Posts Tagged ‘Philadelphia’

Joe Biden Meets With Pope Francis: The Cynic’s View

September 28, 2015

I start writing this acknowledging that I don’t know the future and I can’t look within the souls of men.  Which means I could be wrong.

But I DO know how cynical Democrats are.

I also know the following facts: that Joe Biden’s son died.  That as he was dying, he allegedly told his father this:

Joe Biden’s dying son, just before he succumbed to brain cancer two months ago, begged his father to make him a promise — to run for President.

“Dad, it’s who you are,” Beau Biden reportedly told his dad, his face partially paralyzed and his vocabulary slipping.

The dramatic death bed exchange was revealed in a piece published Saturday by New York Times’ columnist Maureen Dowd.

One question being how did Maureen Dowd of the New York Times learn of these words?

I also know Joe Biden has been saying some version of this multiple times:

Ahead of Pope Francis’ visit to the United States this week, Biden told a Jesuit magazine that it remains a family decision. And the family is not there yet.

“I mean, I’ve just got to be certain that if I do this, I’m able to look you in the eye and everyone else and say I’m giving all my passion, all my, all my energy and will not be distracted. And secondly, equally as important, the other piece is: Is this moment, is this the best thing for the family as a unit?” Biden said in the interview with America magazine published Monday.

Biden remarked that he has known “almost every person” who has made a White House bid since he was 29 years old, and the decision always hinges on “personal considerations.”

“Your whole family is implicated. Your whole family is engaged. So for us it’s a family decision, and I just have to be comfortable that this will be good for the family,” he explained.

“We’re just not there yet and may not get there in time to make it feasible to be able to run and succeed because there are certain windows that will close. But if that’s it, that’s it. But it’s not like I can rush it. It’s not like it either happens or it doesn’t happen. I know that’s not satisfying to anybody, but people who have been there, I know they understand,” the vice president said.

And I also know that whether Joe Biden runs is a function of Hillary Clinton’s dwindling poll numbers as any pretense to that woman having any honesty or virtue whatsoever becomes more and more of a pathetic joke:

WASHINGTON — As Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign struggles with sliding poll numbers, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s exploration of a presidential candidacy is taking on a new seriousness.

Mr. Biden has been in contact with donors who could help finance a campaign, eyeing major contributors to President Obama and pillars of his own fund-raising network: trial lawyers, Jewish leaders and Greek-Americans. On Thursday, the vice president, who is not known for aggressively courting donors, spoke to George Tsunis, a Long Island developer and longtime supporter, who raised more than $750,000 for the Obama-Biden ticket in 2012.

“I think he is doing the prudent thing, which is to look at it and lay down some groundwork should he run,” said Mr. Tsunis, saying that Mr. Biden is aware that Mr. Tsunis will help him if he enters the race.

At the same time, some Democrats supporting Mrs. Clinton have quietly signaled that they would re-evaluate their support if Mr. Biden joined the race.

Does Joe Biden circle over Hillary Clinton’s head like the proverbial vulture, waiting for her campaign to reach the death  point when he can swoop in?  Or is America supposed to believe that yesterday Joe Biden didn’t have the fire in his heart to be president, but today he’s had a quiver in his liver that he is now truly ready to face the pressure of being the leader of what little is left of the free world (and the free America, for that matter)???

I mean, how do you say, “Yesterday, I wasn’t ready to be president.  It would be wrong for me to be the leader of the free world.  I’m just not ready.”  But then say, “But that was yesterday.  Now you should trust your children’s lives to me because the quiver in my liver cannot be wrong.”

I mean, what’s the hook that changes a man from not being ready to having the fire in his heart to tirelessly serve his nation with his whole heart and all of his energy?

What can generate such a transformation, such a change of heart?

Well, I think – being incredibly cynical about just how incredibly CYNICAL depraved Democrats truly are – that it would take a private meeting with the pope for a “good” Catholic who has supported murdering more than sixty million innocent babies but doesn’t believe in murdering them on Sundays, to manifest such a change that we can all believe in.

And what a heartwarming story, right?  I mean, overwhelmed by the tragedy of his loss, a devout Catholic man loses his heart.  But then finds it again in the wisdom and love of the Pope.  And in that heart-to-heart he finds his heart again, finds his drive, finds his passion reignited.

It’s like Rocky, only with a politician rather than a boxer.

I’m just telling you that if Joe Biden announces he’s going to run, and announces that his meeting with the Pope influenced his decision, that this was planned from the moment that he first found out the Pope was going to visit and he was going to be able to lead the American delegation at the departure ceremony of the Pope (and get that private meeting that would become his hook):

Emma Green of The Atlantic writes:

And before he took off, he had a private meeting with Joe Biden. We all know what happened last time he met with a political figure at a turning point in his career … Anything you feel moved to share, Mr. Vice President?

I think this has been scripted for months.

We continue to learn damn near every day that pretty much in every way imaginable, Hillary Clinton has lied to us about her emails and her private server that she used to conduct all her business.  We learned just a couple of days ago that her claims that she turned over all of her work-related emails before she tried to wipe her server after it was subpoenaed by Congress, and in particular that she had absolutely, without any question, on her word of honor turned over all of the emails related to the Benghazi attack, were both lies:

However, Clinton has maintained that she delivered all the “work-related” emails to the State Department. The State Department, in turn, has said that it provided all emails related to the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya in 2012, to a House select committee currently investigating the attack and Clinton’s role in the response.

According to news reports Friday, evidence suggests that neither of those claims is necessarily true.

A story by the Associated Press says the Pentagon discovered an exchange of emails between Clinton and General David Petraeus from early in her tenure at State, while he was leading U.S. Central Command. The emails were forwarded by the Defense Department to the State Department and are not among the emails that Clinton turned over to State earlier this year.

Even if the content of the email is innocuous, the revelation that there were work-related emails that Clinton did not turn over to State will raise the question of what other correspondence might have been withheld.

In addition, the State Department admitted Friday that it had not provided the House Select Committee on Benghazi with all of the emails related to the attacks that Clinton had turned over. According to The Daily Beast, the State Department on Friday informed the committee that they would be delivering a “handful” of previously undisclosed emails. The number of emails in that so-called handful? 925.

We learned a couple of days before that that Hillary Clinton had been lying when she told the world that she turned over her emails to the State Department as nothing more than part of a routine request, rather than she being the subject/target of an investigation:

Throughout the controversy over her use of a private e-mail system while she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton has described her decision last year to turn over thousands of work-related e-mails as a response to a routine-sounding records request.

