Why Bill O’Reilly Is Right About Using ‘Mercenaries’ To Fight ISIS

We NEED to have troops on the ground in order to truly have ANY hope whatsoever of “degrading and destroying” ISIS.  That is simply a fact.  And every single general who has said anything publicly has acknowledged that fact.

But do we commit our uniformed servicemen to another 20-years war?

There is only one alternative: and that is the alternative that O’Reilly suggests: Mercenaries.  Or call them “contract soldiers.”

For the record, we’ve been using contract personnel to bolster our military for years.  Just not generally on the front lines.  They’re called “PMCs” for “Private Military Companies.”  Contracted personnel drive our trucks; they operate many of our complex weapons systems (as employees of the contractors who built them); two of the four men killed during the Benghazi terrorist attack were contract personnel.

There is no question: many of these “mercenaries” would be former American military personnel.  They are already trained.  They know exactly what they’re getting into.  We’d be able to get former soldiers from other countries, but a lot of men who would sign up to fight would be former American servicemen.

There’s a huge difference between sending in contract soldiers who already know what they’re doing and what they’d be getting into versus sending in “fresh meat” who just graduated from high school and are looking primarily for a means to pay for college.

Another difference is that “contract soldiers” would be FAR better paid than our military.  Why?  The reason is these guys would be going to war guaranteed.  In the very worst region on earth.  Which is why our uniformed American military wouldn’t have to go there.

Yet another difference would be WHO would pay them: rather than American taxpayers, it would be Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia.  If you want these guys to come fight for you, you better pay right out of your whazoo to have them come.  And provide them with the very best health benefits that money can buy, also.

Recent history has examples of highly successful mercenary outcomes.

In the late 1980s and early-mid 1990s, there was a mercenary unit that was called “Executive Outcomes” that contracted to provide military services to different countries in Africa that had huge terrorist elements.  Many of the men from Executive Outcomes had served in the Rhodesian and South African special forces.  These guys – outnumbered hundreds to one – went in to countries like Angola and Sierra Leone and used their superior military skills to just kick ass.  They routed their opposition every single time they engaged them.

In the course of their contract duties, they stopped massacres of the civilian population.  They would have been able to do the same thing in Rwanda, except Bill Clinton and the United Nations got scared that a small private military force could literally take over a country.  And tragically, Bill Clinton and the United Nations literally preferred one million dead Tutsis to private, non-governmental military operations like Executive Outcomes being allowed to do their jobs.

The United Nations was USELESS in stopping the genocide.  They have ALWAYS been useless.  We need trained military professionals who are able to kill the bad guys, not a bunch of liberal socialist fairy-dust-unicorn do-nothings.

We’re facing a situation now in Syria where we desperately need somebody to go in and do what no nation and no national military is willing or able to do.  We need warriors who are willing and able to go into roach nests and wipe out all the roaches.  And we needed it three years ago.

We’ve got a lot of retired generals and we’ve got a lot of former soldiers who would take this duty on in Syria because they believe it has to be done and they know that they are the best in the world to do it.  And yeah, they could use the money.

We’d need to give such contract soldiers support, such as access to intelligence, to air and artillery support, to command and control networks.  That type of cooperation and coordination would present some obstacles, but nothing that could not be overcome if a few leaders had the resolve to DO something.  And then we could let soldiers for hire do the fighting on the front lines so our uniformed kids wouldn’t have to.

Had Barack Obama not screwed up the universe by abandoning Iraq when ALL of his generals and even ALL of his handpicked advisors told him not to do it; and had Obama not refused to arm the rebellion in Syria in the early stages when there actually WERE moderate rebels who wanted a democratic society, we wouldn’t have needed to rely on “mercenaries.”  But Obama so foolishly and so completely turned his back on the region and so let things skyrocket out of control that we are now no longer able to deal with the massive terrorist army that has metastasized except by the use of mercenaries.  The American people do not want their military back in there; and no other nation is strong enough or frankly noble enough to send troops into the hellhole sewer that the Middle East has become.

