Washington Post's October Surprise

An eleven-year old tape of Trump bantering about sexy women has been found and released by the Washington Post.  How relevant is this peccadillo, really, to Trump's ability to lead the nation as president? None at all.  It is more dirty pool by the Democrat media in support of their fellow far-leftist and candidate.

The audio was made when Trump was talking with another man at some public event, not realizing that his microphone was still on, and being recorded.

Of course, the Democrat media is saying that this is the end of Trump's candidacy, and cuckservatives like Reince Priebus and Paul Ryan are joining their fellow liberals in denouncing Trump.  Trump's candidacy has been continually attacked by both Democrats and Republicans, ever since he won the primaries.  It will be difficult for Trump to win now.  One thing is for sure, however, is that for me, the GOP is dead.  Give me another party (not the idiotic libertarians) and I will change my registration immediately.

In the remaining two debates, Trump really must aggressively attack Hillary for being the manager of her husband's "bimbo eruptions," i.e. by hiding Bill's many extra-marital affairs while running for office.  Not only did she try to hide Bill's sexual predation against other women, she intimidated and threatened the other women in order to shut them up.

If you're going to lose, Donald, go down fighting like a bastard.

UPDATE:  Read the history of Bill Clinton's sexual escapades here.

Life Long Democrat and News Reporter Helen Thomas Memorialized In Stone #HelenThomas

Ms. Thomas is the figure on the right.

Helen Thomas, former White House reporter, has died at age 92, proving once again that only the good die young.

Ms. Thomas was continuously acerbic, hostile and aggressive with every Republican president, not so much with Democrats, the party to which she belonged.  Her lasting memorial should probably be to Media Bias.

Thomas's long journalistic career finally ended some months ago when she was asked what the Jews of Israel should do, and replied "Get the hell out of Palestine."  Her pro-terrorist, antisemitic remark stirred up a firestorm of rage and criticism, and she quickly retired.

Now that she has died, there is a rumor that Ms. Thomas will be memorialized in stone, overlooking ancient European cathedrals and historic buildings (see picture).

If you don't like this memorial, don't blame me, I only read about it at Blazing Cat Fur.

Update:  American Power also has words of praise for Ms. Thomas at this link.

Mainstream Media Hysterics Indicative of Someone Who's Losing and Knows It -- In Spite of Their Favorable Polls

Legal Insurrection has called the bias and hysterical tone of the mainstream media (the MSM)  "so far beyond bad it's almost indescribable."  Indeed, the mainstream media, long in the tank for Obama, seem to be having some sort of nervous breakdown.

This past week Right Scoop learned that MSM reporters discussed among themselves what to ask Romney at a press conference, coordinating their questions for maximum embarrassment of the Republican candidate (or so they hoped).  The coordinated line of questioning was something along the lines of, "Are you sorry for your reckless and damaging statements about the President's handling of the [unavoidable and unforseeable] Libyan tragedy?"  And "When do you plan to resign in disgrace because of it?"

In an earlier post today I listed the MSM headlines about Romney's critique that show extreme bias in an attempt to spin the debacle as somehow more damaging to Romney than to Obama's ineptitude in foreseeing and avoiding the contingency (he is said to have had 48 hours advance warning, but did nothing).

But why the hysteria if Obama is so far ahead in the polls?  Is it because the polls are fake, and the MSM knows it?  Is Obama headed towards an electoral wipe out in November?

That possibility is put forth in an American Spectator article called The Problem With Obama's Polls.  Every winning Republican presidential candidate from Ronald Reagan forward has been behind in the polls, usually by a significant number, but who then went on to win by a significant percentage over their Democrat opponent.  

Democrats faking polls would appear to be nothing new.  I suspect, however, that the MSM knows the real numbers are not quite so rosy for the Democrats.  If so, that would explain a lot about the MSM's recent loony behavior.

Update:  William L. Gensert at the American Thinker believes Obama will lose in a landslide, and tells why he thinks so.  Read The Empty Chair Is Losing.

Obama Propaganda Belt Opens Up On Romney

Mitt Romney rightly criticized Obama's inept handling of the recent (and apparently, ongoing) attacks on our embassies in the Middle East. Muslim fanatics storm our embassies and kill several Americans, and Obama underlings apologize to the murderers.  The Cairo Embassy apologized:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.