“When we were asked to help the State Department make sure they had everything from other secretaries of state, not just me, I’m the one who said, ‘Okay, great, I will go through them again,’ ” Clinton said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “And we provided all of them.”

But State Department officials provided new information Tuesday that undercuts Clinton’s characterization. They said the request was not simply about general rec­ord-keeping but was prompted entirely by the discovery that Clinton had exclusively used a private e-mail system. They also said they first contacted her in the summer of 2014, at least three months before the agency asked Clinton and three of her predecessors to provide their e-mails.

“In the process of responding to congressional document requests pertaining to Benghazi, State Department officials recognized that it had access to relatively few email records from former Secretary Clinton,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement e-mailed to The Washington Post. “State Department officials contacted her representatives during the summer of 2014 to learn more about her email use and the status of emails in that account.”

The American people are only BEGINNING to learn about the incredibly INCOMPETENT and CRIMINAL STUPIDITY of Hillary Clinton.  Consider a story that came out earlier this month:

One of the most serious potential breaches of national security identified so far by the intelligence community inside Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private emails involves the relaying of classified information concerning the movement of North Korean nuclear assets, which was obtained from spy satellites.

Multiple intelligence sources who spoke to The Washington Times, solely on the condition of anonymity, said concerns about the movement of the North Korean information through Mrs. Clinton’s unsecured server are twofold.

First, spy satellite information is frequently classified at the top-secret level and handled within a special compartment called Talent-Keyhole. This means it is one of the most sensitive forms of intelligence gathered by the U.S.

Second, the North Koreans have assembled a massive cyberhacking army under an elite military spy program known as Bureau 121, which is increasingly aggressive in targeting systems for hacking, especially vulnerable private systems. The North Koreans, for instance, have been blamed by the U.S. for the hack of Sony movie studios.

Allowing sensitive U.S. intelligence about North Korea to seep into a more insecure private email server has upset the intelligence community because it threatens to expose its methods and assets for gathering intelligence on the secretive communist nation.

“While everyone talks about the U.S. being aware of the high threat of hacking and foreign spying, there was a certain nonchalance at Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in protecting sensitive data that alarms the intel community,” one source familiar with the email review told The Times. “We’re supposed to be making it harder, not easier, for our enemies to intercept us.”

This woman screwed America in ways we’ll NEVER know given her paranoid secrecy and her worse-than-Nixonian determination to be above the law and above the transparency of petty mortals.

The fact that Hillary Clinton isn’t already in a prison cell charged with treason against the United States of America is all the proof you need that the Obama Administration is THE most rabidly partisan entity that ever existed in the face of the earth.

So the question is whether Joe Biden runs because even though his heart and his head aren’t in the most important job on earth, because it’s better that a Democrat destroy America than that a more fit Republican whose heart and head ARE in the right place to lead get the job.  Or he needs to have a dramatic hook to convince us all that he’s ready to lead and lead for the right reasons.

Enter his meeting with the Pope.  And the Hollywood script written by Hollywood liberals just writes itself.

Don’t forget the way that story was framed:

Ahead of Pope Francis’ visit to the United States this week, Biden told a Jesuit magazine that it remains a family decision. And the family is not there yet

Ah, but what about DURING and BECAUSE OF the Pope’s visit?  “Ahead of” the Pope’s visit, Biden “isn’t there.”  But don’t you worry: because a miraculous healing event will happen and Biden will suddenly be spontaneously healed BY the Pope’s visit.  Because that’s what the cynical Democrat script calls for.  And Biden will somehow find his fire, just when he needs to, just short of too late.  Almost as if it were on cue according to the script.

Is that as cynical as it gets?  Yeah.  But every time I’ve ever thought Democrats couldn’t get more cynical, they’ve surprised me.  These people are liars to the cores of their roach souls.  And the more they talk about God or transcendent things, the more you can know they’re lying in the most cynical, depraved way much the way Obama looked at us all and lied when he told us that as a “Christian” he believed in the sanctity of marriage as the union between one man and one woman when in fact he didn’t.

I mean, let me put it this way: can Democrats develop genuine spiritual convictions?  Maybe.  But just not to anywhere near the extent that pigs can develop genuine wings and fly like falcons.

We’ll see if I’m right in the next few weeks.

 

 

Obama’s Dismissal of Civil Rights Violator Shabazz Case Continues Racist Democrat Policies

July 7, 2010

This case of voter rights abuse was already won, and all that remained was the sentencing.  And then suddenly – at the last moment – someone under Obama-appointed Attorney General Eric Holder came in and dropped all charges.

New Black Panther leader Samir Shabazz stood outside the door of a voting location clad in a threatening uniform and bearing a police-style baton.  Several witnesses testified that he made a number of threatening racially-charged references.

He’s not guilty in Obama’s hopey-changey America.  Because overt acts of racism are fine, as long as the perpetrator is black and the victims are white.

Here’s the current hero of liberalism:

Here’s the new political correctness:

SHABAZZ:  I hate white people.  All of them!  Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him!  You want freedom? You’re going to have to kill some crackers! You’re going to have kill some of their babies.

That certainly isn’t all that the guy Obama wanted to protect said:

Samir: We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.

Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”

“I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”

“We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”

That’s pretty much what the Democrat Party stands for under the Barack Hussein regime.

That’s what Shabazz says outside the voter site.  What did he say inside? According to several witnesses:

Witnesses described an ugly scene: Two members of the New Black Panther Party threatening white voters the day Barack Obama was elected president, flinging insults like “white devil” and “you’re about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

Like I said; that was why the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department had this guy so dead to rights.  Until the Obama administration – due to political partisanship, leftist ideology, and racism of its own – dismissed the case.

Not that it’s just Barry Hussein.  We’ve got the racism of Bill Clinton who said of black man Obama, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”  And clearly wishing for those good old days, so that his wife could win the Democrat nomination.  More recently, Bill Clinton – the former leader of the Democrat Party – said of former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle and “pillar of the Senate”, said:

“They mention that he once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, and what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means,” Clinton said. “He was a country boy from the hills and hollows of West Virginia. He was trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done…”

Byrd wasn’t a “fleeting member” of the Ku Klux Klan any more than Kobe Bryant is a “fleeting member” of the Los Angeles Lakers.  Former Exalted Cyclops and Kleagle Byrd wrote:

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

He wrote:

“The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation.”

He personally filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act on behalf of the Klan when he was nearing fifty years old.

