that if you OBJECTIVELY read the report you will clearly see that to be true. (I'll throw you a bone and say that they also say that the Bush II Administration made their share of mistakes as well... but the Democrat pundits, politicians, the Media, and regular crackpots will try anything to get people to not hear them admit that fact.)

One of the tools used by these Biased, Liberal "reporters" (that they picked up from the partisan, biased, Liberal politicians) is the one where they keep saying their point of view as if it were the truth - no matter how wrong or implausable it really is - in the hope that everyone else will BELIEVE them, and then they make what they want come true.

See, this almost always works on the public who vote Democrat. These people can't think for themselves, and NEED to be told what to do.

Chris Matthews & his fellow MSNBC staff reporters are notorious for this tactic. The seem like the Stepford Wives the way they read the script prepared for the network by the writing staff over at the Democratic National Committee.

Haven't you realized that this is why they have so many "bubble-headed"bimbos (oops, I mean lovely ladies) dominating as the "on-air personalities"? (There is almost NOBODY over at MSNBC that can be called an actual "reporter" or "journalist") I swear that if someone like Amy Robach, Contessa Brewer, or Rita Cosby had an original thought, their heads would explode.

There are only 3 "personalities" on MSNBC that seem to have intelligence, talent, and a sense of humor. One is Norah O'Donnell, who only gets limited time on screen because she is an actual reporter... so she gets relegated to reporting fron the location of a story. Next is Alison Stewart, who has finally found a nice timeslot as the anchor of her own show - "The Most". (For those of you with a brain... this is actually an afternoon version of "Countdown" - ONLY, it's not as retarded as Olbermann's show because Alison is much funnier, more intelligent, and not at all biased like Keith is. Basically, "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" has become the 'poorman's' version of "The Most with Alison Stewart"... poor Keith, he has become irrelevant as will as impotent.) The only other woman that MSNBC has that is worth watching unfortunately gets treated like a red-headed stepchild. It could be because she is beautiful, funny, intelligent, and absolutely qualified... BUT the real reason that Monica Crowley keeps losing her anchor positions is because she's a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN (the "token" conservative) and that just isn't tolerated in MSNBC's Liberal-land!

BUT... the MSNBC airwaves aren't only wasted on those ladies who dominate the morning hours after Imus is over. There are 3 men who clog the airwaves like eating 4 Double Quarter Pounders with extra cheese every day would do to your arteries.

Ron Reagan used to share a show with Monica Crowley. But because he can only accept/understand the Liberal-Democratic position on any subject, rather than have a free-thinking mind that can accept the opposing view if it ends up being correct (like Monica could) was most likely the reason the show was pulled from the lineup. It's so sad to see him tarnish his father's legacy by being such a tool of the Democratic party.

Chris Mathews likes to think he is the most respected reporter on TV... but that ttile goes to Tim Russert of NBC's "Meet the Press". Chris tries so hard to hide his obvious lean to the Left, but the only person he fools is himself. He has become a caricature of himslef... to the point where SNL cast member Darrell Hammond's portrayal of Matthews is totally indistinguishable from the real thing. It's almost like watching Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie "The 6th Day" when it;s time to figure out which is the real Arnold... and which is the clone.

Matthews is trying SO HARD to have the Democrats take control in the Fall elections that it looks like he's about to burst a blood vessel. He has been obsessed with what he feels is absolute proof of Virginia Senatorial Candidate, George Allen is a racist - that he ignores abything that doesn't support his fanatical beliefs. He kept quoting the Salon.com's report as "proof" of Allen's guilt. The article was based on asking 19 people if Allen ever used the "N" word - 16 said "no" George Allen did NOT use that word, 2 didn't comment... and ONLY 1 said that Allen did say that word - OVER 30 YEARS AGO!!! Matthews chooses to believe the 1 person & not the 16. Even after a second "source" said on TV that he didn't ever HEAR George Allen use the word... Chris Matthews chose to believe the guy when he told Chris that he DID hear Allen say that word... and ignore the guy when he admitted that what he told Matthews the previous day couldn't be true. Like my father used to say, "Never let a thing liek the truth get in the way of what you believe"

Chris Matthews makes sure he brings up his version of the "facts" to every guest on his show... and then he TELLS them how he is certain that this is the end of not only Allen's Senatorial run... but that it also has destroyed any chance of Allen to even consider running for President in 2008 - just so that his guests can agree with him. And if they don't... he just restates his position over & over until either his guest agrees, or his segment is over & he leaves.

I guess Matthews figures that if he keeps this up with his belief that the Democrats wil take back total control of Congress enough times... that the mindless drones who vote Democrat will finally get the message & do what Matthews wants.

This process is repeated by about 90% of the MSNBC (and NBC) personalities.

Hopefully, America is smart enough not to fall for that.

And the third... is Olbermann. This guy is just as much of an asshole as Bill mahar & Al Franken... that I don't even want to waste ony more time, effort, or energy on those three douchebags. I'm sure you can get the hint from what I have already posted.

BUT... I will say this:

Not only is Olbermann the exact type of "tool" that Clinton claimed the FOX News reporter of being... he is obviously in LOVE with Clinton... to the point where I believe that Olbermann is Clinton's new "Monica".

Earlier this week, the former President appeared on "Countdown". The promo commercials for this episode was so over the top cheesy... you would swear that Keith was 100 times the reporter that Cronkite ever was!!! The promo spot (voiced over by Keith's trusty & loyal assistant) actually called it "The Olbermann Interview" - as if it would be a monumental moment of human history. What a load of crap!!!

