Worst Examples of 2008 Media Bias

The Fox News video below features an interview with Brent Bozell of the Media Research center, on the worst Left-wing bias of 2008 from the "mainstream" media.

We have the "thrill up the leg" from Chris Matthews, "Obama's like Jesus the Messiah, only better" from Nancy Gibbs of Time, Chris Matthews "Palin is an igloo," PBS's Sally Quinn's "racist, anti-American Jeremiah Wright is a victim," and David Wright of Nightline's "adopted son of Camelot." Many others, too; read them here.

It's so wonderful that we have an objective, unbiased news media so we can get the straight, unfiltered information about public officials, isn't it?

Media Publishes Factual Errors, Misconceptions About Homosexuality

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
Tue, Dec. 09 2008 03:35 PM EST

In the aftermath of the passage of California's Proposition 8, Newsweek and Hollywood are the latest players to launch their attacks on traditional marriage supporters and the biblical case against homosexuality.

And Christians are taking issue with the misconceptions, factual errors and holes in the arguments being presented in popular public spheres.

"It doesn’t surprise me. Newsweek has been so far in the tank on the homosexual issue, for so long, they need scuba gear and breathing apparatus," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, according to Politico. "I don’t think it’s going to change the minds of anyone who takes biblical teachings seriously."

Land's comments were directed at Newsweek's current cover story, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," written by religion editor Lisa Miller. In the story, Miller says "examples of 'the traditional family' are scarcely to be found" in the Old Testament and that the Bible does not explicitly define marriage as between one man and one woman. She further argues that the modern married couple would not look to the Bible as a guide while citing polygamy in the Old Testament.

"Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition," Miller writes. "The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it’s impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours."

Rejecting Miller's arguments, Land said the Bible clearly prescribes marriage as heterosexual, citing passages in Genesis, where God pairs Adam and Eve, and Ephesians (in the New Testament) when the apostle Paul compares the relationship between husband and wife to the relationship between Jesus and the Church, according to Politico.

Newsweek's story reflects the confusion that many people have regarding Scripture and homosexuality.

And the media isn't the only one to blame for it.

"Part of that [confusion] is skillful misrepresentation, and part of it is the failure of the church to faithfully and diligently promote biblical apologetics and exegesis," according to Bob Stith, who heads the Ministry to Homosexuals Task Force in the Southern Baptist Convention.

The confusion is also played out in the Funny Or Die video, "Prop 8 – The Musical," which was posted last week. In it, popular celebrities, including Neil Patrick Harris and Jack Black, weigh in on the amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The musical accuses Christians of picking and choosing Bible verses to make their case against gay marriage and mocks them as hatemongers.

"Leviticus says shellfish is an abomination," Black, who portrays Jesus in the musical, states in the musical as he responds to the Christians' argument that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. "The Bible says a lot of interesting things like you can stone your wife or sell your daughter into slavery."

"Well we ignore those verses," says John C. Reilly, who plays a Christian.

"It seems to me you pick and choose. Well please choose love instead of hate," Black sings.

Randy Thomas, vice president of Exodus International, responded saying the musical showed a "sincere misunderstanding of Scripture."

Tim Wilkins, a former homosexual who heads Cross Ministry, argued that gay marriage supporters "are doing the very thing they accuse Christians of."

"They focus on Leviticus and ignore New Testament passages that forbid homosexuality. WHY? Because Leviticus provides easier arguments with its prohibitions against certain foods."

SBC's Stith also denounced Hollywood's attempt to make biblical arguments. "Anyone who cares to spend thirty minutes of serious study would see the many flaws in Black’s argument," he said.

Clearing up some of the confusion, Stith called it a "factual error" to claim that Scripture nowhere says homosexuals are an abomination.

"In the same passage in Leviticus that speaks about homosexuality the Bible also warns against incest, bestiality, and adultery," he said. Also, "while the New Testament doesn’t mention shellfish (and some would argue that Acts 10 clears that argument up) it clearly continues the biblical prohibition on homosexual acts."