But somebody has to go fight that war or else that war is going to come to our shores in the form of one after another massive attacks that will ultimately make the 9/11/2001 attack look like child’s play.

I’ll have a little more to add to this later (the Executive Outcome stuff is fascinating), but I just wanted to throw this out there.

Who Won The Debate? Fox News Goes Through The Roof; Keith Olberman Goes Way Of Dodo Bird

Keith Olbermann just got his walking papers.  MSNBC just announced that it was ending its contract with him.  “Countdown” was appropriately very well named: 5-4-3-2-1-phhfffft.

Olbermann has a book titled, Pitchforks and Torches: The Worst of the Worst, from Beck, Bill, and Bush to Palin and Other Posturing Republicans.  Well, let’s look at those “posturing Republicans.”  The question becomes, “Which monster did the townsfolk actually drive away from their village?” Bush is thriving, with polls saying more and more Americans are wishing he were still president, a memoir that will now almost certainly outsell Bill Clinton’s and a generally happy disposition.  Bill O’Reilly continues to dominate.  Sarah Palin is doing just peachy, thank you.  And Glenn Beck?  Liberals are all over the web as we speak posting that Glenn Beck’s ratings have taken a giant dive.  But here’s the facts for Beck in his time slot:

Net	5PM	P2+ (000s)	25-54 (000s)	35-64 (000s)
FNC	GLENN BECK	1,920	452	933
CNN	SITUATION ROOM	490	130	183
MSNBC	HARDBALL WITH C. MATTHEWS	603	93	187
CNBC	FAST MONEY	288	53	134
HLN	SHOWBIZ TONIGHT	176	71	91

Glenn Beck’s Fox News program is doing considerably better than the next four programs combined.  It looks like he’s just hurting so bad, doesn’t it?

Liberals like Keith Olbermann have their hysterical shrillness, their poisonous fang-dripping hate and their hypocrisy.  Fox News has actual ratings.

Look at the most recent ratings: FNC, for the record, means “Fox News Channel.”  Do you notice how they dominate every single time slot?

The quite left-leaning Public Policy Polling found Fox News “the most trusted” in last years’ survey.  According to their survey this year, Fox has slipped.  But, first of all, read this.  And second of all, just take another look at the ratings.

Dinesh D’Souza, in his great book What’s So Great About Christianity, begins his first chapter with these words:

God has come back to life.  The world is witnessing a huge explosion of religious conversion and growth, and Christianity is growing faster than any other religion.  Nietzsche’s proclamation “God is dead” is now proven false.  Nietzsche is dead.  The ranks of the unbelievers are shrinking as a proportion of the world’s population.  Secularism has lost its identification with progress and modernity, and consequently has lost the main source of its appeal.  God is very much alive, and His future prospects look to be excellent.  This is the biggest comeback story of the twenty-first century.

D’Souza proceeds to document that claim with facts that will make atheists weep and gnash their little rodent fangs.  [You can read the chapter here].  Secular humanists long claimed that the progression of reason and science would conquer religious “superstition.”  It was a groundless and distorted comparison that is now demonstrated to be a lie, another fairy tale myth of secularism.

Now I cite the beginning of a Human Events article titled, “The Conservative Undead“:

“American political parties have disappeared before,” Keith Olbermann warned Republicans in a 2009 “special comment.” The suspended MSNBC host histrionically continued, “You’re rapidly moving from the party of no conscience towards the party of no relevancy. You are behind the wheel of a political Toyota, and before the midterms you will be reduced to obviously being this generation’s home for the nuts.

To play off D’Souza, “Olbermann’s proclamation ‘The Republican Party is dead’ is now proven false.  Olbermann is dead.”

And to allude to a song from The Wizard of Oz: “Ding-Dong.”  It’s about time.

When it comes to liberals a line out of Willie Wonka puts it best: in a world of pure imagination, what you see will defy explanation.

Finally, SOMEONE In Media Takes A Democrat To Task For Finance Meltdown

I couldn’t agree more with the words of Noel Sheppard:

Finally, someone in the media accurately accused and challenged a member of Congress over his involvement and complicity in the current financial crisis.