So why was it that Democrat Senator Robert Byrd was “MAYBE” wrong for being a member of the Klan? The answer is as simple as it is frightening: because it’s always been okay for the Democrat Party to use racism and race-baiting and racial segregation in order to drive their agenda home.  And that is just as true today when the Democrats buy off blacks through welfare so they will act as the human shields of the Democrat Party as it was when the Democrat-created Ku Klux Klan was riding around with torches.

The Democrat Party is the historic proponent of racism in this country (see also my comment here).  Oh, they changed their tactics from threats to bribes, but they never abandoned their racist “progressive” values.

Well, just thank God that the Obama administration which looks down so magnanimously on hard-core black against white racism is so on the ball when it comes to attacking the decent citizens of Arizona.

Obama didn’t need to know any of the facts to know that the white cop was to blame in arresting the black Harvard professor bigot.  Just as his administration didn’t have to have actually read the Arizona law to know that it was racist.  Everyone in the Obama administration today knows that white males are to blame even when proven otherwise.

So it’s a slam dunk for Democrats to demagogue white people in Arizona, and simply assume that white cops will act stupidly there, too.  Their skins are white, ergo sum they are racist and evil; what more evidence do you need?

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s comments can be dismissed.  After all, she is what Obama-supporter in good standing Samir Shabazz describes as a “white, dirty cracker whore”:

“It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels,” Brewer said in a written statement. “Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice. Today’s filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds.”

[Note: I supplied the above link to illustrate the sheer insanity that Arizona faces from the most racist and most demagogic administration in American history].  I mean, maybe you can go back to President Andrew Jackson and his vicious genocidal Trail of Tears.  But Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, too.  Or you could go back to President Woodrow Wilson who literally fired all the blacks in federal government and RE-segregated the military.  But you guessed it – Democrat.  We can go back to January 26, 1922, when Democrat Senators filibustered a Republican bill that had passed in the GOP-controlled House to make lynching a federal crime.  Or we could mention the vile and evil political party that had a national convention in 1924 that was so dominated by the Ku Klux Klan that it is today known as “Klanbake.”  But, oops.  That was the 1924 DEMOCRAT PARTY CONVENTION.  Or we could consider that President Franklin Delanor Roosevelt was a bigger racist for put American Japanese citizens in camps for nothing beyond racism.  Or for allowing the infamous Tuskegee experiment to begin under his presidency.  Or allowing his New Deal program to be used to help Democrat-supporting labor unions hurt black people and shut them out of economic success.  But, well, you know…

So when you hear Democrats today like Patrick Kennedy comparing the Arizona with the Trail of Tears, note that they’re merely trying to pass the buck for their own Democrat historic racism to innocent Republicans.  I mean, what Patrick Kennedy did was analogous to Osama bin Laden saying, “You Americans are the terrorists, just like the murderers who attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center!”  But wait a minute, Osama – YOU’RE THE ONE WHO DID THAT!!!

Obama has joined with Mexico in waging legal war on an American state of the union.  For what act of racism?  Arizona had the gall to write a law identical to the federal law so that they could make what was already a federal crime a state crime.  If that isn’t racism, I don’t know what is.

I notice that the White House lawsuit against Arizona never ONCE mentions racial discrimination, civil rights violations, profiling, or anything else they had falsely attacked Arizona over.  They demonized and demagogued honest people, but when it was time to actually put their money where their mouths were, they had nothing.

When they had massive evidence of black-on-white, leftwing racism, they did nothing.

That’s why I can call Obama the “Racist-in-Chief” and be completely accurate.

Barack Obama is a “Jeremiah Wright Democrat.”  Which means he is a racist bigot who has always undermined REAL civil rights reform by real civil rights leaders such as Frederic Douglas and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

As Jeremiah Wright said of Dr. King’s message:

“It was always about becoming white . . . to master what [they] do.”

I’m a believer in the message of Dr. Martin Luther King, and to the message of Frederic Douglas.  Which is why I’m so dead-set opposed to the Democrat Party and the pseudo “civil rights” movement they fabricated.

Left Attacks Michelle Bachmann For Inciting Violence; Obama Told Crowds To Bring Guns

April 20, 2010

The chutzpah of the Democrat Party and their mainstream media lackeys is alarming.

From CBS:

Rep. Michele Bachmann, a Republican from Minnesota, railed against the “gangster government” before thousands of Tea Party protesters on Thursday, but that kind of rhetoric can have serious consequences, former President Bill Clinton said Thursday.

“They are not gangsters,” Mr. Clinton said in an interview with the New York Times. “They were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do.”

The former president, who was in his first term in office when Timothy McVeigh bombed an Oklahoma City federal building, drew parallels between the anti-government rhetoric being used now and what was being said then. He will speak about the Oklahoma City terrorist attack and its current relevance at a symposium today.

You’ll have to forgive me for being somewhat confused: Is Michelle Bachmann’s “gangster government” remark worse than Bill Clinton’s remark about Barack Obama that “he’s got the political instincts of a Chicago thug“???

You see, given the fact that Bill Clinton himself said that the country is being run by a Chicago thug, why would it be so surprising that we’ve got a gangster government?  I mean, Chicago thug + president = gangster government.  It’s like a math equation.

In any event, I’m just 100% certain that Slick Willy decried the hateful and violence-inducing rhetoric of Barack Obama:

Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight?

obamapa_art_257_20080614132543.jpg

Sen. Barack Obama talks at a town hall meeting at Radnor Middle School in Wayne, Pa., Saturday, June 14. (AP)

That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night.

And murder in Philadelphia is over three times the national average.

What’s that?  Bill Clinton DIDN’T decry Obama’s invocation of clearly violent metaphors?  He didn’t even say, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘bring’ is”?  But that would mean he’s just a cheap political opportunist, not to mention a demagogue.

Barack Obama implored his supporters to arm themselves with guns and shoot people who would only have knives.  He was inciting people to violence in a city that has a documented record of murderous violence.

Michelle Bachmann merely used a term to describe our government as thieves.  She didn’t advocate mowing them down with guns, as Obama did.

At least according to the “logic” of the left, he did.  Too bad they’re too dishonest to look at their own rhetoric before demonizing everybody else’s.

I’ll tell you what: let’s demand that Barack Obama and Michelle Bachmann both resign in disgrace for their hateful rhetoric.  Just don’t be a bunch of screaming hypocrite turds for decrying Michelle Bachmann unless you first yell yourself hoarse decrying Barack Obama.