Keith can barely get through a segment without making some juvenile reference/comment/joke in the line of a "pull my finger" gag. BUT... this man ws going to interview the most "provocative" personality of the 21st century!!! (a title given to Clinton by Olbermann's voice guy, and not by any reoutable source)

Keith was tossing Clinton so many softballs... I swear they were going to shower together afterward. (probably... because that way Keith could blow Clinton again like he did with that "blow job piece" of an ibnterview.)

It totally amazes me how every single Democrat will defend whatever mistake, lie, or blunder that the Democrat Party is stuck with at any given moment.

Recently we saw that loud-mouthed, rude, retarded, vulgar, idiot - Al Franken - try to use his normal tactic of getting loud, interrupting, & trying to bully the opposition into giving up so that Al can claim victory. You can see Al on "Hardball" on MSNBC frequently because Chris Matthews is notorious and very blatant at showing that Matthews is a Liberal Democrat who never misses a chance to slam the Republicans & conservatives.

(For the record... I'm not a Republican... I am a Libertarian - so this isn't me just slamming the Democrats. I have the double pleasure of being able to look at both parties & see what they are doing wrong when I complain of one party, or both, being wrong.)

Al Franken is just like Bill Mahar & Jon Stewart. Three comedians who think they are qualified to be either a reporter, pundit, or advocate for the Democrat party on any topic. The three of them should have stuck with comedy, but they aren't even very good at that - so they needed a "hook" to help separate them from the masses of other losers out there bashing the President just for the sake of bashing him.

These three are really worse than the "tool" reporters pretending to be objective (Can anyone say, Dan rather?) because these three half-assed comedians are merely critics in disguise. And a critic is the lowest form of scum in the media industry. They are like a chihuahua dog, always yapping, but not making any sense - while they annoy you to the point you want to choke them.

See, critics like Franken, Mahar, & Stewart never actually DO anything - they just COMPLAIN about whatever the President & his staff are doing.

It was pathetic watching Bill Mahar make the rounds of various tv shows, because he basically had only one line to spit out - and he didn't even get that one sound byte out in a way that didn't make him sound (and lok) like he was either drunk, high, or both.

I saw Bill on 3 programs... and every time his line of "If the President has to keep telling you over & over that you're in a war, then you're NOT in a war. So just shut up already!"

Notice, that Mahar uses the Franken technique of insults? That's because he doesn't have enough intelligence to form a real argument. It's that lack of intelligence that makes it easier for them to swallow the Democratic Party line & actually believe they are in a majority, when they are out in left field with a couple other freaks.

Another "tool" news person is Keith Olbermann. I find it funny that former President Clinton called Mr. Wallace of FOX News as doing the bidding of his bosses by asking the question that mad Clinton look like the Village Idiot suffering from rabies... when it's Olbermann & Matthews who are clearly deep in the pocket of the Democratic Party.

That moron Olbermann ends his program (I'm not sure what to call it. It's supposed to be a news program... but in the commercials promoting the show they compare "Countdown" with "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" on Comedy Central. How can you respect a news show that is aspiring to be like a comedy program mocking the news? The answer to that rhetorical question obviously is... you CAN'T!!) every night with a reverse of a "countdown" by telling his listeners how many days it has been since President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished".

Hey Keith... I know you're not too bright, so I'll try to explain this in words even you can understand:

The MISSION being talkled about in that speech was to remove Saddam Hussein from being the brutal, mass-murderous dictator of Iraq... and they ACCOMPLISHED that goal, so that's why they can say MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - now do you understand?

It's obvious moments of bias that should disqualify Olbermann from being on a National News Channel as Anchor of an "alleged" news program.

News is supposed to be just the facts - without your opinion tilting it to one side or the other. You can't be objective ever, so you have no place on that program.

Here's another problem with critics... they tell you your way is wrong... but they don't have a plan that is better than the one in place.

Howard Dean was a prime offender of this common Democrat flaw. When he was "allowed" to go on tv and spout his inane ramblings, he never once gave an alternative plan that would let people know that maybe we SHOULD vote for his party.

He would mention IDEAS... but never once did he offer a plan that would accomplish those ideas.

Hey, I like the sound of lowering the defecit, getting health care for every American, and most of the other things Dean claimed his party could produce - who wouldn't want those things?

But when asked how his party would accomplish those ideas... dean would stutter, repeat himself, and then end up sounding like an idiot because he realized that the people would HAVE to know that he didn't have a clue about what needs to be done. So, the only thing Dean could do, would be to take the focus away from that knowledge by doing the only thing he knows - getting loud, rambling like a fool, and attacking the Republican Party.

BUT I HAVE STRAYED FROM THE MIAN TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION... SO BACK TO HOW THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION IS TO BLAME FOR 9-11:

Unlike the Democrats... I am going to provide source material to back up what i am going to point out to you. This way you can't accuse me of lying, selecting certians "facts" and then spinning it to prove my point, or any of the other things Democrats do...

Here is the link to an MSNBC website from March 17th, 2004 dealing with the 9-11 Commission saying that the Clinton Administration did in fact, miss opportunities & make other mistakes that kept them from catching/killing Osama Bin Laden.

As I have stated above: The Commission DID place blame on the Clinton Administration - CONTRARY to what former President Clinton, Senator Clinton, and every other Democrat chooses to say.

It's exactly like how they look at the recent Intelligence report & can say that we are less safe now than before September 11th, 2001 - DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN ONE SINGLE TERRORIST ATTACK ON U.S. SOIL SINCE 9/11/01.

Here is the link to MSNBC's report from 2 years ago that deals with this very subject:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3907198/

Now, I will take some excerpts from that report to help the thick-headed Democrats who just don't understand what Clinton & his staff did wrong:

The Clinton people argued with ABC over what they called errors in the script for the program dealing with the events leading up to 9/11/01. Here is one point of contention that the Clintion people got right... well, SORT OF. (I'll explain after I detail what what being argued about)

The docudrama was going to show Army troops & CIA personnel chasing down Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Supposedly, they were so close that they COULD have killed Osama - BUT just before they could have completed the mission, the Clinton administration pulled the plug... allowing Osama to get away & be free to plan the 9-11 attacks.