As press member after press member has allowed Democrats to shamefully and erroneously blame the current crisis on George W. Bush, virtually nobody other than folks at Fox News has been willing to examine the role elected officials on the left side of the aisle have been playing for more than a decade in blocking tighter regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

There is an unprecedented and frankly astonishing degree of spin and outright deception going on in the mainstream media today.  And in this climate we are about to hold the most important election most of us have faced in our lifetimes.

A blatantly biased media routinely allow their air time to be taken up by Democrat after Democrat blaming the disaster on “the failed policies of this [Bush] administration,” and “8 years of deregulation by Republicans”, without presenting any analysis questioning whether those claims are true.  The reality is that Democrats’ fingerprints are all over the financial meltdown.  And I have written a bunch of articles trying to put the truth to light:

How ‘Failed Policies’ Of Democrats Were Responsible For Financial Crisis

Why Barney Frank Can Stick His ‘Republicans With Hurt Feelings’ Remark

Supreme Court LIBERALS Blocked States From Regulating Financial System

Democrats Refused To Regulate GSEs, Created Financial Tsunami

Democrats’ Idea Of Bipartisanship Is HARD CORE Partisanship

Dems Blame Bush For Deregulation: Just Another Day Of Astounding Liberal Hypocrisy

Financial Crisis: Obama Democrats Have Red Ink All Over Them

Obama V.P. Pick Joe Biden Shares Direct Blame For Foreclosure Disaster

Obama’s National Finance Chair Pritzker At Epicenter of Sub Prime Crisis

Democrats, The Countrywide Scandal, and Self-Righteous Hypocrisy

Even when Bill Clinton blames Democrats for their refusal to regulate the finance industry against Republican attempts to do so, the media refuses to look at the role of Democrats:

Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC’s Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been “resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

So when a Bill O’Reilly has a Barney Frank on his program, and even raises the questions about the Democrats’ role in the crisis, it deserves attention.

BILL O’REILLY, HOST: “Personal story” segment tonight, the financial chaos in this country is largely the fault of the citizens who cannot pay their obligations, banks who lent money to unqualified people, and the federal government which failed to provide oversight. Both political parties are to blame as I’ve stated.

Now “The Factor” has called on SEC Chairman Christopher Cox to resign, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd to quit, and House Finance Chief Barney Frank to step down from his position. That’s because for the past two years, Frank and his committee oversaw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — two government sponsored lending agencies which pretty much are bankrupt.

Congressman Frank was asked about Freddie and Fannie on July 14, 2008:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

They’re in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we’re going to do some things that are going to improve them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

O’REILLY: Well, obviously, that statement turned out not to be true.

O’Reilly pointed out that – during the last two years of Barney Franks chairmanship over the House Financial Services Committee and Democratic control, “Look, bottom line is you’re there two years. Bottom line is stock drops 90 percent.”

Now, if you’ve heard a single Democrat blame bush and the Republicans for the finance meltdown, but you don’t know that Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s stock crashed 90% during the Democrats’ tenure, and that even three months ago the Democratic leadership was assuring us that everything was fine, you’ve been cheated by the media.  You have literally been lied to.

People were saying, ‘How far down can the stock go?  Are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac solvent?’  And Barney Frank said, “Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.”  And so people kept buying stock, and kept business as usual, and the whole thing came crashing down.

People at Enron went to prison for doing precisely the same thing that Barney Frank did.

Barney Frank, in his feeble defense that initiated a shouting match, said:

FRANK: No. You’ve misrepresented this consistently. I became chairman of the committee on January 31st, 2007. Less than two months later, I did what the Republicans hadn’t been able to do in 12 years — get through the committee a very tough regulatory bill. And it passed the House in May.

I’ve always felt two things about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that they had an important role to play, but that the regulations should be improved.

Now from 1995 to 2006, when the Republicans controlled Congress and we were in the minority, we couldn’t get that done. Although in 2005, Mike Oxley, of Sarbanes-Oxley fame, a pretty tough guy on regulation, did try to put a bill through to regulate Fannie Mae. I worked with him on it. As he told The Financial Times, he thought ideological rigidity in the Bush administration stopped that.