Additionally, "Nowhere in the entire canon of Scripture are homosexual relationships ever spoken of approvingly," Stith continued. "The Bible is clear that God created us as sexual beings. But it is also clear that He provided us boundaries and guidelines for the use of that wonderful gift."

Addressing a more sensitive topic, Stith sees the label "hate" being used in ignorance or willful malice against those who simply disagree.

"On several occasions, sometimes with tears in my own eyes, I’ve said to people about actions in which they were involved, 'You know, this isn’t God’s best for you. He has something better if you’re willing to walk in obedience.' Does this make me a 'hater' or does it mean that I care about that person and genuinely believe that God knows what He’s talking about?" Stith posed.

But again, Christians aren't entirely blame-free in this gay marriage debate – which Newsweek's Miller believes is a full-scale war now.

"Unfortunately, we live in an age of sound bites and slogans. It should challenge us as Christians to be much more diligent not to settle for the same thing," Stith said. "We do that when we trot out the same tired arguments against homosexuality without acknowledging that we unnecessarily wound people by the way we use those arguments. We don’t acknowledge the real pain felt by many in the homosexual community. And honestly, we often slip into a trap of 'us vs. them.'"

"We must evaluate whether our arguments are based in our love for God as well as for all people. Do we speak against homosexual acts because we genuinely care; because we genuinely believe that sin – any sin – brings pleasure for a season but ultimately hinders the fullness that God wants all of us to enjoy?"

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Brown-Rendell harkens back to Hill-Thomas

BY STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION

Wonder why, in a survey reported by the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, only 28 percent said they "believed all or most" of what they see on CNN?

CNN's Campbell Brown took three minutes of prime evening news time the other night to berate Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell for remarks, unwittingly made next to a live microphone, that in Brown's view were sexist.

Speaking, in what he thought was a private conversation, Rendell called the selection of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to head the Department of Homeland Security perfect "Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote 19, 20 hours a day to it."

Oh my lord. Brown ticked down her list of outrages. Would Rendell have said this if she were a man? How many women don't get hired because they have families? Do single woman get disproportionately stuck with the more "burdensome shifts"? etc., etc.

Unless you're looking for something, it's pretty hard to see anything derogatory or malicious in Rendell's remarks and, as his press secretary noted, he could have just as easily been talking about a man.

If Brown was actually interested in facts, she could have reported that Napolitano described herself, in a story in the Arizona Republic a couple years ago, as "just a straight, single, workaholic."

Ms Brown's journalism, of course, is really an agenda looking for a news hook.

She concluded her three minute lecture, putting fellow liberal Rendell on notice that "Your comments perpetuate stereotypes."

Now if we think back to the fall of 1991, we, and Campbell Brown, might recall some real character assassination and exploitation of stereotypes, in which Janet Napolitano played a lead role. That was when she was Anita Hill's attorney in the campaign to slander Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment allegations and derail his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I recall that fall 17 years ago well, as I worked, as a young conservative activist, to bring black pastors from around the country to Washington in a show of support for the besieged nominee Thomas.

The campaign was defined by sleaze, and Janet Napolitano was certainly one of the quarterbacks.

Central to this campaign was a strategy to build off and exploit the worst stereotypes of black men as sexual predators.

The irregularities that made the circus possible are a national embarrassment. It is doubtful that it would even have seen the light of day had Anita Hill's supposedly confidential statement not been illegally leaked from someone on the Senate Judiciary committee to the press.

Several years later, Napolitano was confirmed as a US Attorney because the Senate confirmation committee was more deferential to her private conversations than Campbell Brown was to Ed Rendell's.

In those confirmation proceedings, Napolitano was questioned, and then left off the hook, regarding her off the record conversation, during the Anita Hill hearings, which caused witness and supposed Hill corroborator Susan Hoerchner to alter her testimony.

Hoerchner initially testified that she heard from Hill that she was being harassed by Thomas at a time before Hill was even working for him. Napolitano took Hoerchner aside, who then returned and said she couldn't remember when she heard Anita Hill's claim.

Fortunately, Clarence Thomas survived the brutal attack on his character and the country has had the benefit of a stalwart defender of our constitution on the Supreme Court. And, with the help of his important vote, it is no longer legal in our country to murder children through partial birth abortion.