Here's the problem with that whole thing:

Even though the Clinton Administration DID have a plan to either capture or kill Osama... the plan didn't get close to being accomplished - BECAUSE THERE NEVER WERE EITHE ARMY TROOPS OR CIA PERSONNEL IN AFGHANISTAN AT THE TIME IN QUESTION.

There were supposedly two occasions where it was discussed... but both times Clinton allowed Gen. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA Director George Tenet to make the decision for him to NOT follow through with the plan. (depending on who you talk to, it was either because they couldn't offer 100% proof that osama was to blame for the things he was being chased for... or that to follow through with the plan would also kill people considered to be "innocent" - so they couldn't go through with the plan.)

Either way, this proves that Clinton didn't deserve to be President in the first place. Supposedly Clinton was the "Commander in Chief" - yet he allowed two subordinates to bully him around and make a decision for him that eventually caused the tragedy of 9/11/01 to happen.

I'll say that again folks, so that it can sink in:

THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION LET TWO CHANCES TO KILL OSAMA BIN LADEN - AND HE ALLOWED PEOPLE TO TALK HIM OUT OF IT!!

Now, that may seem like I contradicted myself, but I didn't. How could they have been close enough to kill Osama... without having either CIA personnel or Army Troops in Afghanistan - the country where Osama was hiding at the time?

Well, it wasn't known until later on, when video from an unmaned drone was released (BUT YEARS AFTER CLINTON LEFT OFFICE) in the year 2004. The video showed a man everyone agreed MUST be Osama because that man was so much taller than everyone else, he was being shown the respect of a person in charge, and it was at the very location in Tora Bora where it was KNOWN that Osama was staying - but for some reason... that wasn't enough for Shelton & Tenet, and they got the President to not give the "ok" for the operatioin to go forward - which would have spared everyone the tragedy on 9/11/01 that killed thousands... but effected us all.

REMEMBER: President Clinton told us that he would do whatever it took, for however long it took... until they accomplished the goal. Doesn't sound like Bill Clinton can be counted on to tell the truth, or to keep his word... BUT WE ALREADY KNEW THAT ABOUT HIM, DIDN'T WE??

Here is some infor from the news article that explains why the Clinton Administration was NEVER going to capture/kill Osama Bin Laden:

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission (Bob Kerry) says there was a larger issue:

The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says:

The White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.
What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden?

“It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.
Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said:

“The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”

One Clinton Cabinet official said:

Looking back, the military should have been more involved, “We did a lot, but we did not see the gathering storm that was out there.”

SO... WE HAVE A DEMOCRAT ON THE 9/11 COMMISSION DETAILING HOW THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION HELPED CAUSE 9/11/01... AND A CLINTON OFFICAL ADMITIING THAT THEY HAD NO CLUE WHAT TO EXPECT... & SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE WHEN THEY COULD HAVE!!!

IMAGINE THAT!!!

NOW, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO THINK THE "CLINTON YEARS" WERE FULL OF THEM BEING TOUGH ON TERRORISTS & BEING "THE MOST AGGRESSIVE ADMINISTRATION BEFORE OR SINCE 9/11/01 ON TERRORISM"...

HERE'S SOME THINGS FOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT:

Somalia: 1993 - When Clinton decided to leave Somalia, Osama Bin Laden came to believe that the U.S. would not last in a battle that was drawn out over a long period of time and was very messy in casualties.

Waco, Tx: 1993 - President Clinton orders government agencies to go after a religious sect that is deemed to be dangerous. After a 51 day stand-off, it is believed (according to the Clinton Administration) that the Branch Davidians set the fires that caused the deaths of approximately 80 people and their leader, David Koresh.

World Trade Center Bombing #1: 1993 - Bombing that caused the death of 6 people and injuring over 1000. It took the Clinton Administration until 1997 or 1998 to "realize" (you'll see why I use this word rather than giving them credit for obtaining the knowledge of who perpretrated the bombing) that Osama Bin Laden's terrorist group Al Qaeda was behind the bombing.

Oklahoma City Bombing: 1995 - To commemorate the 2nd anniversary of the disaster at Waco, Tx - former Desert Storm Army Gold Star winner turned anarchist/terrorist - detonated a bomb that killed 168 people and injured about 600 more. THANKFULLY for the Clinton Administration, McVeigh allowed himself to be caught (thinking he would be sen as a radical & revolutionary... but when he realized that a daycare was part of the building he bombed, he knew he would be seen as a monster - which is how history describes him) - or most likely his military training would have prevented the Clinton Administration from solving the crime.

Atlanta Olympics Bombing: 1996 - Eric Rudolph, homegrown terrorist/serial bomber, detonated a home-made bomb durring the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta... killing 2 people & injuring over 100 people. He managed to hide out in a forrested area until 2003 when one of the local residents finally decided to provide government officials with information that allowed them to capture Rudolph.

"Unabomber" bombing spree: 1993 - Ted Kaczynski, college professor turned terrorist/serial bomber went on a spree (starting in 1979 and lasting intermittedly until 1998) that killed 3 people and injured 23 more people - according to his plea agreement.

U.S. Foreign Embassy Bombings: 1998 - A precision-timed bombing of two US Embassies of separate East African countries kills 257 people and injures over 4000 people between the two locations. A local branch of Al Qaeda takes credit for the bombings. After some scrambling for information on the terrorist group, the Clinton Administration has the organization's leader, Osama Bin Laden, declared as "Public Enemy #1".