But the basic point is that the first time I had any real authority over this was January of 2007. And within two months, we had passed the bill that regulated.

Well, the facts are that Democrats DID succeed in passing a regulatory bill where the Republicans had failed.  But why did the Republicans fail?  They had failed in 2003, and then again in 2005, because Democrats were in lock step against it in the committees, and because the Democrats in the Senate threatened a filibuster that the Republicans wouldn’t be able to overcome.

It’s like children who refused to play with the other children until they got to make all the rules taking credit for the game, and conveniently forgetting that they hadn’t been willing to play before.

Barney Frank has been claiming that there was nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac going back at least five years, as a September 11, 2003 New York Times article proves:

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

So whey do the Democrats who utterly failed to see the disaster coming and who prevented the Republicans from regulating at least twice when such regulation would have prevented this crisis get to blame the Republicans for failing to realize that the disaster was coming and for refusing to regulate?  Because, by and large, the media won’t tell you the truth and consistenly lets Democrats get away with murder.

Why Obama’s Tax Plan Is So Wrong

Barack Obama, if elected, promises to enact a tax plan that he claims will “cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.”

The statement is patently false, and it is beyond easy to prove it’s patently false.

The 5% of Americans that Barack Obama will attack with tax increases already pay more than 50% of the total income tax burden.  It is simply a naked act of class warfare to demand that people who are already overtaxed pay still more taxes.

To underscore the point above, it is also a fact that 40% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all.

How can Obama reduce federal taxes for 95% of Americans when 40% of Americans don’t pay federal taxes?  He can’t.  It is logically impossible.

What Obama will do is seize more from the wealthy, and – in an act of sheer pandering – give it to people who have not earned it.  He will use the IRS as a welfare agency.  You do all the work; I reap well over half of the benefit.

During his interview with Barack Obama, Bill O’Reilly called Obama’s plan “class warfare,” and Obama replied, “It’s not. Ninety-five percent is not class warfare.”  Sure it is.  Whenever one class of any size votes to take from another economic class, it’s class warfare.

Someone managed to stop Benjamin Franklin’s rolling in his grave long enough to ask him what he thought about Barack Obama’s tax plan.  Founding father Benjamin Franklin responded:

“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Wow.  That’s pretty tough.  All Barack Obama is doing is saying, “If you vote for me, I will seize other people’s money and give it to people who did not earn it in a direct transfer payment.”  But Benjamin Franklin understood with razor sharpness how profoundly wrong Barack Obama’s socialism was nearly two hundred years before Obama was even born.

The reason Benjamin Franklin was so diametrically opposed to Barack Obama’s socialist, class-warfare, welfare payment tax plan is because he understood the thought of another man who condemned Barack Obama nearly two centuries before Obama was born.

The 17th Century Scottish historian Alexander Tytler studied the rise and fall of nations and presented his findings in what we now call Tytler’s Cycle. According to Tytler, all nations go from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to freedom, from freedom to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, and from dependence back to bondage. Tytler said the absolutely critical thing that leads a nation to decline from abundance to selfishness and on down the vicious cycle, is when they vote themselves benefits from the national treasury. And Benjamin Franklin understood this basic fact of history.

Barack Obama doesn’t.

This election may come down to whether we want Benjamin Franklin’s independent America or Barack Obama’s socialist America.  It may come down to whether we want to heed Alexander Tytler’s warning to cultures from history, or disregard it.

Liberal NBC News Networks Are “the Lohans”

Bill O’Reilly has long-said that NBC News is the most liberal and corrupt news organization in the country, and that its spin-off MSNBC is a disgrace.

Recent evidence proved that he knew what he was talking about.

An exchange between “The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart and NBC anchor Brian Williams – and the underlying Richter-scale level on-air meltdowns the network has suffered – makes for hilarious yet revealing insights into the liberal media:

Brian Williams appeared on Tuesday night’s “The Daily Show” from Minnesota, where Jon Stewart asked him about the recent infighting taking place on MSNBC.