However, thanks to Anita Hill and Janet Napolitano, a man's reputation is forever besmirched and grotesque stereotypes of black men perpetuated.

Despite CNN's stalwart efforts to spin the news to the left, Ed Rendell's benign remarks caused no similar damage to Janet Napolitano and she is spared the pain she has caused to others.

Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.

Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine. The 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed her business, yet served as a springboard for her focus on faith and market-based alternatives to empower the lives of the poor.

Unfair and Unbalanced: The Fairness Doctrine

The latest video from CitizenLink examines the oppressive idea of the Fairness Doctrine, and liberals' hopes of returning this plague to our broadcast land.

The so-called Fairness Doctrine began in 1949 and gained prominence in the late 1960s. It was an FCC regulation requiring that if one viewpoint was expressed in broadcast, the opposing view had to also be broadcast.

Such lunacy only sounds fair in the liberal mind, where such nutty ideas are thought up that liberals feel the need to force normal people to give them an audience.

President Ronald Reagan did away with the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and liberals have been trying to bring this socialist fossil back since then, but especially since the ascendancy of talk radio, which is almost entirely conservative.

Why is it almost entirely conservative? Is it because the evil media moguls will only allow the conservative viewpoint on talk radio...or is it because nobody wants to hear that drivel on the radio?

The abysmal failure and subsequent bankruptcy of the liberal attempt at talk radio, Air America, provides perhaps the best answer to that obvious question.

But with liberals back in charge of Congress, and now the White House, many liberals are drooling pools of spittle at the thought of once again being able to mandate the broadcast of their un-American ideas back-to-back with conservative radio programs.

And you can bet the same oppressive standard would be applied to Christian radio.

Homosexual activists and apologists are already working hard to silence Christians from speaking out about the immorality of homosexual behavior. Colorado passed a law a few months ago that only allows men to use women's restrooms if they "feel like a woman," but also prohibits the publication of "discriminative" material that is critical of homosexuality.

It's a sure bet that if liberals succeed in getting the Orwellian Fairness Doctrine re-established, they'll ensure that the pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, anti-Christian message goes out on what will have once-been Christian radio.

In his Stoplight® video commentary, Stuart Shepard explains how the efforts by Democratic leaders in Congress to force the so-called Fairness Doctrine on talk radio are like a pesky salesman who keeps trying to sell you something you don't want.

Climbing Mt. Hoaximanjaro

It seems to be national Media Global Warming Scare Week, at least at NBC. They're making a mountain out of a molehill at Mt. Kilimanjaro, claiming the ice is melting there because of the mythical global warming. Just one problem: it isn't.

As the video below explains in part, there are a number of factors involved in the loss of ice at Kilimanjaro, including natural cycles, deforestation in the area, geography...and who knows, maybe the fact that it's a volcano could have something to do with it, too.

Reuters talked about this last year. But as Stuart Shepard says, we can always count on our "trusty" media to never let the facts get in the way of a good story...or a good scare.

In his Stoplight® video commentary, Stuart Shepard explains why NBC's Ann Curry didn't need to climb a mountain this week to discover what's happened to the snows of Kilimanjaro.

Constant Conservative Catches Missed Truths on Charity

Another great piece at the Constant Conservative today. The Constant Conservative actually mirrors some of the thoughts I had when I read this pro-socialist article at the Rapid City Journal yesterday.

Don't get me wrong. I am an enthusiastic supporter of private charity. I have a number of friends who work at charities (both as staff and volunteers) and I donate to charity on a regular basis myself. I think that people and private companies donating money and goods to help those in need is a wonderful thing--it's exactly how American is supposed to work.

What I DO oppose is socialism, the government-enforced version of charity which takes wealth from one person without their consent and gives it to another who may or may not need it (after filtering it through the sticky hands of an army of bureaucrats along the way).

What the Constant Conservative points out here that I appreciate so much is that many people not on the take from the government (and their fellow citizens) already live on or around the amount mentioned in the article. Living modestly is not such an alien and impossible thing as it is made out to be.