Romney said:

The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached; protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it's a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values; that instead -- when our grounds are being attacked and being breached -- that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. An apology for America's values is never the right course.

And he said this:

It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

This morning the newspapers and pundits, who are little more than a propaganda belt for Democrats, are attacking Romney for this and other, milder critiques he made of the Obama response.  In fact, if you read only their headlines, you would be unaware of any anti-American attacks in the Middle East.  You would, however, be made aware of some horrible, insensitive, inappropriate "opportunist" comment made by Mitt Romney (i.e., the one quoted above).

Here are the journo-whores for Obama and their propaganda efforts (copied and pasted from RealClearPolitics.Com):

Romney's Major Meltdown - Gail Collins, New York Times
Romney Has Mess to Clean Up on Libya - Dana Milbank, Washington Post
Romney's in Trouble, Election Slipping Away - Joe Scarborough, Politico
Romney's Crass Opportunism - Ed Kilgore, Washington Monthly

Notice journalism's joke, Joe Scarborough of Pinko Politico, saying that "Romney's in trouble, election slipping away."  This morning's Rasmussen Poll [the only poll I trust] shows Romney leading Obama 47% - 46%.  The race is still tight, but to say it is "slipping away" is ludicrous, a transparently self-serving attempt to influence  public opinion with gross exaggeration.  If anything, the race is moving in Romney's direction, despite the anti-Romney media propaganda.

Never before in my lifetime has the mainstream media been so nonobjective, biased and agenda-driven. Disgusting!

Media "Fact Checkers" Mostly Biased, Left-Wing Shills

Ann Coulter once wrote about liberal  bias in the news media.  She pointed out how the major networks have so-called "experts" ready to attack any Republican policies or initiatives or arguments with so-called "expert" opinions.  Contrary opinions by other experts are generally not presented.

Using computer search software, Lexus-Nexus, she found that the same "experts" are quoted over and over, from one controversy to another.  The ruse wasn't confined to "experts," but also to the opinion of the common "man on the street."  One "common man on the street" was quoted several times in several different news stories.  Hardly a random choice, the man was someone whose liberal opinion could  be counted on.

It was obvious that the mainstream media are biased and attempt to present a false picture of objectivity in any controversy.  The truth is, they are utterly biased, left-wing shills.  Their object is not to present facts, but to influence public opinion leftward, by any mean necessary.

Today we learn that the so-called "Fact Checkers" in the political campaign of 2012 are again, fake, false and phony.  John Nolte at Breitbart gives this background in his expose of the phony "fact-checkers":

All throughout 2008, I watched as Obama's Media Palace Guards at Politifact, CNN, the Washington Post, and elsewhere, did everything in their corrupt power to blunt criticism of Obama by, at best, spouting their left-wing version of the truth and, at worst, outright lying.

Happily, Mitt Romney isn't so easily manipulated as was the compliant and ineffective John McCain.  False "facts" by the liberal shills in media will not influence his stated opinions nor blunt his attack on Obama's record.  Read it all here.

Democrat Media Trying Hard to Deflect Unpleasant Truths

Update:  On June 7, 2012 Rush Limbaugh covered this very same topic with essentially the same arguments that I make below.

Back in the day when Fidel Castro was taking over Cuba, people on the right asserted that Castro was a communist.  The Democrat media (which consists of the great majority of major newspapers and television networks) denied that Fidel was a commie.  He and his band of murdering thugs were merely "agrarian reformers."

Agrarian reformers.  Yeah right.

Now we have a president whose mother was a radical leftist and whose childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a card-carrying Communist:

 ....through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”

Various sources state that Ann Dunham was a communist sympathizer and Obama's father was a Marxist.  I have not found sufficient source material to verify this.  However, Obama's association with communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn are well publicized and well known.  (Frank Marshall Davis was a close friend of Bill Ayers' father.)  Obama's socialist activism, however, has largely been ignored by the mainstream press.  For instance:

Obama’s socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the “champions” of “Chicago’s democratic left” and a long-time socialist activist. Obama’s stint as a “community organizer” in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.