“Let me ask you this,” Stewart said. “You’re NBC, you’re the top dog, you’re the anchor, and then they send you over to MSNBC, and literally they’re beating each other up. Matthews is yelling at Olberamnn, Scarborough is yelling at David Shuster, you have to apparently ask some of the women there if they would check a box if they like you…is there no control? Is it Lord of the Flies?”

When Williams tried the, “I think every family has a dynamic all its own” defense, Stewart shot back: “But does MSNBC have to be the Lohans?”

A further comment from the Huffington Post claims:

Word on the blogs has it that the awkward edit toward the end of the segment occurred to eliminate this exchange:

Brian Williams: You don’t understand the pressure.
Jon Stewart: You’ve got to lie. I’ve just got to tell the truth.

So we’ve got the crazy psycho liberal thing, and we’ve got the biased lying ideologue thing going on in the same Jon Stewart riff.

Not a bad days’ work, Jon.

Charles Schumer: All-Too-Typical Democrat Megalomaniac Jerk

This was truly amazing, although it really shouldn’t be.

Apparently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not the only “queen bee of the universe” wannabe.

Here’s the skinny: Bill O’Reilly had Karl Rove on to give a Republican response to the Democrat’s dog and pony show.  Knowing that Karl Rove is smarter than any two Democrats, O’Reilly, in the interest of fairness, decides to have Lanny Davis and Charles Schumer come on the program under the desperate hope that they might somehow come up with a brain between them.

Lanny Davis is in the makeup room when Charles Schumer – with his entourage in tow – comes into the makeup room (no surprise that Schumer wants to wear makeup after this display of unladylike behavior).  Schumer asks Davis – a fellow liberal Democrat in good standing – what he’s doing there.  And when Davis explains that they’re going to be on the program together, Charles Schumer erupts into a diva-like tantrum and storms out.  Schumer can be heard on the phone shouting at someone; one of Schumer’s “people” is yelling at someone else on his cell.

A little bit later an O’Reilly producer comes up to Lanny Davis.  Would he be okay with bowing out so the queen diva can go on the program alone? Absolutely not, says Davis.  Is that what Senator Schumer is asking for? Lanny Davis, you see, had been the original guest, and Schumer had just been a late invite (you know, for the brain-thing).

Continue reading for the meaty part of the Slate.com write up, in a minute-by-minute narrative:

Pettiness and Visciousness Over Tony Snow’s Passing: The Left Should Be Ashamed

The Associated Press’ “eulogy” of Tony Snow contained the following comments:

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

In that year and a half at the White House, Snow brought partisan zeal and the skills of a seasoned performer to the task of explaining and defending the president’s policies. During daily briefings, he challenged reporters, scolded them and questioned their motives as if he were starring in a TV show broadcast live from the West Wing.

Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation. He was the first press secretary, by his own accounting, to travel the country raising money for Republican candidates.

Bill O’Reilly clearly wasn’t touched by the Associate Press‘ treatment of Snow. He had this to say yesterday:

Over the weekend, we eulogized Tony Snow in a personal way. I hope you saw our broadcast because I believe we painted a very accurate picture of a great man. Tonight we’ll get into policy — the things that Tony believed in and the challenges he faced going public with those beliefs.

Hours after Tony died early Saturday morning, the Associated Press published an obituary of him. Written by Douglass Daniel, the obit listed Tony’s bio and some of his achievements, but it also injected a left-wing partisan viewpoint, which was insulting to the Snow family and completely inappropriate.

Just a few weeks ago, the AP ran a terrific obituary for Tim Russert, avoiding any cheap shots. But Daniel could not do that for Tony Snow as he wrote: “With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster’s good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses. Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation.”

Now, if you want to criticize Tony’s White House career, do it after he’s buried, OK, Associated Press? Your opinion of his job performance doesn’t belong in an obituary. It was an insult to Tony’s family and demonstrates once and for all the AP is no longer a news service. It has become a liberal clearing house.

Now, I myself just wrote a eulogy remembering both Tim Russert and Tony Snow. Tim Russert came from the Democratic ranks; and more than occasionally I believed that he was grilling Republicans in a way that he did not grill Democrats on his program. But I was writing a eulogy, and so I focused on the very best of these two men.