Another truth that I appreciate the Constant Conservative for pointing out is that food stamps (the socialist program being promoted by this article) are not intended to be a way of life. They are not intended to be a permanent or even long-term solution, but a temporary aid while people get back on their own feet.

In fact, no charity--whether private or government-enforced--should become a way of life. Many of us hit a rough patch and need a hand...temporarily.

What we don't need is an opiate that robs us of human dignity and the will to meet our personal responsibilities.

Many people with severe disabilities manage to take care of themselves, and I have personally known a number of them over my lifetime. These include people with disabilities such as Down syndrome, various forms of mental impairment, blindness, paraplegics and even quadriplegics. I've had extensive work done on my vehicle by a mechanic with only one hand; one arm ends somewhere around his elbow.

Most people, if they have the desire and motivation, are capable of meeting their own needs. For the few who are not, one of the duties of family is meeting the needs of fellow family members who are incapable.

Government charity is counter to the way America is supposed to work, and counter to Biblical charity.

The founders said of government charity:

- A wise and frugal government...shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. – Thomas Jefferson

- Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson

- With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

- I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison

- Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. – James Madison

- We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. — Congressman Davy Crockett

The Bible says of charity:

- If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold. (Leviticus 25:25)

- Do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit (Exodus 23:3)

- Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. (Leviticus 19:15)

- If a man will not work, he shall not eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

- These should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family (1 Timothy 5:4)

- As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list…they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house (1 Timothy 5:13)

- If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need. (1 Timothy 5:16)

Government should not be usurping or substituting for family responsibility. Nor should it be excusing personal responsibility.

Thanks, Constant Conservative, for pointing out these important truths that the "objective" media somehow missed.

The Essence of Keith Olbermann

This is a cute video (and about all I can stand) of MSNBC ultra-ultra-ultra Leftist "newsman" Keith Olbermann, or as I often think of him, Max Headroom.

Isn't he hhhhchorible?

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

Couric Prepped for Palin Interview with Obama Allies

Remember the hit-job interview Katie Couric did with Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin?

Like me, did you get the feeling that the interview was a little hostile, from the point of the interviewer?

No wonder.

Peter Kafka points to a report from Portfolio.com’s Jeff Bercovici who was told by Couric that she consulted with the Democrat opposition before ambushing Palin.

Couric shed some light on her preparation for the interviews: Beforehand, she sought advice from former senator Sam Nunn and Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haas. They told her to draw Palin out on her geopolitical worldview and urged her to let the governor speak at length without interrupting her. Maybe she should bring them along with her when she takes over at Meet the Press?”

Kafka notes that the origin of this quote has since been pulled and is no longer available online. Hmmm. Cat got out of the bag, huh?

In what universe (other than the fantasyland of the liberal mind) would an interview be considered "objective" or "nonpartisan" or "unbiased" when the interviewer asked the interviewee's opposition beforehand for advice on how to best ambush the interviewee?

If the "mainstream" media is going to ambush interviewees, fine, but do it on the Left and Right. If the "mainstream" media is going to toss gentle softballs to interviewees and avoid tough questions, fine, but do it on the Left and Right.

The "mainstream" media has been nothing but a propaganda arm of the DNC for decades, and that truth shone like never before during this election.

HT to Newsbusters.

Joe the Plumber Cant Get Through to Marxist CNN Newsman

The Marxist arrogance of this "newsman" is incredible!

The "newsman" can't grasp why Joe Wurzelbacher aka Joe the Plumber would have a problem with taxing people making over $250,000 (or something less) when Joe himself doesn't make that much.

This "reporter" aka "DNC operative" can't seem to get it through his socialist skull that it is a matter of principle for Joe the Plumber that one person should not have their property taken from them and given to another person against their will.

"I'm not ridin' on anybody elses back. I'm doing it on my own," Joe said.

Incredulously, the reporter asks it yet again.

The concept of not sticking it to the rich just seems to bounce of this Marxist "newsmans" head. It won't go in.