Before this nonsense the Democrats and their media tools were out decrying Sarah Palin’s “targeting” Democrat seats.  It didn’t matter one iota that Sarah Palin didn’t used a “target” symbol, but rather a surveyor’s symbol; nor did it matter than Democrats used actual “target” symbols to “target” Republican seats.  Neither the Democrats nor the media are either honest or fair enough to concern themselves with such facts.

And where were either Bill Clinton or the mainstream media when the left was demonizing George Bush something fierce? Where were they when Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters got a crowd frothing mad? Where were they when that same crowd starting chanting, “FUCK THE USA!!!”??? Where were they when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told a screaming crowed, “I’m a fan of disruptors!”??? Why was it so okay during the Bush derangement years, but so terrible now?

Why was “dissent the highest form of patriotism” when dissent was directed against George Bush, but the most loathsome form of evil when it is directed at Barack Obama?

There was a time when ‘D’ stood for Democrat; today it stands for Demagogue, Dishonest, Deceitful, Despicable, and Depraved.

Liberals Caught Video Surveilling Children In Their Own Homes

February 24, 2010

Remember how the left came emotionally unglued over George Bush approving the eavesdropping of phone calls to the US from known terrorists overseas?

You’d have thought that Bush had gone to the Library of Congress and personally torn apart the original copy of the Constitution.  And then defecated on the pieces.

Of course, monitoring the phone calls from foreign terrorists wanting to have an obviously nice, harmless chat with someone in America was terrible.  And of course, liberal school districts using cameras to record children in the privacy of their own bedrooms and bathrooms in their own homes is perfectly appropriate.

Or not.

I go with not.

Big Teacher Is Watching You
February 24, 2010 – by Jeff Schreiber

My laptop’s webcam now has a postage stamp covering it. Does yours?

This week, a district court judge in Philadelphia, PA, had to do the unthinkable: issue an order preventing a school district from further remote reactivation of webcams on laptop computers issued to nearly 2,000 high school students, a practice which has left many students and parents wondering whether school administrators had unfettered access into their homes and lives.

Just last week, a high school sophomore named Blake Robbins filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against the Lower Merion School District, the wealthy destination district on Philadelphia’s prestigious Main Line which gave the world numerous doctors, lawyers, financial managers — and Kobe Bryant. The school district, Robbins alleges, has been spying on students and students’ families in their own homes by means of remote access to webcam-equipped laptop computers provided to all students through an initiative funded largely by federal and state grants.

Neither students nor parents were provided notice by Lower Merion School District about the remote-access capability when the computers were distributed or at any other time. Robbins and his family only discovered the capability when the 15-year-old was approached at school by an assistant principal at Harriton High School and accused of engaging in “improper behavior” in his own home.

A photograph captured by Robbins’ laptop webcam was offered as evidence.  The “improper behavior” which so concerned school administrators? Assistant Principal Lindy Matsko pointed to what looked like prescription drugs being held by Robbins in the photograph and voiced concern that he was selling drugs; in reality, Robbins was eating his favorite candy, Mike & Ikes, while at the computer in his own home.

Lower Merion School District, Robbins claims, has violated a long list of federal and state laws designed to protect personal privacy and stored information, including but not limited to the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud Abuse Act, the Stored Communications Act, §1983 of the Civil Rights Act, the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, and Pennsylvania common law. And then, of course, there’s the matter of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Even for those who do not read a bona fide right to privacy into the Constitution, considering that the Fourth Amendment was written and drafted by our founders in response to the practice so many years before of British soldiers who conducted warrantless searches of colonists’ homes in search of signs of smuggling, that this case features an overreaching school district peering into private homes without notice or consent, all in search of “improper behavior” of the sort that Robbins was confronted with, should be cause for alarm for anyone who values liberty and individual freedom.

In the week which has followed the filing of the complaint, a number of students have come forward to say that either they noticed a green light indicating an active camera illuminate arbitrarily, or that they may not have noticed the light but often have the laptop open in their bedrooms, or even in their bathrooms, where music from iTunes can make showering more enjoyable for anyone who belts out Lady Gaga tunes into their shampoo bottle.

Most curious, though, has been the response from Lower Merion School District. Almost two days after the class action complaint was filed, the district released a statement on its website admitting to nearly every allegation made by Blake Robbins and his attorney.

By saying that “[t]he laptops do contain a security feature intended to track lost, stolen and missing laptops,” the district admitted that it did indeed have the capability to remotely access portals into students’ private lives.  By saying that “[t]his feature has been deactivated effective today,” the district admitted that the capability had indeed been active. By saying that “the feature was activated by the District’s security and technology departments,” administrators admitted that the feature can be activated at their own discretion, and by saying that future activation of the remote access capability would not occur “without express written notification to all students and families,” the district admitted that it had peered into private homes with neither notification nor consent.

In fact, perhaps the biggest fight the school district has put up was this week in the hearing preceding the issuance of the order, when the lead counsel for Lower Merion School District voiced concern over the language of any order issued by the court.

We don’t want it to be called an ‘injunction,’” said lead counsel Henry Hockheimer Jr. of Philadelphia law firm Ballard Spahr, noting that his clients had similar reservations about words like “enjoined,” preferring the more innocuous “prohibited.” Judge Jan E. DuBois agreed, waving his robed arm high along an imaginary marquee, saying that he understood the district wanting to avoid certain types of headlines.

Is it possible that the school district is not quite fully aware of the trouble it’s in? For the most part, after all, educators sit on the far left of the traditional political spectrum, a place where most of their immediate ideological neighbors share the notion that government knows better than the individual, and that schools and school administrators in their infinite wisdom can parent better than parents. Is it really so outlandish to consider that officials at Lower Merion School District wholeheartedly believed not only that it was their right to police its own population — even at home — in search of possible wrongdoing, but that they were looking out for the best interests of their students by doing so?

Looking around Courtroom 12-B yesterday afternoon, I became acutely aware that of the four laptops in the room, my own was not the only one with an obscured webcam. Walking through a common area at my law school later yesterday evening, I noticed even more.

Whatever the reasoning, whether the lens obstruction is symbolic in nature — mine sports a “forever” first class stamp prominently featuring a photo of the Liberty Bell — or if the concern for privacy is actual, it is clear in the suburbs of Philadelphia that the Nanny State is alive and well, and that even in school districts where the students seem to have everything, true freedom and liberty can still be elusive.

In case your eyes popped out of your head as you were reading the paragraph about the public school official freaking out over a student eating Mike & Ike candy in his bedroom, it’s really true.

I think of the Democrats who attacked Bush over his “irresponsible” deficits.  I remember the words of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from March 16, 2006:

“The deterioration of the federal government’s finances is the direct result of the misguided priorities of this administration and this rubber stamping republican Congress.  these deficits have resulted in an unprecedented and dangerous borrowing spree.”