ABC Interview with Osama: 1998 - John Miller of ABC News interviews Osama Bin Laden in Southern Afghanistan. In the interview, Osama declares to the American public (and to the Clinton Administration who declared him "Public Enemy #1") that he is changing the fatwa he declared two years earlier. Previously he called for all Muslims to attack/kill any American military personnel that is part of the "occupying force of the Holy Lands" (a reference to US Troops being stationed in his homeland of Saudia Arabia as part of joint relations between the two countries) - but now he calls on all Muslims to rise up and attack/kill Americans (civilian and military) whereever they may be found. He has informed the Clinton Administration on National TV that he is declaring a Holy War that will include US soil, if given the chance... AGAIN. It is because of this interview (and NOT because of any hard work or investigation done by the Clinton Administration) that the world knows who was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the twin bombs in the US Embassies in Eastern Africa. After this interview, it cannot be claimed that an attack from Al Qaeda is unexpected, even on US soil.

USS Cole Bombing: 2000 - Osama Bin Laden's terrorist group, Al Qaeda attack the USS Cole as it is in the Aden Harbor, Yemen. The number of Navy personnel that are either confirmed or presumed dead is 17, and 40 were injured. Eventually, 2 men were executed & another four were given prison sentences ranging from 5 to 10 years. The bombing of the USS Cole was preceded earlier that year by a failed attempt to bomb the USS The Sullivans.

ALL OF THOSE ACTS OF TERRORISM UNDER THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION... YET THE CLINTON CAMP, AND THEIR DEMOCRAT AUTOMOTON SLAVE FOLLOWERS STILL CLAIM THAT THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION IS "THE MOST AGGRESSIVE ADMINISTRATION" WHEN TRYING TO COMBAT TERRORISM.

SURE, WE BELIEVE YOU "SLICK WILLY"... JUST LIKE WE BELIEVED YOU WHEN YOU TOLD US YOU NEVER INHALED, OR THAT YOU WOULDN'T CHEAT ON YOUR WIFE AGAIN & BECAUSE OF THAT NEW CONVICTION YOU DESERVED TO BE OUR PRESIDENT... AND OH YEAH, WHEN YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH MONICA....

WE BELIEVE YOU, MR CLINTON. WHY NOT... IF YOUR WIFE IS SO CERTAIN, AND YOU HAVE SUCH A SOLID RECORD OF BEING TRUTHFUL... WE'LL BELIEVE YOU NOW.

Sure, that totally beats out how President Bush ousted Sadam from being a mass-murderous, terrorist-sponsoring, egomanical dictator... killing his two sons who were just as bad as he was... capturing or killing all the major players of Saddam's evil Regeime... forcing the Taliban from power... either capturing or killing the majority of the leaders of Osama's Al Qaeda group... isolating Osama to an extreme remote area to the point that he is effectivelycut off from the rest of Al Qaeda so as to nullify his influence/existence... killed his #1 in Iraq... captured Khalid Shiek Muhhamed & are getting very valuable information on Al Qaeda in general, their methods, their hiding locations, their money sources, their members, their plans...

I know there is one more... but I am having trouble remembering what it is.

OH YEAH, I REMEMBER NOW...

UNDER THIS CURRENT ADMINISTRATION (THE ONE YOU CRITICIZE SO MUCH AND CLAIM TO HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB THAN) THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANOTHER ATTACK ON AMERICAN SOIL, AND NO MAJOR ATTACKS ON AMERICAN ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET!!!!!

BUT... Senator Clinton is "certain" that her husband has done more, and would still do more... than this current Administration that has been keeping every American citizen safe from another attack (that her husband caused by his inaction, & blundering action)

Maybe if "Slick Willy" hadn't spent so mcuh time having affairs with all those women (while Senator Clinton was "certain" that he could be trusted not to do that again, or to lie to her about it again) he could have had time to do SOMETHING to capture/kill Osama???

I guess he would rather stick a cigar up Monica's butt... get a hummer from her... or go play some golf with Vernon Jordan while talking about "pussy" than do what he told the American people he would do so that Osama & Al Qaeda would get the punishment they deserve.

Maybe he was TOLD by his Chinese superiors to just leave Osama alone? You know... the Chinese people who donated HUGE sums of cash to the DNC by way of Clinton and then were allowed to do things like 1) Have a private meeting with the President, 2) Get to fly on Air Force One, or 3) Get to spend a night in the Lincoln bedroom - AND (as a bonus) they received Top-secret information about our Nuclear program so that China could advance their Nuclear technology??? There's nothing like selling out your country to what will be the next Superpower to make you forget about some pesky terrorist and his organization.

Or... maybe it was because he was so busy with Hillary, Vince Foster, & God only knows who else as the destroyed evidence, lied under oath, hid & shredded documents to hide just how much proof there was to show the Clinton's guilt in the Whitewater crime scam - that was perpretrated by the First Couple????

SO... in closing.

Senator Hillary Clinton can't be "certain" about anything that her husband says. Bill Clinton is a habitual liar... and he actually believes his own lies that he tells us.

Either Bill & Hillary are STUPID... or they think think the American public is... there's just no other reason they would get up in public & try to get away with saying things that are so obviously LIES!

Hopefully there are enough people in America who don't just blindly accept the BULLSHIT they get spoon-fed to them by their Democratic con artists who pose as Congressmen, Senators, pundits... and (the sleasiest & dumbest of the bunch) blowhards who pretend to be UNBIASED REPORTERS - otherwise the country will be in for some serious trouble if the Democrats manage to SCAM their way int control of Congress!!

Family sues MySpace for $30 MILLION!!!