Maybe that's it: socialists like this "reporter" have no principles, so they're baffled when they encounter someone who has them. They just don't get it. They operate by "What's in it for me" and nothing more. That someone might give a rip about the rights of another person is alien to them.

I noticed that when Joe the Plumber educated this "newsman" on Barack Obama's Marxist philosophy, he shifted to the "Well, McCain is no sweetheart, either" strategy. True, but McCain isn't even in the same league of wealth redistribution promotion as Obama.

The only thing I would add to Joe's statement is that all the things government should do and does do like roads, emergency services, national defense, etc. are not the issue. I don't think anyone has a problem paying taxes for necessary services.

What galls me is to have the fruits of my labor taken and given to someone else for their direct benefit. In other words, the roughly 50% of our federal budget that goes to social programs--that are NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and a million other welfare programs.

And now Dems want to expand socialism even further by getting rid of 401(k) tax breaks and forcing you to pour still more money into a government retirement system. They can't tolerate the thought of the private sector doing 401k retirement funds, but can't wait to seize more of your money...so they can spend it on everything else as they squander the Social Security trust fund.

We have a $3 trillion budget, and half or more of it is spent illegally on programs that government has no authority for and should not be doing--individuals and the private sector should be doing them (and used to before the socialist FDR turned our Constitution on it's ear).

There is not a single, solitary shred of constitutional authority for these programs, yet money is taken out of one American's pocket and put in another American's pocket when the second American has done nothing to earn that money--and the first American was not consulted for his "charity."

Consider what the founders said on this:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

"We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money." — Congressman Davy Crockett

For an individual to help another person, to give of their possessions charitably, is a wonderful and blessed thing. (In fact, conservatives are better at it than liberals--Obama and Biden are pathetic at personal charity).

But for government to force one person to surrender their property so it can be given to another person is not only theft, it robs the giver of any blessing for having given freely. It also robs the receiver of the genuine compassion and relationship with the giver. And in far too many cases, there is no genuine need...which erodes human dignity, the work ethic and personal responsibility.

I know the Marxists have had near-total control of our universities and public schools for decades, but you'd think that some reality would seep into people's brains after they get their education behind them.

This "newsman" is sad proof that this isn't happening.

Conservatives have some serious educating to do if we're going to salvage our country and return it to its historic great ideals.

The Color of Bias: The 'Mainstream' Media in 2008

The Media Research Center points to media coverage of John McCain and Barack Obama and...hold on...better sit down...coverage of Obama has been more positive and coverage of McCain has been more negative.

A Pew report which came out Oct 29 compared Fox News and MSNBC, finding that on MSNBC McCain received about 7x as much negative coverage as positive, while Obama received 4x as much positive than negative. The picture at Fox News, while not equal, was far more balanced.

A Pew report on Oct. 22 found overall coverage of McCain was more than 4x more negative than positive (57% negative, 14% positive). The numbers were more even for Obama, with positive coverage still coming out ahead at 36% positive versus 29% negative.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University also found a strong bias in the "mainstream" media. They found 65% positive coverage for Obama versus 36% for McCain

I wonder if McCain has finally awaken to what we've been trying to tell him for years: while veering Left on some issues with get you momentary love from the "mainstream" media, it is fleeting, and as soon as they face a choice between you and someone more liberal, you're the proverbial hot potato, pal.

It must be nice for the Democrats to have a massive propaganda operation to polish your message, filter out the criticism, and put a microscope on the other guy's flaws.

Too bad (for the country) their ideas aren't forced to compete on a level field in the public arena. Without the hype and manipulation, I'm convinced the American people would reject their un-American ideas nearly every time.

With propaganda offices like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, et al, it's a wonder conservatives ever achieve anything.

Daily Republic Passes on Journalism, Opts for Pro-Abortion Excuses

The Mitchell Daily Republic showed us one of two things today (or possibly both things): (1) they are woefully ignorant and uninformed, or (2) like most of the "mainstream" media, they are liberally biased and journalism is just a pretense.

To read the Daily Republic's editorial on Initiated Measure 11, it seems they've been busy reading the Campaign for UnHealthy Families talking points...and not much else.