But here Harry Reid and the same Democrats are now engaging in spending which makes Bush’s deficits look like chump change:

Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush’s decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush’s eight-year total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt. If America “cannot and will not sustain” deficits like Mr. Bush’s, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he’s flogging?

I think of Democrats lambasting the tactic of reconciliation (which the media called “the nuclear option” when Republicans considered using it to underscore just how extreme it was), only to now hypocritically and deceitfully repudiate everything they claimed to stand for.

What was it that Joe Biden said about the procedure he’s all in favor of now?

Joe Biden 5/23/2005: “This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab.”

What was it Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said?

It’s a moment of truth for the United States Senate.

Today, Senate Democrats represent the last check on President Bush’s power.

Republicans want to eliminate this check and give President Bush power no president has ever had — the ability to hand out lifetime federal judgeships without consensus from the other party. […]

A government in which one party has control over all decisions is bad for America and bad for all our people.

Our country works better when we cooperate and work towards compromises that benefit the greater good and not one group over another.

What we are seeing now is the most vile hypocrisy – perpetuated by Democrats against their very own rhetoric.  Democrats essentially are saying, “Republicans shouldn’t use the nuclear option because they aren’t treasonous slime.  WE ARE TREASONOUS SLIME, so we feel fine using it.”

For the record, the Republicans did not use the “nuclear option” in that instance, nor have they ever used it in anything remotely close to the way that Democrats are talking about using it now.

How do Democrats’ skulls not explode from trying to contain all the contradictions?

Why is it that the mainstream media is never around to confront these dishonest hypocrites when they daily spew their demagoguery?

This not only amply demonstrates what totalitarian big government fascists liberals are, but it also illustrates another important conservative doctrine: that if you give Democrats power over your life by accepting their bribes and their free lunches, they will own you.

You take their programs – or their computers – you unknowingly welcome their spying eyes and their chains.  Because everything they give you, they can take away.

Statements from our founding fathers such as this one from Samuel Adams

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”

– are being illustrated in their supreme wisdom more and more every day.

Philadelphia: Liberal Judge Removes GOP Poll Watchers While lack Black Panthers Intimidate Voters

November 4, 2008

Philadelphia was the birthplace of freedom in this nation, given that the Declaration of Independence was signed there.  But things have a way of coming full circle when one reads history, and it is happening again:  the birthplace of freedom is proving to be the dying place, as well.

We can start with a liberal judge removing GOP Election Board members from “at least” half a dozen polling locations.  As Amanda Carpenter reports, “A Pennsylvania judge previously ruled that court-appointed poll watchers could be NOT removed from their boards by an on-site election judge, but that is exactly what is happening, according to sources on the ground.”

Denying access to the minority (in this case Republican) poll watchers and inspectors is a violation of Pennsylvania state law. Those who violate the law can be punished with a misdemeanor and subjected to a fine of $1,000 and sent to prison between one month and two years.

But in this case, that would only happen if one liberal judge put another one in jail.  Don’t hold your breath.

What is most frightening of all was the judge’s justification for removing Republicans:

A liberal judge previously ruled that court-appointed Republican poll watchers could be removed from their boards by an on-site election judge, citing their “minority” status as cause.

This along with the fact that the Democratic Ohio Secretary of State had to be ordered to verify voter registrations after huge numbers of falsified registrations turned up in the process.  Rather than do her duty, and basically do her job, Jennifer Brunner instead found a “better judge” to overturn the ruling of the first.

The official corruption, the court orders that enable voter fraud, the looking the other so the mice can play, is truly frightening.

ACORN (which is deemed “non partisan” when it comes to getting $126 MILLION in government funding but is as partisan as hell when it comes to putting itself behind Democrats) is being investigated for voter fraud in at least 22 states.  And, strangely, all the states in which fraud keeps being found are all battleground states, where a few thousand votes (or even just a few votes) could decide the election.

Our judges are corrupt.  They are using their power to open the field for Democratic corruption.  That is a truly terrifying thing.  Given the corruption of our judges and of our media, it is “GAME OVER” for our democracy.

Meanwhile, while all this corruption is going on, while judges allow liberals to commandeer the premises in vital polling places so that Democrats can start running bogus ballots through the machines, we’ve also got this:

BLACK PANTHERS WITH NIGHT STICKS BLOCK POLLING PLACE IN PHILLY

Two black panthers were blocking the doorway at a polling place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Rick Levanthal of Fox News is reporting live.

One of the panthers said “the black man was going to win the White House no matter what.”

Brandishing a night stick, and swinging it menacingly, the police were called – one of the black panthers and his night stick were moved.

Do you think little old white ladies would want to walk past the black panther with a night stick?

That story continues:

Leventhal interviewed a Republican poll observer who offered details of how he approached the entrance to the polling location — what appeared to be a multi-family apartment building — only to see the men “close ranks” in an attempt to stop him from entering.  Describing himself as an Army veteran, he said he was not afraid of the nightstick-wielding men and proceeded to walk between them and into the polling place to talk with officials inside.

A few minutes later, he said, he exited through the same doorway, was confronted by the men with the nightsticks and told them he wasn’t going to get into a fist fight with them.  After walking away, he called police and they ordered the most aggressive man to leave the polling location.

It’s at least getting a little bit of legitimate news coverage (youtube video).  A man with a camera and a couple of questions confronted the uniformed, billy-club weilding black panthers (youtube video).

In this world-turned-upside-down, it’s okay to be a member of a radical leftist organization with a violent past standing in front of a polling location intimidating voters; it is NOT okay to be a Republican poll watcher conducting lawful obversation and trying to keep the process honest.

This nation is heading for a disaster.  It is only a matter of time.

Media Frenzy over ABC Democratic Debate Reveals Leftist Bias

April 20, 2008

This was the best panorama of media reaction to the ABC-hosted Democratic debate in Philadelphia:

The Democratic debate in Philadelphia last night was dominated by a wall of stupid painstakingly constructed by ABC’s moderators, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.

Their obsession with trivia and avoidance of substance submerged this affair from its opening introduction. It’s hard to say it much better than Washington Post critic Tom Shales who leads off by saying that “Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances,” and then proceeds to say what he really thinks.

And he’s not alone…

Tom Shales (Washington Post) – “For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.”

Will Bunch (Philadelphia Daily News) – “By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself.”

Greg Mitchell (Editor and Publisher) – “In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia.”