However, no matter how well documented Obama's socialist and Communist ties, the mainstream media continues to deflect public attention away from these facts, to deny that they are true, and to cover them up. The Associated Press writes:

But to many historians and political scientists - and to actual socialists as well - the persistent claim that Obama is a socialist lacks credence.

He's widely seen as a pragmatist within the Democratic Party mainstream who's had ample success raising campaign funds from wealthy Wall Street capitalists. Even some of his strongest critics acknowledge that his administration hasn't sought one of the classic forms of socialism - government control of the nation's means of production.

So we see that the new term for "agrarian reformer" is "Democratic pragmatist."  Pragmatism my foot.  There is nothing pragmatic about Obama's policies, which are ruining the economy.

The last line in the AP statement above is particularly ludicrous.  The Socialist strategy has always been a gradual usurpation on the way to controlling the means of production, as well as a Gramscian "march through the institutions" and a slow poisoning of America's culture and soul, to kill resistance imperceptibly (e.g. as in the "boil the frog" analogy), but kill it nevertheless.  An out-and-out grab or even an expressed desire for such an outcome would put the Democratic Party out of business for years, if not permanently.  Even Obama isn't that stupid.

But he has made a serious effort to take control of the automobile industry and the financial sector, not to mention an out-and-out grab of the health care industry.  His carbon-credits "cap and trade" scheme would have redistributed billions in wealth from the productive to the non-productive, a key Socialist goal, albeit disguised as a way to combat [non-existent] global warming.

Yes, Obama is definitely a socialist.  Or worse.  That's a fact that not even the highly biased Associated Press can cover up.

Did Hollywood Shooter Shout "Alihu Akbar"? Did Lincoln Free the Slaves?

Self-delusion takes many forms, and Americans are hardly immune to replacing reality with myths and fantasies.

Yesterday, some schmuck in Hollywood walked down the street firing random shots from a handgun, wounding one person.  The police arrived on the scene and promptly shot him dead.  (Thank God for the police, who always man the skirmish line between civilization and chaos.)

Now some people are saying the 26 year old man, one Tyler Brehm, was shouting the Muslim war cry "Alihu Akbar" as he fired the shots.  If true, none of the mainstream media are reporting this aspect of the incident.  We have all noted how the MSM filters the news, deliberately omitting facts that could have a bearing on public opinion and the safety of the American people.  Never mentioning the Muslim connection to crimes is at the top of their list.  Many reports still refuse to mention Major Nidal Hassan's radical Muslim ties in the Fort Hood shooting and massacre.  They refer to it as "workplace violence" instead of what it was, Islamic violence based on religious beliefs in jihad.  It was Hassan's belief in Islam that compelled him to commit mass murder.

I don't know if Tyler Brehm was a Muslim or not.  He could very well have been nuts, acting out a scenario he learned from somewhere (probably not the MSM).   However, this latest incident proves that many Americans have an irrational belief in reality-alteration:  if you refuse to admit unpleasant truths, well then they just aren't true after all.  Islam isn't violent unless we SAY Islam is violent, external reality notwithstanding.

Conservatives, as a whole, aren't any better than liberals in this regard.  This was made clear this week when Zo of Zo-Nation, of Pajamas Media, called for the permanent furling of the Confederate flag.  Such foolish comments always set off a round of nasty debates on the Civil War:  who was right?  What was the reason for the war?  The short and sweet answer is that the South was right and the North completely, irrefutably and indelibly wrong.

Many conservatives continue to insist that Abraham Lincoln was the second coming, a great prophet of racial equality, human rights and enlightenment, who had no choice but to fight the Civil War in order to free the slaves, because he was just so darned moral and righteous.  He wasn't.  What he was, was a ruthless politician who hated blacks and loved high taxes and a strong central government.  His rule was a reign of terror.  The mass death and destruction didn't bother him.  He was concerned with the larger questions, like, "Let the South secede?  Who will pay my tariff?"

Lincoln is a historic fraud whose statue in Washington D.C. should be jackhammered into rubble and thrown into the Potomac.  He was the antithesis of everything that conservatives are supposed to believe in, and there's the rub.  We love limited government, the rule of law and the Constitution, yet we worship a man who was the exact opposite of our ideal.