All of their "worries" could be easily assuaged by actually reading Initiated Measure 11 and applying just a couple of drops of common sense.

Here is what "worried" the Republic:

- Initiated Measure 11 could boost instances of wrongful accusations of rape or incest.

- Initiated Measure 11 may force health professionals into difficult situations. It may be tricky to precisely prove a woman’s health is in danger, and the decision-making process could result in potentially career-threatening decisions for a physician. One troublesome fact of Measure 11 is that debates about a woman’s health could end up in court, instead of simply within the discretion of a family doctor.

- We question the timeframe related to determining rape cases. For an abortion under the rules of Initiated Measure 11, a rape must be reported. But to prove a rape occurred can sometimes take months, through the courts.

- Measure 11 is unconstitutional. Attorney General Larry Long, in his explanation of the measure, said that if approved, Measure 11 likely will be challenged in court. The state may be required to pay attorney fees and costs.

To answer these lame excuses one by one...

Initiated Measure 11 could boost instances of wrongful accusations of rape or incest - Yes, as passing any law could boost instances of wrongful reporting. But guess what? Section 7 requires a teeny little thing called "evidence." The rape has to be reported to law enforcement authorities...and making a false report of a crime carries it's own criminal penalty which should dissuade many who might be inclined to make a false report. There is also a requirement that DNA evidence from the mother and the aborted child be gathered and turned over to law enforcement to tie to the perpetrator. If the DNA evidence indicates the accused didn't commit the crime, then the aforementioned criminal penalty for a false report once again applies.

Initiated Measure 11 may force health professionals into difficult situations - Really? Did they catch Section 3 and 4 of Initiated Measure 11, or were they in too big of a hurry to get to a Campaign for UnHealthy Families rally? These sections state that physicians will not be prosecuted for any actions as long as they meet "accepted standards of medical practices." Doctors have gone to school for a long time; they aren't dumb, and to grasp what is an "accepted standard of medical practice" is not beyond them. As Dr. Pamela Schmagel said, she won't be changing the way she cares for her patients, and that IM 11 will not affect the care of high-risk patients.

a rape must be reported. But to prove a rape occurred can sometimes take months, through the courts - Again, simply reading Initiated Measure 11 would really help. Nowhere in Initiated Measure 11 does it say a rape must be proven in a court of law before the abortion can take place. Section 7 (1) of IM 11 says the physician "...prior to performing the abortion shall report the rape or incest immediately by telephone..." Once the crime has been reported, the abortion process can move forward, and DNA evidence collected during the abortion. Again, if a rape was falsely reported, the woman can be prosecuted later for the crime she committed; the exception exists for genuine rape circumstances, not an excuse for convenient retroactive birth control.

Measure 11 is unconstitutional. Attorney General Larry Long, in his explanation of the measure, said that if approved, Measure 11 likely will be challenged in court. The state may be required to pay attorney fees and costs. - Initiated Measure is not unconstitutional. If it was, why would supporters waste everyone's time with a useless exercise? In our court system, if it is challenged by pro-abortionists, it will work its way up the levels of the court system to determine its constitutionality. It will not be unconstitutional until the highest level of the court system has declared it to be. And based on the mountain of scientific evidence available now that was not available in 1973, any semi-reasonable court will find that Initiated Measure 11 is constitutional.

But hey; when you don't want to support something, it's easy to come up with reasons not to.

Too bad the Mitchell Daily Republic took a pass on objective journalism and opted for pro-abortion excuses.

Keith Olbermann Unfiltered on SNL

What's going on with the folks at Saturday night live? They've actually done skits for several weeks in a row now that have contained some pretty shocking candor about liberals.

Did SNL get hit in the face with a bucket of reality when they got the best ratings in years when Sarah Palin came on the show?

This is a hilarious skit of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, the ultra-ultra-ultra liberal "newsman" who considers most Republicans worse than Stalin or Hitler.

LA Times: Protecting a Source...Or Protecting Obama?

If you've heard about the tape of Barack Obama toasting terrorist thug spokesman Rashid Khalidi, you probably haven't heard about it from the "mainstream" media.