Andrew Sullivan (The Atlantic) – “The loser was ABC News: one of the worst media performances I can remember – petty, shallow, process-obsessed, trivial where substantive, and utterly divorced from the actual issues that Americans want to talk about.”

Joanne Ostrow (Denver Post) – “Wednesday’s televised candidates’ debate from Philadelphia, tape delayed in Denver, got around to issues eventually. But the first round– devoted to pettiness and word obsession and gaffes– was more revealing.”

Joe Klein (Time) – “The ABC moderators clearly didn’t spend much time thinking about creative substantive gambits. They asked banal, lapidary questions, rather than trying to break new ground.”

Michael Grunwald (Time) – “At a time of foreign wars, economic collapse and environmental peril, the cringe-worthy first half of the debate focused on such crucial matters as Senator Obama’s comments about rural bitterness, his former pastor, an obscure sixties radical with whom he was allegedly “friendly,” and the burning constitutional question of why he doesn’t wear an American flag pin on his lapel.”

Richard Adams (The Guardian) – “A stinker, an absolute car crash – thanks to the host network ABC. It was worse than even those debates last year with 18 candidates on stage, including crazy old Mike Gravel.”

Noam Scheiber (New Republic) – “The first half of the debate felt like a 45-minute negative ad, reprising the most chewed over anti-Obama allegations (bittergate, Jeremiah Wright, patriotism) and even some relatively obscure ones (his vague association with former Weatherman radical Bill Ayers).”

Daniel Rubin (Philadelphia Inquirer) – “We’ve revisted bitter. We’ve gone back to Bosnia. We’ve dragged Rev. Wright back up onto the podium. We’ve mis-spent this debate by allowing Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos to ask questions that skirt what in my mind is what we need to know now. What would they do about the mess they’d inherit? The war. Health care. The economy. Stupid.”

Cathleen Decker and Noam N. Levey (Los Angeles Times) – With the moderators and Clinton raising assorted questions about Obama’s past for the first half of the debate, issues received relatively short shrift. Not until 50 minutes in was a policy issue — Iraq — asked about by the moderators. More than an hour went by before a question was asked about what Stephanopoulos called “the No. 1 issue on Americans’ minds” — the economy.”

Stephanoupolos defended himself by saying that voters are concerned with “…experience, character [and] credibility. You can’t find a presidential election where those issues didn’t come into play.”

The problem is that you can’t find a but a trace of questions in this debate where those issues did come into play. The moderators had obviously decided that they were going to chase petty controversy and ratings by focusing on tabloid trivialities. Their cynical smugness and conceit are a sad commentary on the state of journalism and politics.

MoveOn has started a petition to ask the media to “stop hurting the national dialogue in this important election year.”
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=866

My favorite, in terms of being a pure, unadulterated, over-the-top, self-righteous indignate hissy-fit, was Will Bunch’s “An Open Letter to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanapoulos.”
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041708B.shtml. You can almost feel the tears striking the keyboard as you read it.

A paraphrase from Shakespeare always goes a long way: “Methinks thou dost protest too much.”

If Will Bunch had become as livid when John McCain’s character was needlessly assaulted by the New York Times on the flimsiest of stories (notice how that whole female lobbyist story went away?), and had he similarly become this angry when President Bush was assaulted with charges of dodging service in the Vietnam War – complete with forged documents waved by CBS’ Dan Rather as proof of the crime – maybe I’d buy the “righteous” part of Bunch’s indignation.

But I’m afraid I smell the rabid rodent of liberal media bias.

I remember the craziness that followed CBS’ Bernard Goldberg’s 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.

As Goldberg related what happened in his book “Bias,” he received an angry phone call from a friend who had just watched the 8 February 1996 CBS EVening News. “Did you see that ‘Reality Check’ story? You got too many snippy wise guys doin’ the news.”

Goldberg asked his friend what the problem was. “You get a tape of the news and watch it. Then you tell me if there’s a problem.”

When Goldberg watched the news, he was shocked. Ostensibly, it was a story about presidential candidate Steve Forbes’ flat tax. In Goldberg’s own words, “But the more I watched the more I saw that this wasn’t simply about a presidential candidate and a tax plan. It was about something much bigger, something too much of big-time TV journalism had become: a showcase of smart-ass reporters with attitudes, reporters who don’t even pretend to hide their disdain for certain people and certain ideas that they and their sophisticated friends don’t particularly like.

I begin quoting Goldberg’s book Bias from page 21:

“Dan Rather introduced [CBS Washington correspondent Eric] Engberg’s piece with the standard stuff about how it would “look beyond the promises to the substance” of the Forbes flat tax…

Engberg’s voice covered pictures of Steve Forbes on the campaign trail. “Steve Forbes pitches his flat-tax scheme as an economic elixer, good for everything that ails us.”

Scheme? Elixer? What the hell kind of language is that, I [Goldberg] wondered. These were words that conjured up images of con artists, like Doctor Feelgood selling worthless junk out of the back of his wagon.

But that was just a little tease to get us into the tent. then Engberg interviewed three different tax experts. Every single one of them opposed the flat tax. Every single one! Where was the fairness and balance Rather was always preaching about? Wasn’t there any expert – even one – in the entire United States who thought the flat tax might work?

Of course there was. There was Milton Friedman and Merton Miller, both of the University of Chicago and both Nobel Prize winners in economics. There was James Buchanan of George Mason University, another Nobel laureate. There were also Harvey Rosen of Princeton, William Poole of Brown, and Robert Barro of Harvard. All of them were on the record as supporting the flat tax to one degree or another.

Engberg could have found a bunch of economists to support the flat tax, if he wanted to. But putting on a supporter of the flat tax would have defeated the whole purpose of the piece, which was to have a few laughs at Steve Forbes’ expense.

There was absolutely no way – not one chance in a million – that Engberg or Rather would have aired a flat-tax story with that same contemptuous tone if Teddy Kennedy or Hillary Clinton had come up with the idea.

But even if you opposed the flat tax, even if you thought it was a bad idea that helped only the wealthiest Americans – fat cats like Steve Forbes himself – what about simple journalistic fairness? What about presenting two sides? isn’t that what Rather was always saying CBS News was about: objectivity, fairness, balance?

And then Engberg crossed that fuzzy line that’s supposed to separate news from entertainment. He decided it was time to amuse his audience…

Which is why Eric Engberg decided to play David Letterman and do a takeoff of his Top Ten list.

“Forbes’ Number One Wackiest Flat-Tax Promise,” Engberg told the audience, is the candidate’s belief that it would give parents “more time to spend with their children and each other.”