Lately I have been arguing with "conservatives" over at YouTube over Zo's unfortunate claim that it is "time to furl the Confederate flag."  Needless to say, I weighed in, dispelling the Northern myth with facts, only to receive in return some rather vicious, insulting and hateful responses.  "Conservatives," like liberals, get mightily pissed when their shining myths are replaced with the cold and sober truth.  Will that make me shut up?  Not on your life.

Politico's Propaganda: "The Do-Nothing Congress"

It's easy to see through left-leaning Politico and the themes they want to propagate.  The latest is that of the "do-nothing" congress.  Harry Truman used this slogan to defeat Republicans in 1948 and Politico is dusting it off and hoping for a repeat of that success.

Politico whines:

Just 18 bills have become law through the first half of 2011, and 15 of those named a building after someone, temporarily extended expiring laws or appointed an official to the board of the Smithsonian Institution. Congress can’t decide what to do on critical issues like Libya, spending or the nation’s debt limit, and no compromise is in sight on a host of other issues.

Then Politico spits out:

Not that it matters substantively. When Congress is in, all it does is bash Obama.

This is really an objective article, isn't it?

Yes, Congress is unable to accomplish much in this highly partisan atmosphere, but will be able to accomplish a lot more with a Republican president and senate in January of 2013.  Let's all work for that.

Meanwhile, read Politico's Democrat advertisement here.

Yellow Journalism: New York Daily News' Hit Piece on Pamela Geller

I noticed from sitemeter that most of my hits today are focused on a prior post that shows Pamela Geller in a bikini.  I wondered why until I went over to Atlas Shrugs and read this post:

HIT PIECE: NEW YORK DAILY NEWS DHIMMIS DOWN ON NYC BUS CAMPAIGN: FREEDOM BUSES HIT NYC

The Daily News article is very antagonistic towards Geller's advertising campaign on the sides of city buses in major cities.  The ad campaign is an outreach to Muslims planning to leave Islam, offering advice and support.  This is necessary to save lives, since Muslims have a nasty habit of murdering "apostates."

The Daily News article resorts to guilt-by-association and ad hominem attacks against Geller, referring to her as a "rabble rouser," "racy rightwinger," and "archconservative" with "Tea Party ties."  It is obvious that the unprofessional reporters who wrote this drivel are merely serving up red meat to their leftwing readers.  There is no pretense at objectivity.

The article refers to Geller appearing in a bikini in various posts and videos, and refers to her pose in a superman suit on her blog.  Obviously, if Geller is a beautiful, sexy woman she can't be taken seriously.

Other liberal rags that took this path (of brazenly biased partisanship) have failed and are on their way to bankruptcy.  See Newsweek, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle.  The general public is quite able to distinguish between a hit piece and legitimate journalism, and abandon such "news" outlets for more reliable and objective information.

In years past, such journalistic malfeasance was known as "yellow journalism."  Ironically, the practice began with two New York newspapers (per Oracle Thinkquest:):

Yellow journalism, in short, is biased opinion masquerading as objective fact. Moreover, the practice of yellow journalism involved sensationalism, distorted stories, and misleading images for the sole purpose of boosting newspaper sales and exciting public opinion. It was particularly indicative of two papers founded and popularized in the late 19th century- The New York World, run by Joseph Pulitzer and The New York Journal, run by William Randolph Hearst.

The Mystery of Ellie Light

Patterico's Pontifications has a worthy post on the mysterious letter writer named "Ellie Light."  Ellie Light has written dozens of letters supporting Obama to various newspapers across the United States, giving local addresses each time.  Who is Ellie Light, and does she really own dozens of houses?

I ran "Ellie Light" through Zabasearch.com, an online database of listed phone numbers, and there wasn't a single listing for an Ellie Light anywhere in the United States.  Ellie Light does not exist.

It appears highly probable that "Ellie Light" is the pen name of a Democrat operative or group of operatives, trying to influence public opinion by pretending to be a "concerned citizen."  Nice try, "Ellie."

Such shenanigans are not new.  Ann Coulter noted in one of her books that CBS was in the habit of interviewing the same "individual citizen" on many issues of the day, the same guy over and over.  In Bernie Goldberg's book "Bias," he mentions how big media use "experts" over and over to pontificate on the rightness of liberal politics.  The "experts" are quite biased but the public doesn't know that.  The idea is to provide media bias cleverly disguised as objective "expert" or "grass-roots" opinion.