2006-06-21T20:21:00.000-07:00

In the past few weeks there have been Stories in the news involving 14 year old girls & MySpace. With all the media attention on MySpace, it won't be long before outside forces try to change our experience here. The chance to have your voice heard is now. It will take only a few minutes to make a difference. Please repost this bulletin so that everyone can help get the word out. The more people that get involved, the better off we will be. If you don't speak out, others will determine how your MySpace experience will be in the future.
-------------------
MSNBC reported a story about the family of a 14 year old girl who was abused by a 19 year old guy she met on MySpace. The family filed a lawsuit against MySpace & it's parent company for $30 million. They say that MySpace doesn't have any real means of preventing adults from targeting minors.
Recently the media also reported the story of a 14 year old girl who managed to get on a plane & leave the country in an attempt to meet a man she met on MySpace. The girl was stopped by authorities in Jordan, just short of her going to Tel Aviv to meet the 25 year old man. The media dubbed this girl the "MySpace Runaway".
The media routinely tries to paint MySpace as the main problem in this very serious problem of online predators who target minors. You probably have seen NBC's Chris Hansen in his "Dateline NBC" reports of the men who try to meet minors for sex. Chris Hansen works in conjunction with perverted-justice.com & local law officials. These people should be applauded in their efforts to help prevent online predators from being able to abuse minors.

The problem is a serious one. HOWEVER, it's unfair to say that MySpace is to blame. The primary blame is with the people who feel it's ok to target & abuse minors. In the Dateline NBC reports you see the people at perverted-justice.com interacting with the predators in chat rooms. The media never identifies these chat rooms that are used. It appears that these chat rooms lead to Instant messaging between predators & minors, which can lead to a meeting in real life. But it's always MySpace that gets mentioned, giving the impression that all online predators use MySpace to find their victims. This gives the public reason to single out MySpace, because they think this is the only place where the problem exists.
The next place to look at is the parents who have no idea what their underage children are up to online. Where were the parents in the "MySpace Runaway" situation? This girl managed to take a cab to the airport & then board a plane that took her to Jordan. How did she pay for the plane ticket? The parents need to take responsibility for their failure to monitor the girl's online activities, not to mention how she can access the means to purchase a ticket on an international flight & the cab ride to the airport. But the media didn't mention that all, they chose to point the finger at MySpace.
Then we should look at these children who are making poor decisions. You all have seen the bulletins here on MySpace that mention underage kids trying to be sexy and look older. Many of these underage girls use suggestive terms as their screen name, or use that language in their profile. I'm not trying to blame the victim here, but this is exactly the type of thing that the predators are looking for. It's not smart to tempt fate by doing this type of behavior. Maybe it's time to have the age limit raised to 16, rather than 14? It seems that they are too young to make sensible decisions, and that maybe they shouldn't be allowed to participate until they are more mature.
The people that run MySpace are already making some changes in an attempt to help protect minors from online predators. MSNBC reported that as early as next week, MySpace will institute procedures that will help prevent adults from being able to contact minors. Hopefully, this will be enough. BUT, it will only work if there is accurate means to identify a person's age. How many times have you seen people list their age as "14" or "99" so that they can't be found in a search?
You can bet that a $30 million judgment against MySpace will change things around here. If that happens it will basically be the beginning of the end of MySpace as we know it.
It will be only a matter of time before politicians & special interest groups try to regulate how we can have an online experience in online community websites like MySpace. These people usually don't have an accurate idea of what really goes on, they rely on the media reports to give them their info. And if MySpace is routinely being portrayed as part of the problem, then these groups will try to shut it down.
Think of how the P.M.R.C. got involved with the recording industry when they decided lyrics were offensive. It began as a way to protect minors from objectionable material. It ended up as a form of censorship. If we do nothing, it will happen to the internet.
The media needs to get the hint that MySpace isn't to online predators what Osama Bin Laden is to terrorism.
There are almost 90 million members here at MySpace. If we organize, we can get results. The more people that get involved, the louder our voice becomes. If it's loud enough, then outside forces won't be able to determine our fate for us. If you sit back and do nothing, then you allow other people to determine what you will be able to do - or not do.
Here is what you can do:
1) Repost this bulletin so everyone can get involved.
2) Contact MySpace and let them know that if a reasonable system can't be instituted to protect these underage children, then maybe the age should be raised to 16.
3) Contact the media and let them know that MySpace isn't the problem like they seem to think. Even if all you do is copy this into a mass email, that will help. I will provide email addresses below.
Remember, if you do nothing, you let others determine how you will be able to experience MySpace in the near future. This is your chance to speak out & let yourself be heard. Let everybody know that MySpace isn't what the media tells them it is.

Tucker Carlson - tucker@msnbc.com
DaySide - Dayside@foxnews.com
Alison Stewart - themost@msnbc.com
Wolf Blitzer - caffertyfile@cnn.com
FOX & Friends - Friends@foxnews.com
Keith Olbermann - countdown@msnbc.com
Bill O'Reilly - Oreilly@foxnews.com
Rita Cosby - rita@msnbc.com
Greta Van Susteren - Ontherecord@foxnews.com
Joe Scarborough - joe@msnbc.com
Dan Abrams - abramsreport@msnbc.com
Fox News - comments@foxnews.com
MSNBC - question@msnbc.com

The Da Vinci Code

2006-05-19T11:27:00.000-07:00

[DISCLAIMER:] This is going to be a very LONG entry. The subject matter will be deep. This is NOT light reading folks. Consider yourself warned.

I am set to go see the movie "The Da Vinci Code" this weekend. I have already read the book, and I am looking forward to the movie. I don't buy into the protests, or the critics who have panned the movie already. I tend to like the movies they hate... and hate the ones they like. I almost NEVER see the ones that get Oscar nominations for "Best Picture".
FIRST OFF, I want to say this:
If your faith in God is going to be rocked by a movie, then you didn't have much faith in the first place.
SECONDLY:
The only reason the Church is so concerned, is because an open discussion on this topic can only lead to a lessening of their power over the masses.