Khalidi is a University of Chicago professor and Palestine Liberation Organization spokesman.

The PLO is a very well-funded terrorist organization. They have bombed school buses, hijacked planes, taken school children hostage in school and later killed them, and numerous other terrorist acts.

They have pledged the elimination of Israel.

In addition to Obama, another notable person was present at this dinner: Obama's domestic terrorist associate Bill Ayers and his terrorist babe Bernardine Dohrn.

When the LA times was originally contacted about releasing this tape several days ago, they simply confirmed the existence of a tape, said they had published a story online six months ago, and that "the story speaks for itself."

Now they're saying they are protecting a confidential source in not releasing the tape to the public.

The LA Times article does reveal some interesting information:

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."

But what was said and what went on there that they may NOT be telling us?

Like other terrorists, the PLO also thinks Obama will be more sympathetic to their position than McCain. Why do they think that?

As John McCain points out, only someone hopelessly naive or drinking gallons of the liberal Koolaid would imagine the LA Times holding onto a theoretical tape of McCain or Sarah Palin at a KKK rally or Nazi rally

From Fox News:

"I guarantee you, if there was a tape with me and Sarah Palin and some neo-Nazi or one of those, you think that that tape wouldn't be made public? Of course, Americans need to know, particularly about Ayers, and also about the PLO. So hopefully there will be enough pressure on the L.A. Times that it'll come out, but its really unfortunate that we have to go through this," McCain continued.

In the past couple of months, the "mainstream" media has like never before proven they are in the tank for Obama. They have thrown off almost every pretense of objectivity and fairness.

Their argument holds no water.

There is overwhelming evidence that Barack Obama runs with people who loathe America and would love to see our destruction. Can the acorn fall that far from the tree?

If the American people elect Barack Obama on November 4, they will have chosen and sealed our fate. We cannot say, "We didn't know." The evidence has smacked us in the face repeatedly for months, yet many have demonstrated stubborn insistence on ignoring the warnings.

If we choose Obama, we will have no one to blame but ourselves for what follows.

"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it. The Times keeps its promises to sources."

Limbaugh on the Polls and Media Strategy for Dem Victory

Rush Limbaugh analysis of the polls on Fox News.

Limbaugh points out exactly how the "mainstream" media uses poll: not to measure public opinion, but to shape it.

They ask questions crafted to illicit a desired response, then use those "results" to further instruct the rest of the public of where the herd is going, and where they are expected to go to stay with the herd.

Limbaugh also exposes the media pap that Republicans can't "go partisan"...while Democrats do just that.

"Senator Obama has to hide all the people who can vouch for who he really is."

O'Reilly Factor Interviews Reporter Who Asked Biden About Marxism

The O'Reilly Factor interviewed Barbara West, the journalist who interviewed Joe Biden last week and had the gall to ask him serious questions about Barack Obama's Marxist philosophies. (see video below)

Once again West was very businesslike and straightforward. She said she also asked John McCain tough questions in a recent interview, and based on what she said, she did.

That's good. Most people don't expect underhanded kindergarten-league softballs to Republicans from the "mainstream" media...but we don't expect them for the Democrats either--which is usually how that ballgame is played. Meanwhile, the Republicans get all the fastballs and curve balls.

Barbara West deserves to run her own station or be promoted in some major way. She is an example of real journalism, which is a rare bird these days. She's obviously not afraid to ask tough questions of a hostile interviewee and doesn't pull her punches.

It was a real hoot, though, to watch the incredulous look on Biden's face! He must have been thinking something like, "Lady, didn't you see that I had a "D" after my name? Did somebody mess up and put an "R" after my name on your notes?"

Keep up the good work, Ms. West!

Bill O'Reilly interviews Barbara West, an Orlando Florida news anchor who became famous recently for her interview with Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden.

O'Reilly shows excerpts of her interview where she asks Biden if Obama's views are Marxist and about his connections to ACORN. The Obama campaign called the interview an attack and has refused further interviews with the news channel.

Biden Busted in Interview Again

What's gotten into journalists lately? That's two in quick succession who have asked serious, tough questions of a Democrat.