See also Left Coast Rebel for additional details of this controversy.

Ben Bernanke is Time's "Person of the Year"

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has been named Time Magazine's "Person of the Year."

Many folks think Bernanke is a disaster, but at least Time didn't choose Nancy Pelosi, who was on the final list of possible choices.  Shudder!

Sarah Palin and the Blazing Media Bias of Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican firebrand Sarah Palin invaded the city she loves to hate on Saturday and rubbed shoulders with the herd of journalists she usually holds in disdain.

The above headline penned by Reuters news agency says more about them than it does Sarah Palin.  It is another example of liberal media bias on steroids. 

The intro has four highly emotive words with negative connotations.  In one sentence Reuters describes Palin as an "invader," a "hater," some kind of fanatic (a "firebrand") who "loves to hate" and who holds people in contempt, i.e. she disdains them.  You can also infer from the comment that she is also a hypocrite, as she is now "rubbing shoulders" with the persons disdained.


Disgusting.  See it for yourself here.

Webster's definitions: 
firebrand:  one that creates unrest or strife (as in aggressively promoting a cause) : agitator
invader:  1 : to enter for conquest or plunder  2 : to encroach upon : infringe
disdains:  a feeling of contempt for someone or something regarded as unworthy or inferior : scorn

Time Magazine: Covers for Propaganda

Clifton of Another Black Conservative asked me to write a guest article for his blog.  It's called "The Propaganda of Time Magazine Covers."  The latest Time visual propaganda was the cover featuring Glenn Beck sticking his tongue out.  However, this was only one in a long line of anti-Republican themes.

Over at Another Black Conservative I link to several of the more obnoxious Time covers of the past.  Read it here.

Governor Blagojevich: Proof That All Democrats Are Corrupt Crooks?

This past week was interesting. A Democrat Governor, Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, was arrested on corruption charges. Seems he was trying to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder. Amateur! If he was any good at being a crook he would have auctioned off the Washington Monument. In any case, he has greatly embarrassed the mainstream media and the Democrat Party.

When the news first broke I knew at once that Blagojevich was a Democrat. That's because no where in the great spectrum of the mainstream media, in print or online, was there any mention of Blagojevich's party affiliation. This is always a dead giveaway that the culprit is a Democrat. They always broadcast in bold, capitalized, large font letters REPUBLICAN whenever the creep of the week is one of ours. When the creep is a Democrat, his party affiliation is treated as totally irrelevant and clearly not worth mentioning.

Contrast this with that slimy venue know as MSN. They ran a photo of three Republicans, side by side, on the day the Republican National Convention opened last summer. One was Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the other was that gay bathroom footsie guy Senator Larry Craig of Idaho and I forget the other; however, they were all disgraced Republican politicians. The MSN headline was that these were three Republicans who weren't planning to visit the Convention. It was brazen bias and a transparent attempt to besmirch all Republicans with the taint of these three schmucks. The message was clear: whenever you think of the Republican National Convention, think of Stevens, Craig et al. I was so disgusted that I ended, once and for all, using MSN.com as my home page. I made Fox News my home page instead.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I reserve the right to emulate mainstream media reporting techniques. Here goes:

When DEMOCRAT Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois attempted to corruptly and criminally sell Obama's Senate seat, was he sending a clear message that the Democrat Party believes itself above the law? Since Blago was Obama's BFF, or best friend forever, how much did Obama know and when did he know it? What was Obama's take to be in the sordid undertaking? Since Obama admits to using cocaine earlier in life, was his share of the loot to be used to fund drug dealers? Was he planning to fund a cocaine party in the Lincoln bedroom? Is it true that Obama kicks puppies and hates butterflies? Shouldn't he just resign now and spare the country the trouble of impeachment? Should all Democrats be stripped of their US citizenship, assuming they have any, and exported to the nearest banana republic of their choice?

Think about it.

Why the Media Are So Flagrantly Biased

An epiphany!