The Church has ALWAYS reacted harshly when someone challenges their authority. Martin Luther was dubbed the "anti-christ" by the Pope because he challenged the Church's authority. Anything that runs contrary to Orthodoxy is branded as wrong, or "evil". Usually it iis met with violence.
When Copernicus said that the Earth Revolves around the sun (and not that the Earth was the center of the universe) he was branded a heretic. He waited until he was dying to publish his beliefs because he wanted to escape the certain punishment of the Church.
The Cathars didn't follow the Orthodoxy of the Catholic Church. They were branded heretics, and slaughtered.
The Templar Knights were also accused of being heretics. They were also slaughtered on what became the foundation of the "Friday the 13th" superstition. It was really a way for the Church (and the King of France) to grab their fortune & property.
SO...
It doesn't surprise me that the Christian community is outraged by this movie. The book was attacked when it came out. There was an obvious smear campaign against Dan Brown and his novel.
There are historical facts mentioned in the book/movie. You can't dispute this. I'll list some of them:
The religious group Opus Dei does exist. They practice corporal punishment. (self-mortification)
Leonardo Da Vinci painted several paintings referenced in the book/movie. He was a free thinker who didn't always follow the party line dictated by the Church.
The Priory of Sion was an order that was also persecuted by the Church.
Rosslyn Chapel exists, and it has very interesting architecture.
There was more than just four Gospels that we see in the Christian Bible.

The book/movie is not FACT. It's a work of FICTION. There are factual aspects to the book/movie, but it's not meant to be the final word on the topic. I say it's a perfect place to open the discussion. If the Church is so certain that their point of view is correct, then what do they have to worry about? Why not talk about the topics brought up by "The Da Vinci Code"?
Personally, I don't buy the Church's point of view that Jesus was never married. BUT, I don't accept everything Dan Brown offers in his book/movie either. I'm somewhere in the middle.
I absolutely believe that Jesus was married. To me, this doesn't change his status as the Son of God one bit. Why should it? It makes more sense that he was married. He was a rabbi, and it was expected of rabbis to be married. An unmarried rabbi would get zero respect. And it was the norm for Jewish men of that age to be married. To NOT be married would be abnormal - and it would be mentioned. To be married wouldn't be out of the ordinary, and would go unmentioned.
The Bible tells us that Jesus was fully man AND fully God. He lived life just as we do. He was tempted as we are. There is nothing to say he couldn't have been married. He drank wine, this is certain. He did so at the Last Supper, and he probably did so at the wedding where he turned the water into wine. If he did things like drink wine, why not assume that he would do other "human" things?
In the incident of Mary Magdalene about to be stoned for allegedly committing adultery, I have this to offer:
Why do we not hear about the man involved? Why is it a crime punishable by death for the woman, but not the man? Maybe it wasn't a case of adultery at all. What if Jesus was the man she allegedly committed adultery with? That could explain why he took the position he did. It was easy to say "Let the person who has no sin throw the first stone" because people knew that everyone commits sin. It's POSSIBLE that they saw Mary leaving the company of Jesus and they ASSUMED she was committing adultery.
History is written by the winners, we all know this.
Ask someone from the South (at the time of the Civil War) about their opinion on the war. You would have a very different point of view than that of the North. The Native Americans at the time of the Pilgrims would have a different point of view than the Pilgrims.
If you want a more realistic telling of our country, read the book "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. It will tell you that the "We the people..." of the Declaration of Independence didn't include African-Americans, women, Native Americans, or "regular" people. The "people" referred to white men who owned property - only. The Revolution wasn't as popular as we are led to believe. It was the idea of a few ultra-rich families who joined forces. It was basically forced upon the rest of the population.
The Church had an interest in keeping women from power. The Jewish religon was male dominated, and these were the people who became the first Christians. They wanted to keep the status quo. The early Christian Church had women involved, but the men found a way to cut them out of the power.
Much of the "New Testament" is the letters of Paul. He was notorious as being misogynist. It's odd that a man who never met Jesus while he was alive is the one who set many of the "rules" of Christian living. He spent much of his early life persecuting (killing even) Christians, and then he converts.
Why do we accept with blind faith that Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus, and deny that Mohammed was taken up to Heaven, or that an angel came to Joseph Smith? (founder of the Mormon religon) Many critics of the "Gnostic" gospels say they can't be counted on as being accurate because they came long after Jesus had been crucified. If Paul wasn't part of Jesus' "inner circle" of disciples, why do we take his word as fact? Why is he more credible than the "Gospel of Phillip" or the "Gospel of Thomas"?
Don't we read that Jesus praised Thomas for wanting proof that it was REALLY the risen Jesus that was appearing before the Apostles? Why wouldn't we take the word of the "doubting" Thomas if he wrote a gospel?
Most experts say that the four gospels weren't really written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. They were allegedly given credit for what was the story of Jesus handed down as oral testimony until someone finally wrote them down.
The idea of "only" four gospels came about by the Bishop Ireneus of Lyons in about the year 180 A.D. Here was his logic:
There are four points of the compass (N, S, E, W) and four winds... so there are only four gospels.
It just so happens, he chose the four that would make it easy for the Church to keep power. The "Gnostic" gospels took power away from the Church because they say that each person has the spirit of the Divine within them. The Church wanted power over the people, and the "Gnostic" gospels told another viewpoint.
In the "Gospel of Thomas" Jesus says: "Split a piece of wood and I am there, lift the stone and you will find me." He always talked about how the "Kingdom of God" being all around us, and within us. This was part of the reason the Jews in power wanted him crucified. Jesus was talking revolution, of taking power from those who were unworthy. He was a threat to their power, and he had to be eliminated. It's ironic that this freedom that he preached of was silenced by those who came into power after he deaprted.
Jesus spoke of a personal relationship with God, not having people getting in the way of that connection. That message was lost, and the Church doesn't want people thinking that way now. No wonder they oppose alternative viewpoints like those in "The Da Vinci Code".
Like I have said, I don't buy into the whole story told by Dan Brown - but I see a grain of truth in there somewhere.
I believe that Jesus was married, most likely to Mary Magdalene. I don't know about the children part, but it's definitely possible. I could go on and on about the connection between Jesus & Mary (just in the four "accepted gospels) but I'll save that for some other time. I believe that the Church knew this was true, so they came up with the label of "prostitute" for her - to lessen her importance in the early Christian movement. It was a mistake that she was identified this way, but the later correction hasn't taken hold. People remember the accusation more than the truth that was later revealed.
This is the bottom line - for me at least:
If Jesus was married, it doesn't make him any less Divine. Personally, I feel that a married Jesus makes him more accessable to us. He seems more real this way. My faith won't be hurt if it was found out as a fact that Jesus was married, and had children.
To me, an unmarried, and allegedly celebate, Jesus seems contrary to what God's plan was. Jesus took on human form to understand us better, and to then take on our sin so that we could be redeemed. The union of man & woman in sexual intercourse is a taste of Heaven here on Earth. That's why God doesn't want us to engage in sex outside of marriage. It's special, sacred even.
Dan Brown's book/movie should open up a discussion of our relationship with God. If the Church resists, it's only because they fear a married Jesus. It would mean they would have to re-evaluate their opinion of sex. And they just don't want to do that. And they DEFINITELY don't want to give up any of their authority. What would they be if people had a direct & personal relationship with God? They become unnecessary, and they don't want to give up their power, or place in our lives.
Spirituality is Divine... man ruins that by making "rules" to go along with it. Religion is a belief - spirituality is an idea. You can change an idea... it's too hard to change a belief. People die over beliefs. Look at how many people have died throughout the course of history because of religious beliefs.
I say, go watch "The Da Vinci Code" and take from it what you will. Maybe you will get a better understanding of God. Maybe it will be just an entertaining 2 hours and 50 minutes. Maybe it will change your life... maybe not. But the ideas proposed by "The Da Vinci Code" shouldn't be feared - unless the Church has something to hide.