That’s what you do when you eulogize, unless you are overly partisan. You look at the best of someone, and pointedly ignore the negative. The AP gave a magnificent, criticism-free sendoff to Tim Russert. It just couldn’t find the same graciousness for a conservative.

Shame on them for allowing their thinly veiled political ideology to intrude on good taste.

Rush Limbaugh, commenting on the AP‘s lack of journalistic balance, said this:

A month ago I went on a riff about the lone remaining monopoly in the Drive-By Media, that being the Associated Press and I pointed out how dangerous they are. They still have a monopoly in the sense that every newspaper in the country subscribes to their service and prints their BS. Yesterday, Politico.com ran a story about the new Washington — or the editor, bureau chief, whatever; Washington bureau chief; I forget what title he has, Ron Fournier, the former White House reporter. He has decided — and I don’t know how long ago they decided this, but it probably coincides pretty much with my noticing it, but they decided, he decided — from now on the AP is going to start putting opinion in the news, that people are just too stupid to figure out what the news is without an opinion being thrown in there. Honestly this is what they said. I had the story in the stack yesterday. I think I have it anywhere near here, but I’m summarizing it pretty closely.

Limbaugh was referring to a Politico.com story titled, “Is Fournier saving or destroying the AP?” in which Ron Fournier, the head of the Associated Press’ Washington bureau, is revealed to encourage first-person writing and the use of emotive language in news stories. Part of the Politico piece points out the clear pitfall of Fournier’s new approach to journalism:

Fournier and other critics of the conventional press model, especially those on the left, have said that being released from the tired conventions of news writing is exactly what journalism needs.

By these lights, the mentality that presumes both sides of an argument are entitled to equal weight is what prevented the media from challenging the Bush administration more aggressively on the Iraq war and other issues.

Others warn that what Fournier and other proponents see as truth-telling can easily bleed into opinionizing — exactly the opposite of the AP’s mission of “delivering fast, unbiased news.”

“The problem,” says James Taranto, the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web columnist and a frequent critic of what he sees as the AP’s liberal bias, “is that while you can do opinion journalism and incorporate reporting into it, you can’t say you’re doing straight reporting, and then add opinion to that.”

A dispatch Fournier filed in 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina began: “The Iraqi insurgency is in its last throes. The economy is booming. Anybody who leaks a CIA agent’s identity will be fired. Add another piece of White House rhetoric that doesn’t match the public’s view of reality: Help is on the way, Gulf Coast.”

Fournier cited the article in an essay titled “Accountability Journalism: Liberating reporters and the truth” he wrote for the June 1 issue of the AP’s internal newsletter, The Essentials, as an example of how to be “provocative without being partisan … truth-tellers without being editorial writers.”

“I call ’em as I see ’em” has little validity if you are in the tank for one side. You probably wouldn’ t want a die-hard Lakers fan like me refereeing a Laker game in the playoffs if you are rooting for the other team – or even if you simply want an objectively-called game. It’s not that I would deliberately cheat; it’s just that my “pro-Laker” mentality and desire to see the Lakers win would alter my perception and affect my judgment.  Limbaugh used the media’s outrage over the NBA referee scandal as an example of their own innate hypocrisy. It’s too bad they refuse to apply the same standard and rationale about genuine objectivity for themselves that they reserve for everybody else.

Here is a collection of pieces I’ve writing discussing about the media’s ideological biases:

NBC’s Deceptive Editing Reveals Why Bush Right and Obama Wrong

How to Demagogue the Economy

Hillary’s Pennsylvania Win Has Media Snivelling

Media Frenzy over ABC Democratic Debate Reveals Leftist Bias

I chuckled over a July 14, 2008 Mallard Fillmore cartoon that read: “This just in!… The mainstream media now say they felt the need to cover the “Countrywide” loan scandal involving Democratic Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad just as aggressively as they cover Republican scandals… then quickly sat down until the feeling went away.” It’s absolutely true. They covered the story, and then let it slide into obscurity. Had it been a pair of Republicans, there would have been a daily drumbeat of coverage until the two resigned.