Michelle Malkin has a post that says the New York Times is nearing "junk bond" status in its credit rating. The leftwing rag is losing money and failing. Malkin foresees a "bail out plea" from the Times, and suddenly it all makes sense. Or so says Mark Steyn.

He writes at the Corner:

The reason the press are going to such shameless lengths to drag Obama across the finish line is because he's their last best hope at restoring the old media environment, including a new Unfairness Doctrine for radio, and regulation of the Internet. The Obama's-already-won-give-it-up-you-GOP-losers stories are intended only to demoralize turnout. Bear in mind, that round about 5pm Eastern on Election Day, they'll be doing those stories at industrial strength, in order to clobber any Republican voters still dumb enough to think it's worth making the trip to the polls.

I get it! The mainstream media are failing financially and want to wipe out the competition, i.e. conservative talk radio and the internet. Their only hope for accomplishing that is to get Obama elected. This election is more than a political preference for them, it is about their long-term economic survival.

I don't feel sorry for the bastards. By creating a monopoly on opinion for so many years, they assured the arise of the competition that is now threatening them. But it does explain why the MSM has become so unprofessional, openly biased and Machiavellian in their reporting. They're desperate. Be sure and vote Republican and help them into their well deserved bankruptcy.

Biased Polls for Obama Create a "Bandwagon" Effect

William Tate at the American Thinker shows how liberal media skew polls in an effort to create a bandwagon effect for their candidate and to "lead" voters. These tactics include an oversampling of Democrats which bias the results.

He writes:

In case you doubt the impact that a media poll can have, consider this from an independent study following the 2004 presidential election:
"During presidential elections, poll results frequently are presented in the news. Reporters use these polls to tell the public what it thinks about the presidential candidates. We argue that polling results tell the public what it should think about the presidential candidates as well."
- Bruce W. Hardy and Kathleen Hall Jamieson

Also:

Polls are manipulated in a number of ways, including question wording, the order in which questions are asked, and how respondents are chosen. Rebecca Goldin, Ph.D, points out in an article at www.stats.org: "One of the big issues is who is sampled. Gallup is currently listing two polls, one 'traditional' poll of likely voters, which consists of those respondents who have previously voted, and an 'expanded' likely voter pool, consisting of respondents who are likely to vote but have not necessarily voted in a prior election. One could argue that those who didn't vote in the last election are unlikely to be voters this time around -- but there have been record numbers of new voters registering, and substantial evidence that young people are enthusiastic about voting in this election.

Perhaps their voices should count in the polls (in both cases, Gallup reports an Obama lead -- but the amount of the lead differs significantly)."

Pollsters acknowledge that they are oversampling among three demographics that the Obama campaign is targeting: young people, minorities and Democrats. It's entirely possible that there will be high turnout among those groups, despite traditionally low turnout among the former two, but it's also possible -- maybe even likely -- that this higher turnout could be offset by the Bradley effect.

Read it all here.

In other words, polls can be intentionally biased and undoubtedly are in this election, to create a false air of inevitability for an Obama win, with a discouraging effect on Republicans, Republican turnout and donations to the McCain campaign.

Don't listen to the polls. The only one that counts is on November 4th.

McCain Slams New York Times for Obvious Bias and Slant

From John McCain's website, he responds to the NY Times recent (false) allegations that McCain's Campaign Manager is on the payroll of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

A Partisan Paper of Record Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times' reporting, Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with...Paul Begala.

Again, let us be clear: The New York Times -- in the absence of any supporting evidence -- has insinuated some kind of impropriety on the part of Senator McCain and Rick Davis. But entirely missing from the story is any significant mention of Senator McCain's long advocacy for, and co-sponsorship of legislation to enact, stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- dating back to 2006. Please see the attached floor statement on this issue by Senator McCain from 2006.

To the central point our campaign has made in the last 48 hours: The New York Times has never published a single investigative piece, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod, his consulting and lobbying clients, and Senator Obama. Likewise, the New York Times never published an investigative report, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson and Senator Obama, who appointed Johnson head of his VP search committee, until the writing was on the wall and Johnson was under fire following reports from actual news organizations that he had received preferential loans from predatory mortgage lender Countrywide.