Senate Hijack

2005-11-01T16:00:00.000-08:00

Today the Democrats tried to shake their "Impotent" moniker by hijacking the Senate. The MINORITY leadership took the Senate into a private session. (Something that has happened less than 60 times) Senator Harry Reid is talking about the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby indictment & the reasons we went to war in Iraq.

I'm looking up the procudure rules in the Senate, but it seems to me that the MAJORITY should be able to restore order by breaking this closed session. Supposedly this session will end in about 15 minutes (as of 4pm Eastern). Rule 21 is the procedure that allows a private session of the Senate. Senate Majority Leader said that this was done according to Senate rules. Senator Frist said it's like a slap in the face, and he says he doubts he can trust Senator Reid again too easily.

The Democrats are showing how desperate they are. Radically liberal groups like MoveOn.org are all over this type of behavior. They are trying to get 250,000 signatures for a petition to stop Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. Political Action Groups shouldn't have a say in the matter. The American public voted for President Bush knowing he would nominate conservative Judges to the Supreme Court.

The Democrats think America is stupid. They feel that we will fall for whatever b.s. they tell us. (unfortunately, some are dumb enough, like Cindy Sheehan & Michael Moore and spread the lies) Democrats spread lies like the one that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is a "swing" vote for the Court. She voted with the Chief Justice 80% of the time. That is hardly a swing vote that is now up for grabs. If Judge Alito gets confirmed (which Democrats & liberals are trying to prevent by spreading lies) it will BALANCE the Court. The Court will then have 4 liberals, 1 moderate, and 4 conservatives. The only more balanced Court is 3 of each group, which won't happen. Democrats & liberals want a balance of power in their favor to upset the fact that they don't control the Legislative and Executive branches of the Government.

Judge Alito was confirmed UNANIMOUSLY by a DEMOCRATICALLY controlled Senate. How now, can they claim he is out of the mainstream? Why did they let him in the door to the courts if he was so out of the mainstream? Reason is, he isn't. He's out of the mainstream for LIBERALS and that is their problem. They want to enforce their philosophy through the Court when they can't get it done in Congress.

That blowhard, Senator Durbin, has threatened to evoke a closed session "every single day" and that Republicans should get used to it. This jerk should get punched in his pace for being so arrogant.

People need to remember this when they go to the voting booths. Oust these radically liberal Democrats who don't care about serving thr people who elected them. Send the Democrats a message that they aren't speaking for America.

New Nominee

2005-10-31T11:35:00.000-08:00

Today the President nominated Judge Samuel Alito to fill the spot that will be vacant by the retirment of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This was a swift replacement for the derailed nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers.

In typical blowhard fashion, Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, said; “The Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people,”. The American public knew that George H. W. Bush would nominate conservative people to the Supreme Court, and they STILL voted for him in record numbers. Maybe Senator Reid should stop with the partisanship rhetoric and just do the right thing for a change. He backed Harriet Miers because he knew she didn't have a chance of being confirmed. He liked the idea that the President (and possibly the Republicans) would look badly by having made this nomination.

I am so disgusted by the actions of Democrats like Reid, Schumer, Kennedy, Durbin, Biden, Feinstein, Boxer, Lieberman, and Clinton who put party lines before the good of the American public that they were elected to serve. I even expect that blowhard Nancy Pelosi from the House to pipe in with her two cents. And then the liberal politicos will be mouthing off as well. I'm just waiting to see what that idiot Al Franken has to say, as well as people like Rachel Maddow & the like.