When the media becomes ideologically biased – which they have – they undermine the role our founding fathers intended for them in the Bill of Rights, and leave us vulnerable to the ramifications of a people with a distorted view of the world.

When they even feel the need to editorialize and present their biases in a eulogy, it is beyond petty.

But the obvious bias of the left-tilted media – which is revealed even in coverage eulogizing political journalists who have just passed away – is only part of the story. We also must recognize that there is a rabid left wing in this country that are absolutely vicious.

That viciousness was revealed following the announcement of the death of Tony Snow.

The LA Times has a moderated blog which had the following remarks allowed about Tony Snow:

I hope the rest of these criminals die too. Good riddance to a person who contributed to making this world a worse place. – Posted by: Max | July 12, 2008 at 05:58 AM

Its unfortunate he won’t be able to see the damage he helped inflict on this country and the world. I wonder how he likes hell. – Posted by: tedson | July 12, 2008 at 06:27 AM

Was anyone more perfectly named for their job? Tony’s Snow-jobs about Bushian idiocy only helped sink the nation into the hole where we are now. – Posted by: Johnsy | July 12, 2008 at 06:58 AM

Good riddance , we still have a white house full of liars
and American soldiers being slaughtered. if Cheney strokes
then change will begin , as for Bush he is just to stupid
to die and when he dies bury him at home in IRAQ.
– Posted by: slimjim66 | July 12, 2008 at 07:30 AM

This outrage indicates why new legislation should be put in place to require a regular colonoscopy for Snow’s cohorts in propaganda. (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck etc) Only a careful inspection of their alimentary tracts will prevent their insolent, hatefilled cancer from developing and spreading. – Posted by: Passing LostAnglos | July 12, 2008 at 07:38 AM

The question begs to be asked, is it possible to die when you don’t have a soul.
– Posted by: Chad | July 12, 2008 at 09:38 AM

Oh YES HE WAS A WONDERFUL MAN AND A …..
PUUULLLEEEASE
THIS PERSON HAD A MAJOR PART IN THE MOST EVIL ADMINISTRATION THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN.
DEATH AND TORTURE, ILLEGAL WARS, WAR CRIMINAL SOLDIERS, GOOD RIDDANCE
CANCER WAS TOO GOOD FOR HIM
HOPE IT WAS PAINFUL.
NOW FOR THE REST OF THIS SCUMMY ADMINISTRATION. COME ON CANCER, DO YOUR GOOD WORK…………
– Posted by: perry | July 12, 2008 at 02:26 PM

I have frequently heard liberals talk about how hateful the concept of “hell” is and that condemning biblically-forbidden behaviors and warning about the judgment of hell is hateful. But now I see that liberals don’t mind talking about hell at all; they merely wish to reserve it for conservatives and those who actually believe in the Bible.

The Daily Kos, by all accounts, was even worse.

The hatred of the left must be pointed out. People need to see these people as they actually are. The people who talk about “tolerance” routinely shout down conservative speakers and broadcast outright visceral hatred for those with whom they disagree.

One of the posters to the LA Times blog had this to say:

All you right wingers would be saying much worse things if the same had happened to Ted Kennedy or Obama – you are nothing but trash and liars just like Snow job was. good riddance to bad rubbish. – Posted by: Alan | July 12, 2008 at 04:52 PM

Nope. When Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, I wrote a piece asking for prayer for the man. I don’t have the hatred for even Osama bin Laden that so many on the left publicly harbored for Tony Snow. I just don’t have that kind of hate and meanness in me.

Nor have I ever come across a “right wing hate site” that was even close to the outright viciousness that is routinely contained in major liberal blogs such as Media Matters and the Daily Kos (and now the LA Times!!!).

The liberal media is not only overtly ideologically biased, but is now actually providing a forum for the worst kind of hatred (one LA Times blog comment allowed by the moderator asked whether Tony Snow would be buried in his Nazi uniform), has sunk to levels that are downright despicable. It is no wonder that they are losing their readership and viewership in droves.

Liberals ought to be ashamed.