Is there something in the air? Is there an illness going around the journalistic community?

CBS 3 in Philadelphia asked Biden, since Obama has been talking about spreading people's wealth around "Is that not, you know, kind of being a socialist?"

It also looks like she asked Biden about business taxes, and if they wouldn't just get passed on to the consumer (which they always do).

Biden insists: "Absolutely not."

Then this reporter has the audacity to ask "Please explain that."

Another reporter in this segment also asks Biden about a little favoritism and nepotism, about him sending campaign cash to his son's business.

Apparently the Obama campaign is furious and has cut off this TV station, banishing them to outer darkness where there is journalistic weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Finally, 1 week from election day, a little journalism.

I love it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Viral Redistribution of Truth on Obama

The video of the Barack Obama interview where he says it's a "tragedy" that the U.S. Constitution constrains the government from taking one person's property and giving it to another is going viral.

It's had over 1.3 million hits today!

That's not bad for some bloggers and talk radio.

If we really had a "mainstream" media, we would have seen this months or longer ago on the major networks and in every major newspaper.

If we really had "objective" journalism in this country, Obama's bashing of the Constitution, the Founders, and the American way of life would have been exposed long, long ago.

Why in the world should it NOT be news when a presidential candidate thinks the Constitution is an impediment to his Marxist schemes?

Why in the world would it NOT be news when a presidential candidate wants to abandon the traditional American way--personal responsibility, property rights, and private charity--in favor of a system which has been demonstrated around the world over and over to not work?

It's not news when the "mainstream" "objective" media wants that same socialist, un-American agenda to come to pass.

Is this another sign that the days of the liberal dinosaur media are numbered?

Palin: Joe the Plumber Did What the Media Couldn't

Maybe that would be more appropriate to say, "Joe the Plumber did what the media wouldn't."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize Barack Obama's (and most other Democrats) ideology as socialist.

Journalists in the media are more than educated enough to recognize progressive taxation as Marxist socialism. The reason they don't (except for this rare and commendable exception) is because they, like the Democrats, want socialism...but at the same time realize most Americans aren't going to fall for it if you call it what it is.

Thank the Lord for Joe the Plumber and his courage.

It's a wonderful thing when pure, unadulterated truth shines through the muddy waters created by the Left and their allies in the "mainstream" media.

"Somehow Joe accomplished what the rest of us have not been able to accomplish, even the media could not accomplish this, but Joe did. He got our opponent to finally state his intentions in plain language. Senator Obamas says that he wants to spread the wealth."

Hatin' Palin: A Liberal Pastime

Only the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court hearings could rival the river of hate and animosity that has come out of the Left and their allies in the "mainstream" media over Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

In a month and a half, the media has investigated her and drilled her more than they have in over a year of Barack Obama's time in the presidential race.

And of the little they've been able to find to complain about, very little of it has been of any substance at all.

I look forward to seeing how these propaganda artists will deal with the first woman vice president.

Danniel Henninger discusses the "cheap shots" taken at Sarah Palin and highlights some problems with the political system. (Oct. 23)

Glaciers Growing in Alaska

Some interesting news from the Anchorage Daily News:

Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.

Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.

"In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."

Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.

So the glaciers in Alaska have been shrinking for 200 years? Shiver me timbers, but I don't think we had SUVs and coal-fired power plants 200 years ago.

The article also mentions other climate fluctuations in the past:

During the Little Ice Age -- roughly the 16th century to the 19th -- Muir Glacier filled Glacier Bay and the people of Europe struggled to survive because of difficult conditions for agriculture. Some of them fled for America in the first wave of white immigration.

The Pilgrims established the Plymouth Colony in December 1620. By spring, a bitterly cold winter had played a key role in helping kill half of them. Hindered by a chilly climate, the white colonization of North America through the 1600s and 1700s was slow.

Could it be that warming and cooling on planet earth is a cyclic phenomena?

Nah. Much more fun to blame SUVs and capitalism. Too much common sense, facts and truth could really cast an unpleasant pall over Obama's Socialism Train.

Note to "mainstream" media: be sure to ignore this.

HT to Newsbusters.