Therefore this "report" from the New York Times must be evaluated in the context of its intent and purpose. It is a partisan attack falsely labeled as objective news. And its most serious allegations are based entirely on the claims of anonymous sources, a familiar yet regretful tactic for the paper.

We all understand that partisan attacks are part of the political process in this country. The debate that stems from these grand and sometimes unruly conversations is what makes this country so exceptional. Indeed, our nation has a long and proud tradition of news organizations that are ideological and partisan in nature, the Huffington Post and the New York Times being two such publications. We celebrate their contribution to the political fabric of America. But while the Huffington Post is utterly transparent, the New York Times obscures its true intentions -- to undermine the candidacy of John McCain and boost the candidacy of Barack Obama -- under the cloak of objective journalism.

The New York Times is trying to fill an ideological niche. It is a business decision, and one made under economic duress, as the New York Times is a failing business. But the paper's reporting on Senator McCain, his campaign, and his staff should be clearly understood by the American people for what it is: a partisan assault aimed at promoting that paper’s preferred candidate, Barack Obama.

Statement by Senator John McCain, May 25, 2006:
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

A Must Read: The Left's Crooked Umpires

Bruce Walker has posted a must-read article on liberal media-bias at the American Thinker website. He writes:

Atlantic Monthly runs an article on John McCain. A photographer, Jill Greenberg, takes pictures of McCain for the piece. She deliberately takes awful photographs, using her skill as a professional to make the senator look as offensive as possible. Charlie Gibson, given the chance to help Americans to get to know the most interesting political figure in decades, uses that opportunity to score cheap political points to demean her instead. These are two perfect examples of the Leftist bias of the media.

But what is it, really, that offends us so much about this bias? What bothers us about bias in the mainstream media is that the Left lies about its bias. It pretends to be an objective collegial body of neutral professionals. It conceals its opinions and pretends instead to be an honest umpire of the facts. It tries to trick us.

Read it all here.

The New York Times Hit Piece on Sarah Palin

Tomorrow, Sunday, the New York Times will publish a hit piece on Sarah Palin. It begins:

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.

The article that follows, however, fails to support the opening paragraph with other than the thinnest of argumentation. The Times admits that Sarah Palin, as Governor, was both effective and accessible.

So she fired some people and stepped on their toes: that's what we like about her! Get rid of the dead wood, the leeches and the incompetent. Do we expect them so say nice things about her now? No. So she hired "friends," otherwise known as loyal people whose work and character she knows and trusts. GOOD LORD, stop the presses!

The Times, it should be remembered, is a Democrat newspaper that has steadfastly failed to do any analysis on Barack Obama and his radical associations. Hit pieces are reserved for Republicans. Maybe that's why the New York Times' fortunes are in the descent, with loss of advertising revenues and layoffs. We're onto you, Times.

Read the whole story at Commentary Magazine. Hat tip to Mark Hemingway at the Corner.

Hemingway comments:

But again, the whole thing is just appalling. The New York Times hasn't begun to investigate Obama's deeply problematic background, nor have they run anything about him that has such an obvious and cringe inducing negative slant. Alas, it's just par for the course at the Times.

Yeah, until the Times goes bankrupt. I can hardly wait.

Media Bias Against Sarah Palin Backfires

Michelle Malkin has the story on how 10,000 US Weekly magazine subscribers have canceled their subscription (so far) because of the issue that hit the stands today.

Seems the publishers of Us Weekly thought they could get away with such an obvious hit job and not be affected by it. They were wrong.

Drudge has a report today of how Oprah Winfrey refuses to invite Sarah Palin to be interviewed on her show, in spite of requests by her viewers and the obvious spike in viewers this would bring, not to mention the high-paying advertisers. Should Winfrey be required to interview Palin? Hell no! That would be a version of the fairness doctrine, which we conservatives oppose. If you can force Winfrey to host politicians she doesn't agree with, you can also force Rush Limbaugh to do the same. Yes, Oprah Winfrey is biased, but she never pretended to be otherwise so I am not offended by her decision.

However, you don't have to watch her show, which has lost many viewers this year due to her politicking for Obama. My wife told me she won't be watching Oprah anymore. She is one of many.

Tread lightly, liberal media, if you wish to avoid alienating half of your readers and viewers.

Financial revenge is the best revenge.