Wacky? This was a perfectly acceptable word in the United States of Entertainment to describe, say, a Three Stooges movie. Or Hamlet, starring Jerry Lewis. Or My Fair Lady, with Chris Rock playing Professor Higgins.

But “wacky” seemed an odd word to describe a serious idea to overhaul America’s ten-trillion page tax code that enables lobbyists to donate tons of money to politicians who then use this same Byzantine tax code to hand out goodies to the very same special interests that just gave them all that money. If anything is “wacky,” it’s the current tax system, not an honest attempt to replace it with something new.

Besides, what Forbes meant is that since many Americans – not just the wealthy – would pay less tax under his plan, they might not have to work as many hours and might actually have more time to spend at home with their families. Maybe it’s true and maybe it isn’t, but is “wacky” the fairest and most objective way to describe it?

Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton’s health care plan “wacky”? Can you imagine Dan Rather or any other major American news anchorman allowing it?

And, finally, the coup de grace, the knife to Steve Forbes’ throat as Engberg went on camera to end his story. The “on camera,” as we call it in the TV news business, is when the reporter gets to look the viewer in the eye and deliver a sermonette. This is when the reporter, if he hasn’t been slanting the news story up to this point, will often give you a little editorial just to make sure you know how you’re supposed to think about the subject at hand. Eric Engberg ended his little vaudeville act thus: “The fact remains: The flat tax is a giant, untested theory. One economist suggested, before we put it in, we should test it out someplace – like Albania.” Engberg flashed his signature smirk and signed off – “Eric Engberg, CBS News, Washington.”

There is junk science and junk bonds. This was junk journalism.

Goldberg continued…

“…The left routinely uses words like “scheme” instead of the more neutral “plan” to describe tax cuts that favor “the wrong people.” Sometimes they put the word “risky” before “scheme” to make it sound really scary. Al Gore did precisely that, about a hundred times a day, when he was running for president against George W. Bush. I understand why Al Gore and other liberals call something they don’t like a “scheme.” Politicians and partisans are allowed to do that. But should supposedly objective people like news reports, people like Eric Engberg, use that kind of loaded language? Should a journalistic enterprise like CBS News – which claims to stand for fairness and objectivity – allow words like “scheme” and “wacky” in what is supposed to be a straight news story about a legitimate candidate running for president of the United States?

Engberg’s piece – its strident, mocking tone, its lack of objectivity, its purposeful omission of anyone who supported the flat tax – was like a TV commercial paid for by Opponents of the Steve Forbes Flat Tax.

From top to bottom the Engberg piece was breathtaking in its lack of fairness. So how could CBS have put it on the air?

Bernard Goldberg tried to talk to a number of executives at CBS before finally deciding to write his now famous op-ed. As he put it, “The way I saw it, I wasn’t taking on Engberg or Rather or CBS News for airing one snooty story about some politician’s tax plan. For me, this was about a nagging problem that none of the big shots would take seriously. It was about the liberal biases that overwhelm straight news reporting.”

Goldberg points out that “Jerry Kelly from Enterprise, Alabama [the friend who’d told Goldberg about the story] spotted the bias in the Engberg report. Jerry Kelly spotted the wise guy tone and the one-sidedness. And Jerry Kelly is a general building contractor, not a newsman.

Who didn’t find anything wrong with Engberg’s piece? First off, Engberg didn’t. His producer in Washington didn’t. The Evening News senior producer in Washington didn’t. Jeff Fager, the executive producer of the CBS Evening News in New York, didn’t. His team of senior producers in New York didn’t. Andrew Heyward, the CBS News president and Harvard Phi Beta Kappa, didn’t. And finally, Dan Rather, the anchorman and managing editor of the CBS Evening News, didn’t.

Not one of them spotted anything wrong with a story that no one should have let on the air in the first place” (29).

Had the story remained at this point, it would have at best remained a single sorry episode of bias. One story among thousands. But Goldberg – after trying in vain to get somebody, anybody, to focus on a very real problem – got his dander up and decided to take the initiative and go outside of his network to expose this incredibly blatant case of bias and thus focus attention on a national issue that went far beyond CBS.

So Goldberg wrote his op-ed piece: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001668

The resulting media firestorm over a senior award-winning network news journalist writing about bias in the media was enormous – and nearly universally painted Bernard Goldberg in a negative light. Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings joined Dan Rather in attacking Goldberg. A lot of media power-players dialed a lot of numbers from their media roledexes and got a lot of airtime and ink condemning Golderg’s character and integrity as well as his objectivity. Rather than seriously examining the facts of Goldberg’s case, the focus quickly became Bernard Goldberg himself.

“Bob Schieffer, the chief Washington correspondent for CBS News, told the Washington Post, “It’s just such a wacky charge, and a weird way to go about it… I don’t know what Bernie was driving at. It just sounds bizarre” (39).

Wacky. Weird. Bizarre. There were those words again.

Dan Rather – who would, in 2004, show America just what it looked like to REALLY be a political hack, labeled Goldberg “a political opportunist” (36). In another interview, Rather claimed Goldberg was trying to intimidate him into reporting the news his way (38). It was pure, over-the-top paranoia.

Andrew Heyward, the president of ABC News, told Goldberg that writing his op-ed amounted to “an act of disloyalty” and “a betrayal of trust.” And when Goldberg pointed out that he could have quoted Heyward himself to have essentially agreed with him that the news was biased, Heyward screamed in his face, “That would have been like raping my wife and kidnapping my kids!

Which is why I read all these over-the-top media rants I listed above and think, “Yep. I’ve heard this before.”

One of The New York Times’ heaviest hitters, veteran political analyst R.W. “Johnny” Apple, said on CNN’s Reliable Sources, “He [Goldberg] has simply stabbed this guy [Engberg] in the back” (41).

Goldberg points out that “whistleblowers” are always sacred cows for news organizations – unless they’re trying to expose the news media. Then they get downright mean. He pointed out that the media – unlike any other enterprise, looks into everyone else’s business for a living, and that therefore it is entirely reasonable and necessary that they permit an examination of themselves (and in fact blatantly hypocritical NOT to permit an examination of themselves). But they won’t. Goldberg writes, “Liberals in the media – who would have come down with the vapors if a conservative CEO had so much as given a reporter a dirty look – didn’t flinch when CBS News executives took me off the air and suggested I might be fired because they saw me as a whistle-blower, which, the bst I could figure, made me the first whistle-blower in history who wasn’t turned into a national hero by the media.”