Already that impotent fool, Charles Schumer, has spewed his crap regarding the nomination. He calls Alito "controversial" and says that there will be a fight for confirmation. I'll bet this is a speech that had a "fill-in-the-blank" section for whomever got the nominee. I wish someone would just tell this moron to SHUT UP! Schumer is trying to say this will shift the balance of the court, implying that Sandra Day O'Connor was a swing vote on many issues. In fact, she voted with the conservative Chief Justice 80% of the time. Hardly a swing vote if it was only 1 out of 5 votes up for grabs. Schumer admits to not knowing much about Alito, but he believes that he can make a snap judgment about him. It's just a chance for him to whore himself in front of the cameras ONCE AGAIN.

I am from Pennsylvania, and I pay attention to what goes on in the courts. This Judge is fair, intelligent, and has more of a Libertarian slant (like myself) than an ultra-conservative one. I agree with his view that a middle eastern woman had the right to file for asylum because her home country had laws that oppress the rights of women. He also said that a school can be sued if they don't protect students from excessive bullying. Alito also said that a school can't stop a student from saying profanity, as long as it doesn't disrupt the regular activity of the school day. (what RADICALLY conservative ideas)

The main point of contention will be his decision in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Alito was the lone dissenter, in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands. Alito argued that the Pennsylvania law's restrictions should have been upheld. "The Pennsylvania Legislature could have rationally believed," Alito wrote, "that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems -- such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition -- that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." The case went on to the Supreme Court, resulting in a 6-3 decision that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade and struck down the spousal notification provision of the law. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in his dissent, quoted Alito's underlying dissent and said he agreed with his reasoning.

Again, I agree with his reasoning. I am a man who has a son. The mother made a decision to get pregnant without consulting me. (She "claimed" to have gone on birth control injections so that I would stop using condoms) I don't agree with abortion. (except in the case of the mother's life being in danger, and possibly a pregnancy due to rape/incest) I asked her to marry me, but the marriage never happened. Now I must pay child support for a child I am rarely allowed to see. I love my son, but I hate the system that allowed me to be victimized like I have been.

The left talks about woman's rights on this issue, but what about a man's rights? If I want to have the child, but the mother does not, I can't stop her from killing my child. Conversely, if I don't want the child, and the mother does, I can't force her to abort a child I will have to pay support for - for at least 18 years. Why isn't the father allowed input? It takes two people to cause a pregnancy to happen, so two people should have equal rights on the subject. I don't know if I want the government getting involved with abritration in a dispute, but SOMETHING should be done to protect the rights of men.

Judge Alito deserves a fair vote by the full Senate. The liberal Democrats who hate anything not of their kind, need to stop the rhetoric & just listen to what the man has to say. I am disappointed that it wasn't a woman nominated, but Judge Alito is a great choice. I really thought that it would be Judge Priscilla Owen, but I was wrong about that.

If Judge Alito gets confirmed, it will be a balanced Court - 4 liberals, 1 moderate, and 4 conservatives. You really can't ask for more, unless you want a stacked deck in your favor.

And some want just that. Yeah, I'm talking to you Senators Schumer & Kennedy.

Impotence

2005-10-28T02:00:00.000-07:00

I was watching C-span and I saw Senator Charles "Chucky" Schumer in one of his many bouts of diarrhea of the mouth. He was addressing a press conference in regards to the withdrawl of Harriet Miers' nomination for the Supreme Court.

When asked about who might be the next nomination, Chucky declined to name names. He was asked about Priscilla Owen, and he responded that she would be a tough sell because she was already defeated once.

I guess Schumer forgot that Priscilla Owen is on the US Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. She was confirmed back in May of this year with 56 votes in the Senate. Schumer tries to forget because he was left IMPOTENT because of the "gang of 12". (which somehow Chucky got involved with after the fact & became the "gang of 14") I love how Chucky jumped on the bandwagon after it was obvious that he couldn't do anything about blocking the nomination. For being on the Judiciary Committee he sure doesn't seem to matter. But, like a small dog yapping, he sure tries to get in front of the cameras. A LOT! Chucky will not miss a chance to whore himself for the cameras. He has this need because deep down he knows that nobody gives a crap about anything he has to say. New York is just two idiot seats in the Senate anyway.

Even viagra couldn't solve Chucky's impotence problem as far as power in the Senate goes. He is a pair of clown shoes, the mentally challenged family member you try to hide from comapny when they visit.

Chucky needs to realize that what he has to say isn't going to matter much in the real world. He is the butt of a joke that isn't even funny. The President doesn't need to consult with him to get a qualified nominee confirmed & Chucky knows this. So, he grabs the spotlight every chance he can because it's all he has.

If the President wants Priscilla Owen on the Supreme Court, then she will get confirmed. I expect the new nominee to be announced very soon, to distract attention away from the possible indictments that could come from the CIA leak investigation. (I predict the grand jury will be extended, and that at least "Scooter" Libby gets indicted by Friday night. I also expect Karl Rove & V.P. Cheney to be in the hot seat as the grand jury continues to investigate.) So, I expect to wake up and see Priscilla Owen by the President's side as he announces her as the new nominee as Associate Justice to the Supreme Court. Then We'll see many Senators (especially the 56 who voted "yes" in her earlier confirmation) say this is a very solid choice that should go smoothly to confirmation.

Then we will see poor impotent Chucky cry to the cameras, even as he knows that he can do nothing to stop her confirmation. I expect many Democrats to jump on the bandwagon & that conservatives to agree on her nomination.

Maybe Chucky should just think about what he is going to do when he doesn't get re-elected the next time he's up on the chopping block? That would serve him better than his vain efforts at trying to convince us he actually matters.