The way the media circled the wagons, the way they ganged up on Goldberg and did everything they could to trivialize his revelation by turning away from his substance to personal attacks displayed just how radically biased the media was.

And still is.

Also in 1996, the Freedom Forum and the Roper Center released the results of a now famous survey of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents (the epicenter of the media world – the heartbeat of journalism, if you will. Both the Freedom Forum and thand Roper Center had attained a solid reputation for independence. “No way that the data are the fruit of right-wing press bashers,” as journalist Ben Wattenberg put it. The results were stunning.

* 89% of these significant journalist said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, compared with just 43% of nonjournalist voters.

7% of the journalists voted for George H.W. Bush, as opposed to 37% of the general electorate.

* 50% said they were Democrats. Only 4% said they were Republicans.

* When asked to characterize their political orientation, 61% said “liberal” or “moderate to liberal.” Only 9% said they were “conservative” or “moderate to conservative.”

As Goldberg puts it, “89% voted for Bill Clinton. This is incredible when you think about it. There’s hardly a candidate in the entire United States of America who carries his/her district with 89% of the vote. This is way beyond mere landslide numbers. The only politicians who get numbers like that are called Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein.” … The Washington Post’s Sally Quinn said “The Washington press corps is not some monolith… We all work for different organizations. We all think differently.” [But] “The same journalists that Sally Quinn tell us do not constitute a “monolith” certainly vote like one” (129).

And the 1992 election was no fluke. A 1972 poll showed that of those reporters who voted, 70% went for McGovern, the most liberal presidential candidate in memory, while 25% voted for Nixon – in a landslide year when Richard Nixon carried every single state in the country except Massachusetts.

In 1985 the Los Angeles Times conducted a nationwide survey of about 3,000 journalists and the same number of people in the general public to see how each group felt about the major issues of the day:

* 23% of the public said they were liberal; 55% of journalists described themselves as liberal.
* 56% of the public favored Ronald Reagan; 30% of the journalists favored Reagan.
*49% of the public was for a woman’s right to have an abortion; 82% of the journalists was for such a right of a woman to choose abortion.
* 74% of the public was for prayer in the public schools; 25% of the journalists were in favor of prayer in public schools.
* 56% of the public was for affirmative action; 81% of the journalists were in favor of affirmative action.
* 75% of the public was for the death penalty; 47% of the journalists were in favor of the death penalty.
* 50% of the public was for stricter gun control; 78% of the journalists were for stricter gun control.

More recently, Fox News’ Britt Hume ran a story titled “Cash Coverage.” I will quote Britt Hume’s report, but provide the link to John Lott’s 31 March 2008 article itself:

“University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott Jr. says news coverage of the economy is slanted. Lott writes, “Over 78 percent more negative news stories discussed a recession when the economy — under a Republican president was soaring than occurred under a Democrat when the economy was shrinking.”

Lott — who researched 12,500 newspaper and wire service articles from 1985 through 2004 — also found that Democratic presidents got positive headlines 15 percent more of the time than Republican presidents for the same economic news.

Of his findings Lott writes, “The media’s focus on the negative side of everything surely helps explain people’s pessimism… Indeed, research has indicated that media bias is real.”
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/FoxNewsRecessionMyth033108.html

Yesterday, I got in an argument with a man I know who works at Wal Mart. He claimed that the economy is far worse than it ever was under Clinton. I pointed out that this is simply not true. He claimed that its harder to find a job than ever before. Today (April 19) I can point to a Press Enterprise story (titled “Area trims more jobs”) by Josh Brown that at 7.1% unemployment, the Inland California region is suffering its worst jobless rate since… July 1995, when Bill Clinton was president. But due to biased coverage, no one seems to be able to remember that.

Indeed, a study of the unemplyment rate (http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp) through October 2007 shows that – Despite inheriting a Recession from the Clinton Administration (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/20/190717.shtml), being forced to manage through a series of corporate scandals with roots in the Clinton years, and having to recover from the 9-11 attacks that crippled the US economy, the average monthly unemployment rate during the Bush years now bests the Clinton years: 5.2049 to 5.2052.

Here’s a quote from Professor John Lott’s article:

“Indeed, research has indicated that media bias is real. Kevin Hassett and I looked at 12,620 newspaper and wire service headlines from 1985 through 2004 for stories on the release of official government releasing numbers on the unemployment rate, number of people employed, gross domestic product (GDP), retail sales, and durable goods.

Even after accounting for how well the economy was doing (e.g., what the unemployment rate was and whether it was going up or down), there was still a big difference in how positive or negative the headlines were. Democratic presidents got about 15 percentage points more positive headlines than Republicans for the same economic news.”

Here are links to recent, significant studies that show that the media continues to trend way over to the left of the general public. The first study comes from the Center for Media and Public Affairs and the second comes from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=376809&PHPSESSID=9f062c3b00054dddd759712c55999870

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/03/19/four-times-more-journalists-identify-liberal-conservative

James Glassman once put it this way on the Washington Post. “The people who report the stories are liberal Democrats. This is the shameful open secret of American journalism. That the press itself … choses to gloss over it is conclusive evidence of how pernicious the bias is.”

So I look at the media’s reaction to the tough questions directed at Hillary Clinton and (mostly) at Barack Obama, and I understand the plainly visceral reaction against the questions by Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.

I remember that it took a Saturday Night Live sketch – set in a debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – that displayed for all the world to see a caricaturization of the gross, one-sided, nearly adoring coverage that the media gave to Barack Obama in lopsided manner. Hillary Clinton, in the ones of one editorialist, was learning what it was like to be treated like a Republican.

Whether the media goes after every political candidate’s “negatives,” or whether they refuse to go after any candidate’s “negatives,” I really don’t care. What I do care about is that they are objective and fair in their coverage. What I have bee seeing since the Democratic debate in Philidelphia, is what appears to be a media campaign of a screaming, ranting, crying frenzy being directed over negative questions being raised against Barack Obama in an effort to stifle any future questions that reflect poorly on him.

In my view, Gibson and Stephanopoulos recognized that the media was simply not going after the Democratic candidates (Obama especially) on the campaign trail, and forcing them to answer tough, legitimate questions. Thus the Wright scandal, the “bitter… clinging” remark, the “flag pin” (and, by the way, the picture that shows every Democratic candidate with hand over heart except Barack Obama, whose hands are clasped at his groin-level), and the “Bosnia sniper fire” were all fair game for an objectively fair debate.

Some Bernard Goldberg article references:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/3/215106.shtml

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/bernard_goldberg.htm

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95000520